The real combat history of the Ki-43

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

The Emil may have been a bit better than the Hurricane, but IMO the operational history shows that Hurricanes could definitely shoot them down

Click to expand...

Archie McKellar shot down five Emils in one day in his Hurricane so it could hold it's own under the right conditions and flown by the right pilot.

Mike Williams said:

Hmmm, maybe not:

Typhoon IB:
+9 boost 405 mph at 18,000' http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/typhoon-ads.jpg
353 mph at SL: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/r8762-level.jpg

Spitfire VIII & IX:
+18 boost Merlin 63: 408 mph at 25,000' http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_VIII_F_ADS.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-fix-ads.jpg

With +25 Merlin 66: 354 mph at SL http://www.spitfireperformance.com/JL165-Rolls-Royce.pdf

Click to expand...

MkXII's were quite quick too

The British found in the BoB that many of their pilots were not turning hard enough. Both Hurricanes and Spitfires.
The 109 with it's slats did NOT turn better, what it did was give a very clear warning when the slats came out that the plane was just about ready to stall. This allowed all but the newest pilots to keep the plane near the edge of the stall if needed.
The Hurricane and Spitfire had very little warning before stalling and many green pilots were afraid of pushing the planes to their limits.
This was compounded by the seating position in all three planes. The 109 has the famous reclined position which allowed for somewhat more G's to be pulled before the pilot blacked out (pilots varied). The Hurricane had a very upright seating position and the Hurricane pilots had a higher likelihood of blacking out. Spitfires were in-between but closer to the Hurricane. Spitfires at some point got modified rudder pedals which allowed the pilot to raise his feet about one shoe length and keep control of the rudder.
Doing a high speed stall in a hard turn at low altitude was killer, the plane would usually flip over and crash before the pilot could recover. Practicing 4-6 G turns took a lot of effort for pilots to recognize the difference in how things felt in the high 4s to low 6 G area. If the pilot pushed into the higher G levels (somewhere into the 5 area) they could out turn the 109.
Pilot limit, not aircraft limit.

As far as turning circle times go, unless the source gives the conditions of the turn test (starting speed, ending speed, starting altitude, ending altitude) the times are useless comparing one countries test to another countries test. The people in one country knew their test and what it represented. Changing the conditions of the test makes comparison rather useless.

I've read that about the BoB pilots being afraid to pull G, I believe it was mentioned by some RAF staff officers? But I didn't know the details about the angle of the seat etc. That is quite interesting.

Shortround6 said:

The British found in the BoB that many of their pilots were not turning hard enough. Both Hurricanes and Spitfires.
The 109 with it's slats did NOT turn better, what it did was give a very clear warning when the slats came out that the plane was just about ready to stall. This allowed all but the newest pilots to keep the plane near the edge of the stall if needed.
The Hurricane and Spitfire had very little warning before stalling and many green pilots were afraid of pushing the planes to their limits.
This was compounded by the seating position in all three planes. The 109 has the famous reclined position which allowed for somewhat more G's to be pulled before the pilot blacked out (pilots varied). The Hurricane had a very upright seating position and the Hurricane pilots had a higher likelihood of blacking out. Spitfires were in-between but closer to the Hurricane. Spitfires at some point got modified rudder pedals which allowed the pilot to raise his feet about one shoe length and keep control of the rudder.
Doing a high speed stall in a hard turn at low altitude was killer, the plane would usually flip over and crash before the pilot could recover. Practicing 4-6 G turns took a lot of effort for pilots to recognize the difference in how things felt in the high 4s to low 6 G area. If the pilot pushed into the higher G levels (somewhere into the 5 area) they could out turn the 109.
Pilot limit, not aircraft limit.

As far as turning circle times go, unless the source gives the conditions of the turn test (starting speed, ending speed, starting altitude, ending altitude) the times are useless comparing one countries test to another countries test. The people in one country knew their test and what it represented. Changing the conditions of the test makes comparison rather useless.

Click to expand...

Douglas Bader, the legless BOB pilot, claimed he could pull more Gs than anyone because he didn't have any lower extremities for blood to pool in when pulling positive Gs.
I've read his book, Reach for the Skies, but I don't remember where his legs were cut off at , above or below the knees, or a combination.
Being able to be just a little more aware at high Gs than you opponent would be a advantage in a tight turning dogfight.

