Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks *** said:no, because it has to be able to get back onto the aircraft carrier........
wait a minute, there's an SR-71 on an aircraft carrier, doesn't that make all SR-71s fully carrier capable syscom? quick, someone tell the USAAF and Navy!
come on sys let's not get too carried away, they were stripped of almost everything, they had broom handles for guns! they couldn't land back on the carrier and the aircraft all had to be crashed, the bombs dropped were a token measure not a means of destruction, i hardly think that's the career of a carrier capable aircraft...........
just like it was a problem for the spitfire, just like it was for the hurricane, just like it was for the Tony, just like it was for the P-38, -39, -40, -51 and the mossie, oh, no, wait, it wasn't a problem for them..........
and either way, the -88 wasn't designed for use in the pacific, i for one have every confidence it would have done just fine if she had though...........
and that is coming from someone who thinks the P-51 is better than the Harrier...syscom3 said:Thats to stupid a comment to reply too. Get real.
The B25's were perfectly ca[able of landing on the carriers, although their landing weight might have been at the maximum designed strength of the flight decks.
but it didnt.
Did you notice that all six of those aircraft spent most of their lives up at middle and high altitudes and rarely engaged in low level attacks? The three main medium and light bombers of the Pacific war that engaged in the low level stuff all had air cooled engines and all usually had damage on them after hitting well defended targets.
the lancaster kicks *** said:height was of no concern in the lanc/B-24 argument.........
she saw service late in the battle of Britain....... it was a big stretch for the B-25!! ...........[/QUOTE said:A couple of my references say the A4 wasn't delivered until 1941, one says lots were delivered in 1940, so I guess I can't argue your facts.
Your right about the big stretch for the B-25, probably a little less than the Ju-88, but still it took heros to try to launch that plane off the carrier, especially knowing they weren't likely to make their destination.
Agree!Soren said:Yeah, great account FLYBOYJ ! And I agree as-well, I was just merely pointing out that photo's aren't nearly evidence enough. And truth be told, I have never heard of Ju-88 crew having problems controlling the a/c, and it was and remained an extremely accurate bomber throughout the war.
The B-25's cockpit was obviously more user-friendly however..
Soren said:Come on Jabberwocky ! What does this mean in a dogfight anyway ?? Nothing..
With a MV of 770 m/s I can guarantee you that who'ever your pointing your weapon at won't have the slightest chance to react at any range out to atleast 1000m. It takes the average human being 1.5 sec's to observe and then start a reaction on anything, by that time the round has already travelled 1km. And with the MG131's 13mm projectile's larger destructive force on impact, I'd at the very least call it the equal of the .50cal.
hole in the ground said:I'm not sure if this has already been stated but....
from a purely personal point of view i would have to go with the 25. For the same reason that in an infantry attack you don't make every one stand together, in an 88 everyone sat up front, in a glasshouse. As soon as rounds start hitting the 'pit that plane is going down.
Max damage with minimum effort on the aggressors part.
Erich said:not real sure here...........are we comparing the B-25 with what Ju 88 Variant ? bomber or recon or ?
will tell you when the Soviets were using the Mitchell in the night time role and even though they were quite fast several NJG pilots flying the old Do 217 crates actually caught them and brought them down
well just two cents