WW2 Aviation Mythbusters

[parsifal]

Respect the former member! He can not answer to you!!!! That s elementary behavior !

No, I dont respect him, or his crackpot theories . Havent mentioned his name, and its his tough luck given that he got himself banned (nothing to do with me). the number of times he blind sided me in his time in this place I am going to show him the same respect as he showed me in his time here


Edit:

plus one thing I forgot....it is quite funny to think about those days from this point

 

[Readie]

controversial....Seafires in 1945, in the pacific, opperating from the fleet carriers, had a staggeringly high accident rate

Seafire LIII - 887 Sqn FAA HMS INDEFATIGABLE 1945


SLt G J "Spud" Murphy destroyed 2 A6M5s Zeroes during a raid over Odaki Bay, Japan on 15 Aug 1945 in this aircraft. On returning to INDEFATIGABLE, the pilots learned that a cease fire was to take effect from 0700 the following morning and that 6 long years of war was finally over.

The engagement, by Seafires of 887 and 894 Sqns, escorting Avengers of 820 Sqn, was the final British aerial victory of WW2 and resulted in 8 confirmd kills, 3 probables and 4 damaged.

Just as the first confirmed victory of the war had fallen to the Fleet Air Arm, so had the last.


Very fitting

John

 

[Siegfried]

One of my favourites....no tigers were knocked by the Allied AT fire in the whole of Normandy. They all ran out of petrol or were otherwise just abandoned.

I believe that one was started by one of our very own former members.....try and guess which one...

There is some basis to this:

The 17 pounder could under no circumstances penetrate the frontal armour of the Tiger II using any ammunitiin.
The 17 pounder when firing APDS at the front of a Panther had only a 25% chance of penetrating at 500 yards. This is
according to British tests using captured Panthers.
The Tiger I might be about the same as the Panther in protection, though slope effects greatly helped the panther.

 

[parsifal]

There is some basis to this:

The 17 pounder could under no circumstances penetrate the frontal armour of the Tiger II using any ammunitiin.
The 17 pounder when firing APDS at the front of a Panther had only a 25% chance of penetrating at 500 yards. This is
according to British tests using captured Panthers.
The Tiger I might be about the same as the Panther in protection, though slope effects greatly helped the panther.

LOL

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... The 17 pounder could under no circumstances penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger II using any ammunition. ..."

Who shot Michael Whitman ....? and where ...?

MM
Proud Canadian

 

[vanir]

My understanding is that the YB-40s were more than capable of keeping up with the main bomber stream on the way to target, but once the main force had dropped their bombs they were simply too heavy and not fast enough.

One B-17E was converted to use Allison V-1710s instead of the Wright R-1820s, producing a noticeable, if not significant, performance gain. After initial combat reports some thought was given to using V-1710s on the YB-40s, but that died when the concept was abandoned.

You guys had one of those at Port Moresby. Went all the way to rabaul to do some recon. Got attacked by zeros all the way back. Apparently it was severely altitude restricted by all the gun weight, the zeros were having a field day, but it shot most of them down and returned to base with a lot of holes and a few dead crew iirc. It was on Dogfights.

 

[vanir]

".... The 17 pounder could under no circumstances penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger II using any ammunition. ..."

Who shot Michael Whitman ....? and where ...?

MM
Proud Canadian

I heard this from a tanker on a dvd documentary iirc, told the tale of two Koenigtigers that led about a hundred Berlin refugees past a line of forward entrenchments at the river beachead by the russians very late in the war.
At one point they were crossing an open field across the sights of an infantry antitank battery, which fired and scored several hits and gained no effect. The tanks rolled on. The tanker said the russians then called a general artillery strike from their rear positions onto the field, which erupted in smoke and explosions from things like 10-15cm guns. When it all cleared most of the refugees were of course dead, one tiger was knocked out by the tracks but the crew was okay and exiting. The second continued rolling along.

Nice qualifier for a myth. But I usually note at the time if something was well referenced or not, and I remember this as a convincing tale, despite the tale itself being somewhat incredible. War vets say odd things though, I saw this decorated Russian General sit and claim point blank that one time the German attack was so brutal that he literally saw his mens hair turn white in front of his eyes. He refused to admit he was using a colloquial, he claimed it was quite literal like magic.
They say odd things sometimes, but went through hell. It's fair enough. In one sense everything's always true if someone had a lot of feeling for the experience, even if it means something else sort of.

 

[wuzak]

You guys had one of those at Port Moresby. Went all the way to rabaul to do some recon. Got attacked by zeros all the way back. Apparently it was severely altitude restricted by all the gun weight, the zeros were having a field day, but it shot most of them down and returned to base with a lot of holes and a few dead crew iirc. It was on Dogfights.

I think that was a standard B-17 - maybe an F.

By you guys do you mean Aussies?

 

[Milosh]

Two more...

"The Norden bombsight could put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 10,000 feet."

An obvious exaggeration, but an indication of the improvement in accuracy possible in skilled hands. Unfortunately, the sight required a clear view of the target from a considerable distance away, a long straight run to the target and accurate knowledge of ground wind conditions. A situation taken for granted in the clear air of California, but sadly not possible in cloudy European skies. Add a nineteen year old bomb-aimer, and the 8th Air Force's move to daylight area bombing was inevitable.