I know several of the Commonwealth aces who flew P-40s, were former rugby players. Like Nicky Barr for example. He noted he could bear down and maintain consciousness in turns and pull outs in which others would pass out.

Maybe the legless thing was that psycho Hans Ulrich Rudel's secret too

Shortround6 said:

The British found in the BoB that many of their pilots were not turning hard enough. Both Hurricanes and Spitfires.
The 109 with it's slats did NOT turn better, what it did was give a very clear warning when the slats came out that the plane was just about ready to stall. This allowed all but the newest pilots to keep the plane near the edge of the stall if needed.
The Hurricane and Spitfire had very little warning before stalling and many green pilots were afraid of pushing the planes to their limits.

Click to expand...

You might want to look into mention of the Spitfire's "shudder" near stall. See for example F/S George Unwin of No. 19 Squadron: "I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling - the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled too tightly. The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure." I've heard of this a lot over the years. More of George's recollections here: Unwin, George Cecil (Oral history)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Looks like the one I'm interested in is Volume 3, but at the moment the price is a bit steep. I won't know why they don't just make these PoD..

Click to expand...

Plenty of them out there new and used but you really need to look at who is selling them. I would steer clear of this vendor.

tyrodtom said:

Douglas Bader, the legless BOB pilot, claimed he could pull more Gs than anyone because he didn't have any lower extremities for blood to pool in when pulling positive Gs.
I've read his book, Reach for the Skies, but I don't remember where his legs were cut off at , above or below the knees, or a combination.
Being able to be just a little more aware at high Gs than you opponent would be a advantage in a tight turning dogfight.

Click to expand...

I read the book too. One leg was lost below the knee, the other above.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

For further comparison, from the Soviet turn-time tests

P-40 B/c turned in about 18 seconds (both directions)
P-39D turned in 17.7 seconds (left), 18.7 seconds (right)
Spitfire VB turned in 18.8 seconds (both)
Spitfire LF IX turned in 18.5 seconds (both)
P-40E turned in 19.2 seconds (both directions)
Hurricane IIA turned in 19 seconds (left) or 20 seconds (right)
P-39Q-15 turned in 20 seconds (left) or 21 seconds (right)
Bf 109F-4 turned in 19.6 seconds left, or 20.5 seconds (right)
Fw 190 A4 turned in 22 seconds (left), or 23 seconds (right)



I don't know, it's still a significant advantage against a P-51. It will not out-turn a Spitfire necessarily though, and probably not a P-40 either if the latter is using flaps.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the Soviets have the heavier FW-190A-5 with the longer nose down to one second less, 21 seconds left/ 22 seconds right.

The A-5 being heavier than the A-4, this clearly shows there is an effect going on within the space between the wing and the prop, given the difference is a 6 inch longer engine bearer (150 mm). More on this at the end.

I think the turn times of the FW-190A could be smaller than the Soviet figures because the 190A had this peculiar excess of lift when the speeds got below 220 knots:

"Duels in the Sky", Eric Brown: "It [the change in pitch trim] could easily be gauged in turns. The FW-190 had a tendency to tighten up in a turn. Above [355 km/h], backward stick pressure was required."

This means that the 190A "self-tightened" the turn, and that the pilot had to push on the stick to keep the nose down(!), but this only after the speed during the turn crossed down through that 355 km/h threshold (roughly 220 knots).

Another pilot described that he deflected the 190's ailerons to keep the wing from dropping during low speed turns. So now we are talking about the best FW-190A sustained turn performance being achieved with the the stick forward and sideways...

To top it all, despite the FW-190A being fairly quiet in the cockpit compared to most inlines (as a general rules, powerful radials were quieter in the cockpit than most comparable inlines: Ki-84s, P-47Ds, FW-190A were all easier on the ears than the P-51D or Me-109G), the FW-190A had this peculiar vibration in the control stick that killed your sense of touch... (This is usually considered no big deal: The current Super Stallion helicopter has the same issue).

However it does pile up: You have to push to keep the nose from going up, AND deflect the stick sideways to cancel the wing drop, all this without the sense of touch... It is no wonder some US pilots observed "FW-190A pilots seem to be afraid to "reef it in"...."

I think the Soviet turn times are inaccurate for the FW-190A for these reasons, and that the true figure was more like 18 seconds left, and barely any more than that right. (The FW-190A seemed to have been very asymmetrical in hard turns -extremely poor in hard right turns-, but not at all asymmetrical in sustained low speed turns)

The Soviets have the needle tip P-47D Razorback at 27 seconds, and that is clearly an absurd bias: The Razorback with needle tip prop was the better turning variant, and anecdotally it could, and did, match turns with Me-109Gs, on the deck, while carrying two 1000 lbs bombs... The paddle blade and Bubbletop versions were worse, but 19 seconds left and 21 seconds right should be close for the needle tip Razorback, with the Bubbletop more symmetrical at 23+ seconds both ways. Like the FW-190A, the P-47D did not like hard stick pulls, so they both tended to mush forward and waste speed with careless stick pulling, even at high speeds, the 190 being the worse of the two. This explains why some pilots complained about their handling, but this high speed mushing had no real relevance to low speed sustained turns.

The Soviet turn times I believe are accurate for the P-40E at 19 seconds, though the N may have had more turn asymmetry by being slower to the right. It is important to understand that the main asymmetry issue for sustained low bank angle turns (there are about 3 different effects: P-factor -affects high G/high bank angles, or level climbs-, torque -affects roll- and finally the air spiral) is the complex phenomenon of the prop spiral interacting with the aircraft's unique shape: This effect also sometimes reversed direction above 250 mph -as with the Me-109-... All types were not affected in the same way by their prop spiral.

The following quotes put the Me-109G-6 and FW-190A into what I think is the correct perspective:

-James E. Reed 33rd FG (P-40F, Casablanca): "The FW-190 was tough to out-turn. I could out-turn the 109, but it was hard to do. I, at times, had to drop a few degrees of flaps and slow down to out-turn it. I understand that the FW-190 was harder to get away from than the 109."

The I understand is key here, because it actually strengthens the statement: It means that this is not from his own limited experience, but that this was the word going around from the combined experiences of the entire group.

One day, while failing to out-turn a Me-109G, Reed dropped his landing gear partially to slow down even more (the gear initially drops in the manner of a flap on the P-40), and he credits this momentary "turning edge" with saving his life...

That P-40-matching performance would peg the true Me-109G sustained turn performance at around 19 seconds left and 21 seconds right, similar to the Razorback P-47 with needle tip prop. 36 kill Fin ace Karhila claimed that dropping power helped his turns on the Gustav, so that might be the key to getting down from the slightly higher 20 left 21.6 right of Soviet 109G tests...

Concerning the Spitfire, reading Clostermann and other pilots, they clearly describe a very good hard initial turn (allowing a momentary angle advantage to "shoot across the circle", but still a significantly lesser sustained turn performance on all Marks of the Spitfire. RAE minimum turn radius on the Spitfire Mk I was quoted as 1025 feet, 880 feet on the Me-109E, and 800 feet on the Hurricane Mk I (not clear if these are sustained speed or not, but clear enough in their implications).

I think, based on this, that the Mk V was, at best, 20 seconds sustained, probably going faster and wider than 109s or 190s (20 seconds is for at least one Soviet test). The Spit is always quite symmetrical in turn and bank, with the exception of the Mark XIV in rolls. The Mark IX was probably around 21-22 seconds, and the Mark XIV 22-23 seconds, perhaps even worse... My understanding is that the Mark XIVs were not popular with front-line pilots...

As I said, the Soviet turn times I have encountered place the Mark V at 20 seconds, but also the Mark IX at 17 seconds(!), which is contradicted by Soviet experience in battle. (I think they allowed some speed or altitude drop to get 17 seconds: There is no way to my mind this is with a flat circle and sustained speed.):

-"Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496, p. 40 (Soviet Spitfire frontline experience): "The Spitfire failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."

Confirmed by Clostermann:

-Audio from the past, Pierre Clostermann (18 kills, record 432 RAF combat missions, master of ceremonies at wartime symposiums on Luftwaffe aircrafts): "Aaaah the legends… Legends are hard to kill. One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... Why? First and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down, and there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."

