How do they know the tail wasn't already bent?, I'd bet a cartoon every single fighter that had seen combat and had been taking off and landing on dirt strips was not straight.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
View attachment 561429
This is post number 12 on this same thread.
I'm not sure what else we have to go on besides reputation. I know from reading about Guadalcanal that those Wildcats were beaten, shot, shelled, put together from multiple wrecks and kept fighting. The 'pincushion' tactic of letting Zeros shoot at you and your armor stopping bullets is a fact as well.
Neither the Spitfire, P39 or P51 has great reputations for taking damage. P38 was either/or with many claiming it burned easily with hits. Wildcats, P40's and P47's had great reputations along with Hellcats and Corsairs.
I believed you have posted a "tank destroyer destroys tanks" shocker. Who is stronger and weaker is for history to decide but the M 18 is historically described as a tank destroyer and it seems to have destroyed tanks.
No one ever said the Zero was a piece of junk, what everyone has said was it was overrated because improved tactics and continued aircraft development quickly left it behind.[/QUOTE[
Apparently wasn't overrated by Spitfire V pilots over Darwin with a 28-4 losing ratio. Wasn't overrated by the test pilots that said "Spitfire was outclassed by Hamp under 20,000 feet"
Why don't you ask the guy who posted that post whose dad was the actual test pilot flying that Spitfire that day if his dad was too stupid to notice that the airplane he was about to test against a captured enemy fighter has a 9 degree bend in the tail before he took off. Wonder if he did a preflight inspection or if he just said 'nah, fuel and oil take care of themselves'. I understand arguing a point you disagree with, but trying to justify your favorite plane getting trounced by a plane you don't like by suggesting they did a head to head test with a fighter whose tail was already bent 9 degrees is just beyond ridiculous.How do they know the tail wasn't already bent?, I'd bet a cartoon every single fighter that had seen combat and had been taking off and landing on dirt strips was not straight.
Although the long range of the Zero would of been beneficial in the BoB, I don't believe it would change any outcomes. In the first year of the war in the Pacific the Zero almost always had the advantage of surprise , numbers and altitude. This would not be the case in any BoB scenario. The Zero would be up against a concentrated force of 1000, non tropicalized, radar directed, Spitfire I and IIs and Hurricane I and IIs. Everything lacking in the Pacific would be in place. Spotters, intelligence, AAA, spare parts, aircraft repairs, ample supplies of Dixon/Dewilde ammo, fuel, coolant ect.
what everyone has said was it was overrated
Thanks for the "attaboy", man, but if I did ever get a Zero, I'd have to hire a pilot to fly it. My flying days are over due to vision issues. Have been for awhile. But it was a fun ride while it lasted. I was lucky to have a wide variety of experiences rather than raking in the bucks for twenty five years driving the same airborne cattlecars back and forth. Had a taste of that with the commuter, which was kind of fun on a human scale, but not looking like a desirable lifestyle on a massive scale.Wes, You da maaan. If you get to fly a Zero, do let me know!
An airplane whose tail has been bent 9 degrees is too obvious to be ignored. How do I know? As a solo student pilot, I was assigned a C150 that was tied down next to one that had been destroyed in a freak mini tornado the night before. Walking toward the plane, something looked wrong, and after staring at it for a moment, realized the entire empanage was twisted slightly to the right. Our mechanic measured the displacement at 7°. If a student pilot could instantly spot that, how absurd is it to maintain a test pilot would miss 9°??How do they know the tail wasn't already bent?, I'd bet a cartoon every single fighter that had seen combat and had been taking off and landing on dirt strips was not straight.
Apparently wasn't overrated by Spitfire V pilots over Darwin with a 28-4 losing ratio. Wasn't overrated by the test pilots that said "Spitfire was outclassed by Hamp under 20,000 feet"
Why don't you ask the guy who posted that post whose dad was the actual test pilot flying that Spitfire that day if his dad was too stupid to notice that the airplane he was about to test against a captured enemy fighter has a 9 degree bend in the tail before he took off. Wonder if he did a preflight inspection or if he just said 'nah, fuel and oil take care of themselves'. I understand arguing a point you disagree with, but trying to justify your favorite plane getting trounced by a plane you don't like by suggesting they did a head to head test with a fighter whose tail was already bent 9 degrees is just beyond ridiculous.
An airplane whose tail has been bent 9 degrees is too obvious to be ignored. How do I know? As a solo student pilot, I was assigned a C150 that was tied down next to one that had been destroyed in a freak mini tornado the night before. Walking toward the plane, something looked wrong, and after staring at it for a moment, realized the entire empanage was twisted slightly to the right. Our mechanic measured the displacement at 7°. If a student pilot could instantly spot that, how absurd is it to maintain a test pilot would miss 9°??
C'mon, man, your own pilots who flew Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in DAF, MedTO, SEATO, ANZAC, and around the world would gladly take you up on your bet and prove you wrong. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the world doesn't revolve around the Spitfire, or any other single airplane for that matter.
Cheers,
Wes
I get that they were trying to shoot down the bombers, but you can't just ignore the escort and cruise on past them and attack the bombers or your going to get shot down. If they shoot all of you down then there is no one left to shoot at the bombers.The 1st Fighter Group wasn't trying to shoot down Japanese fighters, it was trying to shoot down Japanese bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The actual exchange rate for 1 Fighter Group is 28-28, exactly 1:1.
