If you were a pilot in ww2 which plane would you want to fly

What plane woul you want to use going into combat


  • Total voters
    207

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Wow - this this thread is still rollin!

ASW Patrol, SAR, Key West NAS flying a JRF-5 "Grumman Goose."

Debrief at "Sloppy Joe's."

I would never have qualified for a commission or flight training in WARII, would have wound up a Garand pilot, but would have applied for a transfer to be your enlisted plane captain down at NQX.
Applaud your choice of a debriefing room, but couldn't join you; off limits to enlisted back then.
Cheers,
Wes

PS: According to old timer Conchs who remembered WarII, enlisted guys at the Air Station, the seaplane base, and the Naval Station and submarine base weren't allowed off base except for special circumstances. Only officers had the run of the town. And local girls weren't allowed on base to visit the EM club, as they were in my day. All the restrictions of a combat zone (it was surrounded by U-boat waters) without the overseas pay or the combat pay.
 
Last edited:
I guess in a way he has, though not very well. I don't think we are saying anything about cowardice here, its about experience.

I was never a pilot, but I did direct pilots. new pilots have their hands full just getting up and then back. they have less situational awareness and they are nervous. that's not cowardice, its nerves. it takes time to get your air groups up to steam, and the importance of the unit leaders cannot be over-stated.
 
My OPINION is you're misconstruing here. Take a fighter finger four; you've got one, possibly two shooters, for at best a 50% shooting opportunity. For a vic, it's one in three. Does that make the wingmen cowards? I think not! It takes gonads to hold your leader's back while yours hangs out in the breeze. Aces only become aces by surviving their apprenticeship on their leader's wing. Once they graduate to section or flight leader, if their marksmanship or tactical skill or acrobatic ability isn't stellar, does that make them cowards? Not being a shooter is not the same as cowardice. Nor does it imply avoiding combat.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
RE: Cowardice.

The number I've heard-- and I believe that this number was derived by interviewing combat veterans in several armed forces, including the USMC and US Army -- was either from Gwynne Dyer's book War and its associated mini-series or, more likely, John Keegan & Richard Holmes' mini-series Soldiers: A History of Men in Battle. One of the comments was that post-WW2 armies are trying very hard to get that 15% up to 100%. A somewhat counter-intuitive statement was that the composition of that active 15% was not constant, i.e, you couldn't go into a unit and pull out the 15% super-soldiers and discharge the 85% failures, because people jumped from one group to another.
 
Air combat is in some ways a special case. A pilot qualified on a bi plane cannot be strapped into a Spitfire and take part in combat he is a danger to himself and his squadron until he has at least 50 hours training and not really effective until he has about 200 hours on type.
 

I agree. Interestingly, a number of quite successful combat pilots were not very good technical pilots; this was probably a bigger issue during WW1 than WW2. I suspect that the not shooting issue is more prevalent in large, conscript armies than in smaller, professional volunteer forces. This, too, doesn't apply to fighter pilots. Many combat aircraft are notoriously difficult to fly, requiring constant attention; this is one of the reasons that I get rather aggravated by people who discount the importance of how easy a combat aircraft is to fly. A lot of WW2 pilots were put into squadron service with less than 150 total flight hours and fewer than 40 hours in type (Supermarine Spitfire - A pilot's memoirs).
 
I get rather aggravated by people who discount the importance of how easy a combat aircraft is to fly.
Two of the most successful fighters of all time in terms of kills, the Fokker D-7 and the Grumman F6F, were renowned for their ease of handling and forgiveness of pilot inexperience while giving outstanding combat performance. They were acemakers. It doesn't get much better than that!
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
A lot of WW2 pilots were put into squadron service with less than 150 total flight hours and fewer than 40 hours in type
In my modern era flight instructing days, no insurance company would cover a pilot with less than 200-300 hours total time and 20-30 dual instruction in type to fly any retractable gear airplane.
In the "bad old days" I set off on a 1500 mile cross-country odyssey in my first "complex/high performance airplane", a T-34, with 100 hours in my logbook and 5 hours dual in type. First leg was 200 miles over water at night. The Good Lord protects fools and aviators!
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
A great read Swampy. There was a passage in Bungays "The most dangerous enemy" where Bob Doe described how he flew which was not how he was taught, he used to throw the plane about in very violent random control inputs figuring that if he didn't know exactly what he was doing next no enemy could get a lead on him for a shot. My numbers were based on what I undersatand about the best and worst cases of allied fighter pilots. Battle of Britain pilots in the worst case had 40 to 50 hours on type and that was not enough, I understand US pilots by 1944 had approx. 200 hrs on type or similar and that made a huge difference.
 
