Yep Clive "Killer" Caldwell, wanna know how he got his nickname "Killer"? Don't think you'd like the answer. Also, He was court martialled and reduced to the rank of Flight Lieutenant. "Killer" then left the service.
Last edited:
Bf-109 vs P-40
- Thread starter beaupower32
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Folks, the far fetch opinionated BS is getting pretty thick here. Cut the crap and stop the petty bickering.....
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Your point???? He still left A LOT of scrap metal in is wake. Marseille was grounded and punished for his off hours flandering. Totally irrelivant to this discussion...
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Nxthanos, as a matter of fact, I have read everything I could get my hands on about the AVG. It is almost certain that the AVG, during its 6-7 month operational experience never encountered any A6Ms or any IJN AC at all. Most of it's kills, which are at least somewhat inflated, were against obsolescent Japanese AC. I suggest you get a copy of "Bloody Shambles" by Shores, in order to clear up the question. There was a tendency during WW2 for Allied pilots to identify any Japanese fighter as a Zero, which was inaccurate. The odd thing about it was that when USN Wildcat pilots first encountered Zekes they identified them as VSBs, scout bombers, because of the canopies. They were soon disabused of that notion since the Zekes did not perform like VSBs.
Yes. Marseille was punished all the time.:
Marseille, as with every other wingman or wing leader,was expected to protect his fellow comrades. When approximately 40 enemy aircraft suddenly appeared heading towards the 18 German planes, Marseille found himself facing this superior force. Nevertheless, he was puzzled when his wing leader, to whom he was attached and was expected to protect, gave the order, "Turn back and get out of here!" Marseille knew that they still had sufficient fuel and certainly enough ammunition, so why should he turn tail and run? The enemy hadn't yet been beaten and they had an opportunity to do this here and now.As he was turning, he saw a lone Hurricane stalking his wing leader's airplane with the intent of shooting down the unsuspecting pilot. Marseille didn't have time to give warning; he broke formation, flew past his wing leader and pulled into a tight turn to intercept the enemy aircraft. He was in a good position, saw the airplane flitter just for a moment in his gunsight, and pressed the fire button. His Bf 109 shuddered under the recoil. The Hurricane's engine was hit by several rounds. Flames shot out and soon engulfed the airplane completely, which flipped onto its back and plummeted nearly vertically into the Channel below. Marseille achieved another kill and in doing so saved the life of his wing leader. In actuality, he expected no great praise for this deed. Maybe a simple "Well done, Jochen!" would be nice. Instead of this, however, he was called to attention by the Staffel commander immediately after landing and given a thorough dressing down: "I sentence you to three days confinement for failing to carry out an order." "I don't know what I've done wrong!", was Marseille's answer. But that didn't interest the Oberleutnant. "You were expected to continue flying and were ordered not to fire, weren't you? Why did you shoot the Hurricane down then? Someone else could have taken care of it." "I was the closest one and besides, it was my wing leader, Herr Oberleutnant", said Marseille in an attempt to defend himself. But the punishment stood. Marseille was justifiably upset over this blatant injustice. He, who was keenly sensitive to any type of unfair treatment, not only found his punishment to be unfair, but a deliberate effort to humiliate him. What had he done? He had shot down a foe who would most certainly have pounced on his unwitting wing leader had Marseille not attacked.
My humble appologises and in the future I'll refrain about making any remarks about the USAAF, RAF, RCAF, RAAF, or any allied pilots/planes.
Such an interesting discussion being ruined by small unfounded posts that do not contribute to the thread.
How about some of you quit your bickering. (By the way, I am not singling anyone out here, I am talking to both parties here)
Who fricken cares about a single pilot shooting down many aircraft with a specific type. In the end it only proves he was a good pilot, but it says nothing about the aircraft or which one is better.
How about some of you quit your bickering. (By the way, I am not singling anyone out here, I am talking to both parties here)
Who fricken cares about a single pilot shooting down many aircraft with a specific type. In the end it only proves he was a good pilot, but it says nothing about the aircraft or which one is better.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I really DON'T care if you make any remarks, just don't spout off with some opinionated rambling bullsh!t like that!!!! If you're going to flap your yap, back up your claims!!!!!
Now get this thread back on track or I'll start removing the stupidity....
Last edited:
And perhaps range/endurance.
Because he retalied by shooting pilots in chutes after he saw the germans do it to his best friend first.
Anything else you care to ask me?
