Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Great picture, now was that damage sustained in flight or a strafing attack, the pic is a little small to see but it looks to me that the canopy glass is shattered as well.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lets agree to disagree, there are hundreds of accounts of pilots surviving because of armour protection, View attachment 562724
this is a good example, the only injuries the pilot sustained were splinters in his feet, the only part of him not protected by armour.
that happened in the air.Great picture, now was that damage sustained in flight or a strafing attack, the pic is a little small to see but it looks to me that the canopy glass is shattered as well.
that happened in the air.
the Spitfire was delivered to the Sqn that day and almost immediately scrambled on an intercept, (they didnt even have time to paint on its Sqn and Aircraft codes ).
the spitfire returned very shortly after and was written off, its operational life was something like 16 minutes if i remember correctly (going from memory here)
my pleasure.Awesome, thanks for the info, man, that looks like one lucky pilot there. I realize some say the Spit was a bit on the fragile side (I don't know and don't have an opinion) but I'd say that one was pretty tough.
Arent there two pictures, showing both sides? The other side cannot be described as a metal skinned monoplane, it is blown out like a balloon.my pleasure.
i have it in a book somewhere, there's a small passage on it with details of pilot, Sqn etc, i will post it if i can find it
Watch from around 55 seconds,the bullet keyholes and deviates off target shooting through thin steel sheet, the same thing happened during the RAF testing, the bullets tumbled after entering the rear fuselage and hit the seat armour sideways giving no penetration advantage over the 303 guns.
Some surprising info in that chart. Most notably the later model p38s outroll anything( save one model of the p40) if you really keep it moving. Not what I would have expected to see.
It's X4110 with 602 Squadron, F/t Lt D. Urie - 18 August 1940 (602 Sqdn. Operations Record Book, Sandy Johnstone's Spitfire into War, various Alfred Price Spitfire Books).
I would note that the British and Germans both used "spaced" armor on tanks long before shaped charges became common. The spaced armor again worked by causing the projectile to tip and not hit the main armor square and by sometimes causing the cap of capped projectiles to come loose before hitting the main armor.
This last "trick" was sometimes used on ships and a thin armour bulkhead or deck was referred to as a decapping bulkhead or deck in the path before the main armor was hit. There was some controversy on this and not all naval architects thought that was a better use of weight than one thick piece of armor.
I'm aware of all that. Check 602 Squadron's Operations Record Book or if you really want to get in the weeds go to the Imperial War Museum and pull X4110's Form 78.The clip I posted says the aircraft, X4110 was shot down by a 109 and abandoned. The last number is either an 8 or a 9; notice how the number is almost closed at the top of the hatch.
The Zero had little advantage over the Pacific really until the Battle over the Phillipines. But the Zero wasn't as good as the Spitfire, Spitfires were way faster,and the Zero would not be able to tail a Spitfire easily. From 290 knots,the Zero was nothing compared to the Spitfire at 220 knots.How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?
The Zero had little advantage over the Pacific really until the Battle over the Phillipines. But the Zero wasn't as good as the Spitfire, Spitfires were way faster,and the Zero would not be able to tail a Spitfire easily. From 290 knots,the Zero was nothing compared to the Spitfire at 220 knots.
Hey King Tiger, did you read all of this thread before you posted? It seems the "inferior" Zero gave the almighty Spitfire a bloody nose over Darwin, Australia on several occasions. In a flyoff between a captured Hamp and one of their Spit VCs, the Australians established that the Spit was at a distinct disadvantage in actual combat conditions in theater.But the Zero wasn't as good as the Spitfire, Spitfires were way faster,and the Zero would not be able to tail a Spitfire easily. From 290 knots,the Zero was nothing compared to the Spitfire at 220 knots.
Hey King Tiger, did you read all of this thread before you posted? It seems the "inferior" Zero gave the almighty Spitfire a bloody nose over Darwin, Australia on several occasions. In a flyoff between a captured Hamp and one of their Spit VCs, the Australians established that the Spit was at a distinct disadvantage in actual combat conditions in theater.
Cheers,
Wes
The Spitfire V was deliberately limited to the actual conditions that Spitfires were flying combat under at the time. There would be no value in doing a test that "artificially" elevated the Spit's performance above those actually flying combat. Now if that exercise was an effort to "lobby" for an increase in boost limits, it makes sense, and apparently it worked, as the limit was raised from 9 to 16 pounds.The Spitfire V that was tested was deliberately limited in performance and produced up to ~400hp less than the rated combat power of the engine.
The Spitfire V that was tested was deliberately limited in performance and produced up to ~400hp less than the rated combat power of the engine.