Clostermann operated mid to late War or very late War, so mostly with Mk IXs... The Soviet claim of 17 seconds (3 seconds better than the Mark V) is also contradicted by current Warbird operators that operate both the Mk V and the Mk IX concurrently.

It is interesting you have Soviet figures of 18.5 and 18.8 for the Mk IX and V respectively. I had neglected to note those down, if I ever saw them...

Many will notice, if the above estimations are true, that there hardly seems to be any linear relationship between wing loading, power loading and sustained turn performance. I think this is a still unknown effect that the pilots of the era called "hanging on the prop", which is that there is an untapped load potential for the prop, and the wing drag can deflect air towards the prop to exploit it, increasing their own drag by changing the leading edge airflow angle, and thus the prop's tractive load in what I call the "pull-push" effect of air being "sucked", then "compressed", between the wing and the prop, and this occurring only within the curvature of a horizontal turn. (It could not happen in loops, because loops unload the prop for half of the circle, and rely on that momentum for much of the other half)

The P-40 clearly turns better than what you would expect, but nothing even comes close to the gigantic 70%+ anomaly of the FW-190A... By creating tension between the wing and the prop, you have the same effect as pulling on both ends of a rope, which will lift the middle. Radial engines and/or straight (or at least less swept) wing leading edges seem to accentuate the effect.

Further supporting the theory, the only pusher prop fighter ever to enter service, the SAAB 21, had a large 22.2 square meter wing (nearly the size of a Ta-152H wing (23 sq m), and yet had a very mediocre turn handling, being relegated to ground attack duties... The Me-109G, with the same engine and a 16 sq/m wing, would likely run rings around it... Clearly using linear calculations will be of no help in predicting how each type ranks in low speed turns (that linearity appears to make a return at high speeds, since the upward "sucking and compressing" of the air seems to abruptly go away above 220-240 mph, if the FW-190A's trim behaviour is any guide: This explains why the Spitfire performs much closer to expected in high speed turns).

I think it is useful to go into the weeds like this, because the true forgotten story of WWII air tactics is that everyone started with the assumption dogfighting was dead, and then spent the entire war un-learning what they were being told in training.

As P-47D ace Virgil K Meroney said: "The problem with new recruits is we are having a devil of a time getting their training out of their heads."

Read P-47D Encounter Reports from aces with a lot of kills (or really any among the 800 I have sifted through more than twice), and practically all you read about is constant turning... Aside sneaking up from below, unaware targets are rare, and dive and zoom tactics are next to non-existent. Spitfire Encounter Reports are the near-mirror opposite: Enormous amounts of diving and hard maneuvering at high speeds. That is practically all the later Spitfires (from IX and up) ever do.

Not what you'd expect.

Anecdotally, from both German and Allied pilots, Fw 190 did not turn well at all. It did roll very well though.

P-40s, Hurricanes and Spit V could all out-turn every model of Bf 109 used in North Africa. This is also attested by both German and Allied pilots.

You can also see this for both Fw 190 and Bf 109, in the wing loading.

By the way, the guy you quoted about the 190 being tough to out-turn, James E Reed from 33rd FG, didn't actually ever engage a Fw 190. I think this is just his somewhat awkward way of saying that he heard the Fw 190s were dangerous, which they certainly were. 33rd FG had one very bad day in 1943 when bounced by Fw 190s IIRC from JG 2. They lost ~6 aircraft.

Later on US units learned better how to fight them and did pretty well against them in Sicily and Italy.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Anecdotally, from both German and Allied pilots, Fw 190 did not turn well at all. It did roll very well though.

P-40s, Hurricanes and Spit V could all out-turn every model of Bf 109 used in North Africa. This is also attested by both German and Allied pilots.

You can also see this for both Fw 190 and Bf 109, in the wing loading.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you are just wrong, and ignoring the Reed quote, the Clostermann quote, and just about every informed quote I have ever found in 30 years.

I have an account from a 190A-8 pilot reversing, in a right turn, a tailing P-51D, on the deck, in less than 3X 360s.

