PDA

View Full Version : Did Britain have some of the best planes of WW2 ?



mynameisroland
10-25-2005, 08:30 AM
As a response to other post its worth recognising that Britain had possibly the finest selection of WW2 aircraft from any nation.

Spitfire
Hurricane
Mosquito
Tempest
Typhoon
Lancaster
Swordfish
Vampire
Halifax

BSS_Goat
10-25-2005, 08:46 AM
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Warhawk
Lightning
Corsair
Hellcat
SBD
B-17
B-24

If I could change text colors I would use red white and blue.

p1ngu666
10-25-2005, 08:46 AM
u forgot the wellington and whirlwind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and teh p51 too? its atleast partly british http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and the beufighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

mynameisroland
10-25-2005, 09:03 AM
The difference with the British list is that most of the aircraft on it were the best of their categories. For the USA Id say Mustang, P47 and B17 were best at their roles ( Im being generous as P47 and P51 fullfilled the same roll )

For British aircraft

The Mosquito was the best twin bomber/strike fighter of any nation.

The Spitfire was arguably the best point defence interceptor/dogfighter.

The Lancaster was the best nocturnal 4 engined bomber.

The Typhoon was the most effective ground attack fighter.

The Tempest was the best medium to low altitude fighter to see service.

I'll leave it at these for now but you could also say that Vampire was the best Jet fighter to be classed in the WW2 category but I wont push that one on you.

BSS_Goat
10-25-2005, 09:22 AM
http://www.know-britain.com/images/an_un_jack.gif


Bloody fine kites, m8.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif(lets not forget Hellcat best carrier born fighter)

Xiolablu3
10-25-2005, 09:32 AM
I'd say Germany and Britain battled for the the best thru the war, one making a step then the other countering.

The US developed some great aircraft for other roles than the 'norm' '(But developed the best bomber in the B29)

Russia had a slow start but by the end of the war was in parity with the rest.

All the big 5 (Germany,Britain,Russia,Japan,USA)countries had aircraft that were the best in their field at some point in the war. (262,FW190,Spit,hellcat,IL2,P51,B29,Zero and many more)

Chuck_Older
10-25-2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Warhawk
Lightning
Corsair
Hellcat
SBD
B-17
B-24

If I could change text colors I would use red white and blue.


<span class="ev_code_RED">You can't</span> <span class="ev_code_WHITE">Change your</span> <span class="ev_code_BLUE">text color</span>?

p1ngu666
10-25-2005, 09:41 AM
wonder if we can get oleg to mod this
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///uberspit.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

mk5 airframe, with a griffon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif and a mear 6 hispano cannons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

mk12, for low to mid alt operations, and with r0x0r firepower. perfect for fb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

quick maths
1 hispano = 3 50cals, 1 50cal is worth id guess 2.5 303's
so 6x3=18, 18x2.5=45
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

skabbe
10-25-2005, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Warhawk
Lightning
Corsair
Hellcat
SBD
B-17
B-24

If I could change text colors I would use red white and blue.

sucks
sucks
sucks
cool
cool
sucks
sucks
sucks
cool

Arm_slinger
10-25-2005, 09:43 AM
I'd say the Halifax was better than the Lanc- it was used in far more roles, and had lower combat losses compared to the lanc i think. If anyone wants to start comparing operations records, ratios etc etc then by all means go for it, the Halifax was better imo, the Lanc stole the glory. Dont get me wrong though, i love the Lanc

BSS_Goat
10-25-2005, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

<span class="ev_code_RED">You can't</span> <span class="ev_code_WHITE">Change your</span> <span class="ev_code_BLUE">text color</span>?

Uhhh I'm a moron .....

Doug_Thompson
10-25-2005, 09:58 AM
Every major industrial power in WWII, and several of the smaller ones, designed outstanding aircraft. The difference was, the Allies could afford to produce them. They could also keep them flying.

Chuck_Older
10-25-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by skabbe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Warhawk
Lightning
Corsair
Hellcat
SBD
B-17
B-24

If I could change text colors I would use red white and blue.

sucks
sucks
sucks
cool
cool
sucks
sucks
sucks
cool </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mister, you're drinking a candle!

danjama
10-25-2005, 10:23 AM
isnt anyone going to mention the <span class="ev_code_GREEN">fine italian planes?</span>

danjama
10-25-2005, 10:26 AM
PS <span class="ev_code_RED">spi</span>tf<span class="ev_code_BLUE">ire</span> was the best fighter of the war! Period. And the Lanc is just beautiful! Maneuvers like a fighter for gods sake lol

ploughman
10-25-2005, 10:26 AM
Now that was funny, Chuck.

National Geographic thought the P-51 was the superlative fighter off WWII and they photograph chimpanzees so they must be right.

JtD
10-25-2005, 10:44 AM
While the UK did have a couple of fine aircraft they all had their downsides. So I don't think it makes sense say this and that plane was best in it's category.

But they certainly had some of the best, Mosquito, Tempest, Beaufighter come to my mind immediatly. Regarding the early war I also consider the Wellington a good design.

Swordfish was ****, seriously. Compare it to contemporary carrier based bombers and its obvious.

If you put a British design on the top spot of night bombing - may I ask you which other nation performed massive night bombing in 1943 and later?

What's up with the Hurricane? It was outclassed by a lot of contemporary designs, i.e. I-16, Bf 109 & P-40. In it's late days, starting 1941, it was pathetic.

And all this still leaves the question how the rather expensive British designs would have performed under Eastern Front conditions? Or in other theatres in general? Like the Mosquito, that got eaten up by south Asian insects and climate, which would not have happened to an all metal construction...

biggs222
10-25-2005, 10:47 AM
Spit mkXIV probably the best fighter in the war, with the addition of the 90 gallon slipper tank it could do fighter sweeps deep in to germany...

it had the speed the manouverablity and firepower to best any fighter out there.

WOLFMondo
10-25-2005, 11:15 AM
By the time the XIV was introduced en masse airfield where just an hour or twos flight away from Germany. RAF 2nd TAF XIV's where right up at the frontline airfields.


Originally posted by JtD:
And all this still leaves the question how the rather expensive British designs would have performed under Eastern Front conditions? Or in other theatres in general? Like the Mosquito, that got eaten up by south Asian insects and climate, which would not have happened to an all metal construction...

a couple of fine aircraft? We had allot thanks:P

Swordfish ****? What plane sunk the Italian fleet? It was slow but tough, reliable and perfect for carrier use early in the war. I'd take one over and SBD any day of the week.

You'll find allot of British aircraft where used in all the fronts the British fought in, which was all of them to a smaller or larger degree:P. Both the US and VVS used British aircraft in various theatres.

The extremes of the winter in 1944/45 in Europe was almost as bad as any Russian winter. Read any 2nd TAF pilot account and they also mention the dust and the extreme conditions they worked up with airfields on the front line.

Europe itself from the med up to Norway has very extreme weather conditions, from the exceptionally hot to freezing, look at the UK's proximity to the arctic circle. Also think about all the work the RAF did in Norway and the Maritime role in the North Atlantic which is not a nice place on a bad day.

The mossie problem was the wood glue, which was fixedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Night bombing? We copied the Germans but did it sooo much better.

mynameisroland
10-25-2005, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
While the UK did have a couple of fine aircraft they all had their downsides. So I don't think it makes sense say this and that plane was best in it's category.

But they certainly had some of the best, Mosquito, Tempest, Beaufighter come to my mind immediatly. Regarding the early war I also consider the Wellington a good design.

Swordfish was ****, seriously. Compare it to contemporary carrier based bombers and its obvious.

If you put a British design on the top spot of night bombing - may I ask you which other nation performed massive night bombing in 1943 and later?

What's up with the Hurricane? It was outclassed by a lot of contemporary designs, i.e. I-16, Bf 109 & P-40. In it's late days, starting 1941, it was pathetic.

And all this still leaves the question how the rather expensive British designs would have performed under Eastern Front conditions? Or in other theatres in general? Like the Mosquito, that got eaten up by south Asian insects and climate, which would not have happened to an all metal construction...

The Hurricane performed superbly in BoB shooting down more enemy aircraft than all the other weapons systems put together. Thats why it deserves a mention albeit brief. I would dispute the fact that the P40 and I16 were better. Maybe i am weighing up RAF pilots in my opinion but I dont think the I16 would be able to destroy formations of Luftwaffe bombers and mix it up with fighters so effectively.

The Spitfire accepted change like no other fighter only the 109 came close and the last models of the Spitfire I feel edge out the K4 and G10 109.

The Swordfish may have seemed a pos but it destroyed more Axis shipping than any other airplane so it gets a mention. It also played an invaluable role against the U boats.

The Mosquito was superlative there is even an argument it was the best night fighter / intruder also.

The Lancaster wins heavy 4 engined night bomber by default but then so what? Just because no other nation other than the USA pressed ahead with long range fighters so persistantly does that make that category worthless too?

Germany diverted enourmous amounts of resources to coping with the night raids. I dont agree with them but they wrought more havoc to Germany than the day light raids did.

major_setback
10-25-2005, 11:39 AM
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">P</span><span class="ev_code_RED">l</span><span class="ev_code_GREEN">e</span><span class="ev_code_BLUE">a</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">s</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">e</span> <span class="ev_code_BLUE">P</span><span class="ev_code_RED">l</span><span class="ev_code_GREEN">e</span><span class="ev_code_BLUE">a</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">s</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">e</span> <span class="ev_code_BLUE">P</span><span class="ev_code_RED">l</span><span class="ev_code_GREEN">e</span><span class="ev_code_BLUE">a</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">s</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">e</span> <span class="ev_code_PURPLE">!</span> <span class="ev_code_RED">T</span><span class="ev_code_GREEN">h</span><span class="ev_code_BLUE">e</span> <span class="ev_code_PINK">p</span><span class="ev_code_PURPLE">s</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">y</span><span class="ev_code_PURPLE">c</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">h</span><span class="ev_code_PURPLE">e</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">d</span><span class="ev_code_PURPLE">e</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">l</span><span class="ev_code_PURPLE">i</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">c</span> <span class="ev_code_BROWN">e</span><span class="ev_code_GREY">r</span><span class="ev_code_WHITE">a</span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">i</span><span class="ev_code_RED">s</span> <span class="ev_code_GREEN">o</span> <span class="ev_code_BLUE">v</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">e</span><span class="ev_code_BROWN">r</span><span class="ev_code_RED">!</span>

<span class="ev_code_RED">S</span><span class="ev_code_GREEN">t</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">o</span><span class="ev_code_GREY">p</span> <span class="ev_code_GREEN">t</span><span class="ev_code_BLUE">h</span><span class="ev_code_PURPLE">i</span><span class="ev_code_BROWN">s</span> <span class="ev_code_RED">c</span><span class="ev_code_GREEN">o</span><span class="ev_code_PURPLE">l</span><span class="ev_code_BLUE">o</span><span class="ev_code_GREY">u</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">r</span> <span class="ev_code_RED">m</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">a</span><span class="ev_code_RED">d</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">n</span><span class="ev_code_RED">e</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">s</span><span class="ev_code_RED">s</span><span class="ev_code_PINK">!</span><span class="ev_code_GREEN">!</span><span class="ev_code_BLUE">!</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">!</span>

?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


m_s

BaldieJr
10-25-2005, 11:52 AM
As an All-American stud with lots of money, I think these threads are quaint.

Mine is friggen huge man.

Archangel2980
10-25-2005, 12:07 PM
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/issues/Issue.07-21-2005/hotpicks/Monday/Article.2005-07-20.1420/lead.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JtD
10-25-2005, 12:08 PM
I am not going to be the 'bad guy' here, really, there is too much involved in judging ac performance.

I know the Swordfish did excellent jobs, but nonetheless it was out dated by the beginning of WW2. Slow, low, rather small range, lack of decent defensive armarment and limited loadout are all downsides for this plane. A plane with these attributes can hardly be one of the best planes of WW2. It's very much the Ju-87 of the RN.

The Hurricane did do a tremendous job in the BoB, but again you are focusing on one task: bomber interception. Look at how it got slaughtered by the Japanese and by the Germans over France or later over the Desert, this tells the other side of the story.

p1ngu666
10-25-2005, 12:13 PM
the swordfish's slow speed, easy handling, extreme manoverability, toughness made it one of the best. and as a convoy escort it was the best, the slow speed helped, long loiter time, and it could set down on tiny pitching decks.

the very presence of them would force the uboats to remain underwater, and therefor slower (8knots or so) so the convoy would sail away.

the lanc was a better bomber than the halifax, but the halifax was a better maritime aircraft. they would fit long range tanks in the fusealarge bomb bay, and use the wing bomb bays for bombs.

the stirling was a disapointment, but u could catapult it fully loaded http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

the two main 4 engine german planes where the he177, which had a habit of setting fire to itself, and the fw200, with its long rage (bonus) weak construction (oops ive fallen apart) and unprotected fuel tanks too on some atleast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

attacking england was easier than attacking germany. in the uk your aprently never more than 80miles/km from the "coast" or atleast a large body of water.

uglyohyeah
10-25-2005, 01:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Warhawk
Lightning
Corsair
Hellcat
SBD
B-17
B-24

If I could change text colors I would use red white and blue.

-----------------

(Tongue firmly in cheek) er....wasn't the Mustang technically British?

p1ngu666
10-25-2005, 02:20 PM
partly, atleast

lightning was named by teh british
corsair too? (first action wid teh RN aswell)
b17 first used in anger by teh british http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
lib, named by teh british and used by them aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

jarink
10-25-2005, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
If you put a British design on the top spot of night bombing - may I ask you which other nation performed massive night bombing in 1943 and later?

Ummm, the B-29? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
They virtually destroyed several Japanese cities once LeMay switched them to low level night fire raids.

The "best" of anything is very relative, though. Are we talking about the best design compared to others available at tht same time or everything used during the course of the war? Is the "best" as far as combat record? Production numbers?

My relavite best:
Heavy Bomber - B-29s were the technical height of heavy bomber design during WWII. Range, firepower, bombload. Two B-19s, Enola Gay and Bock's Car, literally ended the war.
Medium Bomber - Ju88. Good bombload, fast, very versatile and rugged.
Light Bomber - Mosquito.
Attack - IL-2!
Defensive fighter - Spitfire. Overall excellent maneuverability, but range and low external payload relegates it to the "defensive" category.
Fighter-Bomber - P-47. The Jug could carry tons (literally) and fight on equal terms at all altitudes.
Escort Fighter - P-51. Yes, the Brits can claim some influence here since the design was made for the RAF and they suggested using the Merlin. While not quite as manuverable in a knife-fight as a Spitfire, it could reach farther and engage the Bfs and Fws on equal or better terms.
Carrier Fighter - F6F. The Corsiar looks cooler had had somewhat better performance, but it had a bunch of little problems that made it less suitable for carrier ops.
Dive Bomber - This is a tough one. I'll have to go with the SBD over the Stuka mainly because the SBD remained relatively unchanged through it's long career (indicating a very sound design) and was more popular and in some respects superior to it's replacement, the SB2C.
Torpedo Plane - TBF/TBM. No one torpedo plane stands out to me, but the TBF gets the edge because of it's superior defensive armament and internal weapons bay.
Jet fighter - Me-262. If Hitler had not demanded they be made into bombers, these very advanced planes would have wreaked havoc with US bomber formations.
Jet bomber - Really only one choice, is there? Ar-234.

VFA-25_Peckens
10-25-2005, 03:27 PM
i agree with u jarink except the best fighter bomber being the 47, sure i love the 47 but what about the corsair, it was as strong as the 47,the corsair didnt have as many mgs but was faster at low alt and manuverable, and i think the corsair could carry alot more than the 47

ImpStarDuece
10-25-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
I'd say the Halifax was better than the Lanc- it was used in far more roles, and had lower combat losses compared to the lanc i think. If anyone wants to start comparing operations records, ratios etc etc then by all means go for it, the Halifax was better imo, the Lanc stole the glory. Dont get me wrong though, i love the Lanc

The Lancaster had a bigger bombload, longer range, better fuel efficiency and stronger construction. It also had a lower loss rate than the Halifax and a lower operational accident rate. On average the Lancaster dropped 131 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, the Halifax 56 tons and the Stirling 41 tons.

The Halifax was used in more roles because Bomber Command decided on the Lancaser as its primary bomber. Therefor the HAlifax was released more freely for other duties, while the Lanc bore the brunt of the bombing offensive against Germany.

p1ngu666
10-25-2005, 03:35 PM
Jet fighter - Me-262. If Hitler had not demanded they be made into bombers, these very advanced planes would have wreaked havoc with US bomber formations.

thank god hitler asked for that, or the real reason would be stated!, ie the engines fell apart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

typhoon for ground attack tbh, cos it was really intimidating. NO other plane comes close in terms of intimidation. and yes ive seen several p47s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

corsair is fairly intimidating with the bent wings..

b29 was best in very end of 44 and onwards...

BSS_Goat
10-25-2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by uglyohyeah:
quote:
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Warhawk
Lightning
Corsair
Hellcat
SBD
B-17
B-24

If I could change text colors I would use red white and blue.

-----------------

(Tongue firmly in cheek) er....wasn't the Mustang technically British?


Get the rope boys, there's gonna be a hangin'

Daiichidoku
10-25-2005, 03:46 PM
once the halifax III came out, with its revised rudder config and herc engines, it was MUCH improved...Is and IIs could go into unrecoverable flat spins due to its being massivly underpowered and unsuitable rudder config, appearantly without much abuse by the pilot

in fact, many bomber crews actually preferred halifax IIIs over the the lanc

had the halifax been given better engines, and the rudder was revised earlier, IMO it would have been as produced, or even more than (in light of merlin production likely more going to fighters, assuming the halifax would be there to take a greater share of bombing duties) then the lanc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gifyes, i just said it

stirling was thankfully retired relativly early on...but its one of the nicest Uglyplanes ever...up there with barras and lysanders

stirlings would cruise nose down, as its wings AoA was set fairly high, to aid in takeoff....and that undercarriage! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Daiichidoku
10-25-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by uglyohyeah:
quote:
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Warhawk
Lightning
Corsair
Hellcat
SBD
B-17
B-24

If I could change text colors I would use red white and blue.

-----------------

(Tongue firmly in cheek) er....wasn't the Mustang technically British?


Get the rope boys, there's gonna be a hangin' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lets hope so!

and dont forget, mustang also had german roots, too

the all-american fighter...there but for limeys n krauts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


cmon though...if one had his choice between a 51 or a 38, why would he waste his time and life on a stang?

uglyohyeah
10-25-2005, 04:35 PM
Last word from the gallows:

In all fairness the Americans did kick start the Germans interest in dive bombers, I think Udet saw a demonstration of US dive bombers in '37.

Also the British did a great job of wrecking the lightning, after demanding the removal of the superchargers and use of common handed props on both sides. It was so bad the brits refused to use them and the americans would only use them for training!

Any chance of stay of execution?

cheers uglyohyeah (I am a Brit)

P.S. talking of the brits wrecking planes, wasn't the Stirling performance poor because the RAF demanded that the wingspan be resticted so that it would fit in standard hangers.

MrBlueSky1960
10-26-2005, 03:04 AM
uglyohyeah

P.S. talking of the brits wrecking planes, wasn't the Stirling performance poor because the RAF demanded that the wingspan be resticted so that it would fit in standard hangers.

The 'Official' specification insisted that the wing be less than 100ft, indeed, the width of a standard hanger door... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif And the fuselage cross section the size of a standard packing case... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

As was mentioned earlier, this handicapped the Stirlings operational ceiling which proved a serious consqence to crew when they were called to fly through http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif the alps, rather than over them on the way to Italian targets...

nakamura_kenji
10-26-2005, 03:21 AM
the all-american fighter...there but for limeys n krauts

sound M1 abrams all american tank british armour(1st gen chobham) /german gun(120mm rhinemetal) ^_^

mynameisroland
10-26-2005, 06:58 AM
Absolute best dogfighter would be the Spitfire XIV.

Absolute best tactical fighter would be the Tempest.

Absolute best nightfighter/intruder/fast bomber would have to be the Mosquito.


Are any of these even debatable? I dont think the concept of dogfighter was cutting edge in 1944/45 I would rather fly a Fockewulf 190 D9 than a Spitfire XIV but it was still an awesome fighter aircraft. Range was not as important a factor once the RAF started using airfields in France and the low countries.

The Typhoon was imo a more effective tank buster as it was optimised for low altitude work, its cannons were more effective than the P47's armament( sorry for those who think P47's killed Tigers using .50's) and it was faster than the oposition. The P47 was carrying a massive turbocharger as effectively dead weight while operating in the ground attack role.

JtD
10-26-2005, 08:33 AM
The Swordfishs career only went that well because it never faced enemy air superiority and only rarely serious AAA. Imagine them attacking a Pacific CV fleet in 1942 or flying tactical support for the Germans in 1943 on the Eastern Front.

Which advantages did the Spit XIV have over say a Ki-84 that makes it absolute better?

Tactical fighter: What about rocket carrying Fockes (u know, the kind of thing that would be easy to add to the sim but hasn't for at least 3 years)? And do we have to compare to Typhoon (slower than late Fockes) or to Tempest (small rocket loadout)? Do we have to take flyability and production/maintenance costs into consideration? Production quality?

Is nightfigher/intruder/fast bomber one category or is that three seperate? I think there were better nightfighters, intruders and fast bombers, like A-26 or He 219. However, it is very hard to find another plane that performed so well in so many different tasks like the Mosquito did.

mynameisroland
10-26-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Swordfishs career only went that well because it never faced enemy air superiority and only rarely serious AAA. Imagine them attacking a Pacific CV fleet in 1942 or flying tactical support for the Germans in 1943 on the Eastern Front.

