Myths and misinformations in 21st century

GregP said:

In their partial defense, I'm not all that sure anyone in the AVG had ever seen a picture of an A6M Zero. From what I heard it was all just verbal description along with some "preliminary" blacked out 3-views. That is, of course, second-hand information. But the blacked-out 3 views even in the TAIC manuals weren't all that good some 5 years later.

Perhaps they thought they were fighting Zeros from the vantage of an honest mistake. I don't really know.

Click to expand...

I think part of the confusion is that Chennault certainly knew all about the Zero and was doing his best to warn the US about how advanced Japanese aircraft were - as the CIA documented.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...-Chennault and Intelligence-v2-with Notes.pdf

Interesting document, seems to indicate Chennault was the "godfather" of Air America!

Fighterguy said:

...Then there's the Israeli use of the M-4 Sherman tank (upgraded in many ways) to defeat Arab army's with equipment that was regarded superior.

Click to expand...

By saying "Arab Army" are you referring to the Syrians, who deployed Panzer IV, Stug III, SdKfz 165 and Jagdpanzer IV tanks (along with some T-34s)?

Are you saying that these were inferior to the M-4 Sherman?

Once again timing is critical in assessing some weapons combat capability. For instance at the Battle of El Alamein the Germans had just 30 of the Long Barreled MK IVs vs 252 Sherman tanks and 170 grants and 78 Crusader IIIs with 57mm guns.
In such small numbers even a theoretically better tank was pretty much useless and the MK IV, even with the long barrel, was hardly a vastly superior tank to the Sherman. The Early MK IV with long barrel often only had 50mm of frontal armor it took until Jan/Feb of 1943 for all production tanks to be equipped with the 80mm armor and even then it was only on the hull nose and drivers plate. Front of turret was still 50mm at best and sides of hull and turret were thinner than on the Sherman. Basically without the extra 30mm plate on the nose and drivers plate either tank could penetrate the others front out to around 1000 yds and each others sides at any practical battle field distance.
The Americans failed to improve fast enough and the Sherman fell behind in 1943 and 1944 but in late 1942 there were few tanks superior to the Sherman in any numbers.
Sherman's mobility and reliability is often overlooked in some quicky comparisons. Granted the Sherman didn't have the flotation of the T-34 but it had a much better transmission which allowed for better selection of gear/s to suit conditions.

Syrian's used lot of those WW II relics as dug in pillboxes and not mobile tanks.

The Shermans used by Israel were armed with 76mm guns at the worst and many had been regunned with a French 105mm gun. The regunned tanks also had new engines, (Cummins Diesel) and used the HVSS suspensions and wide tracks.
Between the difference in training and the difference in repair/maintenance between the Israeli Army and it's neighbors I wouldn't read too much into the difference in equipment or back date those results to WW II.

The last appearance by WWII German tanks on the world's battlefields came in 1967, when Syria's panzer force faced off against modern Israeli armor. Quite improbably, Syria had assembled it's collection of ex-Wehrmacht vehicles from a half-dozen sources over a decade and a half time frame.

Panzers in the Golan Heights

That was a great read. Thanks for posting.

A second to that thanks. Lots of detailed information.

A rather enduring myth is that the F6F Hell cat was designed to counter or in answer to the Japanese Zero.

from one website/blog
" Indisputably the Zero had inherent flaws that were initially canceled out by the skill of its pilots and the ignorance of its opponents. No argument, either, that by midway through the Guadalcanal campaign the bogey had been laid, even before a new generation of American fighters arrived to take the sky from it—including the Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat, a plane specifically designed to do just that on behalf of U.S. Navy carrier air power"

Italics are mine and from Wiki:
"The Grumman F6F Hellcat is an American carrier-basedfighter aircraft of World War II. Designed to replace the earlier F4F Wildcat and to counter the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero, it was the United States Navy's dominant fighter in the second half of the Pacific War."

Again italics are mine.

Problem with this the time line even as set out in the WIki article.

"... the contract for the prototype XF6F-1 was signed on 30 June 1941." Now at this point the only red flags concerning the Zero were from General Chennault in China and he was being pretty much ignored.

The argument goes on.
" Throughout early 1942 Leroy Grumman, along with his chief designers Jake Swirbul and Bill Schwendler, worked closely with the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) and experienced F4F pilots,[13] to develop the new fighter in such a way that it could counter the Zero's strengths and help gain air command in the Pacific Theater of Operations.[14] On 22 April 1942, Lieutenant Commander Butch O'Hare toured the Grumman Aircraft company and spoke with Grumman engineers, analyzing the performance of the F4F Wildcat against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero in aerial combat."

And "Based on combat accounts of encounters between the F4F Wildcat and A6M Zero, on 26 April 1942, BuAer directed Grumman to install the more powerful 18-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial engine — already powering Chance Vought's Corsair design since its own beginnings in 1940 — in the second XF6F-1 prototype."

Now I certainly may have missed something but the Battle of the Coral sea wasn't until May 4-8 and aside from the WIldcats seeing action in the defense of Wake Island (and their pilots weren't in any position to give reports to BuAer) the only other actions the Wildcats participated in were the Gilbert Marshall raid/s, the Action near Rabaul that got Bitch O'Hare the Medal of Honor and the Lae-Salamaua raid. In these actions there was little, if any, contact between F4Fs and Zeros so I am somewhat baffled as to where these combat reports were coming from?

The XF6F-1 flew with the Wright R-2600 engine on 26 June 1942 or about 50 days after the Battle of Coral sea and just 22 days after the Main action in the Battle of Midway. The 2nd XF6F with the P & W R-2800 flew 34 days later.

The Army had certainly fought against Zeros in Philippines and the British (Commonwealth ) forces in Southeast Asia but that was 5-7 months after work started on the XF6F.

1st production F6F flew in October 3rd of 1942 or just over 2 months after the R-2800 prototype so there doesn't seem to much time to incorporate any changes even with combat reports from the Coral sea or Midway.

This modelling web site, in their detailed description of the Fw 190A-8 states:

The MW50 installation itself required a sizeable methanol tank, for which the Focke-Wulf engineers found a place in the fuselage behind the cockpit, in line with the radio hatch. The installation could be accessed from below through a semi-circular cover shown here. This panel is a distinctive feature of MW50-equipped A-8 and later variants as compared to non-boosted A-1 through A-7.
A curiosity is that the MW 50-compatible engine was available already with the A-4 model but the installation itself hadn't been available until the A-8.

There is no mention that A-8/A-9 carried fuel tank, not MW-50 tank, that was found on experimental Fw-190s.

A mis-information about XB-42 in Wikipedia: engine power was not 1325 HP, but 1675 HP for take off.

The Bf 110 entry in the Wikipedia wants us to believe that Bf 110C was good for 560 km/h, despite the type's tables/sheets showing under 530 km/h.

I rather like the 595kph for the G-2

Kind of makes you wonder why they bothered with Me 410

The G-2 was supposedly good for 576 km/h (table) with 2 x 1250 HP (30 min rating), so ~590 km/h on 2 x 1350 HP does not look that outrageous. On the other hand, there is a graph showing just 505 km/h on 30 min rating.

Was the DB 605 as used in the Bf 110G capable of 1250ps at 6.5km altitude at 2600rpm?

Was the 605B pretty much equivelent to the 605A or was it closer to some of the later 605s?

Maybe the ram is worth 7-800 meters over the engine charts?

Shortround6 said:

Was the DB 605 as used in the Bf 110G capable of 1250ps at 6.5km altitude at 2600rpm?

Was the 605B pretty much equivalent to the 605A or was it closer to some of the later 605s?

Maybe the ram is worth 7-800 meters over the engine charts?

Click to expand...

The DB 605B would have differed from the A version in the reduction gear ratio.

Any assessment of the Bf 110G performance situation will depend on the equipment fitted (especially the radar with the external antenna arrays and the exhaust dampers required for night fighter service) and the boost level the engines were cleared for (the DB 605 was derated for a period after service introduction).

tomo pauk said:

The Bf 110 entry in the Wikipedia wants us to believe that Bf 110C was good for 560 km/h, despite the type's tables/sheets showing under 530 km/h.

Click to expand...

Note that this speed is for DB 601A with old supercharger rated at 4km - the 4.5km show as max speed alt is with rammed air effect calculated in.

tomo pauk said:

On the other hand, there is a graph showing just 505 km/h on 30 min rating.

Click to expand...

I spot the term "Nebelwerfer" on the second page so this one was equipped with rocket launchers.

Shortround6 said:

Was the DB 605 as used in the Bf 110G capable of 1250ps at 6.5km altitude at 2600rpm?
Was the 605B pretty much equivelent to the 605A or was it closer to some of the later 605s?
Maybe the ram is worth 7-800 meters over the engine charts?

Click to expand...

That about covers it. The rated height for the DB605A/B engine on 2600 rpm was 5.8 km without ram, so the gain of 700 m (2000+ ft) does look realistic for that turn of speed and particular engine & installation.

The DB-605D-equivalent, supposed to be used on the late Bf 110s was the DB 605E. There was also the DB 605BS in the works, equivalent of the 605AS.

tomo pauk said:

A mis-information about XB-42 in Wikipedia: engine power was not 1325 HP, but 1675 HP for take off.

Click to expand...

Interesting and well picked up. But is it wiki's fault? If you look at the site you'll notice the technical data is attributed to a 1979 book by Rene Fancillion.
And if you happen to have that book, well, there it is in black and white....