Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[HoHun]

Hi Elvis,

>and might I add, Wikipedia can also fall into that catagory, in the sense that the info is can be constantly altered by whoever views whatever subject they're looking at.

Wikipedia is actually a bit more complex - authors there tend to be very territorial about their articles. First you have to fight to stake your claim, then a sort of compromise with the other fighters is reached, and finally the fighting parties form a clique who defend their article against changes that don't fit their "party line".

The articles end up as subjective, opinionated and error-fraught as anything you might find on a personal website, but unlike the personal website, it's nearly impossible to find out exactly who is responsible for a certain statement in the article.

Statements of fact (and often, of opinion) have been regularly padded with foot notes for a while, but as it's possible to find any misconception you could dream up in print, that hardly improves matters. Due to the continuing edit process, there is not even a way to check that the currently displayed statement actually matches the statement that was in the article when the foot note was introduced.

Still, I use the Wikipedia, too - but only "to get a wrong impression quickly", and (when it comes to aircraft types) for a look at the pictures. At least, if you find a Wikipedia article, you have a clearly defined subject and the certainty that they won't try to sell you something, as many of the other Google hits will.

Wales' suggestion to build a search engine based on user-contributions seems actually to be designed to employ the effect that works best in the Wikipedia, and I'm looking forward to see the results of that project ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[drgondog]

renrich drgndog,

Re: TV.

Agreed....and might I add, Wikipedia can also fall into that catagory, in the sense that the info is can be constantly altered by whoever views whatever subject they're looking at.

Elvis

They are both useful - but frequently subject to perspectives and beliefs based on 'common knowledge' as contrasted with serious research to gather enough facts to offer substantiation to a Point of View - which we are all guilty of.

I like wikipedia for quick reference then decide what else I have to dig up

 

[renrich]

I agree with youall about wikipedia and the net in general as far as accuracy. I tend to have more trust in books that have extensive references and are footnoted but even there one has to be armed with a bit of skepticism. I recently finished a book from the library entitled "The War" based on Ken Burns' tv documentary and I found numerous mistakes in the text. Obviously that book was whipped out to take advantage of the TV show and was not meant as a serious reference. My favorite references are Lundstrom's two books about the early days of the USN's air war in the Pacific. Wish there were books as well documented about the whole of WW2 in the air. Perhaps Bill will oblige.

 

[Elvis]

my point was simply that the content of any "reference source" that can be edited by anyone who comes along, has to be taken with at least a little "salt".
Like the rest of you, I too use Wikipedia, if only out of convenience, but only as a basis for further research.
Sort of an "internet directional indicator", if you will.
Am I on the right track? Seems so, let's keep going in this direction...that kind of thing.



Elvis

 

[drgondog]

I agree with youall about wikipedia and the net in general as far as accuracy. I tend to have more trust in books that have extensive references and are footnoted but even there one has to be armed with a bit of skepticism. I recently finished a book from the library entitled "The War" based on Ken Burns' tv documentary and I found numerous mistakes in the text. Obviously that book was whipped out to take advantage of the TV show and was not meant as a serious reference. My favorite references are Lundstrom's two books about the early days of the USN's air war in the Pacific. Wish there were books as well documented about the whole of WW2 in the air. Perhaps Bill will oblige.

I have never seen a well documented, detailed, and comprehensive book about WWII airpower or war chronology. It is difficult enough to find one well researched, accurate book about something as well chronicled as say, the 8th AF.

My Roger Freemans, Kent Millers, (and my own stuff) etc are well and truly marked up as I find and correct errors

 

[kool kitty89]

They were obviously less volnerable, but where is the oil ciiler on the P-47 and F6F?

 

[renrich]

The oil coolers(2) were located beneath the engine in the nose of the P47. The oil cooler in the Hellcat was behind the engine in the lower part of the fuselage. I do not believe there was any armor protecting the oil cooler in either AC.

 

[kool kitty89]

Ok, I thought they were with the engine, that is one of the least volnerable places, even without armor...

 

[B-17engineer]

FIghter: P-47
Ground attack: IL-2
Bomber: B-26
Carrier take-off: SBD

My picks i choose is a P-47 we all know its tough, The Il-2 because it was fast and durable, the B-26 that thing could take a pounding, and the SBD very tough.

 

[lesofprimus]

The Fw 190F and G were much more durable at low level than the IL2 ever was....

 

[renrich]

It is hard to say just looking at a small sketch but a round entering the bottom of the engine cowl either directly from the front or below on the P47 might injure the oil coolers and a round coming from below just aft of the engine cowl might get the cooler on the F6F. I believe that most damage to AC happened to the rear half of the airplane because of not enough lead so that would make the coolers pretty safe perhaps a little safer on the F6F but one would have to see the installation in situ to be sure.

