Whether a shot down pilot becomes KIA depends on many things that are nothing to do with the aircraft specially when operating over water.Percentage of KiA pilots to shot down aircraft. I would also say in comparison to the number of A6M lost.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Whether a shot down pilot becomes KIA depends on many things that are nothing to do with the aircraft specially when operating over water.Percentage of KiA pilots to shot down aircraft. I would also say in comparison to the number of A6M lost.
The Empty Weight is that of the aircraft before usable or disposable items like guns, ammo, fuel, oil, pilot are added but include the turrets, battery, radioI was considering the wieght angle, but for starters I'm not sure what is included in empty weight. Surely turrets but not ammonition, but what about the guns? is that consistent between sourses and nations? I simply don't feel competent enough to do such equations with confidence, even if I had the data, which i do not.
My first attempt to make this answer failed when i closed the tab accidentally, and now i don't have the books. anyway suffice to say that in a reference work i fonund the G4M1 considerably lighter than your figures, about one tonne. In the same work I found the Wellington Ic at approximately the same weight, but we can be certain it wasn't the same person weighing them. While reference works can be generally reliable, sometimes wierd data appears, other are missing and sometimes there are simple typos. Anyway.
HiI had read that most Mohawks used in India only had some back of the seat armor, and it didn't cover the head. Also they did apparently engage Ki-43s at least a couple of times (and did alright). Armored windscreen is news to me and interesting... was that one of those externally applied kits?
No self sealing fuel tanks right?
I have pointed out in the past that the TBD was not a stellar performer but I think it gets unfairly trashed for its performance at Midway. Substitute any torpedo bomber of its era in that attack and they would have suffered badly. The TBF lost 5 of 6 in their attack. Against strong fighter opposition all torpedo bombers did not do well. Flying low and slow in a path that is obvious to the defenders is a recipe for disaster. The USN had doubts about the viability of the torpedo bomber before the war and built the Ranger without torpedo capability (added later). The British developed a night attack capability to compensate for the dangers. Perhaps TBFs would have done better than the TBDs but they would have still suffered grievously. The fatality rates for torpedo bomber crews facing fighters in the first half of the war was staggering.The TBD was faster than the Swordfish and Albacore were, had a smaller bomb load, and wasn't employed very well by the U.S. Navy. So, it didn't "sink the Bismark" or have any notable victories. But, we also didn't employ the F2A Buffalo very well. The Finns did and managed to have a good experience with it.
Perhaps the Devastator was better than our experience with it indicated. But, we didn't give them to the Finns ...so it's hard to say.
It's a "what if" with no correct answer, and all the evidence points to you being generally correct.
Again, I get most of my perceptions or "value judgements" on these matters directly from the operational histories and the interviews and memoirs of operational aircrew, i.e. mainly pilots.
I don't think this is a trope, and once again, I do not appreciate being baselessly accused of spreading tropes.
Whether or not a radiator is a small target depends on the layout of the radiator and cooling systems. If the cooling systems are concentrated in the nose, it is a relatively small target. If the cooling systems extend into the wings, as they were in many aircraft, it is a bigger target.
The Ki-43 and A6M pilots in particular emphasized shooting into the radiators and cockpits of Allied fighters. They had specific techniques for doing it, for example, A6M pilots would pull into a tight loop, which no Allied fighter could follow. As the Allied fighter stalled out, the A6M pilot would continue the loop, while slipping with the rudder, and shoot into the nose of the Allied fighter from above. The Japanese called this "Hineri Komi"
View attachment 727424
Hineri-komi - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This was not the only means by which this was done. Japanese fighters generally had a better rate of climb, especially at lower altitudes, than Allied fighters, and they were often able to attack from above, or during tight turns while pulling lead.
What is more, Allied pilots commented on the issue of radiator vulnerability as well. When the P-51A was introduced into China, 23rd Fighter Group leadership was very impressed with it's speed. But they found several small problems, one of which was the greater vulnerability of the radiator, both to ground fire and to fighters. The P-51A took greater losses in that theater than the older, slower and less sophisticated P-40 - which had the radiator plumbing concentrated in the nose.
They generally attempted to do that as well, spraying the cone of bullets into the 'nose', from what Saburo Sakai and others described. This is also what was done by Hans Joseph Marseille in North Africa against P-40s and Hurricanes.
The Il-2, you might want to notice, had an armored 'bathtub' protecting the whole engine and pilot area (though not the poor gunner). I think the Typhoons got some engine / radiator armor too when they started using them for ground attack (greatly increasing their weight to overall detriment)
View attachment 727425
- Il2 reference to armour seems irrelevant to the point. Of course they protected the engine including its radiator - and pilot. But if a radial engine was indeed significantly less vulnerable to battle damage than an inline, its got to be pause for rational thought to wonder: The Russians surely could and would have considered fitting one of the many excellent radials they had to the IL2 and forgone some of the huge weight penalty of much of that armour, eh?you might want to notice
I thought a reply would be best once I'd left things cool for a few days. So here goes.
TROPE
a : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : FIGURE OF SPEECH
b: a common or overused theme or device : CLICHÉ
A trope is a cliche - and a blase 'radial engines are less vulnerable than an inline' IS a trope. Baseless or otherwise.
