Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello, so it seems. Some 10 - 15 years ago I took photos amongst others of aircraft papers of combat a/cs of the FiAF used in 1939 - 45 but even if amongst them were 5 Hawks (3 A-4s, one A-2 and one A-3) none of them was A-6. Yes, I also looked Stenman et al Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 5 and my notes, and noticed that 3 of the 5 highest scoring Hawks were originally A-6sThe flight test data publicized listed 7.5mms, therefore I assumed that the Germans provided all war booty H-75s with 7.5mm FNs. That's why I was surprised by the low performance numbers of the tested aircraft. the -6s had four guns like the -1s, whereas the -2s, -3s and -4s had six guns. According to Stenmann, the Finns preferred the better handling of the four gun models. An H-75A-6 was the highest scoring Hawk of the LLV 32.
I know these F4F-7s were sent on recon missions in the South Pacific, but I've never read any recounts of any of those missions. I would find such recounts very interesting - even if "uneventful", just knowing the timing and difficulties of a routine mission.I would note that the SBD-3 (Scout Bomber Douglas 3rd version) held 260 gallons in protected tanks for scout missions. With unprotected tanks it could hold 310 gallons.
The need for a long range "scout" Buffalo seems a bit lacking.
There was a long range Grumman photo recon plane. The F4F-7 of which 21 were built, all guns and armor taken out. the wing did not fold and it was sealed to become one huge gas tank. About 555 gallons in the wing combined with the fuselage tanks for about 700 gallons total.
Oh, Jeeez, another ground hog thread.I still say the most overrated was the P-47. Very average rate of climb, poor maneuverability and certainly not enough range when introduced. In combat by April 1943 with no provision for drop tanks until August and then relegated to ground attack by January '44 when command decided all P-51s should go to the 8th AF and all P-47s should be transferred to the 9th AF (tactical). And yet over 15000 produced.
At what altitude? It had a service ceiling of 42,000 ft with its 8 x 0.5mgs and space to practice break dancing in the back.I still say the most overrated was the P-47. Very average rate of climb,
I said that command decided, not that the decision had been implemented.Oh, Jeeez, another ground hog thread.
In Jan 1944 they planned for the P-51s to go to the go to the 8th AF and all P-47s should be transferred to the 9th AF (tactical). It just takes a lot of time.
Just before Big week at the end of Feb 1944 the 8th air force had two fighter groups of P-51s, two of P-38s and eight fighter groups of P-47s.
The 78th fighter group in the 8th Air Force using P-47s gets it's last victory (of 400 claims) on Dec 31st 1944 before converting fully to the P-51. And it is the not last fighter group in the 8th to use the P-47.
But this will make no difference I am sure.
In the MTO, the P-47 fighter groups in12th AF were tasked for CAS and short range interdiction (Rail and Bridges). P-47D FG in 15th were escort. In ETO ALL P-47s in 9th AF were tasked to provide escort through April 1944, and thence the 9th AF P-47s were diverted for cross channel Interdiction preparing for D-Day. In the 8th AF ALL VIII FC were tasked for both CAS/Interdiction and Escort from D-Day through mid August, thence entirely Escort through the end of its service in VIII FC.I still say the most overrated was the P-47. Very average rate of climb, poor maneuverability and certainly not enough range when introduced. In combat by April 1943 with no provision for drop tanks until August and then relegated to ground attack by January '44 when command decided all P-51s should go to the 8th AF and all P-47s should be transferred to the 9th AF (tactical). And yet over 15000 produced.
Seems to be a recurring theme for a certain person. All that education going to waste.Aside from not having your facts in-line with historical facts regarding the variable missions and service,...
Groundhoggery has moved on to possessing its own laws of physics and selectively misquoting himself and his own data to score between the recently moved goalposts.Seems to be a recurring theme for a certain person. All that education going to waste.
He knows a lot of stuff, just has a weird way of putting it all together.At least our resident expert at alternate history and cut-n-paste hasn't posted in a while.
Thank God for small miracles...
In combat by April 1943 with no provision for drop tanks until August . . .
I think there was an issue of pressurising them for use at altitude.The drop tank issue was very much theater-dependent. While drop tank development was slow in the ETO for various reasons, in the Southwest Pacific theater, under Gen. Kenney's command, drop tank development was much more rapid. A locally-made, 200 U.S. gallon belly drop tank for P-47s in the theater became widely available in the fall of 1943.
I think there was an issue of pressurising them for use at altitude.
Alas - the boundary conditions in the Pacific were largely very different from ETO. The Ferry tanks (not self sealing) were a.) unpressurized and designed for low to middle altitude transport with low threat, and b.) were useless at greater than 18-20000 feet.The drop tank issue was very much theater-dependent. While drop tank development was slow in the ETO for various reasons, in the Southwest Pacific theater, under Gen. Kenney's command, drop tank development was much more rapid. A locally-made, 200 U.S. gallon belly drop tank for P-47s in the theater became widely available in the fall of 1943.
I still say the most overrated was the P-47. Very average rate of climb, poor maneuverability and certainly not enough range when introduced. In combat by April 1943 with no provision for drop tanks until August and then relegated to ground attack by January '44 when command decided all P-51s should go to the 8th AF and all P-47s should be transferred to the 9th AF (tactical). And yet over 15000 produced.