Yes but only on clear road and highways, theoretically a horse can go anywhere, but by 1939 they were restricted to the roads.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes but only on clear road and highways, theoretically a horse can go anywhere, but by 1939 they were restricted to the roads.Horses may have been of little use in a cross country cavalry charge but EVERY European power except England relied on horses for the movement of goods on public roads and their armies relied on them for the movement of guns and supplies whenever and wherever the railroads could not be relied on or were overloaded.
There were 113,000 universal carriers produced, how many have been seen in a WW2 movie? 26,00 Lloyd carriers too. There were 3 time as many Jeeps produced but 100 times more appeared in movies.
The bulk of the German army that attacked Poland and later France was horse drawn. Much of the Italian Army was horse drawn, not the part that went to Africa.Yes but only on clear road and highways, theoretically a horse can go anywhere, but by 1939 they were restricted to the roads.
I was mainly discussing scouting and civilian movement, not even exclusively by horse. Fencing off of fields meant that roads had to be used.The bulk of the German army that attacked Poland and later France was horse drawn. Much of the Italian Army was horse drawn, not the part that went to Africa.
Few of those horse drawn wagons or larger artillery pieces were going very far off road with horse traction even if there was no barbed wire or fences.
A large part of the French army was horse drawn.
Ok, I'll bite, and it's not about horse power, but the usual suspects.
Meaning the bf 109 and the Spitfire, though as both were among the few making it all through the war, it's hardly surprising they get discussed a lot. And though their late war merits can be debated (that at least should be evidenced by countless threads), looking at the time before the appearance of the Fw 190 they tower above practically everything else (a not altogether unproblematic statement, but at least in raw performance they seem to have no early equal. Thus, as an aside, I do believe the Spitfire mk I to have a good speed for the power available). But in comparing the two, it is interesting to note some rare features they had in common, but that few later found it worth copying.
What i am thinking about in this context is the arrangement of radiators under the wings. To be sure Messerschmitt used it on the 110 and on later designs, but apart from those, from what I can recall right now, only the Re 2001 had a similar arrangement, though I look forward to get a listing of the several designs I'm certain I'm overlooking here, preferably with pictures, thanks in advance. However, this common feature of two top fighters never became anything near standard throughout the world of fighter aircraft, and i would be very interested in hearing the rest of the forums opinions on the pros and cons of this arrangement?
Should anybody think that's not enough on their plate, i can throw in the annular radiators known from a few allied, but many German designs, the Ju 88 family, He 219 and Fw 190D springs to mind. In some previous thread the arrangement was deemed not very efficient in cooling for the price paid in drag, and I'm wondering if it was mostly the ease of interchangability between radials and in-line on the same basic airframe, and that it was the easiest way to find/make room for it?
I'm looking forward to yet another round of messerspit bashing...
I thought the power egg idea was strategic, in case an engine manufacturer was hit?The Merlin XX power egg was designed to replace the Hercules on the Beaufighter. It contained the radiator, and oil coolers (?), so it was a direct swap.
.
Even if the fields weren't fenced, roads are preferred: they were likely to require less energy, especially to pull a wagon, and the crops in a field would get damaged.I was mainly discussing scouting and civilian movement, not even exclusively by horse. Fencing off of fields meant that roads had to be used.
I would note in addition that the roads were usually hard packed or gravel and while a good rain might make a mess of them you are going to get more horse drawn wagons over a road, in part due to the lower rolling resistance/less energy in a period of time than field or meadow that is going to rut very quickly.E
Even if the fields weren't fenced, roads are preferred: they were likely to require less energy, especially to pull a wagon, and the crops in a field would get damaged.
I thought the power egg idea was strategic, in case an engine manufacturer was hit?
I note that the only reference for his assertion is "I think I read in a book once".
The undercarriage bit, especially, and on the Spitfire, especially. With that thin wing, you would have thought you'd want the fat wheel inboard, on the thickest part of the wing.I would verry much like to hear everyones thoughts on design on issues pertaining to a particular plane that kept ok planes from being good, good planes from being great, and great planes from being darn near perfect( or at least as close to it as could be humanly expected at the time of its design). The obvious picks for me are two great planes that could have been darn near perfect , the Bf109 and the spitfire, both for the same two issues. Those being the narrow undercarriage and limited fuel capacity. I'm sure there are many examples so " why the heck did they design it that way"
I would verry much like to hear everyones thoughts on design on issues pertaining to a particular plane that kept ok planes from being good, good planes from being great, and great planes from being darn near perfect( or at least as close to it as could be humanly expected at the time of its design). The obvious picks for me are two great planes that could have been darn near perfect , the Bf109 and the spitfire, both for the same two issues. Those being the narrow undercarriage and limited fuel capacity. I'm sure there are many examples so " why the heck did they design it that way"
I never thought of that contradiction in thinking you so aptly point out. Ya if the bomber will always get through then whats with all the interceptors.The undercarriage bit, especially, and on the Spitfire, especially. With that thin wing, you would have thought you'd want the fat wheel inboard, on the thickest part of the wing.
Fuel capacity.
Well, we know the Spitfire was designed as a point interceptor, a defensive fighter, so less range, less fuel, less weight, more speed, better rate of climb, etc.
And both were tactical, rather than Strategic weapons. The bomber would always get through (Sir Hugh Trenchard) so no need for escort fighters. Just need masses of short range fighters to shoot down as many bombers as possible of the enemies.
That conflict in thinking has always bothered me.
MY bombers will always get through, so I need no escorts, but I can build fighters so the enemy CAN'T get through with HIS bombers.
Germany too thought of their aircraft TACTICALLY, to safeguard short range medium bombers, with a forward placement of shorter ranged fighters.
I agree, a conundrum m.
Dave
And thanks for the heads up on the book. Looks good and like it might answer quite a few other questions I have about early war and pre war thinking. Several people here have given me some really goog book suggestions. Just got my first delivery of 3 of those yesterday as a matter of fact.View attachment 503592
There is a good book on British thinking in WW2 and just prior.
Attached image. There are lots of used copies on Amazon. That's where I got mine.
Maybe it's just because we have the benefit of hindsight but some of that stuff really does make one wonder about the thought process.There was a lot of contradictory thinking going on.
Like,
Lets use a fixed pitch prop on the interceptors so that will save around 200-250lbs on a 5500lb airplane and give us better climb..........
Of course because the pitch on a fixed pitch prop suitable for 350mph is so extreme it means we have to throttle our 3000rpm engine down to no more than 2200rpm (less?) for take-off and limit it to somewhere between 2200rpm and 2400rpm (depending on altitude) when climbing instead of the 2600rpm the engine is rated for max continuous (or at least 1/2 hour) but hey, the lighter weight will make up for the loss in power, right??????????