- Thread starter
- #921
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
+
I brought it up because in a period of some of the heaviest aerial combat during 1943 in the MTO their is a significant difference in the number of operational losses between what the USAAF Statistical Digest and what is noted in MAW IV. Whether the Digest is wrong or MAW has missed some records or they don't exist, I don't know. However, that there is a discrepancy does mean that we may not have 'the whole story'; that shouldn't be ignored.
I am in no way defending the Luftwaffe or anyone else; I am fan of WWII airwrfare and aircraft in general, not of any particular faction. I don't remember Chris Shores as coming across as particularly pro- Axis in Fighters over Tunisia, but then it is awhile since I read it. The main problem with his early works was a lack of reliable soures; the increased availibility of sources in the later years was a major reason for the MAW series.
The reason, from what I remember, the Hurricane and Typhoon had such thick wings had to do with a wind-tunnel used at the time. The turbulence in the tunnel happened to make it difficult to ascertain how much turbulence was produce by the aircraft's wings. Ironically the reason Supermarine didn't make such a mistake was because they built race-aircraft and had their own data to rely on.
Keep in mind I'm on page #29 so if somebody said that -- I apologize
Keep in mind I'm on page #29 so if somebody said that -- I apologize
- Thread starter
- #924
Like I said, the Allied losses for the actions on the days I posted are accounted for by multiple sources outside of Shores. More generally, losses for those fighter groups are well accounted for through the war. The new sources Shores brought to the table with the MAW series were mostly Axis sources.
I certainly get what you are trying to imply here but while Shores could miss records, or he could make decisions as to what to include or not include (I don't believe he makes any claims to include all operation losses of any kind in MAW, since he is focused on air combat) the squadron histories, wing and fighter group histories are fully up to speed, in my opinion, on their own losses. I don't think they are hiding any, I don't think they missed any, and I don't think they forgot any.
S
- Thread starter
- #926
They may not always know what caused the loss of an airplane but they did know if they lost an airplane. In the statistics posted above for 325th FG for example they list 12 lost to enemy aircraft and 12 lost to 'unknown' reasons. I included those in the total lost to enemy fighters, though I agree probably some were lost to mechanical issues or flak.
Yet you use them as your main point of evidence in this whole discussion?
Edit: I thought it was Schweik who posted this, and my post was meant for him. My apologies for the confusion.
Last edited:
Evidence for what? My main point is rather that it is difficult , imo, to know exactly what happened or what the actual results were (claims, losses, cause of losses, etc; not who won) when there is conflicting information from different sources. To me, Schweik reaches very definite conclusions on the back of data that is not perfect. In other words, in my experience it's not that straight forward analysing the operational records.
- Thread starter
- #929
I only make provisional conclusions based on the available data. Everything we can say about a war from 70 years ago is an educated guess at best. But you can describe what you know at a given point. I don't think your implicit contention about the Air Force journal is compelling for reasons I have already stated several times. If you really thought there was an issue worth exploring there, I would think that you would go try to find more data, such as day by day loss records or loss records by aircraft subtype. But perhaps it's better to keep it vague?
This has nothing to do with the record of the Typhoon by the way, it has to do with the record of the Luftwaffe and JG 27 and so on.
This has nothing to do with the record of the Typhoon by the way, it has to do with the record of the Luftwaffe and JG 27 and so on.
Sorry my apologies. I thought I was quoting Schweik not you.
And I agree with you in regards to Schweik.
- Thread starter
- #931
I wouldn't laugh...
- Thread starter
- #933
Hey bruh, if you want to ban me because you disagree with some of my posts, go ahead. You are a mod you have the privilege. I don't think I merit the hostility some have shown me on here and I think that is funny. You are a moderator but I am my own boss partner. If you have some beef with me I'd say spell it out.
While off-topic, I figured I'd respond to this first because when I attempted to reply to everything it said that I went over the 20,000 character limit (that and Fubar57 would be sure to go apoplectic...)
BiffF15
,
1. F-15 vs F-18: Honestly I was surprised that the F-15 would out-accelerate and out-sustain the F-18 in turns. What variant of F-15 and F-18 out of curiosity?
2. G-Loads: I remember hearing somewhere that the normal rated loads for the F-15 were 7.33 or so and later increased to 9g. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but there was a documentary in which a pilot said he pulled 12g and managed to avoid coming unglued (his name was Larry Pitts if I recall), which is within the 9g normal load-factor.
The P-38's roll rate was either poor or average depending on speed until the P-38J came along.
BiffF15
,1. F-15 vs F-18: Honestly I was surprised that the F-15 would out-accelerate and out-sustain the F-18 in turns. What variant of F-15 and F-18 out of curiosity?
2. G-Loads: I remember hearing somewhere that the normal rated loads for the F-15 were 7.33 or so and later increased to 9g. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but there was a documentary in which a pilot said he pulled 12g and managed to avoid coming unglued (his name was Larry Pitts if I recall), which is within the 9g normal load-factor.
- Thread starter
- #935
Why would I ban you?
But please do not call me your "bruh" or your "partner". I'm neither...
- Thread starter
- #937
- Thread starter
- #938
On G loading, somebody, (and I am embarrassed to say I forgot who but I think it was either Shortround or Tomo), posted the (May 1943) flight manual for the P-40F. There are some interesting tidbits in there. I was looking for the post with the link but couldn't find it. Anyway here is some data pertinent to things that came up previously:
- Stall speed is 92 IAS (flaps and landing gear up) or 80 IAS (flaps down gear up)
- RPM overspeed limit is indicated at 3180 rpm.
- G load limits are indicated as 8.02g positive or 3.6g negative with a "normal gross weight" of 8500 lbs
- G load is limited to 7.0g positive or 3.3g negative when overloaded ("above the normal gross weight").
- WEP is listed as 61" Hg in a chart on page 37 of the manual (page 42 of the PDF)
- Critical altitude for WEP is shown as 4,800 ft for low blower and 12,000 ft for high blower (with 61" Hg available at both altitudes)
- Takeoff power is 54.3" and military power is 48.2". Max continuous is 44.2" and max cruise is 36".
- The 8500 lb weight is based on a 200 lb pilot, 6 guns, 1410 rounds of ammo, empty front wing tank and one radio. This is broken down on a form on page 36 (page 41 of the PDF)
- Fuel for the 'Design Load' is 119 (US) gallons. With 52 gallon external fuel tank that is 171. "Full internal" fuel includes the 37 gal front wing tank for 156 or 208 with the drop tank.
- Plane also carries 18 gallons of oil, plus 3 gallons extra optional. The "Full internal" load total of 8,860 lbs includes 23 lbs of extra oil, 222 lbs for fuel for the front tank, and a 27 lb extra radio.
- Late model P-40s and all P-40L had the emergency hydraulic system and glycol windscreen spray removed.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
Glider
Captain
Personally its this kind of comment which I find at best borderline. There is no evidence that Shores is either pro or anti anybody. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that he is a very detailed researcher, proven across many books and highly respected in his field. Is he or anyone perfect, of course not, but because he doesn't tally with something you like or agree with he suddenly doesn't like Americans.
Because I disagree with a number of your posting you have at times implied that I am a hater of the P40. Never directly of course but its there. Does it worry me, no, your wrong in that and I only mention this as you have a repeating patter of behaviour.
If I had to put money on who is the more accurate researcher, you or Shores I know where my money will go.
- Status