Battle of Britain pilots in the worst case had 40 to 50 hours on type and that was not enough, I understand US pilots by 1944 had approx. 200 hrs on type or similar and that made a huge difference.
A late neighbor of mine started flying raids out of North Africa as a green B-24 aircraft commander in late '42. He flew his 200th hour (total time since first flight) over the target on his first mission. This was after he and his green crew had ferried their brand new bird across the Carribean, South America, the South Atlantic, and the Sahel in hurricane season. He had fifty hours in type at the time, including the ferrying and the outbound leg across the Med.
Cheers,
Wes

PS: He survived his tour, including 3 trips to Ploesti, went on to command a B-24 training squadron out of Westover AAF, and became Deputy Commissioner of Aeronautics for Vermont. And he gave me my first airplane ride. Years later, I got to return the favor and give him a Biennial Flight Review in the same state airplane. Such a privilege is a rare and precious thing.
 
Last edited:
Some of the muskets found had a high number of cartridges rammed down the barrel one on top of the other, in the most rigid of military activity some were just going through the motions..
Have you ever fired one of these "muskets"? I own one. Both the report and the recoil are much "softer" than a more modern (WWI, WWII, KW) weapon. It's not hard to imagine a city boy soldier who didn't grow up around guns not noticing in the din and stress of battle that his piece was misfiring and winding up with multiple loads in his barrel.
There were battles where opposing sides fired at each other at point-blank range for an hour or more across a stone wall, a thicket or a hedgerow. Or even a couple of rail fences. (Remember the opening scene of "Dances With Wolves"?) Not everybody is born with the fortitude to keep a cool head in a situation like that.
Cheers,
Wes
 


Muskets and rifled muzzle-loaders also had quite high rates of misfire, especially in damp weather. I've heard numbers as high as 25%. Black powder would also foul bores pretty quickly, probably not helping things.
 
Muskets and rifled muzzle-loaders also had quite high rates of misfire, especially in damp weather. I've heard numbers as high as 25%. Black powder would also foul bores pretty quickly, probably not helping things.
The Civil War era Springfield Rifle Musket uses a peculiar "top hat" percussion cap that requires that it be pressed on the nipple just so. If you stick it on in a hurry or with shaking hands it may not seat properly and can pop off when you throw the weapon up to your shoulder to shoot. In the heat of battle a stressed out terrified soldier could easily not notice losing his cap. With all the sound and fury he may not notice that his weapon didn't fire, either.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:

My Pedersoli Enfield P53 can set off car alarms at 50 yards.

Black Powder firearms are LOUD and after 10 rounds or so the fouling in the barrel makes the recoil painful. Propelling a 500 grain (1 1/4 ounce) lump of lead with 60 to 70 grains of BP is not soft. I usually shoot a 470 grain bullet cast from a Lee mould and use a 45 grains by equivalent volume measure of Pyrodex.

If your using stuff like Pyrodex or Goex they are not Black Powder and are more like solid rocket fuel in that they burn steadily and produce a push to the end of the barrel rather than the thump that genuine BP produces.

This Youtube vid is too simplistic for a proper test but shows how BP differs to modern substitutes like Pyrodex.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhwlsthKv_w
 
Last edited:
Muskets and rifled muzzle-loaders also had quite high rates of misfire, especially in damp weather. I've heard numbers as high as 25%.
On a humid, not even damp, day my flintlock Kentucky sometimes misfires as much as 50%. I sometimes wonder how the old guys got by with them.
Cheers,
Wes

EDIT: (one day later) one of my old timer flintlock fanatic friends called me up:"Saw ya spoutin' off on some airplane forum on th' Intynet, knewed rightway twas you. Still usin' dex in yer kaintuck, aintcha? TSK, TSK, TSK, serve ya right. Nuthin' but fffg POWDAH fer th'charge n'ffffg fer prime. N' ya gotta keep ya pan n' vent n' pick CLEAN, son."
 
Last edited:
1863 Springfield rifle musket replica; .58 cal Mineh ball out of an ancient Lyman (I think) mold, 60 grains + - BP or Pyrodex out of a replica US Army standard issue measure for making up cartridges.
For shooting comfort I'll take 10 rounds of '63 Springfield over 10 of '03 Springfield any day. (Or .303 SMLE, M1917 Enfield, '98 Mauser, 7.7 Arisaka, BAR,...you name it.) The difference in feel is like the difference in burn in your video: smoother and steadier (BP) vs sharper, harder, and more explosive (Smokeless). More of a good solid shove than a karate kick. More of a boom than a crack. The ol' shoulder ain't what it used to be!
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
On a humid, not even damp, day my flintlock Kentucky sometimes misfires as much as 50%. I sometimes wonder how the old guys got by with them.
Cheers,
Wes

Well, that's what bayonets were for. Also, you couldn't store them loaded. That's why people carried swords, not guns, for self-defense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread