"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War "

[Deleted member 68059]

Actually, the point you made about RAF Spitfires escorting early USAAF bomber raids is the icing on the cake for me. If the USAAF "bomber mafia" was so opposed to fighters, why did they ask for exactly that kind of support right from the very beginning?

How can I "BACON" this post as WELL as starring it "WINNER" ?

 

[WARSPITER]

The stupid ones are watching TikTok or Survivor or America's Got Talent.

Or maybe youtube ?

 

[pbehn]

Actually, the point you made about RAF Spitfires escorting early USAAF bomber raids is the icing on the cake for me. If the USAAF "bomber mafia" was so opposed to fighters, why did they ask for exactly that kind of support right from the very beginning?

All military organisations like to "paddle their own canoe". It was a combined effort and the RAF had no issue with doing it but it must have been a big step to ask. It gets little mention in the video because as you say, it blows the whole argument out of the water. Furthermore the suggestion that anyone in the USAAF wanted escorts to leave the bombers to the attentions of the LW is sick.

 

[buffnut453]

All military organisations like to "paddle their own canoe". It was a combined effort and the RAF had no issue with doing it but it must have been a big step to ask. It gets little mention in the video because as you say, it blows the whole argument out of the water. Furthermore the suggestion that anyone in the USAAF wanted escorts to leave the bombers to the attentions of the LW is sick.

The other factor is the learning process that happened. The USAAF B-17s and B-24s didn't start with operations to Berlin. They started with short, cross-channel raids where existing fighter resources could provide escort.

As ranges increased, it wasn't clear whether fighter escort was needed all the way to the target. Some of that had to be learned...the hard way. The Nazi Germany's air defences might have been merely a tough outer crust which, if a force could break through, would allow unescorted bombers free reign over enemy airspace.

In hindsight, that was a naiive perspective (if it ever existed). Attempts to operate B-17s and B-24s beyond the range of escorting fighters proved costly and the rest, as they say, is history. However, it requires more foresight than perhaps was present at the time to suggest those issues could have been identified without some tough, first-hand operational lessons.

 

[SaparotRob]

Sure they are. They just don't understand it. They sure think they do though.

Guilty as charged.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Guilty as charged.

I think everyone can say that about something or another.

 

[SaparotRob]

View attachment 715630

Remember the P-39 ground hog thread????

Love the reference.

 

[SaparotRob]

Or @drgondog

The man has researched this stuff for decades.

And lived it.

 

[pbehn]

The other factor is the learning process that happened. The USAAF B-17s and B-24s didn't start with operations to Berlin. They started with short, cross-channel raids where existing fighter resources could provide escort.

As ranges increased, it wasn't clear whether fighter escort was needed all the way to the target. Some of that had to be learned...the hard way. The Nazi Germany's air defences might have been merely a tough outer crust which, if a force could break through, would allow unescorted bombers free reign over enemy airspace.

In hindsight, that was a naiive perspective (if it ever existed). Attempts to operate B-17s and B-24s beyond the range of escorting fighters proved costly and the rest, as they say, is history. However, it requires more foresight than perhaps was present at the time to suggest those issues could have been identified without some tough, first-hand operational lessons.

There were all sorts of hard lessons to be learned most of them the hard way. One was figuring out what was going on and what had happened. When losses were low this was taken as a sign that things were working as planned. When losses were high a reason was found to explain it that could be solved with XYZ. No one considered that when losses were low they got lucky because of XYZ and high losses against an enemy that werent stupid and also learned from experience would be the norm. A lot had to be learned about the weather which isnt the normal joke conversation about British weather sending hundreds of aircraft into the air from fields that became fog bound or shrouded in low cloud killed a lot. On a documentary I watched years ago, it said the biggest and hardest lesson to learn was when to call a mission off because it was going FUBAR. Military ethos goes against it and many feared being disciplined if they did.

 

[buffnut453]

Military ethos goes against it and many feared being disciplined if they did.

Yep...in RAF parlance, avoid the LMF moniker at all costs.

 

[SaparotRob]

We are discussing the relative merits of two aviation communities where at one of those communities people who are not prepared to have a look at the content of the other one are writing it off as completely worthless.

It sounds to me like a lot of snobs who won't let someone into their club because they did not go to Oxford or Harvard.

I vowed never to award a negative. I don't want to be dragged into this BUT:
I never graduated college though my independent research in psychoactive substances is legendary.
I try to read through the tech stuff, though with little understanding. Those here patiently explain to me what I missed. For example, XBe02Drvr (a man with respectable aviation credentials) explained aerodynamic concepts to me using a paper airplane as an example. It worked. See the Groundhog thread.
I have been welcomed (and tolerated, mostly) by The Forum.
Drgndog, well, the man literally grew up with Mustangs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, the point you made about RAF Spitfires escorting early USAAF bomber raids is the icing on the cake for me. If the USAAF "bomber mafia" was so opposed to fighters, why did they ask for exactly that kind of support right from the very beginning?

Someone's trying to eat their cake and have it too -- and it ain't you. Asking for escort is prima facie evidence that a supposed bomber mafia is concerned that daylight missions are susceptible to fighter intercept -- a worry later events showed to be very sound.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I vowed never to award a negative. I don't want to be dragged into this BUT:
I never graduated college though my independent research in psychoactive substances is legendary.
I try to read through the tech stuff, though with little understanding. Those here patiently explain to me what I missed. For example, XBe02Drvr (a man with respectable aviation credentials) explained aerodynamic concepts to me using a paper airplane as an example. It worked. See the Groundhog thread.
I have been welcomed (and tolerated, mostly) by The Forum.
Drgndog, well, the man literally grew up with Mustangs.

Tolerated?

You sure about that?

I keed, I keed, I keed…

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or maybe youtube ?

Youtube is to history as Cheerios is to a daily diet: a good starting point, but you don't want to subsist on it.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Furthermore the suggestion that anyone in the USAAF wanted escorts to leave the bombers to the attentions of the LW is sick.

Even as late as Jan 1944 when Doolittle freed 8th AF fighters to free-hunt ahead of bomber strikes, bomber crews complained vociferously because they had no "little friends" about in sight. How much more naked they had to have felt in the earlier years.

 

[SaparotRob]

Tolerated?

mostly

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

mostly

Every class needs a clown, and goddamn, you're good at it.

 

[WARSPITER]

Just out of interest, how many military aviation videos have you produced?

Why ? How many have you ?

 

[WARSPITER]

We are discussing the relative merits of two aviation communities where at one of those communities people who are not prepared to have a look at the content of the other one are writing it off as completely worthless.

Which community is that ? It can't be this one as it should be obvious that many here have looked at the content of the other and
found glaring faults - those have been duly pointed out.

 

[WARSPITER]

I am hardly writing anyone off for not producing a video.

I was quite clear in saying I would not be making one myself, so I am hardly going to be criticising others for not making one.

You are making things up.

Then why did you specifically ask me how many videos I have produced ?