The Spitfire I and Hurricane had a negative exchange rate against Luftwaffe fighters in the BoB for the same reason, does that mean that the Battle was lost?
Making such selective quotations is disingenuous at best.
XBe02Drvr says that even a student pilot should catch a 9 degree bent tail so yes I think you should probably give this line of argument. The actual test said 'the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hamp below 20,000 feet". Please explain how the Zero is overrated when there is essentially nothing a Spitfire can do under 20,000 to escape.Can you tell a planes tail is bent 9 degree's just by looking at it?, do pilots look for bent tails during the pre flight check?. Like I said, I bet every single plane that saw combat or was used on dirt/grass fields or flown by novice pilots who bounced them on landing would be bent to some degree.
Essentially, the bombers are coming in above 20,000 feet IIRC, so you need Spitfire Trop with a Merlin 46 as opposed to a Merlin 45 optimised for below 20000 where it would outclass the Hamp.XBe02Drvr says that even a student pilot should catch a 9 degree bent tail so yes I think you should probably give this line of argument. The actual test said 'the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hamp below 20,000 feet". Please explain how the Zero is overrated when there is essentially nothing a Spitfire can do under 20,000 to escape.
I get that they were trying to shoot down the bombers, but you can't just ignore the escort and cruise on past them and attack the bombers or your going to get shot down. If they shoot all of you down then there is no one left to shoot at the bombers.
In American football, the linemen aren't your target the quarterback is, but you have to deal with the linemen before you can get to him.
The escort has to be delt with somehow, either you need to be fast enough to blow past them without hope of them catching up, ie Me 262, or you need to tie them up with one group of fighters as the other group deal with the bombers. You can't simply ignore them.
The poor little underperforming Wildcat for all of 1942 had a 1 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero according to The First Team. Many if not all of those battles were the Wildcat defending a carrier or airstrip against bomber attacks. The carrier being much more important considering you can't sink an airstrip. Yet they still fought the Zeros to a 1 to 1 kill ratio and usually decimated Japanese bombers once they got in among them.
Although the long range of the Zero would of been beneficial in the BoB, I don't believe it would change any outcomes. In the first year of the war in the Pacific the Zero almost always had the advantage of surprise , numbers and altitude.
I get that they were trying to shoot down the bombers, but you can't just ignore the escort and cruise on past them and attack the bombers or your going to get shot down. If they shoot all of you down then there is no one left to shoot at the bombers.
In American football, the linemen aren't your target the quarterback is, but you have to deal with the linemen before you can get to him.
The escort has to be delt with somehow, either you need to be fast enough to blow past them without hope of them catching up, ie Me 262, or you need to tie them up with one group of fighters as the other group deal with the bombers. You can't simply ignore them.
The poor little underperforming Wildcat for all of 1942 had a 1 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero according to The First Team. Many if not all of those battles were the Wildcat defending a carrier or airstrip against bomber attacks. The carrier being much more important considering you can't sink an airstrip. Yet they still fought the Zeros to a 1 to 1 kill ratio and usually decimated Japanese bombers once they got in among them.
Duh!! If you routinely fly relatively "hot" landing GA aircraft like 310s and Metros ("lawn darts"), designed for paved runways, off from dirt strips and unpaved roads, you've got to expect damage. However, a GA aircraft, even a high performance one, is not a WWII fighter bomber, and not constructed to the same standards of ruggedness. Apples and oranges.I'm not a pilot but a close friend flew Cessna 310's and Fairchild Metro air ambulances and he often talked about bent and broken planes from landing on dirt strips, our Flying Doctor service now uses widened sections of sealed roads because the damage to aircraft was getting excessive.
All the men on both sides did heroic things because men in power were stupid and greedy. Making an analogy to football doesn't take away from any of these men's bravery.The fighter interceptors were tasked with shooting down the bombers. They were defending against the bombers. It was the bombers that would destroy targets on the ground and kill the people you are trying to protect. To do this interceptors were prepared to, and often did, put themselves at a tactical disadvantage in respect to the escorting fighters. Interceptors often found themselves below the escorts but in a position to attack the bombers, any BoB pilot will tell you that. Some paid for this with their lives.
If you were on a coaster butting up the Channel, or in a suburb of London, or standing on a dock at Darwin you would be glad that your nation produced men who were prepared to do this.
You might want to look at the number of Spitfires available in NW Australia, or maybe look up the history of some of the engagements to get some kind of realistic perspective before making comparisons with US Fleet operations.
Your football analogy is, frankly, insulting. This was not a game, if those pilots failed in their job, people on the ground died. That is not the same as conceding a touch down. It might be worth thinking a little more deeply about what you are typing before you post it.
You could take this sentence and replace "Germans" with "Japanese" and "Britain" with "Midway" and "British" with "Americans", and not change its accuracy one whit. The common denominator?...over-confidence and contempt for the enemy's capabilities, AKA, arrogance and complacency. A lesson to all warriors from Sun Tzu to Crimea and Kurdistan.(And especially US Naval Aviators: "I'll take any man from any land at any game that he can name for any amount that he can count! [In my short ranged, ordnance limited, 7G, itty bitty jet]".)the Germans lost the Battle of Britain as much as the British won it. Poor intelligence, a lack of solid information as to the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, underestimation of the enemy, a lack of appreciation of the strategic situation as the battle unfolded.