And you are ignoring, oh, merely the top Spitfire ace of them all? (In a turning fight near water level):

-Johnny Johnson (top Spitfire ace, 32 kills) "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights.---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech. It could only be a question of time..." (Johnson escaped when he abandoned the turn fight, and dived near a Royal Navy ship that fired AAA at his pursuer)

J. Johnson was also the top Allied FW-190A killer at 20...


-RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs (Spitfire Mk V vs FW-190A-4 period): "A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually out-turn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading... The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could, and they kept on catching up, you know."

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost 8 to their one that day..."

In fact, I have never found ONE instance of the Spitfire out-turning, during multiple circles, a FW-190A. One circle after a dive, yes (that is precisely the "superior turning circle" in the singular), but even that is rare.

But really the Clostermann quote should put an end to it, because it fully explains the difference between low speed turning and high speed turning. Clostermann describes watching thousands of gun camera reels to illustrate his wartime conferences to fellow pilots...

After the Clostermann quote, God himself could come out and contradict him, and it would only mean even "He" sometimes doesn't know what he is talking about...

But it would illustrate how terrible is the general level of knowledge about this.

wrathofatlantis = Gaston.
If you want to get ahead of the reappearance of the recurrent turn fighter ideas,
Another attempt no longer available online was at http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/archive/index.php/t-15392.html

Geoffrey Sinclair said:

wrathofatlantis = Gaston.

Click to expand...

Style of writing was indeed giving me a strong sense of deja vu.

Anyway, the turn-time tests are only one measure of how well an aircraft turns. Most people reading the thread probably know this, but some may not - those tests are for how quick the aircraft can turn 180 degrees without losing altitude. And the tests were done at low altitude, I think 1,000 feet or so.

They don't necessarily include flaps (many though not all ww2 fighters did use partial flap settings in tight turns), they don't include leading edge slats either I think because the planes were maintaining speed and those deploy at close to stall speed. They don't more importantly include high G turns, which gets complicated. But pulling some G (and, inevitably, descending) most WW2 fighters could turn 180 degrees much better than 18 or 20 seconds.

What the Soviets called "Vertical turns", which would be called loops, immelmanns and the like in Anglo-American circles, are a totally different thing. That's in part a matter of climb rate and energy fighting. Here again I believe a Spitfire out-performs a Fw 190 in terms of climb rate, but it does depend. Fw 190 can zoom-climb pretty well with a bit of speed, and they do go fast. Fw 190 can also out-dive a Spitfire, generally speaking.

I've read a lot of pilot accounts, memoirs, and interviews from both sides, plus talked to pilots of warbirds (which I know don't have the same weight and don't fly at the same power). All in all, I'm very confident that a Spitfire could out-turn a Bf 109 in a horizontal turn, and could definitely out turn a Fw 190. That doesn't mean it was necessarily a better fighter than either. We know early Fw 190s were extremely lethal against Spit Vs. Spit IX was a much closer match.

A Hurricane or a P-40 in 'clean' (no drop tanks, no bombs) configuration could also definitely out turn any version of a Bf 109 or a Fw 190 (in a normal horizontal bank turn).

tomo pauk said:

How many Ki-43s were required to replace one Ki-84 in the bomber-busting role between 20000 and 30000 ft?



Sources for both claims?
How many Axis aircraft were killed by Hurricane night fighters?



Kill/loss ratio vs. the 109F and/or MC.202 to prove the claims?



'Awful lot of Tigers' destroyed by Shermans - numbers, sources?



Source?



Hurricane was not a good interceptor when faced with plain-vanilla German fighters, and already in 1940. See here for 30-40 mph disadvantage vs. the 109E, as judged by RAF, plus the climb deficit.

For someone that says to other forum members to 'don't sulk' and to 'suck it up and move on', you will certainly have the numbers and sources that back up the claims, right?

Click to expand...

