SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Just lookited at a thred about camouflage. The Spitfire looks bettir with stars. So there.
Lancaster as an escorted, daylight bomber ala B-17/24?
- Thread starter IdahoRenegade
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well observed, stars perform far better on a Spitfire.
what is this supoose to mean ?
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey VA5124,
They are teasing you. It's a reference to the idea that some people think that just because it is an American made aircraft that it outperforms any other nation's aircraft, so obviously anything works better if it has an American star insignia on it.
Don't sweat it.
Welcome to the forum.
They are teasing you. It's a reference to the idea that some people think that just because it is an American made aircraft that it outperforms any other nation's aircraft, so obviously anything works better if it has an American star insignia on it.
Don't sweat it.
Welcome to the forum.
Last edited:
the 190d-9 and me 110 would like a word with you
Glider
Captain
I have to admit that this quote doesn't impress me one bit. He was a man of considerable power and know to be not afraid to use it. Had he wanted 0.50 guns sooner he was in a position to make it happen sooner. If he has insisted in late 42 that he wanted twin 0.50 instead of quad 303 I am confident it would have happened.
It tends to smack of a little too much hindsight for me.
Historical facts cannot be disputed, below you can see the best climbing and turning stars to serve in WW2 (prettiest too)
the p-51 and p-47 would also like a word
Glider
Captain
Now they would lose that comparison, at least in climbing and turning which was the original comparison
I agree, they took the front turret off the Halifax for logical reasons but the single gun they put in wasn't a 0.5. There were many things that could have been done to the Lancaster, like making doors bigger, they weren't because at the time more Lancasters was preferred to safer Lancasters.
A Spitfire Mk XIV which was the contemporary of the P-51D would outperform both in almost every respect. Welcome to the forum BTW, not all is serious we do have some moments of levity.
listen i like the spitfire as much as anyone but i also happen to like the p-51 and p-47 and others and thanks for the welcome
I like them all, they were what they were, The P-51 is possibly the best WW2 aircraft the British ordered into production, it just needed a decent engine.
Hi
The following is from Bomber Command's 'Despatch on War Operations, 23rd February, 1942 to 8th May, 1945', under Harris's signature, reference guns:
It should be remembered that when he was in command of 5 Group Hampdens early in the war he got the Rose Company to design a mount to double the VGOs in the dorsal gun positions.
I hope that is of interest.
Mike
Glider
Captain
Its very interesting and I thank you for it. One comment about the additional guns in the Hampden which may be of interest. I used to belong to a rifle club and one of the members used to be a dorsal gunner in the Hampden and was later a POW after being shot down in a Halifax where he was the rear gunner. He told us of the doubling of the number of guns in the Hampden and pretty well as soon as they were installed he took the extra gun off his mount as without it he had a greater arc of fire.
Wow, those pages from Bomber Command's Despatch on War Operations are a mass of contradictions!
They wanted to make the turrets warmer so the guns and gunner would be more effective, but the solution to the visibility problem was to cut a hole in the tail turret big enough for a guy wearing a parachute to jump out of.
It was a priority to put bigger guns into turrets, but by the end of the war they'd only managed to put 180 of those turrets on airplanes. Doesn't sound like it was a very high priority.
If the .303's were that ineffective, instead of giving the tail gunner a bigger window to jump out of, they'd should have made him even safer and let him stay home.
They wanted to make the turrets warmer so the guns and gunner would be more effective, but the solution to the visibility problem was to cut a hole in the tail turret big enough for a guy wearing a parachute to jump out of.
It was a priority to put bigger guns into turrets, but by the end of the war they'd only managed to put 180 of those turrets on airplanes. Doesn't sound like it was a very high priority.
If the .303's were that ineffective, instead of giving the tail gunner a bigger window to jump out of, they'd should have made him even safer and let him stay home.
The top turret could get to the escape hatch quite easily and he had his parachute on, or with him, the rear turret didn't.
They would be, from Feb 1942 to May 1945 the war changed completely, and had changed as the report was written, even the massively expensive turrets on B-29s that were remotely controlled and 0.5" were removed apart from the tail gun. The Canberra which had no turrets started in design in 1944. BTW many rear gunners removed the Perspex screen from the turret to see better, the turret was always freezing cold, just a question of how easy it was to get out, in some cases, it was impossible.