 

[kool kitty89]

The nose mounted oil-cooler(s) would be somewhat volnerable to head-on attack then, or defensive fire reom a rear gunner, but still there's not a much safer place to put them...

The IL-10 solved the oil-cooler problem of the IL-2 didn't it? It was also quite fast for a ground attack a/c, though not so much as the Fw-190G or P-47...

And the 190G was not as tough as the P-47, though certainly more so than the IL-2 in terms of volnerabillity, the high performance of the 190 and P-47 were also a big plus.

FIghter: P-47
Ground attack: IL-2
Bomber: B-26
Carrier take-off: SBD

My picks i choose is a P-47 we all know its tough, The Il-2 because it was fast and durable, the B-26 that thing could take a pounding, and the SBD very tough.

How was the IL-2 ever fast???

 

[renrich]

When you think about it an oil cooler had to have a source of outside air to cool the oil in the cooler. If you recall the shape of the P47 and F6F the fuselages were not cylindrical like the Corsair so that allowed air scoops to be incorporated below the engine in or around the leading edge of the engine cowling which would not be blocked by that big round engine. Those air scoops were in the leading edge of the stub wing on the Corsair which was why the oil cooler was in the wing.

 

[lesofprimus]

Saying the IL2 was fast is like saying that Hillary is attractive...

 

[kool kitty89]

I know about the corsair's cooler, but the F6F and P-47's placements are gennerally less volnerable, especially to ground fire.

And that statement about the IL-2's "speed" baffles me, inless he meant the IL-10, and still then not nearly as fast as the P-47 or 190G...

 

[Crumpp]

The Fw 190F and G were much more durable at low level than the IL2 ever was....

The G was far less durable than the F series. The F series I wouldn't put in the same league as the IL2. Close but not quite there IMHO.

My reasoning is the oil system on the Focke Wulf. While the oil cooler was well armored, the oil lines were exposed. A projectile entering the engine compartment had a chance of of ricocheting off the armor and the engine until it pierced a hose.

It's kind of a bullet trap if one enters in the first set of baffling.

Several of the cylinders recovered from wrecks show definitive strikes, tumbling, and ricochet's. In fact I gave my mechanic a BMW801 cylinder with a perfect .50 cal furrow in the fins. I put a .50 cal slug in it for him.

But it is all an opinion as we have no data to back it up. You could argue that a liquid cooled engine will no longer work without a radiator. An aircooled radial's have been known to continue to function with entire Jugs missing.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[kool kitty89]

What were the Major volnerabullity differences between the 190F and G?

Jugs? Is that cylinders?

And though radials are certainly tougher in general and the P-47 could continue to fly with several dead cylinders, the V-1710 was probably as tough an inline as seen in WWII. In some cases managing to continue to function on lost cylinders and even with direct hits to the block, crank-case, and oil pan. (at least untill most of the oil was lost, or the coolant linkage was severed).

Here's a good example:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB0y5FGbqPA

And though far from the F6F or P-47's damage resisistance, compared to most Japanese a/c the P-40 was extremely rugged and well armmed. Like comparing a Spitfire or Bf-109 to a P-47. And it was still probably about as tough as a Wildcat, despite the liquid cooled engine (which was armored as well), pluss it would be a much harder target to hit than the less agile and bulkier Wildcat. And the Nose oil cooler and radiator was much less volnerable than the P-51's belly mounting.

The P-36 could have been considdered even tougher with its radial engine, but it lacked the added armour of the P-40.

 

[AL Schlageter]

Jugs is the nickname for the P-47s while jugs are the cylinders of a radial engine.

 

[Aussie1001]

the sunderland gets my vote it was extremely durable.

 

[Crumpp]

And though radials are certainly tougher in general and the P-47 could continue to fly with several dead cylinders, the V-1710 was probably as tough an inline as seen in WWII. In some cases managing to continue to function on lost cylinders and even with direct hits to the block, crank-case, and oil pan. (at least untill most of the oil was lost, or the coolant linkage was severed).

Hi KoolKitty,

Your argument has merit.

There are just too many variables in combat and if we examine usable maintenance data, there is little difference in any aircraft engine. This is a function of the physics and stresses of the very fact they are airplane engines.

What were the Major volnerabullity differences between the 190F and G?

The amount of armor dictates the main vulnerability differences. The FW190G series was a bomber designed for long range attack mission. It carried no the same amount of armor as a fighter variant and was plumbed to carry additional fuel. The engine was set up differently from the Antons.

The F series was a Front Line Tactical Support Aircraft. Its role was similar to the IL2 Sturmoviks. The F series was highly armored to protect its crew and was fitted with the grossebombenelectrik weapon management system. This was the key to its strike capabilities. The engine was set up differently from the Antons.

All the best,

Crumpp