However, I *literally* addressed the subject by quoting a member of operational aircrew (a decorated FAA pilot to boot) who I knew personally. So equally literally, I have no idea why you think you've got the right to feel slighted or insulted and by exactly the same token, I haven't by your response?
and ...
The Hineri-komi (捻り込み—literal meaning: twist inside) was an air combat maneuver widely used by fighter pilots of Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAS) through the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War. It allows an aircraft, which is being pursued by an enemy, to come at the pursuer's tail or to gain an opportunity to take a shot at it.
That IS genuinely interesting. But Zero (if you'll excuse the pun) mention in that definition, nor in the illustration you posted, of it being a manoeuvre specifically used to target the 'vulnerable' radiator of an allied aircraft, which was the context in which you mentioned it.
The sarcastic sounding -
- Il2 reference to armour seems irrelevant to the point. Of course they protected the engine including its radiator - and pilot. But if a radial engine was indeed significantly less vulnerable to battle damage than an inline, its got to be pause for rational thought to wonder: The Russians surely could and would have considered fitting one of the many excellent radials they had to the IL2 and forgone some of the huge weight penalty of much of that armour, eh?
I'm afraid I find it another example of your approach to much of the discourse across a thread littered with similar and increasingly strident assertions and snippy, rude responses to plenty of other people, not just me. You seem to be lacking an important chunk of self-awareness, given how sensitive you are of other people's disagreement.
As a punk-rock attitude goes, whether intended or not, at the moment its coming across rather more GG Allin than John Lydon.
Can you dial down the attitude a notch?![]()
I have pointed out in the past that the TBD was not a stellar performer but I think it gets unfairly trashed for its performance at Midway. Substitute any torpedo bomber of its era in that attack and they would have suffered badly. The TBF lost 5 of 6 in their attack. Against strong fighter opposition all torpedo bombers did not do well. Flying low and slow in a path that is obvious to the defenders is a recipe for disaster. The USN had doubts about the viability of the torpedo bomber before the war and built the Ranger without torpedo capability (added later). The British developed a night attack capability to compensate for the dangers. Perhaps TBFs would have done better than the TBDs but they would have still suffered grievously. The fatality rates for torpedo bomber crews facing fighters in the first half of the war was staggering.
See my previous post. TBD also had a poor range and seemed to handle very badly, and the method of carrying the torpedo slowed it down a great deal.The TBD was faster than the Swordfish and Albacore were, had a smaller bomb load, and wasn't employed very well by the U.S. Navy. So, it didn't "sink the Bismark" or have any notable victories. But, we also didn't employ the F2A Buffalo very well. The Finns did and managed to have a good experience with it.
Perhaps the Devastator was better than our experience with it indicated. But, we didn't give them to the Finns ...so it's hard to say.
It's a "what if" with no correct answer, and all the evidence points to you being generally correct.
I have pointed out in the past that the TBD was not a stellar performer but I think it gets unfairly trashed for its performance at Midway. Substitute any torpedo bomber of its era in that attack and they would have suffered badly. The TBF lost 5 of 6 in their attack. Against strong fighter opposition all torpedo bombers did not do well. Flying low and slow in a path that is obvious to the defenders is a recipe for disaster. The USN had doubts about the viability of the torpedo bomber before the war and built the Ranger without torpedo capability (added later). The British developed a night attack capability to compensate for the dangers. Perhaps TBFs would have done better than the TBDs but they would have still suffered grievously. The fatality rates for torpedo bomber crews facing fighters in the first half of the war was staggering.
Good points, all. The only advantage the TBF would have over the TBD would be approach speed, which might allow for a better and more-coordinated setup. Most of the TBDs at Midway got shot down before they released their fish, because their approaches were so damned slow.
The torpedo dropping speed and height was the same for both aircraftThey couldn't drop the torpedo at more than 115 mph from the TBD. i don't know if that was due to the torpedo or the plane. Even when 'glide bombing' they couldn't go faster than 200 mph. Cruise speed was painfully slow 128 mph. For the TBF cruise speed was 215 mph which means it would reach the target much more quickly.
23 minutes for the TBD to fly 50 miles at cruise speed, 14 minutes for the TBF
The torpedo dropping speed and height was the same for both aircraft
They couldn't drop the torpedo at more than 115 mph from the TBD. i don't know if that was due to the torpedo or the plane. Even when 'glide bombing' they couldn't go faster than 200 mph. Cruise speed was painfully slow 128 mph. For the TBF cruise speed was 215 mph which means it would reach the target much more quickly.
23 minutes for the TBD to fly 50 miles at cruise speed, 14 minutes for the TBF
Not only that, but the torpedo itself was very slow at 33 knots.Yep. If a Japanese carrier turned away and put on flank speed, the TBD would close it at a whopping 75 kts. Damned hard to set up a hammer and anvil under those conditions. The TBFs would likely at least have launched torps before being toasted in that battle, and I'm sure some more would have brought their crews home, even if wrecked.
You're right that the torpedo limited the drop envelope. I believe at the time of Midway that envelope was at or below 100' ASL, and no more than 105 mph. The envelope was broadened as the war went on due to improvements in the fins as well as fitting a better detonator.
260 kts and 800' is good - so Mk 13 mod 6 - 9. Sounds like that wasn't sorted out until 1944. Is that right?
I see it has the wooden shrouds etc.
How soon had they made some kind of significant improvement over 100 mph etc.