I sugest you pay closer attention to the men who were there rather then revisionists.
The AVG actually recovered some the wrecks, and identified the first Zero with a squared off wing (the 'hamp' Zero modifacation).
Chennault also identified the plane and sent full reports on it when the Japanes operationally tested it in China. A lot of people today want to claim the AVG only fought nates and some Oscars, but they also mixed it up with Zeros. Not over Burma, but often during pentration attacks on places like Hong kong, whcih were defended by the Imperial Navy not army fighters.
I'm surprised you didn't know that since you say you read all you could on them.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Speaking of the P-40, something I have always wanted to know. The radical changes done between the C model and onto the E, with the major change in the fuselage / cockpit section, and also the change to the "spur" gear on the nose of the Allison. I know this has nothing to do with performance, just asthetics. The original beauty of the P-40 was lost forever with the change. Was there any real gain with this?? Same with the change with the nose because of the reduction gear. Was it a real problem, or another pre war misconception by the Army Air Corps ? Has anyone ever seen the P-40 prototype with a belly radiator like the Mustang? How things may have been different!
Last edited:
Actually, from my reading Curtiss put a lot of work into various prototypes including parallel production of the P-42.
In the end they decided the P-40B was the best suited as a production fighter, although the XP-42 was still repeatedly tested through 1945.
The P-42 is actually one of those interesting "what if" factors, but i don't think it would've made much difference at the time.
There did seem to be more expansion with performance with in the PW radials used, but that wasn't obvious or known to them when deciding which to build.
Curtiss had attempted to build a fighter around the same power plant, (see P-60), but they hadn't mastered a tight cowling/fan cooling
design.
The P-40E wasn't built more for aesthetics, it needed the enlarged cowling for the improved Allison and cooling system, though the original designer made the note of saying the enlarged radiator scoop was probably too big. With increases in power and improvements in design, different
reduction gearing is used, but i don't think that had much to do with the placement of the nose.
I think the P-40 made the first leap forward using the Curtiss electric (may have been mechanical) prop, at a time when other aircraft were still using two-pitch blades.
If you look at post P-40E, actually post K, starting with Ms, they reduced the cowling size and began streamlining it.
The original placement of the radiator scoop may have been moved to the nose because it afforded better protection there,
and...I later read that such a design helped reduce prop wash.
I hope you got some more than googleing catchphrases. You make a pretty bold statement, so it's up to you to prove it, "friend". If you got a profound summary showing the P-40 came out on top over the Bf 109 overall, I'd be very interested to see that.
Last edited:
Last edited:
The first A6M3 were delivered to Rabaul and encountered in the SE Pacific from what I read. But there was an ex-AVG, one of the ones that were forced to take the service commission or be abandoned in China, he was stationed on Guadal and was one of the very first pilots to report them. He might've been the first. I'm no expert on Pacific stuff, should be better ones around here.
Hi, Mike,
The spur gear allowed for up to 1600 HP (and apparently even more) to be transfered to the prop, while the previous one was good for under 1200. The belly radiator was found to contribute to the overall drag, according to the 'Vee's for Victory' book.
The spur gear allowed for up to 1600 HP (and apparently even more) to be transfered to the prop, while the previous one was good for under 1200. The belly radiator was found to contribute to the overall drag, according to the 'Vee's for Victory' book.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
You really need to reference sources if you want to have an effective argument.
"Who fricken cares about a single pilot shooting down many aircraft with a specific type. In the end it only proves he was a good pilot, but it says nothing about the aircraft or which one is better."
I can't see how this is a valid point. The aircraft and the pilot work as a team, like a horse and rider. You put Hartmann in a Storch against and mediocre Allied pilot in a P-47 and Hartmann won't last very long. As I said earlier, the worlds best aircraft is just another sitting duck without a pilot.
As for the P-40 shooting down AM6, I think a couple P-40's shot down a few during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I can't see how this is a valid point. The aircraft and the pilot work as a team, like a horse and rider. You put Hartmann in a Storch against and mediocre Allied pilot in a P-47 and Hartmann won't last very long. As I said earlier, the worlds best aircraft is just another sitting duck without a pilot.
