Wacky Allied fighter ideas

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

We're careening wildly off the original topic, but...the 82d Airborne used to routinely delpoy M551 Sheridan light tanks by air, using heavy para drops and LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction). Been there, seen it myself. It was raining tanks! Not the examples below, but I've seen both done at the same time where the crews link up with their tanks and drive them off of the drop zone into a mock attack.
M551 sheridan air drop - Bing video
M551 sheridan lapes - Bing video
 
Here's another idea that never quite made it. Popular Science Magazine, May 1943
 
Another idea for a military transport. December, 1942 Mechanix Illustrated magazine.
 
It looks exactly like a 1950's sci-fi vehicle from "outer space."

I've always wondered why they called it "Outer" space since all space is outward from where we are.

Not sure I'd like to test that retractible pontoon aircraft.
 
GregP said:
It looks exactly like a 1950's sci-fi vehicle from "outer space."

I've always wondered why they called it "Outer" space since all space is outward from where we are.
Click to expand...
Greg

When lawyers are involved there is always a defintion
from wiki

There is no firm boundary where space begins. However the Kármán line, at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) above sea level,[7][8] is conventionally used as the start of outer space in space treaties and for aerospace records keeping. The framework for international space law was established by the Outer Space Treaty, which was passed by the United Nations in 1967. This treaty precludes any claims of national sovereignty and permits all states to freely explore outer space. Despite the drafting of UN resolutions for the peaceful uses of outer space, anti-satellite weapons have been tested in Earth orbit.
 
nuuumannn said:
On the subject of wacky fighter ideas; the Turret Fighter!
Click to expand...

As a concept, it was actually sound...but it was very much of its age (ie the mid-1930s). The turret fighter concept failed in the crucible of war because one key assumption--that bombers would not have single-engine fighter escort over the UK--proved incorrect.

The last Defiant day fighter squadron started re-equipping with the type in April 1940 and even at that stage few, including the Germans themselves, expected France to fall (let alone fall so rapidly) and provide the Luftwaffe with air bases within single-engine fighter range of the UK.
 
The turret fighter concept failed in the crucible of war because one key assumption--that bombers would not have single-engine fighter escort over the UK--proved incorrect.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're right, Mark, but it's also worth remembering that in almost all combats where the Defiant squadrons suffered high losses compared to the numbers operating - no more than 12 at a time during its entire day fighter career, the number of fighters was overwhelmingly in favour of the Germans. Typically, between three and 12 Defiants that were sent into battle went up against some 30 or more enemy fighters; odds they had little chance of succeeding against. you're essentially right about the concept in a high threat environment however. A more suitable use for them would have been Oop Nooorth, where enemy single seat fighters couldn't reach.

In instances where there were no enemy fighters, the pilots of 264 Sqn proved they could use their tactics taught to them by their inspiring Sqn Ldr Philip Hunter to good advantage; particularly on 264 Sqn's Day of Glory. 141 Sqn was unfortunate, not least because of the actions of its CO, who refused to listen to Hunter on discussions about the Daffy's virtues, but let's face it; nine tyro fresh outta flight school Defiant pilots with no combat experience against around 30 Bf 109s piloted by largely seasoned veterans was always going to end badly for the Brits, regardless of what aircraft they were flying.

Also, as a night fighter, the turret fighter concept proved a winner; the Defiant had a very good intercept-to-kill ratio, in fact the highest of any British night fighter between late 1940 and mid 1942.
 
Concur with pretty much all you're saying Nuuumannn (always have to check I have the right number of 'u's and 'n's in your profile name! ). Saying the Defiant was a winner as a night fighter is perhaps a bit of a stretch. Undoubtedly, it was the best out there until radar-equipped Beaufighters and Mossies appeared in sufficient numbers to do the job properly.
 
Mark, Grant - it's easier!

Yep; by 1942 the Daffy was verging on obsolescence; the radar equipped Mk.II set up was not ideal ergonomically and like with the early Beaufighter NF.IIs the radar was troublesome, that's why the Daffy was around for as long as it was; getting the Beaufighters, which had already entered service to an acceptable standard with their radar working and the issues of handling with the NF.IIs that caught so many pilots out - it was described as devilish on the ground - took time, so the Daffy lingered on and did a great job. It always mystifies me as to why the Defiant is considered a failure; statistically it wasn't. Out of a front line fighter career of just under three yeas it spent from December 39 to August 40 as a day fighter, but from then until mid/late 42 it was a successful night fighter; that works out to being two thirds of its frontline career it was a success at what it did.
 
Another Idea, this time form Maj. de Seversky. The engines must be in the fuselage and I'm not sure if that's the engine exhaust or a rocket in the tail! From Popular Mechanics, November 1942.
 
The war's over so they can show some more sensitive military developments that might have been secret during the conflict. This was in the March, 1946 issue of Popular Mechanics.
 
Here's a two-fer. From the Nov. 1942 Popular Mechanics we see that there was some confusion (or misleading press reports) about the new rocket projectiles and that the Douglas A-20 was tried out with a novel cannon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Allied crash locations over the Netherlands 1939 - 1945
Replies
0
Views
745
syscom3
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
FW190D-9 vs Allied fighters
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
9K
Demopan78
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
550
spicmart
S
S
Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.
31 32 33
Replies
647
Views
36K
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register