My dear Tomo, I do have evidence to support my case/opinions ad nauseam but will instead refer you for the Hurricane and Spitfire stats to all the books on the war over Malta and the Mediterranean by Brian Cull et al. and Christopher Shores et al. (I collected these over about twenty years and never regretted a penny I spent) John Foreman's Fighter Command series is good as well. I would also recommend the "After the Battle" Mk V (2011) on the Battle of Britain. All these register not only claims by Allied pilots but also confirmations by German and Italian records. Anthony Cooper is excellent too. I could list them all but hopefully by identifying the authors you have them in your library. If you don't then I could say anything and you won't be able to refute it and your contribution to the discussion will be negligible at best and probably worthless to me and others. I am happy to supply you with a reading list to start you on your journey. Also if you are on this forum and don't own or have access to them then you are a bit of a lightweight and your challenges have no value. On the subject of the Sherman versus the Tiger I would refer you to books by Ken Tout and Patrick Delaforce, John Buckley and Stephen Napier (there are American sources but I was basing my opinions on those books I have). Photographic evidence is readily available online. The careers of George Dring and Joe Ekins as well as Buck Kite, Alf Nicholls etc. bear looking into. My comment to Wild Bill was directed to something he replied when challenged, not to his discussion which I wrote that I was enjoying immensely. I hope he accepted the mild criticism and the praise equally.

Here is a typical, if anecdotal, example that illustrates the IJN's turn-averse doctrine well:

311th Fighter Group Unit history: "On October 21, 1943, the 530th squadron's P-51As met numerous Mitsubishi Zeros. I came up behind Lt. Geoffrey Neal, who was chasing a Zero down to the deck! I latched on to their formation and watched as he drove the enemy fighter right into the ground. The pilot of the Zero had tried everything to get rid of Lt. Neal except to circle fight." 311th Fighter Group Unit history.

The discovery of the Zero's true combat doctrine is not mine, but that of an Intelligence History specialist named Justin Pyke, interviewed on the Drachinifeld YT channel in the video "A6M: Zero or hero?" It is 2 hours long, and debunks an amazing amount of myths.

Click to expand...

I'm almost certain that the aircraft in question was a Ki-43, not an A6M. Reall the allied pilots were seeing Zeros everywhere, though of course Ki-43 and A6M havin a similar configuration would make it difficult to tell which is which in the heat of combat. The combat above having taken place in Burma, i don't recall reading anything about IJN A6M units in that theater in that timeframe.

And yeah, re the Zero, definitely a hero for me, having found out it went toe to toe with the mighty Corsair in the Solomons cemented that view. Both the A6M and the Ki-43 turned out to be much more formidable that the mere stats would suggest.

Keith1967 said:

My dear Tomo, I do have evidence to support my case/opinions ad nauseam but will instead refer you for the Hurricane and Spitfire stats to all the books on the war over Malta and the Mediterranean by Brian Cull et al. and Christopher Shores et al. (I collected these over about twenty years and never regretted a penny I spent) John Foreman's Fighter Command series is good as well. I would also recommend the "After the Battle" Mk V (2011) on the Battle of Britain. All these register not only claims by Allied pilots but also confirmations by German and Italian records. Anthony Cooper is excellent too. I could list them all but hopefully by identifying the authors you have them in your library. If you don't then I could say anything and you won't be able to refute it and your contribution to the discussion will be negligible at best and probably worthless to me and others. I am happy to supply you with a reading list to start you on your journey. Also if you are on this forum and don't own or have access to them then you are a bit of a lightweight and your challenges have no value. On the subject of the Sherman versus the Tiger I would refer you to books by Ken Tout and Patrick Delaforce, John Buckley and Stephen Napier (there are American sources but I was basing my opinions on those books I have). Photographic evidence is readily available online. The careers of George Dring and Joe Ekins as well as Buck Kite, Alf Nicholls etc. bear looking into. My comment to Wild Bill was directed to something he replied when challenged, not to his discussion which I wrote that I was enjoying immensely. I hope he accepted the mild criticism and the praise equally.

Click to expand...

I guess that is a difference between you and me.
Me, when challenged to prove my claims, I try not just to say 'it is in book XYZ, look it up', but strive to provide the exact page number and/or quote. If I can provide a primary source, this takes precedence over a book someone has (or has not).
I don't try to dismiss (while standing on the high horse) the people that might not have the book(s) or other resources that I have, and value that sort of challenge instead of making passive-aggressive assertions towards the forumites asking pointy question.