As for the P-40 shooting down AM6, I think a couple P-40's shot down a few during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
NOT TRUE. The AVG actually became operational in December 1941 AFTER the attack on Pearl Harbor. Their first combat mission was flown December 20, 1941. During that time the AVG was fighting JAAF bomber and fighter units from Vietnam, with the fighter units operating "Nates" and later "Oscars" - There were no land based IJNAF fighters close to where the AVG was stationed, from what I have read most land based IJNAF Zeros were located in either north central China, Formosa or at Japanese pre-war garrisons with the remaining aircraft assigned to the 1st Air Fleet at the start of the war and during early 1942. As Japanese conquests expanded into early 1942, Zero units were moved more into the South Pacific to support spring/ summer 1942 operations, again quite a distance from the AVG. Here's a 1942 map showing where the Japanese were after the fall of Burma.
Here's a list of the top 15 AVG group pilots and their list of claims. No Zeros are listed anywhere and most certainlly if the AVG fought aganist the Zero at least one of these guys would have showed it as a claim.
http://www.warbirdforum.com/avgaces.htm
During this period there were only 328 - 420 Zeroes in operational service, none of them were model 21s which did not fly until June 1942. The first "Hamps" did not reach Rabaul until the late summer of 1942; the AVG was dissolved on July 4, 1942 and absorbed into the 23rd Fighter Group, USAAF.
There were several "stories" of AVG pilots stating that they fought against the Zero, in the end none of these stories were never substantiated. As Far as Chennault learning about the Zero and trying to tell American Intelligence about this aircraft? Totally true, but this was based on information from the Nationalist Chinese AF during the first encounters with the aircraft over Chungking in September 1940, hundreds of miles away from Burma.
Now 2 wrecked Zeros were found by the Chinese. These aircraft were based out of Formosa and crashed on a beach in NOVEMBER 1941. Eventually one of these aircraft found their way to Liuchow and were reassembled by Chinese and American mechanics. This all happeneing during the sumer of 1942. These were A6M2, not A6M3 Hamps.
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/WarPrizes.htm
Here's one of the guys who assembled the aircraft - He was actually German!
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/neumannrevised.html
Some of the photo credits say this aircraft was captured by the AVG - not true as all this happened AFTER the AVG was disbanded.
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/additional_photos_for_zero_war_p.htm
AVG over Hong Kong??? Simply not true. One of the few long range raids AVG P-40s made were into Vietnam where JAAF bases were located. BTW the Distance between the Mid April 1942 location of the AVG Baoshan, China was over 950 miles to Hong Kong, the P-40 had a range of just over 650 miles.
Later in 1942 when former AVG pilots were absorbed into the USAAF is when P-40s battled Zeros over Hong Kong, this not happening until months after the AVG was dissolved.
So please, provide us with YOUR references to back up claims that the AVG (not the 23rd Fighter Group) fought against the Zero and were involved with the discovery of a "Hamp." There is nothing "revisionists" about any of this and as suggested if you ever read the book "Bloody Shambles" all of this is well documented by information from BOTH sides of participating combatants. I think you're confusing the initial AVG which was disbanded in July 1942 with operations of the 23 Fighter Group in which was under Chennault's command and inherited the AVG mission along with pilots and staff personnel. Although labeling themselves as "Flying Tigers" they were NOT the AVG although FORMER members of the AVG flew with the 23rd.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
They would have been different, like much worse.
Just because a plane has a radiator located under or behind the cockpit does NOT mean it was like the Mustang's radiator setup. Production P-40s (long noses) had the radiator in the 3rd position tried. There are story's that the nose/chin radiator was done because of the sales/marketing department. However all configurations were test flown and the highest speeds were achieved with the nose/chin radiator like the production model had. The Speed difference was around 20mph. The Army engineering dept had told Allison that the type of reduction gear used on the 'long nose' engine was suspect even before it went into production. They were proved right ( there were reduction gear failures) so this 'problem' can NOT be laid at the Army Air Corps door step.
Curtis is "supposed" to have sold the radiator design to North American for use in the Mustang, if this is true they much have sold all rights to it because no Curtiss ever used that design. Not the P-46, or the P-55 or any of the liquid cooled P-60s or any of the several modified P-40s in experimental programs.
See: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5160/xp4011.jpg
or find the XP-40K that used radiators and oil coolers in a thicker than normal wing center section which was different that the radiator set up used in the P-40Q.
The original P-40 was tested in the Full size wind tunnel at Langley because it was NOT performing up to expectations. Of course to some people this means that Langley (and/or the Air Corp) ruined the P-40 like they did the P-39. Of course the fact that not only was this the ONLY full sized wind tunnel in the country ignored but so is the fact that if either company even had a tunnel it was the size of a bread box.
- Status