"The Miles M.52 supersonic research aircraft was 90% complete when cancelled in 1946."

In fact construction had barely started. The authoritative book 'Project Cancelled' says that "...90 per cent of the detail design had been completed, assembly jigs were finished, the component assembly programme was well advanced and the augmentor fan had been built." Which is not the same thing as 90% complete.

John

John, why don't you just provide the link to the site you are getting these from?

 

[vanir]

No I mean the 5th (?), one of Mc Arthurs. Nah it was heavily modified with something like double the number of normal fifties, specifically for long range recon. They went on about it a bit in the episode.

 

[Readie]

John, why don't you just provide the link to the site you are getting these from?

Because their are loads on it and I did not want to swamp the thread.
The myths are quite interesting I think.
Just google 'Aviation Myth's if you want to see for yourself.
They are cut and pasted unaltered.
Cheers
John

 

[Denniss]

".... The 17 pounder could under no circumstances penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger II using any ammunition. ..."

Who shot Michael Whitman ....? and where ...?

MM
Proud Canadian

Wittmann was in a Tiger I

 

[Shortround6]

Perhaps the tank discussion could go to another thread?

There already seems to be a fair amount of confusion that requires too much explanation to be be put into this thread.

 

[michaelmaltby]

My bad .... Tiger I's were of course known push-overs ..

MM

 

[vanir]

Good point. How about, that Germany's aviation industry was more technologically advanced than other belligerant powers. There was certainly a fright for it at the time for the Allies, but in reality the technical departments of all the major nations were pretty much én par. Most issues were industrial in nature.

 

[Readie]

Good point. How about, that Germany's aviation industry was more technologically advanced than other belligerant powers. There was certainly a fright for it at the time for the Allies, but in reality the technical departments of all the major nations were pretty much én par. Most issues were industrial in nature.

True enough, a lot of the better ideas were inadvertently shared in pre war Europe. German visitors at Rolls Royce and vice versa.

John

 

[buffnut453]

On 27th. November, 1941, Pilot Officer Charles Palliser noted, in his logbook, that he'd flown "Faith" on a Met Flight. In 1943, as he left Malta, Lt-Col H.E.C. Weldon R.A., who'd commanded the British AA garrison, wrote ,"Looking down I saw below us Hal Far, with its memories of Faith, Hope and Charity." Also in 1943, Gloster Aircraft Co. named the Gladiators as F, H, C in their advertisements in "The Aeroplane." The booklet "The Air Battle of Malta," printed by HMSO, in 1944, includes the names in its narrative.

But none of that indicates that the names were applied during the combat use of the Gladiators. It's entirely feasible that the F, H, C names came into being in the period Jun-Nov 41 as a propaganda boost given that, by then, it was clear that Malta would not be taken. Thus it seems reasonable that the statements of Burges and others can be aligned.

 

[tomo pauk]

Good point. How about, that Germany's aviation industry was more technologically advanced than other belligerant powers. There was certainly a fright for it at the time for the Allies, but in reality the technical departments of all the major nations were pretty much én par. Most issues were industrial in nature.

Good call.
It was really the application of air power that Germany was ahead of most countries, in most of the categories. My claim applies for pre-1942 era, though.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

But none of that indicates that the names were applied during the combat use of the Gladiators. It's entirely feasible that the F, H, C names came into being in the period Jun-Nov 41 as a propaganda boost given that, by then, it was clear that Malta would not be taken. Thus it seems reasonable that the statements of Burges and others can be aligned.

Believe what you want.

 

[iron man]

Good point. How about, that Germany's aviation industry was more technologically advanced than other belligerant powers. There was certainly a fright for it at the time for the Allies, but in reality the technical departments of all the major nations were pretty much én par. Most issues were industrial in nature.

Sorry, I disagree.
To the point, I would propose the fact that German science held a significant lead on the WAllies in the field of transonic/hypersonic aerodynamics. Germany built the first high transonic wind tunnel (in the mid-30's) and the facilities connected with the University of Gottingen defined the "state of the art" by war's end.

America's first such facility did not not become operational until July 1942. Privately funded (the "powers that be" steadfastly refused to invest in such infrastructure ), it could achieve Mach 2.5, although only in a 9" x 9" (81 in/sq) area.

When the research facility at Penemunde was over run at war's end, a fully functional Mach 5 (i.e. true "hypersonic") wind tunnel was discovered...

By the end of the war, the NACA folks were certainly "catching up" in some respects. The post-war union of all the research done on "both sides of the fence", allowed for the quantum leap in US/British aircraft designs which characterized the late 1940's and early 50's. German science (and technology transfer) also played an undeniable role in the design work at the various bureaus in the USSR. Due to the nature of the Soviet regime, much of this story will likely never be fully told, at least in an academically supportable manner.

Of particular note is the work of one Adolf Busemann, the man responsible for the swept wing, and the initial definition of the "area rule" principle.

Here's a link to a very well researched dissertation looking at the topic you've raised. It is extensively footnoted for those who wish to use it as a springboard for further research.

LINK