Which advantages did the Spit XIV have over say a Ki-84 that makes it absolute better?

Tactical fighter: What about rocket carrying Fockes (u know, the kind of thing that would be easy to add to the sim but hasn't for at least 3 years)? And do we have to compare to Typhoon (slower than late Fockes) or to Tempest (small rocket loadout)? Do we have to take flyability and production/maintenance costs into consideration? Production quality?

Is nightfigher/intruder/fast bomber one category or is that three seperate? I think there were better nightfighters, intruders and fast bombers, like A-26 or He 219. However, it is very hard to find another plane that performed so well in so many different tasks like the Mosquito did.

Hello mate

No torpedo bombers could evade or defend themselves against contemporary fighters/carrier based fighters - not even the Avenger (ps can we get this on Tirpitz map please?) The Swordfish played a hugely significant role for Britain in WW2 you could compare its role with the significance the USN gives the Dauntless. Both types were obselete effectively but it did not stop them from being good at their job.

The Spitfire XIV attains higher speeds at higher altitudes than say the Ki84, it is also built to reach higher dive speeds while retaining more elevator authority makingg it a better E fighter. The Spitfire XIV was finished to a higher level of manufacturing and used better quality fuels than the most if not any other fighter, the engineering of its Rolls Royce Griffin was exceptional and its armament well balanced, reliable and hard hitting. Not even a La5FN would come close to a well flown Spitfire XIV.

These factors influence my decison and place it above the La7, the Ki84 , the Bf 109 K4 the Yak3 ect in my estimations.

As for tactical fighter, ignoring the fact that I never said it would be 'easy' to introduce rockets to the F8 190's (it would require new modeling, and no one can be ar_sed implementing it) and despite the fact that few rocket armed Fw's actually saw service I did say that they would add some much welcomed balance to late war maps and would be of much more use than the Me262 rockets we currently have as we have no bomber formations to attack but plenty of T34's and Js2's.

The Typhoon was a better platform than the Fw 190 for anti tank work due to the simple fact it utilised rockets much earlier and saw significant action. It was surely faster than any Fw anton and the Doras had their hands full covering the 262 bases let alone protecting the Panzer formations. The Typhoon had superb low altitude performance which sets it apart from other converted fighters. The Fw 190 was a much better air to air fighter as was the P47 but I wouldnt choose the Typhoon as a pure fighter when the Tempest was far superior in that role.

With regards to the Mosquito it is a tough plane to categorize - this reflects how good it was at many different roles. The A26 isnt considered as it didnt have the same impact as the Mossie it also appeared much later in the war and was slower. As an intruder the Mosuito excelled because it was faster than any nightfighter it was likely to meet, it had a good reliable radar, higher cruise speed than some nightfighters maximum speed, had a long range and had a good anti fighter armament. As a night fighter the only major disadvantage I would give the Mosquito is it did not possess Schrag Musik or the Mk 108. It would however have been able to handily despatch the Lancaster with 4 x 20mm and also catch the bomber version of the Mosquito. The He 219 is controversial. I have read great things about it yet I have read other sources which state it didnt meet its designed speed and it was not very manuverable. One thing also counts against it there were not enough and it was cancelled due to political/production and development problems. It had potential but it was never consistently proven. The Mosquito could claim to be the best at all three categories that is exeptional for one aircraft design, it is also interesting to note that it could be regarded as a new type of aircraft a Strike fighter like the F 111 than a convetional twin.

SlickStick
10-26-2005, 11:05 AM
p1ngu666, quick like a bunny, get that picture off to 1C!!!!! We need that plane in this game ASAP! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh my....6 Hispanos and a Griffon?!?!?

http://img414.imageshack.us/img414/9632/homerdrooling8ay.jpg

JtD
10-26-2005, 11:20 AM
The difference between the Swordfish and the Avenger however would be that a DD could escape a Swordfish just by going full forward. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Good at their job imho is highly different from "best". I'd never question that the Swordfish was and I'd also never question that the Swordfish achieved a lot. But if it was the "best", why did the RN swap it for Avengers on their new fleet carirers?

With regards to the Spitfire: One point that is granted is that it was indeed manufactured to higher standards than any contemporary dogfighters that come to my mind. We could go into detail and show relative advantages/disadvantages of the aircraft you mention compared to the Spit...but I'd like to cut it short: They all have certain advantages and as long as you don't limit dogfight to altitudes above 6000 meters, I'd say none of them is worse than the Spit. I'd also like to add the Yak-9u to your list - and as speed shouldn't be that important in a dogfight, the Ki-100 and N1K-J2.

I say it's easy to implement the rockets for the FW. At least easier than releasing a giant number of planes no one really cares about.

WRT the speed of the Typhoon: It was just as fast as Antons, it very much depended on the altitude. I know late A-9's did make 600 at sea level and I have a hard time finding data of a late Typhoon going just as fast. And at high altitude the advantage certainly is with the FW. Almost throughout the entire war the Typhoon and FW were very close, at least from sea level up to lets say 4000 meters.

Only a few of a fighter bombers targets were tanks. Most were cars & trains. Instead of the rockets the Germans used the highly effective cluster bombs that would devastate a larger area than even 16 rockets. Nonetheless, there are not many planes that can compete with the Typhoon in that category. Apart from FW and P-47 you mentioned, imho only the F4U and the P-38 may have a bid.

How much slower than the Mossie was a A-26 below 10000 feet? Maybe you got good infos, I don't. But I think they are fairly close. The A-26 shipped decent defesive armarment and also carried a larger payload. Only drawback: It really was a late war plane.

Well, I'm a getting deeper into the subject than I wanted to...

Your question was:

Did Britain have some of the best planes of WW2? My answer is: YES!

But I am simply no supporter of the idea that a certain plane was "the best" at something. Simply too much involved. That's why I am arguing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Interminate
10-26-2005, 05:57 PM
No, the worst, with us planes a close 2nd.

p1ngu666
10-26-2005, 07:26 PM
http://www.warbirdalley.com/a26.htm

the bomber mossies would be past 400mph, but at higher alt

teh FBVI could do 355mph at sea level, WITH drop tanks fitted and likely full weight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//mossiegraph.jpg

the invader isnt much slower at 15,000ft

Daiichidoku
10-26-2005, 07:48 PM
Martin-Baker MB.5

dream ship of pilots and airframe fitters alike

ill take this one over ANY spit, ANY day...mind you, ill take a mossie over any spit, any day

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQCTAkYWxjiBgUhdQy1kWvfiVyQcFMXkLjxxIPxuKBPG1A428 84axeccOXlcBLKZDUqZ0MLZ8ehANHOeycRLuItrbGmTe0IgKej Vpn9SZgewAeutwMPquQ/fot064.jpg?dc=4675490750149103990

wayno7777
10-26-2005, 09:30 PM
I just read an article on Martin-Baker. Interesting read. With a little more refinement, the MB.5 could have been awesome. Too bad they only made one or two....

ps the MB.3 pic I saw said the bubble canopy was airbrushed on. They orginally had doors like early Typhoons....

pss IIRC the article is in this months Flypast....

SlickStick
10-26-2005, 09:46 PM
Quite interesting reads, as I just googled up some info about the MB5. I hadn't seen allot of pics of one, but I look at your pic and I see the tail of a P-63, the fuselage and wings of a Mustang, sleek nose of a Yak, Griffon exhaust, and Dornier props (or one of those counter-rotating jobs).

If I didn't know it was a real plane, I'd swear you photo-shopped it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Daiichidoku
10-26-2005, 11:40 PM
a beauty...and with a 2,340horse griffon83, it turned out about 460mph...with no torque...

the previous MB3, that killed Baker in a crash from an engine failure/deadstick landing, used a Sabre, and had 6 20mm


do a search on the MB 2 as well

for never making a plane before, to jumping straight to these three types, MB did a wonderful job


oh, and slick, im sure youve seen the spiteful XVI?
contra prop griffon 101, 2,420 horse, topped out at 494 mph in combat trim!

mynameisroland
10-27-2005, 03:26 AM
The best thing about the Spitfire XIV was that it could fight on equal if not better terms from sea level all of the way up to 40,000ft against any likely opponent. It was more solidly built than tha Yak 9U or the La7 , convincingly outperformed the Fw 190 D9 above 25,000ft and Id take on late Me 109's at any altitude.

It would not be a better choice than the Mustang or D9 for boom and zoom tactics but it would be a better E fighter than any comparable turn fighter as it handles better at speed than a Yak, Ki84's, La7's and much better than a 109 while being on par with roll rate, climb and turn. For a furball it has it all.

p1ngu666
10-27-2005, 03:52 AM
the better sustained climb would help wid teh boom and zoom http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
10-27-2005, 05:41 AM
I think the XIV's let down was its high speed roll rate. It was still a VIII with a different engine but for its time it was probably the best interceptor, point defense fighter and high altitude fighter.

Its other main let down was its range, even with a rear fuel tank the Griffons guzzle fuel.

mynameisroland
10-27-2005, 06:01 AM
I havent explored it much in this patch Wolfmondo but in 4.01 the Spitfire VIII rolled as well as the Fw 190 A5 at 600km/h / 650km/h. Just apply some rudder as you roll and it accelerates in to the roll nicely. The lack of aerilon control at high speeds has always been the downfall of the Spitfire as a Boom and Zoomer but that is historical in so far it was never in the same league as the Mustang or Fw 190 at high speeds. However the Mk VIII was a stiffer stronger airframe than the Vb and IX models which should give the XIV a superior roll rate at high speeds compared to the IX.

Either way it is adequate to allow you to Boom and Zoom effectively. The range factor is of reduced significance once the RAF started using airbases in liberated Europe and in its tactical role the RAF never had the same requirements that the USAAF did.

WOLFMondo
10-27-2005, 06:50 AM
Its rudder does help allot I agree but I think the 190A4 and A5's high speed roll was/is well off. The Spitfire VIII's roll isn't bad though, just not the best. Spitfire VIII has been my favorite offline plane for some time now. I'm still a terrible shot in it.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I can master a 190 but the Spitty is an enigma!

I agree, after D-day range wasn't an issue but theres plenty of images of Spitfire IX's at forward arifields with 44 gallon drop tanks (the long thin cylinder type the Tiffie also could carry) but with the VIII range was very good for a Spitfire.

p1ngu666
10-27-2005, 07:12 AM
nearly all fighters used droptanks later in the war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-27-2005, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Martin-Baker MB.5

dream ship of pilots and airframe fitters alike

ill take this one over ANY spit, ANY day...mind you, ill take a mossie over any spit, any day

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQCTAkYWxjiBgUhdQy1kWvfiVyQcFMXkLjxxIPxuKBPG1A428 84axeccOXlcBLKZDUqZ0MLZ8ehANHOeycRLuItrbGmTe0IgKej Vpn9SZgewAeutwMPquQ/fot064.jpg?dc=4675490750149103990

Whatever happened to that plane? As I recall, test pilots were thrilled. It had removable panels that made it a snap to maintain. Everybody who touched it loved it, but approval to build it never came. It could have been operational before the war ended, as I recall.

What happened?

p1ngu666
10-27-2005, 08:01 AM
jets happened http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

SlickStick
10-27-2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
oh, and slick, im sure youve seen the spiteful XVI? contra prop griffon 101, 2,420 horse, topped out at 494 mph in combat trim!

Sadly, my WWII plane knowledge is quite spotty. I've heard of the Spiteful, but I didn't really become deeply interested in WWII until Jane's WWII Fighters.

As a kid I loved the Spits and the Mustang, but knew little of the huge amount of different planes from WWII and ones that came just a little late to see action. I'll have to start rounding out my knowledge a bit more.

SlickStick
10-27-2005, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The best thing about the Spitfire XIV was that it could fight on equal if not better terms from sea level all of the way up to 40,000ft against any likely opponent. It was more solidly built than tha Yak 9U or the La7 , convincingly outperformed the Fw 190 D9 above 25,000ft and Id take on late Me 109's at any altitude.

It would not be a better choice than the Mustang or D9 for boom and zoom tactics but it would be a better E fighter than any comparable turn fighter as it handles better at speed than a Yak, Ki84's, La7's and much better than a 109 while being on par with roll rate, climb and turn. For a furball it has it all.

Can I get an amen? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I've always been one to choose the better turner over the strict B and Z plane, like a FW. Like the Mk. VIII for instance or even an La-7 sometimes.

That way, I may not be able to follow closely in a full dive, or catch all the way up in a zoom climb, but I can stay close enough that if the fight grinds lower, I'll still be in the better turning plane. I'm usually always cruising at about 3,000-4,000m in my Mk. VIII. She performs well at altitude. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-27-2005, 08:04 AM
Found this (http://grognard.com/zines/ga/g2c.txt)

and this (http://www.martin-baker.com/history_mb5.html)

I guess jets were seen as the next generation. It's sad.

major_setback
10-27-2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Found this (http://grognard.com/zines/ga/g2c.txt)

I guess jets were seen as the next generation. It's sad.

Yes, it is sad. I found this on the MB5...a replica is being made.

http://www.aafo.com/racing/news/00/MB5_1.htm

and here:

http://www.aafo.com/gallery/MB5-2/


More info from the MB company:

http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/history_mb5.html

The MB5:

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fww2/mb5-i.jpg

http://www.aafo.com/gallery/MB5-2/images/mb5.jpg


There was even an MB3:

http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/history_mb3.html

MB3:
http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/images/hist_mb3.jpg

http://www.aafo.com/gallery/MB5-2/images/mb3.jpg

Replica MB5:

http://www.insideairracing.com/gallery/MB5/101_MB5_021.jpg

http://www.insideairracing.com/gallery/MB5/101_MB5_003.jpg

http://www.aafo.com/gallery/MB5-2/images/06.jpg

http://www.aafo.com/gallery/MB5-2/images/03.jpg

JtD
10-27-2005, 08:50 AM
I don't think the Spit XIV has much of an advantage over the Ki-84 in vertical combat. The Ki-84 handled very well at high and low speeds.

Thanks for the Mossie chart, pingu. You happen to know from what year it is and what boost levels were used (with which engines)? Chart looks very much like a 25lb boost, if there ever was 25 lb with Mossies.

pdog1
10-27-2005, 09:00 AM
lol italian series 5 fighters pwn any british airplanes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
10-27-2005, 09:10 AM
In real life or in game? I think in both the Spitfire was the superior of the two aircraft at high speed. In game the Ki84 performs even better than the La5FN( I mean better when compared to the vast majority of examples that actually saw service not prototypes) yet it too loses controls and breaks up earlier than the Spitfire VIII. If we focus on the Ki84 for a late 44 aircraft it isnt that fast. Had it been up against Fw190's and Me 109's rather than Hellcats I dont think its reputation would be so legendary.

Dont have any charts for A26 JtD but by googling it up you can rudimentarily compare the Mosquito to it. From what I have seen the Mosquito was fatser overall by some 25/30 mph over the A26. This is the bomber version.

Again as you said the A26 was a late war plane and didnt really have the impact the mossie had. Although the A26 had a defensive armament if it had flown earlier in the war when it would have actually been tested I dont think that its armament would have been enough to stave off attacks from the Luftwaffe unescorted. Id rather be in a Mosquito, you are less likely to be intercepted because you cruise at a higher speed, your in a visibly smaller AC and the Mosquito has the intangible advantage of being a stealthy aircraft. If intercepted just drop bombs and run like hell at full throttle you can fly longer than German fighters can. If we are looking at late war the Arado Ar234 springs to mind and trumps the A26 and Mosquito slightly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

marc_hawkins
10-27-2005, 09:56 AM
Lets not forget the MB 2... http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/MARTIN-BAKER%20MB2.htm

For some reason i think i remember another emergency design that was made with fixed landing gear.. anybody know or am i just confusing it with this?

This is the one! http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/MILES%20M20.htm

p1ngu666
10-27-2005, 10:12 AM
JtD, be 18lbs boost i think, and probably 25 engines.

should do 366mph when the droptanks and bombs are dropped, at sea level http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

iirec the 25 series engines where used pretty much from the start.

so for a proper mid 43 plane, its abit quick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

25lb boost, gotta be looking at 390 to 400mph on the deck.

somewhat amusingly, mossie maybe slightly faster the 109k4, with drop tanks still in place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

id say the 262 2a was maybe a better jabo, is much faster, probably better climb, but otherwise worse than mossie..

Doug_Thompson
10-27-2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by marc_hawkins:

This is the one! http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/MILES%20M20.htm

That's it.

There's a quote from Oleg Maddox. It's in somebody's signature. It says: Where did you read about a wooden Spitfire? Close that book and never open it again.

The first time I saw that quote, I knew this was the plane that was being talked about. It's not a Spitfire at all, but the poster Maddox was replying to obviously had this plane in mind.


[Edited P.S.] It's LEXX_Luthor's signature. The quote from Maddox is:

"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!"

JtD
10-27-2005, 10:50 AM
Thanks for that info again, pingu. Mossie is just one more reason why two engined planes are way cooler than all that lame single engined poo.

Roland, my opinion on the Ki-84's high speed handling does come from the (admittedly little) reading I did. I am sure it had it lower dive limit than the Spit, but if that matters the dogfight is over anyways.

Try flying a P-38J to see how much fun it is to be fast but defenseless and big. Of course it climbs and turns better than the Mossie, so try to limit yourself to just running. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

marc_hawkins
10-27-2005, 11:13 AM
Oh yeah doug, think i've seen that quote. Finally it makes sense!

I really like these unknown aircraft, while i likes the popular crates, one of the things that attarcted me to this sim is the exotic types...

MLudner
10-27-2005, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Warhawk
Lightning
Corsair
Hellcat
SBD
B-17
B-24

If I could change text colors I would use red white and blue.

sucks
sucks
sucks
cool
cool
sucks
sucks
sucks
cool </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mister, you're drinking a candle! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think he's toking the candle. And he's toked one too many by the look of it...

IT'S THE PILOT, NOT THE SHIP, PERIOD. If Gabby says so, it must be so! So there!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Each nation made a number excellent designs. I hold the Bf-109 series as the greatest prop fighters ever built. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Why? Not because I think it was better than anything else, for there were a number of fighters that could out-perform it in some to most ways. It was the sheer genius and advanced thought of the design. The 109 entered service in 1935, making it one of the first all metal, low wing, in-line engine, fully enclosed cockpit high speed fighter designs. By the start of the 2nd World War all of its contemporaries were out-moded garbage being abandoned or replaced by more advanced designs by the nations where they had been designed. The 109 was still on the cutting edge of fighter performance and could stand toe-to-toe with anything else flying. TEN years after it entered service it could still stand up to any other prop fighter flying when all of the other designs that had entered service that same year - 1935 - were garbage.

hsj38
10-27-2005, 08:19 PM
usa had best bombers of the war and fighters was great too usa usa usa

Grey_Mouser67
10-27-2005, 08:22 PM
Spitfires were top notch no doubt! Great fighter and intercepter...maybe the best.

Mosquito was in a class by itself...the only plane that could compare to it might be the P-38 but it is not a good comparison, especially with the difference in crew...mossie is in a class by itself and by virtue of that has no equal.

Lanc was really good as was the Beaufighter...the Tempest was good, but I'm not going to say best because it did have some draw backs like turning circle, climb and peformance at altitude...but really, really good.

The Typhoon was a great ground attack fighter because it was a poor intercepter...it was good in its role but not great.

The swordfish and hurricane were miserable...good thing those 109E's didn't have drop tanks! It was by virtue of the tactical situation and the advantage of radar that the Hurricanes performed so well, not because it was a great plane...kinda like the Wildcat and P-40...good tactics made those planes successful, not their performance.

I love British planes...some of my favorites even though I'm not British! I'd take a Spit, Tempest, Typhoon, Skeeter, Lanc, and Beau on my airforce any day...but you all can keep those fleet air arm planes and the Hurricane on your airforce!

Bearcat99
10-27-2005, 08:42 PM
Id say Britain had some good fighters.. but the "best"? How can you qualify that..... a plane is as good as it's pilot.. and in many cases a pilot will be as good or as bad as his opponent. What were the numbers? Where was the fight? What was the skill level? There is no way to say that any one nation had "the best" of any type of fighter in WW2. No way. Good birds? Absolutely!! I have read so many accounts that say... and meaning every bit of it.."The P-51 Mustang was the finest prop driven aircraft in WW2."

YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!!! NO ONE CAN!!! Sure Britain had some of the best planes in WW2... which you start this thread with... but by your second post your true colors come out... the finest, best,most etc.. which is just an opinion... and frankly something that can never be clearly defined.. even by the pil,ots of the era. Unless those guys went to combat in all the planes or at the very least flew them under the stresses of combat flying.... they cant say which was the "best" overall.

My 2cents....

p1ngu666
10-27-2005, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by hsj38:
usa had best bombers of the war and fighters was great too usa usa usa

curiously, piling on heaps of fifty cals doesnt make a great bomber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

now americans sit down, recover from teh shock, while ill don my flame ******ent suit and run http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
10-28-2005, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Good birds? Absolutely!! I have read so many accounts that say... and meaning every bit of it.."The P-51 Mustang was the finest prop driven aircraft in WW2."

All from P51 pilots? :P Ask a Spitfire pilot what he liked best, he'll say a Spitfire, ask a Tempest pilot what he thought was best, he'll say a Tempest, ask a Jug pilot...

skabbe
10-28-2005, 01:39 AM
I think that Britain had the best planes, but still Germany kicked as*, but for not having a head start like the Germans, the British did very well, very very well.

Bearcat99
10-28-2005, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Good birds? Absolutely!! I have read so many accounts that say... and meaning every bit of it.."The P-51 Mustang was the finest prop driven aircraft in WW2."

All from P51 pilots? :P Ask a Spitfire pilot what he liked best, he'll say a Spitfire, ask a Tempest pilot what he thought was best, he'll say a Tempest, ask a Jug pilot... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welllll DUUUUHHHH that is my point. Did you read the rest of the post or did you stop right at the P-51 part and start typing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Plus thingsa like how easy was a plane to maintain? How was the supply chain as far as maintenance goes...? You could have the greatest plane in the world.. but if you cant fix it when it breaks properly due to logistics it's numbers will suffer. All this stuff comes into play.. thats why it is almost impossible to say who had "The best aircraft.." Especially back then. Today it is a little different.

panther3485
10-30-2005, 09:52 AM
yes

panther3485

mynameisroland
10-30-2005, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Id say Britain had some good fighters.. but the "best"? How can you qualify that..... a plane is as good as it's pilot.. and in many cases a pilot will be as good or as bad as his opponent. What were the numbers? Where was the fight? What was the skill level? There is no way to say that any one nation had "the best" of any type of fighter in WW2. No way. Good birds? Absolutely!! I have read so many accounts that say... and meaning every bit of it.."The P-51 Mustang was the finest prop driven aircraft in WW2."

YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!!! NO ONE CAN!!! Sure Britain had some of the best planes in WW2... which you start this thread with... but by your second post your true colors come out... the finest, best,most etc.. which is just an opinion... and frankly something that can never be clearly defined.. even by the pil,ots of the era. Unless those guys went to combat in all the planes or at the very least flew them under the stresses of combat flying.... they cant say which was the "best" overall.

My 2cents....

This thread was a response to a thread 'Did Britain produce the worst planes of WW2' So I intended it to be a bit tongue in cheek but serious overall.

As for my 2 first posts I dont think I said anything that is over the top or biased. I have picked RAF aircraft with the best reputations/operational records and I have put them in a list of greatness. Ofcourse it is the pilot as much as the aircraft but thats another good point Britain was blessed with some excellent pilots and an overall infrastructure that enabled Britain to compete on and above the same level as much larger Countries.

The Hurricane was, as part of the defense of Britain during the 1st two years of WW2, an integral component. Without this aircraft Britain would have been caught short at a serious time and would have lost the Battle of Britain. It also was used to good effect as a fighter bomber long before the Typhoon made its presence felt.

oh and here is my second post verbatum. What is so sontroversial about this list ?

"The Mosquito was the best twin bomber/strike fighter of any nation.

The Spitfire was arguably the best point defence interceptor/dogfighter.

The Lancaster was the best nocturnal 4 engined bomber.

The Typhoon was the most effective ground attack fighter.

The Tempest was the best medium to low altitude fighter to see service"

I see a list of greats that in their own category's stand above their contempories overall.

ashley2005
10-30-2005, 11:20 AM
i hate american planes ..id prefer to fly a enemy plane than an american plane ...brtish planes rule ..also italian german any other country but american planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 11:29 AM
indeed roland http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

mossie was also, best recon,best weather reporter, best costal comand strike aircraft, best night fighter too see a resonable amount of service. best mail delivery.

also, it was the plane imo, like the raids on the gestapo wherent done by 1 or 2 squadrons, they where done by lots of different squadrons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

spitfire was also handy with recon too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Arm_slinger
10-30-2005, 11:42 AM
When people say "best", they just see the aircraft. You need to look at what the aircraft can do physically, and how it does it.

For example the B17 v Lancaster is a good one. Lots of people say either one is good, but they dont really compare them fairly. They were developed with different stratergies in mind. Take a lanc over Germany during the day, it would possibly get trounced. Take a B17 on a night raid and it would be stuffed, as it doesn't have any of the avionics and systems to aid its operations at nights.

If aircraft are compared, it will still come down to a persons opinion.

Philipscdrw
10-30-2005, 11:47 AM
The Il-2 Shturmovik was the best British plane used by the Germans in the USAAF in WW1.

There, I've said it.

mynameisroland
10-30-2005, 11:47 AM
Ive read a good pilots account of how a photo recon Spit pilot dodged two Me 262's that were gasping to intercept him at 40,000ft plus. Even after the war the RAF retained the Spitfire as a photo recon mount and it was said that it was not until the Sabre was introduced another aircraft could intercept it.

Ruy Horta
10-30-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Take a B17 on a night raid and it would be stuffed, as it doesn't have any of the avionics and systems to aid its operations at nights.

Bomber Command 100 Group did make use of B-17s on night ops, also B-24s (Nos. 214 & 223 Sq.), although strictly speaking these were used in a support role (RCM, ECM & ELINT).

Nitpicking for sure, but some might find this interesting.

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 01:19 PM
USAAF used mossies for weather reporting, and photo recon and other tasks

Arm_slinger
10-30-2005, 01:26 PM
Ok Ruy, so I meant the daylight raids spec'ed Forts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-30-2005, 01:59 PM
I think these beauties will answer the original question, chaps...


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/martin-baker20mb2.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/miles20m35.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/miles20m39b.jpg

Let's see Johnny Foreigner beat that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

jugent
10-30-2005, 02:12 PM
Dont forget the Defiant the most undervalued fighter in WWII.

mynameisroland
10-30-2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
When people say "best", they just see the aircraft. You need to look at what the aircraft can do physically, and how it does it.

For example the B17 v Lancaster is a good one. Lots of people say either one is good, but they dont really compare them fairly. They were developed with different stratergies in mind. Take a lanc over Germany during the day, it would possibly get trounced. Take a B17 on a night raid and it would be stuffed, as it doesn't have any of the avionics and systems to aid its operations at nights.

If aircraft are compared, it will still come down to a persons opinion.

Who said Lancaster was better than B17 at daylight bombing ?

Arm_slinger
10-30-2005, 02:48 PM
I dont think anyone has to my knowledge. I don't think either it's something you will ever find out, or have an idea of anyway. The lancs didn't do day light raids until the allies had air superiority.


Good god, what the hell were the air ministries thinking of back then! those things like as much use as tits on a bull!...

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 06:59 PM
well lanc could carry more varied bombs, a good deal extra (nearly twice as much sometimes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) plus it handled alot better. b17 is really heavy on the controls, lanc isnt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

mynameisroland
10-30-2005, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
If aircraft are compared, it will still come down to a persons opinion.

Well thats your opinion and you are entitled to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I like to read about aircraft, look at their specifications ,look at their records and also read about the pilots who flew them. So your right I will never fly a Lancaster or a B17 and go and bomb Germany. But that doesnt stop me from making an informed post about the merits of one or the other.

B17 didnt have the avionics or the bombload to be as successful in the night bombing role.

Bearcat99
10-30-2005, 07:59 PM
When I made the statement about the P-51 I wasnt saying that it was the best.... just that some people think it was... and my same staement holds true for that as well.. You cant define "The best" when it comes to things like that. How would the Mustang have fared against the many veteran pilots earlier in the war.. if they had the same type of 44 equipment? Who knows? IMO there are just so many factors that determine the outcome of all the events that can be summed up in even attemting to define "best" just in case you thought differently.. I wasnt trying to jump on anyone in this thread... after all.. it is just opinion.. and opinions are like ********s... everyone has one... The Spits were good planes no doubt.... as were the 190s.. The Yaks... The Mustangs... The Hurris.... it is all relative.. and everytime I see one of those "The finest prop driven aircraft..." things.. I always ask myself.... Did this guy or his source actually fly every aircraft? I guess you could look at things on paper.... but heck if that was the case The Redskins would have had a few championships over the past few years... on paper they looked great.... but on the field http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.

panther3485
10-30-2005, 09:28 PM
Hi guys,

Maybe I read English differently than some others here. The original question was:
"Did Britain have some of the best planes of WW2?"
(Note: SOME of the best planes.)

So, I answered with a simple 'yes', because they DID have SOME of the best planes. I would invite anyone here to make up a list of all the fighters and bombers of WW2, that they think are GENERALLY AGREED to be among the best. Would anyone's list not include at least SOME British types? Would anyone's list not also include some US types? Some German types? Probably some also from USSR, Italy and Japan?

Therefore, speaking from my understanding of the original question, you could delete 'Britain' and insert any one of the other nations mentioned and my answer would still be 'yes'.

I see little constructive value in saying that fighter X, from nation A, must have been better than fighter Y, from nation B. One could, of course, discuss relative characteristics, success at intended role, combat record, impact on the war etc and this can help us to evaluate each type but in assessing what should be considered 'best', there are many different criteria that could be applied and we don't even agree on those!

Let's face it - we all have our favourites. Like Bearcat says, it's gonna be pretty much a matter of opinion.

Now, if everyone agreed on a set of criteria we might get somewhere near consensus - maybe. But I think it's unlikely that we'll ever see that happen.


Best regards to all,
panther3485

Aaron_GT
10-31-2005, 05:52 AM
For some reason i think i remember another emergency design that was made with fixed landing gear.. anybody know or am i just confusing it with this?

I think Miles might have made such a design (this is from memory though).

Aaron_GT
10-31-2005, 05:57 AM
usa had best bombers of the war

The level bomber with the best proportion of bombs on target and lowest loss rate per sortie in WW2 was the Mosquito. The USA bought some, and Hap Arnold wanted to produce them under licence but De Havilland didn't have the personnel to start up production in a fourth country so this never happened.

Aaron_GT
10-31-2005, 06:08 AM
For example the B17 v Lancaster is a good one. Lots of people say either one is good, but they dont really compare them fairly. They were developed with different stratergies in mind. Take a lanc over Germany during the day, it would possibly get trounced. Take a B17 on a night raid and it would be stuffed, as it doesn't have any of the avionics and systems to aid its operations at nights.

Neither were necessarily designed for the roles they undertook.

In theory yhe B17 was designed as a coastal defence bomber with heavy lift for short range as a bonus. In reality the coastal defence bomber bit was to a certain extent subterfuge to get the funding past Congress, much like the cavalry's combat cars, which were tanks (but the cavalry wasn't allowed funding for tanks, in theory). But it was designed for day operations.
Long range was a requirement.

The Lancaster was developed from the Manchester which was intended as a fast medium bomber capable of use during the day or night. Long range wasn't so much of a requirement - Berlin and back was enough. Later the Lincoln, with longer range, was developed.

Since it was intended to be fast the original design armament of the Manchester series was light, but did include provision for ventral defence, in common with most British bombers of the period. The early ventral mounts, when of the 'dustbin' type were draggy and typically removed. Remote control mounts were still buggy (see also B25C), and the other alternative was flexible mounts, as fitted to some Lancasters and other RAF bombers. In the end, though, the lack of long range fighter escort restricted the RAF to night bombing anyway, and then the ventral turrets weren't that useful as you couldn't see the approaching nightfighter. H2S and/or a bit of speed was of more use, and it wasn't seen as particularly worthwhile upgunning them either - the best defences were either not being seen or maneouvering and the reduction in bomb load to carry sufficient guns and crew to make a difference in the dark wasn't seen as worthwhile.

For the B17 flying in formation where mutual defensive fire was a possibility meant that the extra weight of guns was possibly worth it when they were required to operate beyond fighter cover. Later fighter cover was extended, but I don't think it was possible, for reasons of morale, to take defensive armament away, even though the value of it, when escorted, was not clear.

In the end the bomber with the best sortie:loss ration was unarmed: the Mosquito.

WOLFMondo
10-31-2005, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Good birds? Absolutely!! I have read so many accounts that say... and meaning every bit of it.."The P-51 Mustang was the finest prop driven aircraft in WW2."

All from P51 pilots? :P Ask a Spitfire pilot what he liked best, he'll say a Spitfire, ask a Tempest pilot what he thought was best, he'll say a Tempest, ask a Jug pilot... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welllll DUUUUHHHH that is my point. Did you read the rest of the post or did you stop right at the P-51 part and start typing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Plus thingsa like how easy was a plane to maintain? How was the supply chain as far as maintenance goes...? You could have the greatest plane in the world.. but if you cant fix it when it breaks properly due to logistics it's numbers will suffer. All this stuff comes into play.. thats why it is almost impossible to say who had "The best aircraft.." Especially back then. Today it is a little different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm yanking yer chain bearcat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I agree, especially in regards to the old Spitfire vs 109 argument. The Spitfire was a bit of a pain to service whereas the 109 was easy to service etc.

I think I've only read 1 account of a pilot who actually like the Typhoon when it was a fighter whereas all the other fighters seem to have adoring pilots.

Back to the point, I think Britain had some of the best planes of WW2 without a doubt.

What they definatly did have was the best engine. The Rolls Royce Merlin. If any single man or machines could be attributed to winning WW2 my nomination would be the Merlin.

ViktorViktor
10-31-2005, 06:33 AM
Yupp, the British made some good planes, but they really fell on their faces when it came to developing carrier-borne aircraft. And this from a nation whose strong suit was SEA POWER.

To get a decent carrier fighter they had to loan US Wildcats, Hellcats, Corsairs. Let us not forget. Amen. End of sermon.

Aaron_GT
10-31-2005, 07:14 AM
Yupp, the British made some good planes, but they really fell on their faces when it came to developing carrier-borne aircraft. And this from a nation whose strong suit was SEA POWER.

That's not the full story. In the late 1930s FAA fighters carrier aircraft were competitive. The aircraft to replace them were under development but the specification requiring two seat fighters meant that the first of these that appeared in WW2 (Fulmar) underperformed. The priority in 1940 was for land based aircraft for a land war in Europe and the replacement (Firefly) took too long to arrive, and so was better as a strike aircraft than fighter. The Hurricane and Seafire stood in until the Sea Fury finally arrived, at which point jets took over.

Whilst the UK was a naval power it had a lot of land bases to fly land based aircraft from too.

In 1939 the USN's aircraft were of the same sort of general types and performance as the FAAs. But the USN got the development schedule right with the F4F and F6F, and with FAA help, the F4U. The USN was expecting a war against Japan, and so this development was given more priority.

Basically the FAA messed things up a bit, but it was also a matter of priorities.

p1ngu666
10-31-2005, 07:28 AM
there is merit in 2 seater fighters imo, was for navigation, and back then there really wasnt much to help the chaps http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WOLFMondo
10-31-2005, 08:04 AM
1 word. Firefly. :P

ViktorViktor
10-31-2005, 12:55 PM
I'll tell you what, while nobody can say for sure what the best fighter of WWII was, I have to believe that the Spitfire was the BEST-LOOKING fighter of WWII. I've never once heard someone say the Spitfire didn't look like what it was - a first-class fighter. If this forum had a contest to pick the classiest-looking fighter of WWII, the Spitfire would have to win.

I've the always considered the P-51 something of an ugly duckling, with that scoop on the belly. And I think 190s and Corsairs look cool, but the Spitfire is truly a beauty.

WOLFMondo
10-31-2005, 01:00 PM
The Spitfire always looks nice, no matter what the version although the Mk22, XIV and VIII I think look the nicest but they don't compare to the 190's in sheer look of a killer. P40 comes close. That looks like its meant for war.

ploughman
10-31-2005, 01:07 PM
Spits look good for sure, especially with the improved tail on the VIIIs and IXs, and an XIV really looks devilishly handsom. But I always liked the P-47, it's the Homer Simpson of piston engined fighters (meant very affectionately).

Aaron_GT
10-31-2005, 03:04 PM
1 word. Firefly. :P

A great strike plane with 16 60lb rockets and 4 20mm cannon but its development was too protracted for its performance to make it a good fighter by the time it was deployed, and its strike thunder was quickly eclipsed by the Skyraider. In terms of overall ordnance capability the F4U was just as good, and a better air-to-air fighter. Arguably, though, the Firefly made a very good naval night fighter where the second crew member was an advantage over versions of the F6F or F4U with radar.

mynameisroland
10-31-2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
I'll tell you what, while nobody can say for sure what the best fighter of WWII was, I have to believe that the Spitfire was the BEST-LOOKING fighter of WWII. I've never once heard someone say the Spitfire didn't look like what it was - a first-class fighter. If this forum had a contest to pick the classiest-looking fighter of WWII, the Spitfire would have to win.

I've the always considered the P-51 something of an ugly duckling, with that scoop on the belly. And I think 190s and Corsairs look cool, but the Spitfire is truly a beauty.

Aesthetic beauty is if anything easier to argue against than the overall package of an aircraft. Beauty is subjective. Facts , performance and history are harder to dispute.

Arm_slinger
10-31-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
If aircraft are compared, it will still come down to a persons opinion.

Well thats your opinion and you are entitled to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I like to read about aircraft, look at their specifications ,look at their records and also read about the pilots who flew them. So your right I will never fly a Lancaster or a B17 and go and bomb Germany. But that doesnt stop me from making an informed post about the merits of one or the other.

B17 didnt have the avionics or the bombload to be as successful in the night bombing role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As do I, i dont enter these types of discussions without knowing, or going off an researching things about the aircraft being discussed. It would be ignorance to say that plane is better than this plane without any information to back the claim up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

About the B17, quite right, i said that in an earlier post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


But yes, i'd say we brits has some very good aircraft in the war.

p1ngu666
10-31-2005, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The Spitfire always looks nice, no matter what the version although the Mk22, XIV and VIII I think look the nicest but they don't compare to the 190's in sheer look of a killer. P40 comes close. That looks like its meant for war.

ty****ingphoon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

SkyChimp
10-31-2005, 06:49 PM
Of course the British had some of the best planes of the war. But the one thing they never developed, which was essential to winning the war against the Luftwaffe, was a superb long-range escort fighter capable of taking the air war from England to the skies over Berlin, and beyond. In that respect, while the British had some of the best fighters of the war, it didn't have the single most important fighter of the war. The Germans acknowledged after the war that the most damaging component of the allied effort against the Luftwaffe were the daylight bomber's fighter escort.

p1ngu666
10-31-2005, 06:55 PM
abit rich chimp, british ordered teh p51, and the first missions with the p51 that went to germany where flown by a burns victim and a 1armed man iirec, both british http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

id say the bombers did much more damage than the long range escorts.

i also think your doing a spot of fishing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

arcadeace
10-31-2005, 07:09 PM
IMHO the Brits win this thread. And the baby's dummy trophy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-31-2005, 07:13 PM
And which country developed the drop tanks the Mustang needed to reach Berlin?

Clue: Begins with 'Great', ends with 'ain' and has 'Brit' in the middle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/freshfish4a.gif

Another great Anglo-American co-operation

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/LH.jpg

SkyChimp
10-31-2005, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
abit rich chimp, british ordered teh p51, and the first missions with the p51 that went to germany where flown by a burns victim and a 1armed man iirec, both british http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

id say the bombers did much more damage than the long range escorts.

i also think your doing a spot of fishing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No, I'm not fishing at all.

The Brits ordered the P-51, but never came to NAA and said, "Build us a P-51." They wanted the P-40, but got the P-51, DESPITE their request that the new NAA design conform to P-40 operational characteristics. So the Brits got the P-51 inspite of what they requested. They really had no idea what they were getting until they got it, going by faith that NAA could deliver what they promised.

I don't know if the Brits managed to get a Mustang over Germany first or not. But it was never their intent to utilize the Mustang as a long range fighter (and certainly not an escort), but rather as a fighter to defend the home isles.

The need for a long range escort was not really realized until the summer of 1943. That was a USAAF realization. And that realization came AFTER the beginning of deliveries of the P-51B. Once the need for a long range escort was fully established, and once it was realized the P-51B would be the best choice for that role, it was decided to modify the P-51B to carry more fuel.

The P-51B was never originally intended to be a long range, high altitude fighter. It was intended initially to be a substitute for the P-40 - hopefully better. The Brits and the Americans recognized the need to increase altitude performance and experimented with Merlin engines. And once the need for a long range escort was established, the Mustang was modified yet again to fulfill that mission.

And as far as the airwar against the Luftwaffe: certainly the bombers struck coordinated and decisive blows against the industries that supplied the fighter force. But the decisive moment in the beginning-of-the-end for the Luftwaffe came in January 1944 when Doolittle allowed escorting fighters to range away from bombers to attack German planes that were not attacking bombers. Galland said it like this, "Only now did the superiority of the American fighters come into its own. They were no longer glued to the slow moving bomber formation, but took the law of action into their own hands."

SkyChimp
10-31-2005, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
And which country developed the drop tanks the Mustang needed to reach Berlin?

Clue: Begins with 'Great', ends with 'ain' and has 'Brit' in the middle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/freshfish4a.gif

Another great Anglo-American co-operation

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/LH.jpg

The type of tank preferred to get the Mustang to Berlin was a pressurized tank - but it wasn't absolutely necessary. It was the Air Technical Section of USAAF VIII Fighter Command that developed the manner in which the tanks used on the Mustang would be pressurized (use of excess air pressue going to waste in the exhaust). It was British companies that built the prototype tank - to American design specifications. And British companies supplied tanks, as did American suppliers. But due to chronic shortages, large quantities of unpressurized tanks were used as well. And due to chronic shortages of stategic metals in Britain, Britain developed a paper tank. It was not the preferred tank, but it was approved for use. It was replaced by the American designed, British produced 75 gallon pressurized tank when they were available.

By and large, two were dropped by every Mustang on every mission to Berlin. That's a lot of tanks.

jarink
10-31-2005, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Arm_slinger:Take a B17 on a night raid and it would be stuffed, as it doesn't have any of the avionics and systems to aid its operations at nights.

There were quite a few B-17s and B-24s modified with H2S or H2X in place of the ball turret. While they were used pretty much exclusively as PFF (PathFinder Force - basically lead bombers; everyone else in the group would drop on their 'hack' using a device called an intervalometer), they would have worked just as well at night. In both cases, there was no loss of bombload for the radar installation, just the turret.

http://members.lycos.nl/carloslievens/Images/b17/b17h2x2.jpg
http://www.liberatorcrew.com/06_B-24/USAF%20Museum/Micky%20ship.jpg

jarink
10-31-2005, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
id say the bombers did much more damage than the long range escorts.

Well, I guess it depends on what you call 'damage'. Don't forget, German aircraft production was actually higher in 1944 than 1943. Of course, by that time they were growing critically short of properly trained pilots.

Required reading:
US European Bombing Survey (http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/eto/index.htm)

Favorite quote from the Summary Report:
"Nevertheless, at the end of hostilities in Europe, weapons, tactics and strategy were still in a state of rapid development. Air power had not yet reached maturity and all conclusions drawn from experience in the European theatre must be considered subject to change. No one should assume that because certain things were effective or not effective, the same would be true under other circumstances and other conditions."

panther3485
10-31-2005, 11:12 PM
Hello SkyChimp,

Quote 1:
*"Of course the British had some of the best planes of the war. But the one thing they never developed, which was essential to winning the war against the Luftwaffe, was a superb long-range escort fighter capable of taking the air war from England to the skies over Berlin, and beyond."

[True, the British didn't 'develop' the P-51 but they did make some VITAL CONTRIBUTIONS to its development:
(a) Firstly, and I know this is being pedantic (especially since neither the British nor the Americans could foresee what would eventuate), but it was the British request for US assistance that provided most of the initial impetus for the P-51. True, some preliminary design work had been done by North American but it is doubtful whether this would have borne fruit as quickly or in the same way, if at all.
(b) Secondly, and arguably much more important, was the marriage of the Mustang's unquestionably superb airframe with a power plant that was worthy of it and would bring out its best, especially at high altitude. The P-51 would never have realized its potential without this marriage. IMHO, there are few if any better examples of successful US/British co-operation.]


Quote 2:
*"In that respect, while the British had some of the best fighters of the war, it didn't have the single most important fighter of the war."

["didn't have"???
(a) The Mustang was built initially FOR the British, as a result of the outcome of a British request for assistance.
(b) It was supplied TO the British in substantial numbers and continued to be supplied after the US began using it.
(c) It was used BY the British and continued to be used by them for the rest of the war.
(d) It became a truly outstanding performer by adapting it to fit a BRITISH designed engine.
Seems to me, the British certainly 'had' the Mustang but of course, I'm being a smart-@rse here! What you meant was that the P-51 was a US design, which is obviously undeniable! (Sorry about that - couldn't resist it!)]


Quote 3:
"...the single most important fighter of war."

[Although the eventual importance of the P-51 cannot be denied, this statement is open to some variance of opinion, depending on perspective in how we view the whole conduct of the war from beginning to end.

Firstly - On one hand, the employment of the P-51 as a long-range escort for the US daylight bombing offensive did not begin until end 43/beginning 44, by which time the tide of war had already turned decisively against Germany. On the other hand, the Luftwaffe's home fighter defence was still very strong and the P-51 was absolutely vital in reducing that strength. Sapping the Luftwaffe's fighter arm by forcing it to 'pour away' its dwindling resources in this manner undoubtedly had a telling effect on the fighting fronts and helped to shorten the war. Full credit to the P-51 for this achievement! Your view is largely substantiated here; however, there is another perspective:

Secondly, one needs to ask, how was it that the USAAF was ABLE to wage this daylight offensive? Was it not because Britain had refused to succumb in 1940 and could thus provide not only the bases for the air offensive but the 'springboard' for the Second Front?
The outcome of the Battle of Britian helped signifcantly to ensure that Britain would be staying in the fight and thus also, that the Americans would eventually be able to bring their military muscle to bear against the Nazi war machine.
Two British types bore the brunt of the air fighting in this battle. Their role in the struggle was arguably every bit as vital as that of the P-51 later, and helped to make the achievements of the Mustang possible.
Looked at in the most simplistic terms, and considering fighters only, it could be said to go something like this:
(a] Early war - Hurricanes and Spitfires halt the further progress of the Luftwaffe in the West and help keep Britain in the War.
(b) Mid war (to end of '43) - Spitfires, P-47's, P-38's, Yaks and Lavochkins (among others) keep the pressure on and continue the fight through some more of the war's most important turning points.
(c) Late war (1944-45) - P-51 becomes decisive in helping to finish off the Luftwaffe.

Of course, as mentioned above this is 'simplistic' but deliberately so, as I am trying to make the point that 'what went before' has a profound effect on 'what comes after'. Taking the whole of the war in context is likely to give a more balanced view.

Having said all this, I agree that the P-51 rightly deserves most of the accolades it has received. It was indeed truly a great fighter.


Best regards,
panther3485

Aaron_GT
11-01-2005, 01:47 AM
it didn't have the single most important fighter of the war.

Arguably it had the two most important fighters in WW2 - the Hurricane in Spitfire, the most important phase being in 1940. By the time the P51 had been married with the Merlin and was flying escort in the ETO the outcome of the war was already decided.

The range of the P51B was due to several factors - first the clean airframe, second the thrifty Merlin, thirdly the internal rear fuselage tank, and lastly the drop tanks. The last three were also available for the Spitfire and versions with long range were available for some purposes, with the same sort of demerits on handling as were true for the P51. Given the nature of British involvement and the availability of the P51 it wasn't worth the effort of fitting all Spitfires with this capability. The P51 would still have had superior range.

mynameisroland
11-01-2005, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Of course the British had some of the best planes of the war. But the one thing they never developed, which was essential to winning the war against the Luftwaffe, was a superb long-range escort fighter capable of taking the air war from England to the skies over Berlin, and beyond. In that respect, while the British had some of the best fighters of the war, it didn't have the single most important fighter of the war. The Germans acknowledged after the war that the most damaging component of the allied effort against the Luftwaffe were the daylight bomber's fighter escort.

The single most important fighter of the war was the Bf 109. Without this little aircraft the Luftwaffe would have been scuppered before it had even started invading Yurp. The Mustang is a great plane but 1944 is the ar se end of the war imo by which stage the Russians were really dictating where the Germans deployed their forces. Europe could still have been liberated without the Mustang, the Luftwaffe was defeated by fighting on three fronts not by a single type. Hell even Britain alone outproduced Germany in terms of aircraft up until 1942/43 if I recall.

JtD
11-01-2005, 08:17 AM
I don't think the long range escort was the most important fighter type of WW2.

Friendly_flyer
11-01-2005, 08:22 AM
For the mid 1943 to mid 1944 period it might have been in Europe. However, one year out of five can hardly be called representative.

We do need to consider the fighting in the Pacific. There, range was vital to air operations. The Spitfire, no matter how nice at plane it was, was not at home in that theatre, while the P-51 definely was.

p1ngu666
11-01-2005, 08:44 AM
apart from the p38 was prefered for pto http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and it was the spit and hurri that ensured the german bombers wouldnt roam over england in daylight.

acurate recon probably did more than the p51.

p51 was ordered as a army co op plane, not as a interceptor (it would be poor at that, weak guns, poor roc)

luftluuver
11-01-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
p51 was ordered as a army co op plane, not as a interceptor (it would be poor at that, weak guns, poor roc)

Why? It did not have to climb as it would already be at Angels 30 waiting for the enemy to appear since it had the fuel to stay in the air longer than the Spitfire.

The Spitfire V was no better than the Allison powered Mustangs, and that includes the RoC. The Mustang could reach the enemy quicker as it was faster.

If it had to be used as an intercepter, the model with the 4 20mm cannons would have been better than the mixed armament (.303" + 20mm) of the Spitfire.

lrrp22
11-01-2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
apart from the p38 was prefered for pto http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



P1ngu,

That's not really true. After all, several PTO P-38 groups (including one equipped with P-38L's) re-equipped with Mustangs, while no Mustang group re-equipped with P-38's. P-51D's and P-47N's were chosen over the P-38L for the Very Long Range escorts over Japan. Same thing in the CBI.

LRRP

BTW, good recon couldn't establish air superiority over most of Western EUrope. The P-51 could... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lrrp22
11-01-2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
p51 was ordered as a army co op plane, not as a interceptor (it would be poor at that, weak guns, poor roc)

Why? It did not have to climb as it would already be at Angels 30 waiting for the enemy to appear since it had the fuel to stay in the air longer than the Spitfire.

The Spitfire V was no better than the Allison powered Mustangs, and that includes the RoC. The Mustang could reach the enemy quicker as it was faster.

If it had to be used as an intercepter, the model with the 4 20mm cannons would have been better than the mixed armament (.303" + 20mm) of the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While its armament wasn't ideal for bomber interception, if the RAF would have chosen to use its Mustang III/IV's as interceptors, climb rate would not have been a problem. The +25 lbs boost Mustangs achieved climb rates well in excess of 4500 fpm and speeds close to 450 mph at middle altitudes.

.

lrrp22
11-01-2005, 10:26 AM
...and in answer to this threads original question:

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Absolutely!</span>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
.

p1ngu666
11-01-2005, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
p51 was ordered as a army co op plane, not as a interceptor (it would be poor at that, weak guns, poor roc)

Why? It did not have to climb as it would already be at Angels 30 waiting for the enemy to appear since it had the fuel to stay in the air longer than the Spitfire.

The Spitfire V was no better than the Allison powered Mustangs, and that includes the RoC. The Mustang could reach the enemy quicker as it was faster.

If it had to be used as an intercepter, the model with the 4 20mm cannons would have been better than the mixed armament (.303" + 20mm) of the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While its armament wasn't ideal for bomber interception, if the RAF would have chosen to use its Mustang III/IV's as interceptors, climb rate would not have been a problem. The +25 lbs boost Mustangs achieved climb rates well in excess of 4500 fpm and speeds close to 450 mph at middle altitudes.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, in mid 44 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

angels 30, in a alison engine without a turbo? somewhat hopeful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

id wager a spit vb was better than a alison engine past 20,000feet

so while it is faster at low alt, up high its breatheless. it would be good for the tip and run raids the lw did.

and luftluuver, the spit could also take 4 20mm, but it wasnt needed, so they stuck with the lighter armament as they where mostly battling fighters, rather than twins and 4 engines.

and while its fine to patrol around at 30k in your asmatic p51, your gonna not be feeling good in that unpressuried cockpit, and your plane will need much more servicing than one thats done nothing.


In January 1942, Mustang Is entered service with No. 26 Squadron, RAF Army Co-operation Command where they were fitted with an F24 oblique camera behind the pilot's head armour and operated in the low-level reconnaissance role. While the first British order had been a straight sale, the costs involved in fighting a war started to take their toll on the funds available to purchase more aircraft. Consequently, the US government instigated the Lend-Lease scheme and on July 7, 1941, the US Army Air Force (renamed from the USAAC in the previous month) ordered 150 Mustangs on behalf of the RAF. Armament was changed to four wing mounted 20 mm Hispano Suiza cannons and the aircraft entered service as the Mustang IA. Only 93 of the Mustang IAs ordered for the RAF were delivered with the remainder (apart from two used in the XP-78 project) staying with the USAAF where they were designated the P-51. The majority of the USAAF P-51s had cameras fitted and were used in the tactical reconnaissance role under the designation F-6A.




The Mustang (the name being adopted by the USAAF around mid 1942) soon proved to have one major weakness, its Allison engine. As mentioned previously, the Allison's poor high altitude performance and unsatisfactory rate of climb meant that the aircraft were relegated to the low-level ground attack and reconnaissance role. On April 30, 1942 Ronald W. Harker, a test pilot for Rolls Royce, took a brief flight in a Duxford based RAF Mustang and suggested that it would be a natural choice for the new 2-stage supercharged Merlin 60 series of engines that Rolls Royce were just beginning to produce.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

luftluuver
11-01-2005, 12:12 PM
The Merlin and Allison both had 2 speed, single stage superchargers. The Merlin did not get high altitude performance until the 60 series engines. The Allison could be boosted to 70".

Don't take the Angels 30 so literally. It was only used to point out the P-51 would be already be at interception altitude.

You ain't going to be feeling any better in a Spit at Angels 30 either. Remember the 8 hr escort missions to Germany were flown at Angels 25 to 35. The LW often flew intercepts from over Angels 30.

Yes the Spit could take 4 20mm but the Mustang still outperformed it.

You think cruising at eco cruise is harder on an engine than a full blown banzai climb to altitude for interception?

SkyChimp
11-01-2005, 06:53 PM
True, the British didn't 'develop' the P-51 but they did make some VITAL CONTRIBUTIONS to its development:
(a) Firstly, and I know this is being pedantic (especially since neither the British nor the Americans could foresee what would eventuate), but it was the British request for US assistance that provided most of the initial impetus for the P-51. True, some preliminary design work had been done by North American but it is doubtful whether this would have borne fruit as quickly or in the same way, if at all.


I agree - highly pedantic. I suppose an argument could be made that a need is the first impetus to design. But then again, as you said, design work had begun before the need was announced.





Secondly, and arguably much more important, was the marriage of the Mustang's unquestionably superb airframe with a power plant that was worthy of it and would bring out its best, especially at high altitude. The P-51 would never have realized its potential without this marriage. IMHO, there are few if any better examples of successful US/British co-operation.


The notion that the Brits were the ones that married the Merlin to the Mustang is one of the most told half-truths in the history of military aviation.

The story of the Merlin/Mustang relationship began back in 1940 when Packard began producing the first production Merlin €" the Merlin 28 €" a Packard version of the Merlin XX which was intended to power Lancaster bombers. In American nomenclature, it was designated V-1650-1. It was used to power the P-40F Warhawk. The Merlin 28 wasn€t simply a copy of a RR version; it was an improved engine with several American modifications.

Packard then began manufacturing a two stage engine, with a supercharger modified by, among other ways, by the adoption of a Wright supercharger drive quill. This new engine was designated V-1650-3. Production of that engine began in September 1941 and it was at that time, in September 1941, that it was decided by the Americans that the V-1650-3 should tried in the P-51, while the V-1650-1 continued to power the P-40F. AFAIK, RR had no model of the Merlin that was equivalent to the V-1650-3. And it was at that time that NAA began to design the Mustang to accept the new high altitude V-1650-3.

Despite the V-1710s and V-1650s similarities in size, installation of the 2-stage Merlin in the Mustang required significant modification to the airframe. First, the V-1650 was some 300lbs heavier than the V-1710. It also required the use of a 4-bladed prop, which added yet more weight. The cooling system required modification. From late 1941 to November 1942 NAA engaged in a redesign of the P-51 to accept the Merlin. NAA€s Merlin powered plane was originally called the XP-78, later redesignated XP-51B. Two were built.

During this time of NAA development, the USAAF, in August 1942, placed an order for 400 Packard Merlin powered Mustangs to be designated P-51B-1NAs.

In November 1942, NAA€s redesigned Mustang first flew with the Merlin.

Here is XP-51B numbers 1 and 2:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/xp51b.jpg

The Brits took a different approach, and it began in the summer of 1942. After the Brits spent time modifying the Spitfire with different wing foils and power plants, which seemed to result in a multitude of different Spitfire variants each suited to a specific role, they decided that the Mustang would make a good basis for an all-purpose fighter.

In April 1942, the British decided to explore mating the Merlin to the Mustang. In June 1942, the British decided to mate the Merlin 61 to an existing P-51 for comparative trials with the Spitfire. The preliminary studies for the modification of the Mustang were completed in July 1942. The plane used was AG422, a Mustang I. The result was unusual, producing a plane that had a large chin scoop similar to the P-40.
There were a lot of problems with this modification. More work was done and in August 1942 the revised modifications were complete. Mustang I, serial number AL975, was the first aircraft to fly with the Merlin 61- on October 13, 1942. Here is that very plane:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/mustangx.jpg

Future British modified Mustangs were designated Mustang X. A few appear to have had Merlin 65 engines.

In the few months following these trials, much information was traded between the British and the Americans on their respective efforts. The British compiled American data on the XP-51B, and the results of that study, as well and the USAAF orders for the P-51B, led the British to believe that the P-51B was the better solution to the Merlin/Mustang issue and further British attempts to modify existing planes were cancelled.

From these fact, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1) The Americans and British came up with, and worked on, mating the Merlin to the Mustang, concurrently, and independently.
2) The British method was to modify existing planes to accept the Merlin 61 (and sometimes 65).
3) The American method was to redesign the Mustang to accept Packard€s own V-1650-3 engine.
4) The British attempts resulted in planes that, while interesting, went nowhere.
5) The American attempts resulted in the XP-51B, a plane that with only the slightest refinement went into production as the P-51B.





(a) The Mustang was built initially FOR the British, as a result of the outcome of a British request for assistance.


The Mustang wasn€t designed for the British. That the British got the Mustang was incidental, and just plain good luck. Had the plane€s design not existed, the British would have gotten the P-40. NAA designed the Mustang for the same reasons all companies take upon themselves independent design and development €" to make money.




(b) It was supplied TO the British in substantial numbers and continued to be supplied after the US began using it.


Sure. So was the B-25 bomber, and numerous other planes.





(c) It was used BY the British and continued to be used by them for the rest of the war.


No argument there.





(d) It became a truly outstanding performer by adapting it to fit a BRITISH designed engine.
Seems to me, the British certainly 'had' the Mustang but of course, I'm being a smart-@rse here! What you meant was that the P-51 was a US design, which is obviously undeniable! (Sorry about that - couldn't resist it!)]


The Mustang was an outstanding fighter with the Allison. It would have been good with the Merlin 61, I€m sure. The engine that popular history says made it a legend was the Packard V-1650-3. The V-1650-3 was a development of the Merlin 61, with significant improvements. Enough to warrant a new British designation of Merlin 68 (I think). Rolls Royce never produced it€s own version of that engine, as far as I know.

So, British engine - with American modifications.





Although the eventual importance of the P-51 cannot be denied, this statement is open to some variance of opinion, depending on perspective in how we view the whole conduct of the war from beginning to end.

Firstly - On one hand, the employment of the P-51 as a long-range escort for the US daylight bombing offensive did not begin until end 43/beginning 44, by which time the tide of war had already turned decisively against Germany. On the other hand, the Luftwaffe's home fighter defence was still very strong and the P-51 was absolutely vital in reducing that strength. Sapping the Luftwaffe's fighter arm by forcing it to 'pour away' its dwindling resources in this manner undoubtedly had a telling effect on the fighting fronts and helped to shorten the war. Full credit to the P-51 for this achievement! Your view is largely substantiated here; however, there is another perspective:


I suppose one could argue the decline of the Luftwaffe began on the first day of the war. The Luftwaffe was far from finished in late 1943 and early 1944. Not only did the Mustang allow for escorted bombing of Berlin (before there was an allied airbase on continental Europe), it was a substantial reason why Luftwaffe command decided to move significant portions of the fighter force to Germany from western Europe. And the encounters with Mustang escorts over Germany, mainly following Doolittle€s orders in January 1944 that escort fighters would have free range to attack the Luftwaffe even if they were not posing an immediate threat to the bombers, was a significant event in the downfall of the Luftwaffe fighter force. It was the Germans, not the Americans, that defined this as the real turning point in the air war against the Jagdwaffe. The range and performance of the Mustang allowed the placement of a superb fighter over Germany proper. At that time, the Luftwaffe ceased to have safe haven. No place was safe. Their airfields, maintenance stations, training locations, all had Mustang shadows cast on them.





Secondly, one needs to ask, how was it that the USAAF was ABLE to wage this daylight offensive? Was it not because Britain had refused to succumb in 1940 and could thus provide not only the bases for the air offensive but the 'springboard' for the Second Front?
The outcome of the Battle of Britian helped signifcantly to ensure that Britain would be staying in the fight and thus also, that the Americans would eventually be able to bring their military muscle to bear against the Nazi war machine.
Two British types bore the brunt of the air fighting in this battle. Their role in the struggle was arguably every bit as vital as that of the P-51 later, and helped to make the achievements of the Mustang possible.
Looked at in the most simplistic terms, and considering fighters only, it could be said to go something like this:
(a] Early war - Hurricanes and Spitfires halt the further progress of the Luftwaffe in the West and help keep Britain in the War.
(b) Mid war (to end of '43) - Spitfires, P-47's, P-38's, Yaks and Lavochkins (among others) keep the pressure on and continue the fight through some more of the war's most important turning points.
(c) Late war (1944-45) - P-51 becomes decisive in helping to finish off the Luftwaffe.


The Battle of Britain was very important, no doubt, but not absolutely vital to winning the war. Had the Battle been lost, and England occupied by German forces, then the war could have been carried on from other areas.

The war in Europe had arguably three major fronts, not two. The fist being the eastern front, the second being the southern front, and the third being the western front. Had England been occupied, then the war would have been carried on from Italy. As you know, part of the strategic bombing campaign was prosecuted from Italy. And England would have eventually been liberated by a cross-channel invasion, going the other way. This wasn€t lost on Americans either, and plans to prosecute the war solely from the south were in hand, if the need were there

SkyChimp
11-01-2005, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The single most important fighter of the war was the Bf 109. Without this little aircraft the Luftwaffe would have been scuppered before it had even started invading Yurp. The Mustang is a great plane but 1944 is the ar se end of the war imo by which stage the Russians were really dictating where the Germans deployed their forces. Europe could still have been liberated without the Mustang, the Luftwaffe was defeated by fighting on three fronts not by a single type. Hell even Britain alone outproduced Germany in terms of aircraft up until 1942/43 if I recall.


The Russians weren't dictating where the Jagdwaffe placed its forces, at least not in the last half of the war. The western allied air forces did that.

The importance of the Mustang was, in large part, that it took away the last safe havens for the Luftwaffe, which was vital to the timely destruction of that force.

arcadeace
11-01-2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The Battle of Britain was very important, no doubt, but not absolutely vital to winning the war. Had the Battle been lost, and England occupied by German forces, then the war could have been carried on from other areas.

The war in Europe had arguably three major fronts, not two. The fist being the eastern front, the second being the southern front, and the third being the western front. Had England been occupied, then the war would have been carried on from Italy. As you know, part of the strategic bombing campaign was prosecuted from Italy. And England would have eventually been liberated by a cross-channel invasion, going the other way. This wasn€t lost on Americans either, and plans to prosecute the war solely from the south were in hand, if the need were there

If England lost the air war, say the fall of 1940, Montgomery would've redeployed his troops on the home front. Rommel would've had a free ride through North Africa strait to the oil fields. He would've joined with the 6th, combining forces with near endless supplies and rolled east crushing Russian forces, with the probable inability to recuperate and survive.

This ongoing scenario is highly speculative but we may not have had a chance for a foothold in northern Africa at least until the mid 40s. Our entire strategy would've changed and deployment for the second front would've begun on our own east coast; our very survival at stake.

The Battle of Britain was pivotal and the Hurricane and Spit played the most crucial roles in the war. I believe the Hurricane was the most important plane of WWII.

p1ngu666
11-01-2005, 09:59 PM
apart from if england fell, then the med, and africa would almost certainly fall. there would be rag tag resistance.

sure u could invade somewhere along africa, BUT any fleet, and u would need a big fleet would be open to attack, and resupply bases would be across the atlantic, or the few small islands.

and while u forage, the land wouldnt be able to sustain such a dense population.

hm, so the alison was aprently better or equal to a merlin at high alt?
so why is it the alison engine planes the english got, p38,p39,p40 where tested and found tobe unsatisfactory? remmber, theres no merlin 60series about then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

luft, your partly missing the point. with the longer range but slower climber ud haveto take them off earlier for any intercept thats high.

the enemy could take advantage of that, do dummy raids. and u will want to confirm first that there are bombers in the formation, u dont want to go tearing up after a formation to find out its a bunch of fighters. thats warclouds, not war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the two best interceptors of the war where spit and 109.
primary factors of a interceptor at that time, where rate of climb, firepower to deal with bombers, enuff speed to catch them, good altitude performance, range needed tobe sufficent.

p51 was probably the best escort fighter, and yes in theory u could intercept with it, u could intercept with a val aswell...

p1ngu666
11-01-2005, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The Battle of Britain was very important, no doubt, but not absolutely vital to winning the war. Had the Battle been lost, and England occupied by German forces, then the war could have been carried on from other areas.

The war in Europe had arguably three major fronts, not two. The fist being the eastern front, the second being the southern front, and the third being the western front. Had England been occupied, then the war would have been carried on from Italy. As you know, part of the strategic bombing campaign was prosecuted from Italy. And England would have eventually been liberated by a cross-channel invasion, going the other way. This wasn€t lost on Americans either, and plans to prosecute the war solely from the south were in hand, if the need were there

If England lost the air war, say the fall of 1940, Montgomery would've redeployed his troops on the home front. Rommel would've had a free ride through North Africa strait to the oil fields. He would've joined with the 6th, combining forces with near endless supplies and rolled east crushing Russian forces, with the probable inability to recuperate and survive.

This ongoing scenario is highly speculative but we may not have had a chance for a foothold in northern Africa at least until the mid 40s. Our entire strategy would've changed and deployment for the second front would've begun on our own east coast; our very survival at stake.

The Battle of Britain was pivotal and the Hurricane and Spit played the most crucial roles in the war. I believe the Hurricane was the most important plane of WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

imo if britain fell, then the war would be entirely different. the axis would push to link up, a invasion with russia may have been called off. the japanease wouldnt have attacked america. so u would probably end up with 4 sides.
1)the americas from canada to the tip of south america, 2)axis covering europe, expanding in africa,middle east taken, japan would be pushing thru india, large parts of asia under its control.
3)russia, surrounded with treaties
4)resistance in europe,africa,asia etc
5)neturals
there would be a 3/4sided cold war arms race.

lrrp22
11-01-2005, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
primary factors of a interceptor at that time, where rate of climb, firepower to deal with bombers, enuff speed to catch them, good altitude performance, range needed tobe sufficent.


P1ngu,

Good radar early warning was really the most important factor that led to a successful intercept. Long loiter/patrol time coupled with radar early warning would have made the Mustang a fine interceptor. Like I said, any dedicated interceptor Merlin Mustangs would have run at +25 lbs boost and a pure fighter load-out. ROC in that configuration is competitive with any of its prop-driven contemporaries. Armament isn't ideal for bomber interception, but four Hispano Mk. V's would have fit quite nicely in the Mustang's wing!

Of course if you're talking 1942, then disregard every thing I just posted!




p51 was probably the best escort fighter, and yes in theory u could intercept with it, u could intercept with a val aswell...

There's no 'probably' about it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif And could a Val climb at 4500+ fpm and reach 440-450 mph?

As for Germany winning the BoB- I shudder to think of the consequences. Of course you Brit's would have made the price of any cross-Channel invasion so dear that even a loss in the air may not necessarily have meant invasion.

p1ngu666
11-01-2005, 11:07 PM
i just mean that in theory, theres no minium requirement for intercepting performance.

so the plan to turn a p51 into a interceptor is to ditch whatever weight possible, and fit bigger guns...

so having done that, ull end up with something that will probably equal the spitfires performance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (including range, more or less i bet..)

for the british, they probably worked that out, and your buliding probably the best interceptor in the world, and in america there buliding probably the best long range fighter in the world. so really u shouldnt try to turn each fighter into the other

p1ngu666
11-01-2005, 11:14 PM
btw, the val accordin to il2c has about 7~metres per second than p51b

but val has 400+hp less (1075hp), in a more draggy radial, and it has a rear gunner. removeing him, rear gun, slide in a merlin... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
11-02-2005, 03:42 AM
Skychimp wrote:

Had England been occupied, then the war would have been carried on from Italy

Absolutely ridiculous! How on earth would a landing in Italy have been achieved with no base in Europe or North Africa to launch it from, with an invasion force having to first squeeze past a German-occupied Gibraltar? Italy was a tough campaign even with Gibraltar, Malta and North Africa under Allied control and after Italy swapped to the Allied cause. With Britain out of the war it would have been impossible.

WOLFMondo
11-02-2005, 04:33 AM
Totally agree on that. No invasion of North Africa or Italy would have been possible without the UK being in British hands.

panther3485
11-02-2005, 05:40 AM
Hello SkyChimp,

My statement:
True, the British didn't 'develop' the P-51 but they did make some VITAL CONTRIBUTIONS to its development:
(a) Firstly, and I know this is being pedantic (especially since neither the British nor the Americans could foresee what would eventuate), but it was the British request for US assistance that provided most of the initial impetus for the P-51. True, some preliminary design work had been done by North American but it is doubtful whether this would have borne fruit as quickly or in the same way, if at all.


Your reply (Quote 1):
*"I agree - highly pedantic. I suppose an argument could be made that a need is the first impetus to design. But then again, as you said, design work had begun before the need was announced."

[Again, in case you missed it -
True, some preliminary design work had been done by North American but it is DOUBTFUL WHETHER THIS WOULD HAVE BORNE FRUIT AS QUICKLY OR IN THE SAME WAY, if at all.]


My statement:
Secondly, and arguably much more important, was the marriage of the Mustang's unquestionably superb airframe with a power plant that was worthy of it and would bring out its best, especially at high altitude. The P-51 would never have realized its potential without this marriage. (etc)


And your reply (Quote 2):
*"The notion that the Brits were the ones that married the Merlin to the Mustang is one of the most told half-truths in the history of military aviation."

[You seem to have misread me here. I NEVER SAID it was the Brits that 'married the Merlin to the Mustang'. My point is that the MARRIAGE ITSELF was what enabled to P-51 to realize it's full potential. I made NO statement about who performed the ceremony.]


You go on to say (Quote 3):
*"The story of the Merlin/Mustang relationship began back in 1940 when Packard began producing the first production Merlin €" the Merlin 28 €" a Packard version of the Merlin XX which was intended to power Lancaster bombers. In American nomenclature, it was designated V-1650-1. It was used to power the P-40F Warhawk. The Merlin 28 wasn€t simply a copy of a RR version; it was an improved engine with several American modifications."

[Nobody is trying to deny that the Americans made improvements to the Merlin, as did the British, each in accordance with percieved needs. Many of the aviation engines used by both sides in WW2 underwent a process of continuous improvement. It was necessary in War. Nevertheless, to be successful it's best to have a sound design to start with. The fact remains that it was a BRITISH design and an exceptionally sound one. Without RR's engine, there would have been no 'Packard' version and nothing to make improvements TO.]


Then, you add (Quote 4):
*"Packard then began manufacturing a two stage engine, with a supercharger modified by, among other ways, by the adoption of a Wright supercharger drive quill. This new engine was designated V-1650-3. Production of that engine began in September 1941 and it was at that time, in September 1941, that it was decided by the Americans that the V-1650-3 should tried in the P-51,.... (etc and so on)"

[All very interesting and AFAIK, true, but it doesn't change the basic fact of an AMERICAN DESIGNED AIRFRAME married to a BRITISH DESIGNED ENGINE. Sure, you've highlighted the fact that the Americans did quite a bit of work to make the marriage effective. But if either the bride or the groom isn't there to start with, the wedding is still off and that particular breed of 'child' will never be born!]

You also said (Quote 5):
*"In the few months following these trials, much information was traded between the British and the Americans on their respective efforts. The British compiled American data on the XP-51B, and the results of that study, as well and the USAAF orders for the P-51B, led the British to believe that the P-51B was the better solution to the Merlin/Mustang issue and further British attempts to modify existing planes were cancelled."

[Which further helps to emphasize the high levels of US/British co-operation I spoke of. In this instance, the US solution was clearly better and credit to the Americans for that. Of course, since the airframe was a North American design, it seems only natural that it should be North American that would be in the best position to do this work. But none of that in any way diminshes the value of the original British contribution, the excellent Rolls Royce Merlin engine.]

Any your conclusions (Quote 6):
*" 1) The Americans and British came up with, and worked on, mating the Merlin to the Mustang, concurrently, and independently.
2) The British method was to modify existing planes to accept the Merlin 61 (and sometimes 65).
3) The American method was to redesign the Mustang to accept Packard€s own V-1650-3 engine.
4) The British attempts resulted in planes that, while interesting, went nowhere.
5) The American attempts resulted in the XP-51B, a plane that with only the slightest refinement went into production as the P-51B.

[As already answered, the value of the original British engine design is what made it all possible in the first place. And NAA were in the best position to decide on, and make, the required airframe mods.]


And now:

My statement:
The Mustang was built initially FOR the British, as a result of the outcome of a British request for assistance.

Your answer (Quote 7):
*"The Mustang wasn€t designed for the British."

[Do you intentionally misread/misquote me? I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!!!]

Quote 8:
*"That the British got the Mustang was incidental, and just plain good luck. Had the plane€s design not existed, the British would have gotten the P-40. NAA designed the Mustang for the same reasons all companies take upon themselves independent design and development €" to make money."

[True, it turned out to be very fortunate for both the British AND the Americans that the preliminary design work had already begun. However, serious interest from the US Military was initially very slow to awaken and may not have done so any time soon (if ever), had it not been for NAA's efforts on behalf of the British.
From 'Mustang', by Stewart Wilson:
"At this still pre-Pearl-Harbor stage, the US military could find little use for another design as it was already committed to the P-38, P-47, P-40 and P-39. But the events of 7 December 1941 saw the USA embroiled in a global conflict whether it liked it or not, and the USAAF immediately decided to take a further look at the two evaluation XP-51s it had on strength."
Had it not been for NAA's efforts, stimulated by the requirements of the British, it is highly questionable whether there would have been any XP-51 to evaluate at this particular point in time.]


My statement:
(b) It was supplied TO the British in substantial numbers and continued to be supplied after the US began using it.

Your answer (Quote 9):
*"Sure. So was the B-25 bomber, and numerous other planes."

[Which means the British 'had' them all, right?]


My statement:
(d) It became a truly outstanding performer by adapting it to fit a BRITISH designed engine.
Seems to me, the British certainly 'had' the Mustang but of course, I'm being a smart-@rse here! What you meant was that the P-51 was a US design, which is obviously undeniable! (Sorry about that - couldn't resist it!)]

Your answer (Quote 10):
*"The Mustang was an outstanding fighter with the Allison."

['Outstanding' might be debatable but in any case, with the Allison as generally fitted before the P-51B, it was definitely NOT 'outstanding', or even viable, in the role we have been focussing on, i.e. that of a long-range, high-altitude, high-performance escort fighter for the USAAF daylight offensive against Germany.]

And you go on (Quote 11):
*"It would have been good with the Merlin 61, I€m sure. The engine that popular history says made it a legend was the Packard V-1650-3. The V-1650-3 was a development of the Merlin 61, with significant improvements. Enough to warrant a new British designation of Merlin 68 (I think). Rolls Royce never produced it€s own version of that engine, as far as I know.
So, British engine - with American modifications."

[That American mods were made has already been acknowledged but it was still a BRITISH DESIGNED ENGINE!!!! That is the essential point here!!!! This particular outcome WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT that British design.]


My statement:
Although the eventual importance of the P-51 cannot be denied, this statement is open to some variance of opinion, depending on perspective in how we view the whole conduct of the war from beginning to end. (etc)

Your answer (Quote 12):
*"I suppose one could argue the decline of the Luftwaffe began on the first day of the war. The Luftwaffe was far from finished in late 1943 and early 1944. Not only did the Mustang allow for escorted bombing of Berlin (before there was an allied airbase on continental Europe), it was a substantial reason why Luftwaffe command decided to move significant portions of the fighter force to Germany from western Europe. And the encounters with Mustang escorts over Germany, mainly following Doolittle€s orders in January 1944 that escort fighters would have free range to attack the Luftwaffe even if they were not posing an immediate threat to the bombers, was a significant event in the downfall of the Luftwaffe fighter force. It was the Germans, not the Americans, that defined this as the real turning point in the air war against the Jagdwaffe. The range and performance of the Mustang allowed the placement of a superb fighter over Germany proper. At that time, the Luftwaffe ceased to have safe haven. No place was safe. Their airfields, maintenance stations, training locations, all had Mustang shadows cast on them."

[Exactly - and all from an aircraft that was the product of the marriage of an AMERICAN Designed airframe with a BRITISH designed engine.]


My statement:
Secondly, one needs to ask, how was it that the USAAF was ABLE to wage this daylight offensive? Was it not because Britain had refused to succumb in 1940 and could thus provide not only the bases for the air offensive but the 'springboard' for the Second Front?
The outcome of the Battle of Britian helped signifcantly to ensure that Britain would be staying in the fight and thus also, that the Americans would eventually be able to bring their military muscle to bear against the Nazi war machine.
Two British types bore the brunt of the air fighting in this battle. Their role in the struggle was arguably every bit as vital as that of the P-51 later, and helped to make the achievements of the Mustang possible.
Looked at in the most simplistic terms, and considering fighters only, it could be said to go something like this:
(a] Early war - Hurricanes and Spitfires halt the further progress of the Luftwaffe in the West and help keep Britain in the War.
(b) Mid war (to end of '43) - Spitfires, P-47's, P-38's, Yaks and Lavochkins (among others) keep the pressure on and continue the fight through some more of the war's most important turning points.
(c) Late war (1944-45) - P-51 becomes decisive in helping to finish off the Luftwaffe.


Your answer (Quote 13):
"The Battle of Britain was very important, no doubt, but not absolutely vital to winning the war."

[Sorry, but I and numerous historians would maintain that it WAS definitely pivotal to the eventual outcome. More follows.]


You continue (Quote 14):
*"Had the Battle been lost, and England occupied by German forces, then the war could have been carried on from other areas."

[Had the British lost the Battle of Britain, it may well NOT have been necessary for the Germans to mount a full-scale invasion. All that was needed to fulfil German plans was for the British to quit on terms acceptable to Hitler. In either scenario, it is highly questionable whether the war would have been 'carried on from other areas' in the sense that you seem to imply (i.e. from the West) Please read on:]

You continue (Quote 15):
*"The war in Europe had arguably three major fronts, not two. The first being the eastern front, the second being the southern front, and the third being the western front. Had England been occupied, then the war would have been carried on from Italy. As you know, part of the strategic bombing campaign was prosecuted from Italy."

[Had Britian succumbed and been effectively taken out of the war on Hitler's terms, this would most certainly have included the cessation of hostilities from all of the Empire/Commonwealth nations as well. Among the consequences of this would have been:

(a) No credible opposition to Italian ambitions in North Africa and the Mediterranean
(b) No British/Commonwealth support for Greece, which would then have fallen even more rapidly to the axis
(c) No British fomentation of unrest in Yogoslavia (which had helped to turn that country against Germany, necessitating urgent German intervention)
(d) No need for the Germans to send Rommel and the Afrika Korps to help the Italians
(e) Axis control over both Gibraltar and Suez, hence access to the Mediterranean by sea
(f) Enhanced strategic possibilites for the Germans (access to oil, more pressure on Russia etc)
(g) Axis domination/control over the WHOLE Mediterranean region.

In other words, there would have been NO 'carrying on the war from Italy', because there would have been no effective way of launching an American offensive from anywhere in this region, at least not without considerable delay and even then ONLY IF the USA wanted to get involved at all!]

And this from you (Quote 16):
*"And England would have eventually been liberated by a cross-channel invasion, going the other way. This wasn€t lost on Americans either, and plans to prosecute the war solely from the south were in hand, if the need were there"

[Without the British still being in the fight, it is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE, to say the least, whether the USA would have allowed itself to become involved in the conflict in Europe. Hitler declared war on the USA mainly because they had been blatantly helping the British. They wouldn't have been doing this if Britain went down in 1940. With the British out of the fight, why would the USA even bother?

Prior to the Battle of Britian, most of the World, including the USA, expected the British to be beaten. The outcome of BoB changed all that. It showed that that the hitherto unbeatable Luftwaffe could be stopped and given a bloody nose. It showed that Britian would survive and stay in the fight. It buoyed hopes for Britain and all Commonwealth nations. It helped to begin the gradual process of gaining American sympathy and turning US public opinion (though Churchill still had to lobby very hard, through his 'pal' Roosevelt, and even that wasn't enough until other events took a hand).
It meant that Hitler, if he failed to knock Russia out quickly, would be condemned to fight a war on at least two fronts. It meant that Britain would provide the 'springboard' that would ALLOW American industrial and manpower superiority to be brought to bear against the Nazis. And without all of this, we would not have had the US daylight bombing offensive against Germany and the chance for the P-51 to show its paces as an escort in that offensive.]


Best regards,
panther3485

mynameisroland
11-02-2005, 06:25 AM
From reading all of the posts on page 7 of this topic Id like to add a few opinions without quoting to prevent clogging up this thread.

The Mustang did not have the right attributes to be a great interceptor. It did not have the required roc, the manuverability, the weapons or the power to weight ratio. Looking at the argument the other way round and saying it didnt need to climb fast as it could patrol the area is nonsense. It is self defeating to have standing patrols and without the possibility of inflight refuling the Mustang always runs the risk of being caught short by a dummy raid and then having to rtb just as the real raid is sighted.

The concept of 'Oh its easy if Britain falls we would just invade Italy' is short sighted and strategically impossible in an Axis controlled Med, North Africa and Europe. The logistics would be insurmountable and both the Allied landings in Italy and in France were masterminded, manned and carried out by the RN. The USA did not have the capability to organise amphibious operations to the same extent while fighting in Pacific at the same time. Lets say they prioritized the European theatre over the Pacific in order to invade. Their lines of communication would have been impossibly large. There would be a zero percent chance of the USA being able to successfully invade any part of Europe using the East coast of the USA as a staging point.

Regarding the Merlin, well last time I checked it was a British design. So what if America tweaked it here and there good luck to them the fact remains it was a British design produced under license. Must have been the luxury of not having your factories bombed or working to maximum production to stave off an enemy 25 miles away from your coastline that enabled you to modify it and make it 'even better'. while Packard were mass producing the Merlin , RollsRoyce were busy putting the finishing touches on the Griffon which IMO was the best liquid cooled piston engine to come out of Britain during WW2.

Sorry if these comments appear harsh but I do not accept the notion that the Packard built Merlin was in anyway an American design achievement.

arcadeace
11-02-2005, 06:36 AM
SkyChimp is teh American Hitler http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JtD
11-02-2005, 08:13 AM
The fact that the P-51 replaced a lot of other fighter types doesn't neccessarily reflect the relative combat strenghts.

What most people here always forget is the cost of a fighter, and the P-51 was cheaper than the Spitfire, the P-47 and the P-38. In fact, it was about half as expensive as a P-38.

Esp over the Pacific the Lightning would be far better than the Mustang - and if its just because the Lightning as a two engined plane providing some backup when one engine failed.

It is certainly true that the Mustang did the jobs it had to do well enough, and it did it at a lower overall cost than it's contemporaries. But this does in no way mean it did all the jobs better than other models and thus replaced all of them sooner or later.

mynameisroland
11-02-2005, 09:07 AM
good points JtD

Many Americans feel the P51 was jack of all trades master of non (except for the holy grail of long range escort http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )P47 was better at high altitude. P38 was better for the pacific. Both were superior fighter bombers. Spitfire was better interceptor/dogfighter/recon aircraft.

Had the war in the Pacific lasted another 18 months I would have loved to have seen the Sea Fury and Sea Hornet match up against what was left of the IJN and IJA airforces. These two had the potential to be the best.

p1ngu666
11-02-2005, 11:52 AM
u forgot best war winner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Doug_Thompson
11-02-2005, 12:29 PM
What most people here always forget is the cost of a fighter, and the P-51 was cheaper than the Spitfire, the P-47 and the P-38. In fact, it was about half as expensive as a P-38.

Wise words, these.

The 'stang was designed as much for ease of production as aerodynamic excellence. The pieces of it's frame fit together like a big model kit. I don't know how many man-hours it took to build one, but it wasn't much compared to others.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-02-2005, 12:34 PM
Spitfire wing was particularly nasty to constuct with the deliberate twist so it doesn't surprise me.

Cost is one thing...and not always related to the man-hours required to build it (if you're using slave labour, for instance)...anyone have figures for the number of hours required to construct these types (and 190, preferably).

Ta,
Norris

lrrp22
11-02-2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Esp over the Pacific the Lightning would be far better than the Mustang - and if its just because the Lightning as a two engined plane providing some backup when one engine failed.

Is that why the P-51D was chosen over the P-38L for the Very Long Range B-29 escorts to Japan? It is a mistaken belief that the P-38 was 'preferred' over the P-51 in all theaters save the ETO. Quite the opposite in fact.

The fact is that the P-51 was the USAAF's fighter of choice in the escort/air superiority role in all theaters.


.

lrrp22
11-02-2005, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Mustang did not have the right attributes to be a great interceptor. It did not have the required roc, the manuverability, the weapons or the power to weight ratio. Looking at the argument the other way round and saying it didnt need to climb fast as it could patrol the area is nonsense. It is self defeating to have standing patrols and without the possibility of inflight refuling the Mustang always runs the risk of being caught short by a dummy raid and then having to rtb just as the real raid is sighted.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. You need to support your contention with facts. How much rate of climb is needed? THe 3500 fpm achieved by a 10,200 lbs P-51D at 67" Hg hardly tells the whole story, does it?

Just how many interceptors in 1944-45 were making balls-out max-rate climbs to altitude to intercept the various intruders? The Bf 109 certainly wasn't. Do you really want to meet the bomber stream at 170 mph with an engine on the edge of boiling over? Is that really the condition in which you want to deal with the escorts? Frankly, your contention that a max power climb to intercept an intruder bearing down is preferable to a pre-positioned intercept element is ridiculous.

Despite your repeated claims, the P-51 was as manuevarable as anything the Luftwaffe fielded in 44-45. More so in many cases.

.

Aaron_GT
11-02-2005, 03:09 PM
Just how many interceptors in 1944-45 were making balls-out max-rate climbs to altitude to intercept the various intruders? The Bf 109 certainly wasn't. Do you really want to meet the bomber stream at 170 mph with an engine on the edge of boiling over?

That's an argument for a good engine and even higher ROC so you can, with relatively little warning, get to an altitude above the enemy and get to a decent combat speed.


Frankly, your contention that a max power climb to intercept an intruder bearing down is preferable to a pre-positioned intercept element is ridiculous.

It was the thinking behind interceptors from the very first until the 1960s. Perhaps the finest operational example of this in WW2 is the Me163, a plane with such an impressive ROC it required a special low flatulence diet for the pilots, followed post war by interceptors such as ones that didn't reach service from Supermarine and Saunders Roe and finally the Lightning.

lrrp22
11-02-2005, 04:23 PM
Aaron,

It appears that by the second half of WWII that without good early warning, the interception was probably already a failure at wheels up. After all, the Luftwaffe's best bomber interceptors wasn't the 109 with its excellent climb rate, it was the heavily armed Fw 190 with its rather mediocre climb rates. Before round-trip escorts became the order of the day, the German Zerstorers made very good interceptors. Despite the modest climb rates, the 190s and the twins didn't seem to have a problem forming-up ahead of the bombers.

As for the Allies, the traditional interceptor role wasn't an important one by 1944. The Kamikaze threat was the obvious exception, but that was handled more by early-warning destroyer pickets and CAP's than by mad dashes to altitude. Having said that, excellent sustained climb is always of benefit to a fighter.

BTW, isn't the Me 163 considered an abject failure and a great waste of resources? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

That's an argument for a good engine and even higher ROC so you can, with relatively little warning, get to an altitude above the enemy and get to a decent combat speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Frankly, your contention that a max power climb to intercept an intruder bearing down is preferable to a pre-positioned intercept element is ridiculous.

It was the thinking behind interceptors from the very first until the 1960s. Perhaps the finest operational example of this in WW2 is the Me163, a plane with such an impressive ROC it required a special low flatulence diet for the pilots, followed post war by interceptors such as ones that didn't reach service from Supermarine and Saunders Roe and finally the Lightning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
11-02-2005, 05:37 PM
well the me163 was designed to go after high flying fast photo recon planes. hence its literaly explosive performance.

also the germans didnt haveto climb as hard, think allied bomber crews could average 5 hours over enemy terrority, against the 1 hour and 30mins or so of the germans over england. i think the germans also differed from fighter command, who would trickle in fighters mostly, the germans tried to get huge formations together, which is unweldy and u need more time..

oh and the problem of forming up ahead of the bombers, what happens if htey suddenly change course?

throughout time, a interceptors specs are judged by rate of climb, firepower then speed. speed is mostly useful in running away, which is the opposite of a interceptors role http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

for european countries, there smallness ment that roc was more important, wherever wasnt that far from where u are, gettin the height in time was more important. and a lighter aircraft will climb better, ie reach a higher alt for any given time.

buliding longer range planes like the americans did, as america is big, speed is probably more helpful, wherever is likely along way away. and fighter vs fighter, the long range will be heavier, and u cant do too much about that, unless the other design is poo, and u shouldnt really rely on the other chap being useless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

u can probably make it faster tho, if your willing to give up turn...

incidently, i made i made a missions with american planes being interceptors (actully start co alt)
the american planes are much worse at intercepting than the german planes.
and i had p51D,p38Late,p47,corsair and hellcat the "best" american planes.

SkyChimp
11-02-2005, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Skychimp wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Had England been occupied, then the war would have been carried on from Italy

Absolutely ridiculous! How on earth would a landing in Italy have been achieved with no base in Europe or North Africa to launch it from, with an invasion force having to first squeeze past a German-occupied Gibraltar? Italy was a tough campaign even with Gibraltar, Malta and North Africa under Allied control and after Italy swapped to the Allied cause. With Britain out of the war it would have been impossible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously, Aaron, the remaining allies would have had to fight their way into Europe. The Americans managed to stage a huge landing in North Africa without starting from Great Britain. Germans couldn't be everywhere in numbers all at once, especially if they were occupying Great Britain. A tougher war, no doubt. But the winning of the BoB wasn't necessary to winning the war.

Daiichidoku
11-02-2005, 06:05 PM
had germany successfully invaded england, hitler never would have declared war on USA in the first place

even if USA declared war on germany, it would be many years before it could mount any sort of effective war on germany, due to logistics, range and overall preparedness
as ireland being neutral, and probably by german threat not allwing US activity there, the rest of UK would be easily defended by germany
med/africa TO would be a VERY difficult nut to crack for US, to say the least

not to mention the distraction of JP....


US would probably follow a "defense" policy, in regards to atlantic, anyhow

p1ngu666
11-02-2005, 06:10 PM
i think there was a few allied troops in north africa before the americans arrived...

lrrp22
11-02-2005, 06:14 PM
Hey P1ngu

I still don't think good ROC trumps good early warning in executing a successful intercept. It wasn't phenomenal climb rates that won the Battle of Britain after all. Neither the Spitfire I or Hurricane was good for much better than 3,000 fpm, yet they managed to stave off the best the Luftwaffe could throw at them.

Like you said, by the time the daylight strategic bombing campaign got into full swing, the Luftwaffe had ample amounts of time to coordinate its defenses.

What happens if the bombers suddenly changed course? Well, then the intercept failed. It happened all the time. Longer loiter times would have been much better in that situation than than would super sustained climb. Mustangs would have had the range and cruise speed to better deal with that kind of scenario.

Maybe you could describe it this way: the P-51 and P-38 would have made excellent strategic interceptors, while the Spitfire and Bf 109 made for excellent tactical interceptors. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


.



Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well the me163 was designed to go after high flying fast photo recon planes. hence its literaly explosive performance.

also the germans didnt haveto climb as hard, think allied bomber crews could average 5 hours over enemy terrority, against the 1 hour and 30mins or so of the germans over england. i think the germans also differed from fighter command, who would trickle in fighters mostly, the germans tried to get huge formations together, which is unweldy and u need more time..

oh and the problem of forming up ahead of the bombers, what happens if htey suddenly change course?

throughout time, a interceptors specs are judged by rate of climb, firepower then speed. speed is mostly useful in running away, which is the opposite of a interceptors role http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

for european countries, there smallness ment that roc was more important, wherever wasnt that far from where u are, gettin the height in time was more important. and a lighter aircraft will climb better, ie reach a higher alt for any given time.

buliding longer range planes like the americans did, as america is big, speed is probably more helpful, wherever is likely along way away. and fighter vs fighter, the long range will be heavier, and u cant do too much about that, unless the other design is poo, and u shouldnt really rely on the other chap being useless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

u can probably make it faster tho, if your willing to give up turn...

incidently, i made i made a missions with american planes being interceptors (actully start co alt)
the american planes are much worse at intercepting than the german planes.
and i had p51D,p38Late,p47,corsair and hellcat the "best" american planes.

luftluuver
11-02-2005, 06:49 PM
well the me163 was designed to go after high flying fast photo recon planes. hence its literaly explosive performance.

Well that is a new one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Can you tell us what fast high flying PR a/c the RAF had in the late 30s, as that in when the first development of the Me163 was taking place?

For you people that think the Spitfire was a great intercepter because of its RoC. The Spitfire Vb with a 90gal overload tank had a RoC of ~2150f/m. Note this gives the Spitfire a total fuel load of 178gal which is less than the early Mustangs, yet the early Mustang's RoC was ~2600f/m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif


The Mustang did not have the right attributes to be a great interceptor. It did not have the required roc, the manuverability, the weapons or the power to weight ratio. Looking at the argument the other way round and saying it didnt need to climb fast as it could patrol the area is nonsense. It is self defeating to have standing patrols and without the possibility of inflight refuling the Mustang always runs the risk of being caught short by a dummy raid and then having to rtb just as the real raid is sighted.

Why does an intercepter need to be manueverability, Roland. Bombers are not that manueverable.

Yes RAF fighters were caught with their pants down during BoB because of their lack of endurance. Actually it is better as the patrols could be closer to the enemy's airfields, thus the spoof raids could be attacked. The enemy is not going to let these spoof raiders be attacked and so the 109/190s would have to be along to protect them, which means less escorts available for the real raid.

Just as the Spitfire was upgunned when it was found the .303s had a hard time disposing of German bombers, the Mustang, which did have 4 20mm cannon on some, could have had more a/c produced with the cannons if there was the need.

SkyChimp
11-02-2005, 06:55 PM
Hello SkyChimp,


Hello. Please try some HTML commands. Your posts are very good, but hard to follow.




Again, in case you missed it -
True, some preliminary design work had been done by North American but it is DOUBTFUL WHETHER THIS WOULD HAVE BORNE FRUIT AS QUICKLY OR IN THE SAME WAY, if at all.


Speculative. NAA was designing the Mustang to sell to the US. It would have been presented to them.




You seem to have misread me here. I NEVER SAID it was the Brits that 'married the Merlin to the Mustang'. My point is that the MARRIAGE ITSELF was what enabled to P-51 to realize it's full potential. I made NO statement about who performed the ceremony.


My apologies. But nevertheless, it€s myth that it was solely a British endeavor. That€s popular history, and it€s wrong. If this wasn€t you implication, OK.





Nobody is trying to deny that the Americans made improvements to the Merlin, as did the British, each in accordance with percieved needs. Many of the aviation engines used by both sides in WW2 underwent a process of continuous improvement. It was necessary in War. Nevertheless, to be successful it's best to have a sound design to start with. The fact remains that it was a BRITISH design and an exceptionally sound one. Without RR's engine, there would have been no 'Packard' version and nothing to make improvements TO.


Necessity is the mother of invention. If there was no RR engine, Packard would have been free to build the Allison, or some other engine. And instead of Wright taking time to refine the RR supercharger, perhaps they would have developed a better supercharger for the Allison. Who knows. One thing is certain, these guys wouldn€t have been idle. Maybe the P-51J would have gone into production, an extremely performant Mustang with a two-stage Allison engine.




All very interesting and AFAIK, true, but it doesn't change the basic fact of an AMERICAN DESIGNED AIRFRAME married to a BRITISH DESIGNED ENGINE. Sure, you've highlighted the fact that the Americans did quite a bit of work to make the marriage effective. But if either the bride or the groom isn't there to start with, the wedding is still off and that particular breed of 'child' will never be born!


Maybe. But if a high altitude Mustang was needed, one would have been found, regardless of whether the Merlin was available. Again, the XP-51J was an extremely performant high altitude Mustang with an all American Allison with a 2-stage supercharger. The RR Merlin wasn€t necessary for the Mustang to become a great fighter. It was only needed for it to become a great fighter when it did.





Which further helps to emphasize the high levels of US/British co-operation I spoke of. In this instance, the US solution was clearly better and credit to the Americans for that. Of course, since the airframe was a North American design, it seems only natural that it should be North American that would be in the best position to do this work. But none of that in any way diminshes the value of the original British contribution, the excellent Rolls Royce Merlin engine.


No question about it. The purpose of my post was to put credit where it was due. The Merlin was British, and absolutely superb. We should give credit to the Americans for recognizing that.





As already answered, the value of the original British engine design is what made it all possible in the first place. And NAA were in the best position to decide on, and make, the required airframe mods.


My answer above applies here, too.





Do you intentionally misread/misquote me? I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!!


OK, I misquoted. But the spirit of my answer remains.





True, it turned out to be very fortunate for both the British AND the Americans that the preliminary design work had already begun. However, serious interest from the US Military was initially very slow to awaken and may not have done so any time soon (if ever), had it not been for NAA's efforts on behalf of the British.
From 'Mustang', by Stewart Wilson:
"At this still pre-Pearl-Harbor stage, the US military could find little use for another design as it was already committed to the P-38, P-47, P-40 and P-39. But the events of 7 December 1941 saw the USA embroiled in a global conflict whether it liked it or not, and the USAAF immediately decided to take a further look at the two evaluation XP-51s it had on strength."
Had it not been for NAA's efforts, stimulated by the requirements of the British, it is highly questionable whether there would have been any XP-51 to evaluate at this particular point in time.


I€ve seen that theory before. But it doesn€t make a lot of sense. NAA designed the Mustang for the purposes of trying to sell it to the US. Before it could, it found a customer in Great Britain. Had that not occurred, it would have kept its focus on marketing the plane to the US. Airplane manufacturers generally don€t develop combat plane, then keep them to themselves.





'Outstanding' might be debatable but in any case, with the Allison as generally fitted before the P-51B, it was definitely NOT 'outstanding', or even viable, in the role we have been focussing on, i.e. that of a long-range, high-altitude, high-performance escort fighter for the USAAF daylight offensive against Germany.


It wasn€t originally designed to be a long range, high altitude, escort fighter. It was designed to be a general purpose fighter/bomber that operated at low to medium altitude. In that regard, it was outstanding. Even the Brits assessed it that way. It was modified to do those other things, and it was outstanding at that, too.





That American mods were made has already been acknowledged but it was still a BRITISH DESIGNED ENGINE!!!! That is the essential point here!!!! This particular outcome WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT that British design.


Why wouldn€t it have come out that way? The outcome may have taken longer, but to say it would have never happened isn€t plausible.

There was really nothing inherently superior about the base Merlin over the base Allison. The edge the Merlin had was in its supercharger. One of the reasons the Allison wasn€t built with an integral 2-stage supercharger is because it would have taken too long to design one and retool for it. Why do that when the Merlin fit the bill? Had the Merlin not been available, the US may have had no choice but to build a new Allison.

Some aviation historians say the greatest engine NEVER built was an Allison with a RR-like 2-stage supercharger.





Exactly - and all from an aircraft that was the product of the marriage of an AMERICAN Designed airframe with a BRITISH designed engine.


What got the Mustang to Berlin was a clean design and a lot of fuel. The Merlin wasn€t a very fuel-thrifty engine despite popular notion. And by 1944, there was a viable alternative power plant, the Allison with an auxiliary supercharger. See the XP-51J.





Had Britian succumbed and been effectively taken out of the war on Hitler's terms, this would most certainly have included the cessation of hostilities from all of the Empire/Commonwealth nations as well. Among the consequences of this would have been:

(a) No credible opposition to Italian ambitions in North Africa and the Mediterranean
(b) No British/Commonwealth support for Greece, which would then have fallen even more rapidly to the axis
(c) No British fomentation of unrest in Yogoslavia (which had helped to turn that country against Germany, necessitating urgent German intervention)
(d) No need for the Germans to send Rommel and the Afrika Korps to help the Italians
(e) Axis control over both Gibraltar and Suez, hence access to the Mediterranean by sea
(f) Enhanced strategic possibilites for the Germans (access to oil, more pressure on Russia etc)
(g) Axis domination/control over the WHOLE Mediterranean region.

In other words, there would have been NO 'carrying on the war from Italy', because there would have been no effective way of launching an American offensive from anywhere in this region, at least not without considerable delay and even then ONLY IF the USA wanted to get involved at all!


A free Great Britain simply wasn€t necessary for the invasion of Europe.

You may do well to understand that the US launched a large scale invasion of North Africa from the US, not England (well, one division from England). And the principle staging ground for the invasion of Italy was North Africa, not England. England simply wasn€t vital for getting into Italy. And had England been occupied by German forces, all the US troops that went there to garrison the place would have been available to fight across North Africa and into southern Europe.

If England was occupied, then there would have been fewer Germans in other places, and a hell of a lot more Americans to fight them.

We won€t even go into the contingency plans the US had for such a scenario. The US very well may have fought a limited war in the Pacific, redeploying forces that went to Attu, Kiska and Australia to the North African/European war.

As I stated, the war may have been harder, but not impossible.





Without the British still being in the fight, it is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE, to say the least, whether the USA would have allowed itself to become involved in the conflict in Europe. Hitler declared war on the USA mainly because they had been blatantly helping the British. They wouldn't have been doing this if Britain went down in 1940. With the British out of the fight, why would the USA even bother?


There is no way it would have stayed out of the war. Winning the war in Europe was so important that the US contemplated shutting down some of its war in the Pacific to win in Europe. The doctrine of €œEurope First€ was very strong. Had England fallen, Germany would have faced a much larger US force than it did, just in different places.





And without all of this, we would not have had the US daylight bombing offensive against Germany and the chance for the P-51 to show its paces as an escort in that offensive.


Wrong. Part of the strategic bombing campaign was waged from Italy. Had England fallen, it may have all been waged from there.

And the Mustang €œshowed its paces€ from Foggia and other Italian bases on tens of thousands of occasions:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/range.jpg

SkyChimp
11-02-2005, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

The concept of 'Oh its easy if Britain falls we would just invade Italy' is short sighted and strategically impossible in an Axis controlled Med, North Africa and Europe. The logistics would be insurmountable and both the Allied landings in Italy and in France were masterminded, manned and carried out by the RN. The USA did not have the capability to organise amphibious operations to the same extent while fighting in Pacific at the same time. Lets say they prioritized the European theatre over the Pacific in order to invade. Their lines of communication would have been impossibly large. There would be a zero percent chance of the USA being able to successfully invade any part of Europe using the East coast of the USA as a staging point.



Wrong. The US landed more than 35,000 troops in three divisions at Casablanca. ALL were transported directly from the US. Additonally, there was significant naval support in the form of destroyers, cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers. Not only that, there were able to set up several Coca-Cola bottling operations on the beaches in the days following the invasion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The US could not only organize huge invasions, they could lauch them across oceans, all while fighting large scale campaigns in other parts of the world.

Frequent_Flyer
11-02-2005, 07:40 PM
Once the Americans developed the most technologically advanced weapon delivery system the B-29 and it delivered the most technologically advanced weapon the atomic bomb. The rest of WW II paled in significance with regard to the outcome. The real world altering scenario for post WW II would have come about had Germany been hit first with Atomic weapons.

p1ngu666
11-02-2005, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hey P1ngu

I still don't think good ROC trumps good early warning in executing a successful intercept. It wasn't phenomenal climb rates that won the Battle of Britain after all. Neither the Spitfire I or Hurricane was good for much better than 3,000 fpm, yet they managed to stave off the best the Luftwaffe could throw at them.

Like you said, by the time the daylight strategic bombing campaign got into full swing, the Luftwaffe had ample amounts of time to coordinate its defenses.

What happens if the bombers suddenly changed course? Well, then the intercept failed. It happened all the time. Longer loiter times would have been much better in that situation than than would super sustained climb. Mustangs would have had the range and cruise speed to better deal with that kind of scenario.

Maybe you could describe it this way: the P-51 and P-38 would have made excellent strategic interceptors, while the Spitfire and Bf 109 made for excellent tactical interceptors. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well the me163 was designed to go after high flying fast photo recon planes. hence its literaly explosive performance.

also the germans didnt haveto climb as hard, think allied bomber crews could average 5 hours over enemy terrority, against the 1 hour and 30mins or so of the germans over england. i think the germans also differed from fighter command, who would trickle in fighters mostly, the germans tried to get huge formations together, which is unweldy and u need more time..

oh and the problem of forming up ahead of the bombers, what happens if htey suddenly change course?

throughout time, a interceptors specs are judged by rate of climb, firepower then speed. speed is mostly useful in running away, which is the opposite of a interceptors role http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

for european countries, there smallness ment that roc was more important, wherever wasnt that far from where u are, gettin the height in time was more important. and a lighter aircraft will climb better, ie reach a higher alt for any given time.

buliding longer range planes like the americans did, as america is big, speed is probably more helpful, wherever is likely along way away. and fighter vs fighter, the long range will be heavier, and u cant do too much about that, unless the other design is poo, and u shouldnt really rely on the other chap being useless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

u can probably make it faster tho, if your willing to give up turn...

incidently, i made i made a missions with american planes being interceptors (actully start co alt)
the american planes are much worse at intercepting than the german planes.
and i had p51D,p38Late,p47,corsair and hellcat the "best" american planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

insuffiecent roc means that u may never intercept the aircraft.

super sustained climb means ud comit the aircraft to battle later, any direction change from the bombers from the time the fighters scambled wouldnt get them so far away.

luft, spitfire PR, would be one of the fastest high flying aircraft anywhere in the world in decent service. later the mossie aswell, and the p38 but that wasnt as successful.

ok so the luft plan to win bob.
fly patrols over the english channel and france, which is fine apart from the english are short and pilots, and dont have a massive excess of aircraft either. plus any aircrew who go down, perhaps a 50% they will return.

spoof raids could be aircraft forming up and then aborting, or they could be vast formations of fighters, which ud really rather avoid, espcialy over france/the channel. the germans also had a fair number of flak guns along the coast.

the best way to preserve the RAF pilots and planes, and hurt the germans most was to conduct the combat over england

arcadeace
11-02-2005, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Once the Americans developed the most technologically advanced weapon delivery system the B-29 and it delivered the most technologically advanced weapon the atomic bomb. The rest of WW II paled in significance with regard to the outcome. The real world altering scenario for post WW II would have come about had Germany been hit first with Atomic weapons.

This discussion is way too speculative had the Luftwaft defeated the RAF. Goering could have continued bombing strategic ground forces and infrastructure for months, if not years. Plus, uneeded fighters could go east or south.

Rommel wanted to continue to roll and Africa was the perfect playground for a lot of territory to be had. With Montgomery€s forces defending the islands its highly unlikely we would€ve sustained any foothold in Northern Africa.

By 1942 the Brits solved the problem of coordinating the activities of land-based aviation with those of the Royal Navy and the Fleet Air Arm by creating a special RAF command, equipped and trained for sea search and attack. Also, from October 1942 until June 1943 the Eighth Air Force had as its objective of highest priority the bombing of German submarine shore facilities (deemed critical). None of this would€ve taken place. Our ability to launch invasions would be seriously crippled and I think questionable if even possible.

Hitler would€ve been more encouraged than ever to invade the Soviet Union. Once the oil fields were taken and the 6th was resuplied a much sooner combined effort would€ve crushed remaining Soviet resistance.

Who knows if we even could€ve protected the Manhattan Project. New York was a perfect future target to attack in the hope of a US surrender, or withdrawal from the European campaign. With German factories unhindered by bombings, long-range bomber capability would€ve been in the works. For that matter€¦ their entire industrial effort with inexhaustible resources unhindered is hard to imagine.

Its all what-ifs going back to the question of the most important a/c, Hurries and Spits or the Mustang, and national pride. Arguments like the Val as an interceptor being as good (or better) than the Mustang are ridiculous. I think SkyChimp explained the significance of the Merlin (in context) very, very well. Its an interesting discussion on long-range versus short intercept importance, but both capabilities had their place and time. We needed both just as much; short more in the beginning and long more from about mid-war onward.

One thing I know as fact: I€ve read enough pilot accounts to know the Mustang was very versatile with speed and maneuverability. As for a/c renditions in this sim, they€re far from the real deal€¦ other than one€s favorite to fly. For all the favorite reasons.

JtD
11-02-2005, 10:38 PM
Skychimp, the US forces landed in North Africa attacked French properties. The French surrendered in a matter of hours, because they felt it was worth it - Rommel beeing near defeated.

The landings itself showed that there was room for a lot of improvements and as long as the French fought victory wasn't certain.

All in all it would have been a lot harder to do a successful landing without the British presence in the region.

Who helps you to cover the transports across the Atlantik?
Who helps to keep enemy aircraft away?
Who helps to keep the enemy fleets away?

Believe it or not, but for Torch the British presence in North Africa was vital.

lrrp22
11-02-2005, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:


insuffiecent roc means that u may never intercept the aircraft.

super sustained climb means ud comit the aircraft to battle later, any direction change from the bombers from the time the fighters scambled wouldnt get them so far away.

Insufficient warning means you will never intercept the aircraft. Or if you do, it will be on the attacker's terms.

Super sustained climb means super fuel consumption and super engine strain, as well. Waiting to see if the bombers are going to change direction before launching your response is a recipe for disaster.
Get your fighters in the air, then redirect them as required- if you have the loiter capability, that is! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Rate of climb is no substitute for early warning and a coordinated response. It's great for intercepting the odd intruder or PR aircraft, but it is not the answer to a strategic defense.

WOLFMondo
11-03-2005, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:

It appears that by the second half of WWII that without good early warning, the interception was probably already a failure at wheels up. After all, the Luftwaffe's best bomber interceptors wasn't the 109 with its excellent climb rate, it was the heavily armed Fw 190 with its rather mediocre climb rates. Before round-trip escorts became the order of the day, the German Zerstorers made very good interceptors. Despite the modest climb rates, the 190s and the twins didn't seem to have a problem forming-up ahead of the bombers.

The Germans had warning of bomber coming over as soon as they reached the French coast so they had tons of time to work out the heading and height and likely target.

Its different when you don't have such advanced warning i.e. the invasion force 2nd TAF and 9th AF airfields, Britain during the BoB, the air support covering the invasion of North Africa, Sicily, Italy etc.

mynameisroland
11-03-2005, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

The concept of 'Oh its easy if Britain falls we would just invade Italy' is short sighted and strategically impossible in an Axis controlled Med, North Africa and Europe. The logistics would be insurmountable and both the Allied landings in Italy and in France were masterminded, manned and carried out by the RN. The USA did not have the capability to organise amphibious operations to the same extent while fighting in Pacific at the same time. Lets say they prioritized the European theatre over the Pacific in order to invade. Their lines of communication would have been impossibly large. There would be a zero percent chance of the USA being able to successfully invade any part of Europe using the East coast of the USA as a staging point.



Wrong. The US landed more than 35,000 troops in three divisions at Casablanca. ALL were transported directly from the US. Additonally, there was significant naval support in the form of destroyers, cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers. Not only that, there were able to set up several Coca-Cola bottling operations on the beaches in the days following the invasion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The US could not only organize huge invasions, they could lauch them across oceans, all while fighting large scale campaigns in other parts of the world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

35,000 troops isnt going to dent Occupied Europe. DDay was backed up by air support , coastal bombardments and reinforcements and supplies just 25 miles away.

After landing 35,000 troops in North Africa how long realistically could they fight before being replenished?

ps Germany was a little bit distracted in WW2 by the RN and the RAF in the MED theatre which made those US landings seem rather easy.

WOLFMondo
11-03-2005, 05:06 AM
Not to mention the mulberrys and ships used as break waters.

Total air superiority couldn't have been achived by even 2 dozen carriers worth of planes. The luftwaffe had over 2500 combat aircraft in France in June 1944. The airfields and supply routes, costal batteries etc where pounded day and night by the RAF and USAAF. This couldn't have been done to the extent it was needed by a US fleet trying to invade Europe.

Lets also not forget the complex deception plan that also had to work 100% to decieve the Germans from the true site of the landings.

Theres also the U-boat wolfpacks, they wouldn't have been concentrating on Merchant shipping but US transport ships.

Timeing and weather was important also, D-day almost never happened because of the weather, theres no way the US could have planned an invasion using millions of soldiers and estimated the weather 2 weeks in advance of there arrival off France, the technology did not exist to do that.

Not diminishing the efforts at Cassablanca but the resistance there was nothing even like what was on show in fortress Europe and was nothing like the scale of D-day, not even remotely.

mynameisroland
11-03-2005, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Mustang did not have the right attributes to be a great interceptor. It did not have the required roc, the manuverability, the weapons or the power to weight ratio. Looking at the argument the other way round and saying it didnt need to climb fast as it could patrol the area is nonsense. It is self defeating to have standing patrols and without the possibility of inflight refuling the Mustang always runs the risk of being caught short by a dummy raid and then having to rtb just as the real raid is sighted.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. You need to support your contention with facts. How much rate of climb is needed? THe 3500 fpm achieved by a 10,200 lbs P-51D at 67" Hg hardly tells the whole story, does it?

Just how many interceptors in 1944-45 were making balls-out max-rate climbs to altitude to intercept the various intruders? The Bf 109 certainly wasn't. Do you really want to meet the bomber stream at 170 mph with an engine on the edge of boiling over? Is that really the condition in which you want to deal with the escorts? Frankly, your contention that a max power climb to intercept an intruder bearing down is preferable to a pre-positioned intercept element is ridiculous.

Despite your repeated claims, the P-51 was as manuevarable as anything the Luftwaffe fielded in 44-45. More so in many cases.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the Mustang you mention is serving in 1944 the 3500ft/min figure is hardly earth shattering is it? The Spitfire was topping 4500ft/min at optimum altitude and the 109 likewise. Even the Fw 190 A8 which was considered a bit of a bus when it came down to climb rate manages 3300ft/min. Hell as you come to mention it even the Spitfire Mk1's 3000 ft/min is pretty close to the Mustang in terms of ROC.

Frankly I find your insistance that the Mustang was a better interceptor than the Spitfire ridiculous. Pre-positioned intercepts were the result of Radar technology. Developed independantly from the whole Mustang interceptor theory incidentally. When the Spitfire was designed as an interceptor radar was unproven. When the Mustang was designed , being an interceptor was not one of the main design criteria. Hence we have a 44 plane with a roc only 500ft greater than a 1939 spec Spitfire.

"Despite your repeated claims, the P-51 was as manuevarable as anything the Luftwaffe fielded in 44-45. More so in many cases."

Please point me to where I made any mention to the P51 being unmanuverable when compared to 44 German bomber formation interceptors? Less manuverable than lightly armed Bf 109 G10's and Spitfire IX's yes certainly so.

My point despite you distracting from it in every reply post is that the Spitfire possessed superior FIGHTER performance to the Mustang.

stathem
11-03-2005, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Once the Americans developed the most technologically advanced weapon delivery system the B-29 and it delivered the most technologically advanced weapon the atomic bomb. The rest of WW II paled in significance with regard to the outcome. The real world altering scenario for post WW II would have come about had Germany been hit first with Atomic weapons.

Which, speculativley speaking, if British and British based scientists had gone to Germany instead of to Manhatten, they may well have done.

Also, no Heroes of Telemark.

mynameisroland
11-03-2005, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">well the me163 was designed to go after high flying fast photo recon planes. hence its literaly explosive performance.

Well that is a new one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Can you tell us what fast high flying PR a/c the RAF had in the late 30s, as that in when the first development of the Me163 was taking place?

For you people that think the Spitfire was a great intercepter because of its RoC. The Spitfire Vb with a 90gal overload tank had a RoC of ~2150f/m. Note this gives the Spitfire a total fuel load of 178gal which is less than the early Mustangs, yet the early Mustang's RoC was ~2600f/m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif


The Mustang did not have the right attributes to be a great interceptor. It did not have the required roc, the manuverability, the weapons or the power to weight ratio. Looking at the argument the other way round and saying it didnt need to climb fast as it could patrol the area is nonsense. It is self defeating to have standing patrols and without the possibility of inflight refuling the Mustang always runs the risk of being caught short by a dummy raid and then having to rtb just as the real raid is sighted.

Why does an intercepter need to be manueverability, Roland. Bombers are not that manueverable.

Yes RAF fighters were caught with their pants down during BoB because of their lack of endurance. Actually it is better as the patrols could be closer to the enemy's airfields, thus the spoof raids could be attacked. The enemy is not going to let these spoof raiders be attacked and so the 109/190s would have to be along to protect them, which means less escorts available for the real raid.

Just as the Spitfire was upgunned when it was found the .303s had a hard time disposing of German bombers, the Mustang, which did have 4 20mm cannon on some, could have had more a/c produced with the cannons if there was the need. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Small aircraft dimensions, high power to weight ratio and am efficient climbing wing tend to make for manuverable aircraft whether you like it or not luftluvver. It comes with the attributes of the aircraft. It isnt really relevant if you compare an Spitfire's turning circle with that of a He111, ofcourse it will be more manuverable. Does that manuverabilty have no aircombat value? Or do enemy bombers always fly unescorted?

How many Spitfires flew intercept missions carrying 90 gallon overload tanks? What relevance does that roc figure have? That a heavier fighter climbs more slowly than a lighter one given the same engine HP? So like a Mustangs roc when compared to a Spitfire IX then?

So the RAF were caught with their pants down in BoB, oh yes I forgot the Germans won that one didnt they or was that the battle where Ben Afflek came over from the states and became an ace in a day flying a Spitfire IX against Spanish Buchons? Either way its revisionist histroy you must be refering to. How would patrols close to German airfields help matters when you are the numerically inferior force facing a shortage of pilots and planes? It would make excellent stratecic sense to mount overlapping patrols and split your force piecemeal so it can be shot down over enemy held territory. Glad you werent in charge of Fighter command.

As for Spitfire with 8 x .303 inch guns shooting down He 111's. The Mustang wasnt even a glimmer in NA's design teams eye yet you are comparing a 4 x 20mm Mustang 1 with a fighter that helped shoot down hundreds of German bombers over a year before? More Spitfires were armed with 20mm cannons and saw service than the entire USA production of 20mm cannon armed WW2 fighter types.

Aaron_GT
11-03-2005, 06:07 AM
Skychimp wrote:

Wrong. The US landed more than 35,000 troops in three divisions at Casablanca.

No, the USA did not do this. The US and UK did this. The support from the Royal Navy was considerable, including quite a bit of aircover from FAA carriers (some of the FAA aircraft received US markings as it was reasoned that the Vichy forces were better disposed to the USA than UK).

The troops used were 35,000 at Casablanca (all US), 39,000 at Oran, and 33,000 at Algiers, mixed US/UK (some of the UK troops in the first waves wore US uniforms). In terms of ships the RN provided two thirds of the ships used.

It is worth noting that German and Vichy assets had been attacked for two years by UK forces for two years before the North African landings. This reduced the available forces to resist the landings.

Resupply of the troops came via the UK or UK territories.

Basically if the UK had been knocked out of the war in 1940 then a North African landing might just have been possible in spring 1944, but probably not before.

BaronUnderpants
11-03-2005, 06:23 AM
quote:
_______________________________________________

"Yes RAF fighters were caught with their pants down during BoB because of their lack of endurance"
_______________________________________________

End quote


Really??.......Think u wrote RAF by misstake there, should be "Luftwaffe"


quote:
________________________________________________

Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Once the Americans developed the most technologically advanced weapon delivery system the B-29 and it delivered the most technologically advanced weapon the atomic bomb. The rest of WW II paled in significance with regard to the outcome. The real world altering scenario for post WW II would have come about had Germany been hit first with Atomic weapons.
________________________________________________

End quote.


Common missqonseption, by the time the A-bomb was droped the war was by all facts allredy over. Japan had tried to surrender but was ignored due to political reason, so the notion that the A-bomb ended the war is hogwasch.
US wanted A. show their strenght infront of Russia and B. se if the thing worked/how well it worked.

Aaron_GT
11-03-2005, 07:42 AM
A long range US bomber and an atomic bomb could have ended the war in Europe had the UK been knocked out. However protecting the bomber might have been problematic. The Japanese air forces had essentially been knocked out prior to Enola Gay's flight, but achieving sufficient air superiority over Northern Europe without the UK as an airbase might have made very long range mission from the USA very hazardous.

JtD
11-03-2005, 08:13 AM
Just like to point out that if the British had not supported Norwegian resistance to sabotage German A-bomb work at Norsk Hydro and if no UK based British bombers had destroyed the V-2 facilities at Peenemünde, a B-29 delivering an A-bomb might have been only the second best weapon of 1945.

Von_Rat
11-03-2005, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
quote:
_______________________________________________

"Yes RAF fighters were caught with their pants down during BoB because of their lack of endurance"
_______________________________________________

End quote


Really??.......Think u wrote RAF by misstake there, should be "Luftwaffe"


quote:
________________________________________________

Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Once the Americans developed the most technologically advanced weapon delivery system the B-29 and it delivered the most technologically advanced weapon the atomic bomb. The rest of WW II paled in significance with regard to the outcome. The real world altering scenario for post WW II would have come about had Germany been hit first with Atomic weapons.
________________________________________________

End quote.


Common missqonseption, by the time the A-bomb was droped the war was by all facts allredy over. Japan had tried to surrender but was ignored due to political reason, so the notion that the A-bomb ended the war is hogwasch.
US wanted A. show their strenght infront of Russia and B. se if the thing worked/how well it worked.

you better reread those terms that japan proposed before A bomb.

to term it very genorously japan wanted a armistice so they wouldnt have to surrender.

thats why us went to all the trouble to plan invasion and redeploy forces from europe. A bomb saved japan from invasion or even worse, imo a blockade.

panther3485
11-03-2005, 08:21 AM
Hello SkyChimp,

Quote:
*"Please try some HTML commands. Your posts are very good, but hard to follow."

[Sorry you're finding my posts hard to follow. I do my best but I wouldn't have a clue what HTML is or how to use it and I've never had anything to do with websites. I just tried copying and pasting to a Word document, then changing the quotes to italics and copying/pasting back here but it didn't work so guess maybe I'll just have to learn some new tricks. Will follow up on the subject matter as soon as I can.]


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
11-03-2005, 01:44 PM
Hi there, SkyChimp

panther3485€s statement (regarding P-51):
True, some preliminary design work had been done by North American but it is DOUBTFUL WHETHER THIS WOULD HAVE BORNE FRUIT AS QUICKLY OR IN THE SAME WAY, if at all.

SkyChimp€s response:
*€Speculative. NAA was designing the Mustang to sell to the US. It would have been presented to them.€

[But it was British acceptance of the idea, followed by the certainty of having secured a contract, together with the urgency of its requirement that stimulated the INCREDIBLY fast work-through by NAA, to complete the design and go to prototype. Given the established US commitment to the other fighter types already mentioned and without the impetus and urgency of the British requirement, wouldn€t it have likely taken quite a bit longer? And is it necessarily a certainty that NAA€s design would have otherwise been accepted? And if accepted, could we say with certainty that its development and improvement would otherwise have taken a similar path? I would maintain that we cannot be certain about any of this; only that NAA filling the British requirement is what got the Mustang rolling at that time.]


panther3485€s statement (regarding Mustang/Merlin marriage):
I NEVER SAID it was the Brits that 'married the Merlin to the Mustang'. My point is that the MARRIAGE ITSELF was what enabled to P-51 to realize its full potential. I made NO statement about who performed the ceremony.

SkyChimp€s response:
*€My apologies. But nevertheless, it€s myth that it was solely a British endeavor. That€s popular history, and it€s wrong. If this wasn€t you implication, OK.€

[First, I don€t remember having read this myth anywhere but I€ll take your word for it.
Second, it€s not a myth that I would ever have even considered perpetuating, had I been aware of it.
Third, apology accepted.]


SkyChimp€s statement:
*€If there was no RR engine, Packard would have been free to build the Allison, or some other engine. And instead of Wright taking time to refine the RR supercharger, perhaps they would have developed a better supercharger for the Allison. Who knows. One thing is certain, these guys wouldn€t have been idle.€

[Seems fair and logical enough, assuming a similar level of production needs in this particular hypothetical scenario.]


SkyChimp€s statement:
*€Maybe the P-51J would have gone into production, an extremely performant Mustang with a two-stage Allison engine.€

[I assume you mean earlier than the actual date (first flight April 1945). Again, fair enough as a possible alternate development path, again based on certain hypothetical assumptions as €˜given€.]


SkyChimp€s statement:
*€But if a high altitude Mustang was needed, one would have been found, regardless of whether the Merlin was available. Again, the XP-51J was an extremely performant high altitude Mustang with an all American Allison with a 2-stage supercharger. The RR Merlin wasn€t necessary for the Mustang to become a great fighter. It was only needed for it to become a great fighter when it did.€

[Very possible, but again certain assumptions are being made, especially in relation to time factors vis-a-vis US involvement in the European conflict. The Merlin being necessary for the Mustang €œto become a great fighter when it did€, using your words, is a key here.]


panther3485€s statement:
Had it not been for NAA's efforts, stimulated by the requirements of the British, it is highly questionable whether there would have been any XP-51 to evaluate at this particular point in time.

SkyChimp€s response:
*€I€ve seen that theory before. But it doesn€t make a lot of sense. NAA designed the Mustang for the purposes of trying to sell it to the US. Before it could, it found a customer in Great Britain. Had that not occurred, it would have kept its focus on marketing the plane to the US. Airplane manufacturers generally don€t develop combat plane, then keep them to themselves.€

[Note please, I said, €œat this particular point in time€. Sure, NAA would have focussed on marketing to the US military but how much later and how successfully? As stated before, I don€t think it€s easy to be certain about outcomes in this scenario.]


SkyChimp€s statement:
*€It wasn€t originally designed to be a long range, high altitude, escort fighter. It was designed to be a general purpose fighter/bomber that operated at low to medium altitude. In that regard, it was outstanding. Even the Brits assessed it that way. It was modified to do those other things, and it was outstanding at that, too.€

[Exactly, and it DID those other (strategically vital) things using a version of the RR Merlin.]


panther3485€s statement:
That American mods were made has already been acknowledged but it was still a BRITISH DESIGNED ENGINE!!!! That is the essential point here!!!! This particular outcome WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT that British design.


SkyChimp€s response:
*€Why wouldn€t it have come out that way? The outcome may have taken longer, but to say it would have never happened isn€t plausible.€

[There you go again, SkyChimp! I NEVER SAID THAT, EITHER!!!!!!
Once again:
€œThis particular outcome WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT that British design.€
€˜THIS PARTICULAR OUTCOME€ includes availability at the right time in appropriate numbers, to perform the required role in that particular campaign. Even 6 months later may have been very damaging to the Allied cause.]

And also from SkyChimp:
*€What got the Mustang to Berlin was a clean design and a lot of fuel. The Merlin wasn€t a very fuel-thrifty engine despite popular notion. And by 1944, there was a viable alternative power plant, the Allison with an auxiliary supercharger. See the XP-51J.€

[Just getting there wasn€t enough. In this escort role, the Mustang had to have performance at ALL altitudes, especially HIGH altitude. And respectfully, the alternative you have suggested, although under development, was not made available for production P-51€s at any time during 1944, or so my sources indicate €"
From €˜Mustang€ by Stewart Wilson:
€œThe third and final EXPERIMENTAL (my emphasis) lightweight Mustang was the XP-51J, first flight APRIL 1945 (my emphasis)€¦.
The Allison engine was selected for the XP-51J as a HEDGE AGAINST THE BRITISH CANCELLING THE PACKARD MERLIN LICENSE AGREEMENT WHEN THE WAR ENDED (again, my emphasis)€]



And now, the strategic considerations:


SkyChimp€s statement:
*€A free Great Britain simply wasn€t necessary for the invasion of Europe.€

[I€ve really tried hard here, to understand what you truly mean by €˜wasn€t necessary€. Would a US invasion of Europe have been at all POSSIBLE with Britain out of the war? Well, perhaps, but it would almost certainly have had to come later than it did, at higher cost and higher risk. And I still do not see as necessarily a forgone conclusion that it would have happened at all, at least not for quite a few years. As to other effects, the European Axis would probably have had a significantly better chance of defeating the Soviets in this scenario, and they would certainly have had better access to resources, leaving them in an even stronger position to resist any assault in the West.]


Also from SkyChimp:
*€You may do well to understand that the US launched a large scale invasion of North Africa from the US, not England (well, one division from England).€

[The €˜invasion€ you speak of here was Operation Torch, 8 November 1942. You have presented it in a most inaccurate and misleading manner. I hope this was not a deliberate attempt to deceive on your part.
(From Aerospace Publishing€s €˜Military History of Word War II€):
(a) Operation Torch was a COMBINED American/British effort.
(b) Troops involved were predominantly American (approx 84,000 US and 23,000 British). More than half the American troops, and all the British troops, launched from Britain.
(c) Naval support and escort was predominantly British, incorporating 160 Royal Navy vessels.
(d) Overall, it was launched MAINLY FROM BRITAIN (250 ships with approx 72,000 troops + equipment/supplies departing from Britain, 102 ships with approx 35,000 troops + equipment/supplies departing from the USA)
It also needs to be pointed out that these landings were made against relatively little opposition and certainly less than would have been the case had the Axis been in total control of the region. Under these conditions, it would have been reasonable to expect:
(a) Without interference from the Royal Navy after 1940, a much stronger Kriegsmarine (U-boats and capital ships such as Bismarck, unmolested by the British). Little naval force was required against Russia, so most of it could have been concentrated against conceivable axes of American attack.
(b) Depending on exactly when in 1940 one envisages the British quitting, the Italian fleet might also have escaped (they were badly hit by the British at Taranto in November of that year).
(c) Large Axis Naval and Air elements guarding the approaches, with fighter cover out for some distance, would only be the first major obstacle. You would then have the much hotter reception that would have been given to any landing force.


SkyChimp said:
*€England simply wasn€t vital for getting into Italy.€

[See my answer to €œA free Great Britain simply wasn€t necessary for the invasion of Europe.€]

SkyChimp claims:
*€And had England been occupied by German forces, all the US troops that went there to garrison the place would have been available to fight across North Africa and into southern Europe.€

[Not sure how to read this. Do you mean that after a German occupation, US troops would have garrisoned Britain? Please clarify.]

SkyChimp continues:
*€If England was occupied, then there would have been fewer Germans in other places, and a hell of a lot more Americans to fight them.€

[Hitler did not want to invade and occupy Britain. The outcome he sought was for the British to quit on terms favourable to Germany. In this event, the requirement for German forces to garrison Britain would have been minimal. Even if Hitler had needed to garrison Britain, this would have been more than compensated by the losses that the Axis would not have to have suffered, fighting British and Commonwealth forces between then and whenever (if) the Americans deigned to appear €" probably later than happened in actuality.]


Also from SkyChimp:
*€The US very well may have fought a limited war in the Pacific, redeploying forces that went to Attu, Kiska and Australia to the North African/European war. As I stated, the war may have been harder, but not impossible.€

[This appears to suggest the USA would have prioritized Europe, which, without Britain in the war, was highly unlikely (more on this further down). And you should insert €˜much€ before €˜harder€.]


panther3485€s statement:
*€Without the British still being in the fight, it is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE, to say the least, whether the USA would have allowed itself to become involved in the conflict in Europe. Hitler declared war on the USA mainly because they had been blatantly helping the British. They wouldn't have been doing this if Britain went down in 1940. With the British out of the fight, why would the USA even bother?€


SkyChimp€s response
*€There is no way it (the USA) would have stayed out of the war.€

[The USA was very reluctant to be drawn in as it was, and it took the Japanese attack, plus increased German hostility together with Hitler€s declaration of war, to get them into the European conflict. Without the extensive, continuous and increasing aid that the USA had been providing to the still fighting British, Hitler would have had much less reason to push the USA over the line. Of course, it probably would have come to conflict between them eventually, but the Axis would have had more time to consolidate their hold on Europe, with the Russians being the only opposition for some time. And they, too, may well have succumbed before any serious intervention from the US was possible.]

More from SkyChimp:
*€Winning the war in Europe was so important that the US contemplated shutting down some of its war in the Pacific to win in Europe. The doctrine of €œEurope First€ was very strong. Had England fallen, Germany would have faced a much larger US force than it did, just in different places.€

[The €˜Germany First€ idea was pushed heavily by Churchill and the British, for obvious reasons, and Churchill generally enjoyed Roosevelt€s sympathy. But much of the US hierarchy and at least half of US public opinion (some sources say more that half) believed that €˜Japan First€ was the way to go. For them, €˜Germany First€ was seen to be pandering to the British at the expense of US strategic interests. Without British pressure and lobbying, the US would have had very little reason to prioritize Europe. Without Germany€s hostility and declaration of war (caused in no small part by US support for Britain), the Americans may not have been particularly concerned about Europe for some considerable time, if at all.]


Best regards,
panther3485

skabbe
11-03-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Skychimp wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Had England been occupied, then the war would have been carried on from Italy

Absolutely ridiculous! How on earth would a landing in Italy have been achieved with no base in Europe or North Africa to launch it from, with an invasion force having to first squeeze past a German-occupied Gibraltar? Italy was a tough campaign even with Gibraltar, Malta and North Africa under Allied control and after Italy swapped to the Allied cause. With Britain out of the war it would have been impossible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously, Aaron, the remaining allies would have had to fight their way into Europe. The Americans managed to stage a huge landing in North Africa without starting from Great Britain. Germans couldn't be everywhere in numbers all at once, especially if they were occupying Great Britain. A tougher war, no doubt. But the winning of the BoB wasn't necessary to winning the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

haha how stupid you are..!

Aaron_GT
11-03-2005, 02:49 PM
SkyChimp claims:
*€And had England been occupied by German forces, all the US troops that went there to garrison the place would have been available to fight across North Africa and into southern Europe.€

[Not sure how to read this. Do you mean that after a German occupation, US troops would have garrisoned Britain? Please clarify.]

Indeed, I am also perplexed by this statement of SkyChimp's which suggests that the US troops stationed in Britian from 1942 onwards were garrisoning it. The garrisoning was done by British troops. The US troops were using Britain as a base to take the fight onwards to the Germans, not garrison it. For example air defence was the preserve of the RAF.

HellToupee
11-03-2005, 03:30 PM
How is endurance going to help an interceptor? They hardly have to fly far. Standing patrols dont work, didnt work at the falklands. Also where does one get the fuel to be wasting it flying fighters around doing nothing.

lrrp22
11-03-2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

While the Mustang you mention is serving in 1944 the 3500ft/min figure is hardly earth shattering is it? The Spitfire was topping 4500ft/min at optimum altitude and the 109 likewise. Even the Fw 190 A8 which was considered a bit of a bus when it came down to climb rate manages 3300ft/min. Hell as you come to mention it even the Spitfire Mk1's 3000 ft/min is pretty close to the Mustang in terms of ROC.


And the RAF's +25 lbs boost Mustangs easily reached 4,500 fpm, as well. Quit cherry-picking the power/load level that seems to prove your point. Of course by that time +25 lbs Spit IX's and Spit XIV's were breaking 5,000 fpm.


Frankly I find your insistance that the Mustang was a better interceptor than the Spitfire ridiculous. Pre-positioned intercepts were the result of Radar technology. Developed independantly from the whole Mustang interceptor theory incidentally. When the Spitfire was designed as an interceptor radar was unproven. When the Mustang was designed , being an interceptor was not one of the main design criteria. Hence we have a 44 plane with a roc only 500ft greater than a 1939 spec Spitfire.


I never said the Mustang was a better interceptor than the Spitfire, but it was far from the lethargic gas truck you'd like to believe it was. It could have made a fine interceptor, if so required.... +25 lbs boost. 4500 fpm. Hours of loiter time. Excellent cruise speed. Excellent high speed controllability. Figure it out for yourself.



"Despite your repeated claims, the P-51 was as manuevarable as anything the Luftwaffe fielded in 44-45. More so in many cases."

Please point me to where I made any mention to the P51 being unmanuverable when compared to 44 German bomber formation interceptors? Less manuverable than lightly armed Bf 109 G10's and Spitfire IX's yes certainly so

Only in a flight sim fantasy world does a Bf 109G-10 turn like a Spitfire IX. In the Reality-Based World, the late 109's turned much like the P-51. A little better at low speeds, much worse at high speeds. The Spit IX easily out-turned both.

BTW, where do you get the idea the that the G-10 was so much more maneuverable than the P-51? Wing loading favors all but the most heavily loaded P-51D, and load lifting was very similar. Stall speeds were very identical.

The Mustang rolled better at most speeds- grossly better at high speeds. In fact, the Mustang did everything better at higher speeds.



My point despite you distracting from it in every reply post is that the Spitfire possessed superior FIGHTER performance to the Mustang.


It climbed and turned better. It was much inferior in dive and zoom, and marginally inferior in roll rate except at high speeds were the Mustang was much better. If the traditional Spit was a much better fighter, then please explain the Spitfire 21. An outstanding fighter but veeerrry Mustang-like. Of course the Mk. 21's contemporary was the P-51H with a 5,300 fpm roc.


.


.

HellToupee
11-03-2005, 05:27 PM
hows the spitfire 21 very mustang like? The spitful was the one mustang like however it was deemed the performace gained wasnt worth the handling lost.

SkyChimp
11-03-2005, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Skychimp, the US forces landed in North Africa attacked French properties. The French surrendered in a matter of hours, because they felt it was worth it - Rommel beeing near defeated.

The landings itself showed that there was room for a lot of improvements and as long as the French fought victory wasn't certain.

All in all it would have been a lot harder to do a successful landing without the British presence in the region.

Who helps you to cover the transports across the Atlantik?
Who helps to keep enemy aircraft away?
Who helps to keep the enemy fleets away?

Believe it or not, but for Torch the British presence in North Africa was vital.

Are you not reading what I am writing?

I didn't say the Americans could waltz into anywhere. I said it would have been tough. But the contention is here is that if England fell, the war was lost. I think that's absurd. I think the war would have been tougher, but far from lost.

lrrp22
11-03-2005, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
hows the spitfire 21 very mustang like? The spitful was the one mustang like however it was deemed the performace gained wasnt worth the handling lost.

The Mk 21's fighter configuration gross wieght was within 100-200 lbs of the P-51's in the same configuration. At +25 lbs and +21 lbs boost respectively, the Mustang III/IV and Mk 21 were very similar in max speed and climb rate. The Mk 21 sacrificed horizontal turn performance for more speed and better high speed handling. Sound familiar? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif In fact, one RAF document rated the Mustang III the better turner of the two.

.

HellToupee
11-03-2005, 06:23 PM
That was the same as every other spitfire model before it, The mk9 turned a bit worse than the 5 as did the 14 a bit worse than the 9. Every evolution in spitfire got heavyer and heavyer the only thing was it kept its turn advantage over its contemporaries. The 21 did actually gain manoverability at high speeds, its high speed controls were significantly better.

SkyChimp
11-03-2005, 06:28 PM
No, the USA did not do this. The US and UK did this.


Not the landings at Casablanca. All 35,000 troops staged in the US and landed in North Africa. Troops stepped off land at Newport News, Virginia, USA, and didn€t step back onto land until they reached North Africa.




The support from the Royal Navy was considerable, including quite a bit of aircover from FAA carriers (some of the FAA aircraft received US markings as it was reasoned that the Vichy forces were better disposed to the USA than UK).


So it was considerable. But it€s irrelevant to our conversation. We are examining a fictitious scenario where England is occupied by German forces. Some argue that if that happened, then the war was lost, and an invasion of Europe would have been impossible. I think that€s absurd. Germany would have been overextended. Many of the German troops in North Africa, and elsewhere, would have been needed to occupy England. That means fewer Germans everywhere else. It also means more Americans to fight them because the Americans that were garrisoning England would have been available for North Africa. Additionally, the US plan to limit operations in the Pacific would have made many more thousands of troops available. Closing down the Pacific was a real consideration by the US. The US was not going to lose the war in Europe.

As I€ve stated, over and over again, England was not vital to winning the war. It certainly made things easier. But her loss would not have been the end.





The troops used were 35,000 at Casablanca (all US), 39,000 at Oran, and 33,000 at Algiers, mixed US/UK (some of the UK troops in the first waves wore US uniforms). In terms of ships the RN provided two thirds of the ships used.


Not quite 2/3s. But pretty close. But the majority were troop and support ships.

The RN provided no ships for the Casablanca landings.

With respect to combat ships, the US provided the majority of those:

Of the 3 battleships that covered the landings at Casablanca, Oran, and Algiers, the US provided all of them.

Of the 9 carriers that took part, the US provided 5 of them.

Of the 12 cruisers, 7 were US.

Of the 64 destroyers, 38 were US.





It is worth noting that German and Vichy assets had been attacked for two years by UK forces for two years before the North African landings. This reduced the available forces to resist the landings.

Resupply of the troops came via the UK or UK territories.

Basically if the UK had been knocked out of the war in 1940 then a North African landing might just have been possible in spring 1944, but probably not before.


That€s is my point, Aaron.

With England out of the war, it would have been more difficult, but not impossible.

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-03-2005, 07:10 PM
Hello Chimp,

Don't get me wrong - nobody feels more sincere about the debt owed to the U.S.A. for liberating Western Europe as I do, but with the U.K. out of the war (presumably in 1940; and avoiding the myriad permutations of the British Empire carrying on the struggle), would the U.S.A. have taken Germany on?

SkyChimp
11-03-2005, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Hello Chimp,

Don't get me wrong - nobody feels more sincere about the debt owed to the U.S.A. for liberating Western Europe as I do, but with the U.K. out of the war (presumably in 1940; and avoiding the myriad permutations of the British Empire carrying on the struggle), would the U.S.A. have taken Germany on?

No question about it. You think Germany would have left the US alone?

HellToupee
11-03-2005, 07:31 PM
They probly would have left USA alone maybee even sued for peace, just what were they going to attack the US with?

JtD
11-03-2005, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
...But the contention is here is that if England fell, the war was lost. I think that's absurd. I think the war would have been tougher, but far from lost.

Imho the war would not have been tougher, but completely different.

Professor_06
11-03-2005, 11:02 PM
BTW, The atomic bomb was originally developed for use in the ETO. Yes it would be more difficult but definately not impossible. (sometimes you forget about the little things) LOL..

p1ngu666
11-03-2005, 11:19 PM
dont the mk21 and onwards have 4 20mm hispano V'?

4x3 = 12, plus u could add abit cos of the higher rof..
so over double the firepower of a p51, which tended to have 6 or 4 fifty cals.

tbh im not sure americans would particuly like attacking europe, africa, asia oh such a scale, cost would be huge :/

lrrp22
11-04-2005, 12:10 AM
No doubt, the Mk 21 had fearsome firepower. It was afearsome fighter, period. If required though, four Hispano mk V's would have fit nicely in the Mustang's wing. Would have been a much tidier installation than the Mk II's in the Allison P-51/mk Ia, too.


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
dont the mk21 and onwards have 4 20mm hispano V'?

4x3 = 12, plus u could add abit cos of the higher rof..
so over double the firepower of a p51, which tended to have 6 or 4 fifty cals.

tbh im not sure americans would particuly like attacking europe, africa, asia oh such a scale, cost would be huge :/

panther3485
11-04-2005, 12:10 AM
[CODE] Want to see if this comes out in italics. Risk looking silly but who cares. [/*CODE]

panther3485

panther3485
11-04-2005, 12:10 AM
No, didn't work. Will try something else.

lrrp22
11-04-2005, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
[CODE] Want to see if this comes out in italics. Risk looking silly but who cares. [/*CODE]

panther3485

panther,

Use [I]italics[/I*], without the *.

.

lrrp22
11-04-2005, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
That was the same as every other spitfire model before it, The mk9 turned a bit worse than the 5 as did the 14 a bit worse than the 9. Every evolution in spitfire got heavyer and heavyer the only thing was it kept its turn advantage over its contemporaries. The 21 did actually gain manoverability at high speeds, its high speed controls were significantly better.

The big difference was the mk 21's entirely new wing. Less drag, but less lift. It seems it lost most or all its low-mid speed turn advantage over the Mustang, but matched or even exceeded the Mustang's high speed manueverability.

The funny thing is that as the Spitfire was getting heavier, the Mustang was getting lighter to the point that the P-51H with 205 U.S. gallons of internal fuel was virtually identical in weight to the Spitfire 21.

.

HellToupee
11-04-2005, 01:34 AM
The changes with the Spitfire 21 wing was more to do with alerons and fuel capacity than lift and drag unless u count covered wheel wells, it also stronger and had blunted wing tips. Otherwise it isnt a major departure from previous spitfires. Lower drag less lift was a spitful thing that didnt work out.

Some spit 21s had a 6 cannon arment trialed.

panther3485
11-04-2005, 01:37 AM
OK Irrp22, thanks. I'll try that.

Best regards,
panther3485

Aaron_GT
11-04-2005, 01:41 AM
Not the landings at Casablanca.

This is true, but it was only one third of the North African invasion. Simply attacking Cassablanca, against an Axis force which had not been worn down by 2 years of war from the UK would be unlikely to have been viable.


So it was considerable. But it€s irrelevant to our conversation.

No, it's not irrelevant. The fact that an invasion in 1942 required two thirds of the naval force to be contributed by the RN is very important. I would agree that the UK being knocked out would not have been the end, but it would have been the end of any significant US involvement in Europe or North Africa until 1944 or even 1945. I suspect that given a lack of foothold in the region the USA would have finished the war in Japan first then looked towards Europe. There would not have been the resources to do both. For example in Normandy 50% the troops were non-US, a significant contribution that would have to have been made up with US troops - quite a tall order.


It also means more Americans to fight them because the Americans that were garrisoning England

I don't know where this concept that US troops were garrisoning the UK comes from. They were stationed here pursuant to bombing Germany or liberating Europe. They were not required for the defence of the UK, nor were they doing this.


Not quite 2/3s.

True, it is actually 65%. Very close.

panther3485
11-04-2005, 01:42 AM
YES!

Thanks to SkyChimp and Irrp22 (plus one other who I'll respond to separately) for helping me along the road here!

Italics! Italics! Yeah, yeah, yeah!


Best regards,
panther3485

lrrp22
11-04-2005, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
YES!

Thanks to SkyChimp and Irrp22 (plus one other who I'll respond to separately) for helping me along the road here!

Italics! Italics! Yeah, yeah, yeah!

Best regards,
panther3485

<span class="ev_code_yellow">No</span><span class="ev_code_red"> problem!</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WOLFMondo
11-04-2005, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:

With England out of the war, it would have been more difficult, but not impossible.

Its Britain, Not England. England is one state within the UK.

Its like refering the United states as Oregon or Alaska and forgetting the rest of the states that make it up!

ploughman
11-04-2005, 02:42 AM
It's an interesting one isn't it.

If Britain is knocked out of the war in 1940 then there's no Blitz to curry sympathy amongst the American public, isolationism becomes entrenched, Barbarossa is hardly going to illicit a great deal of pro-Soviet sympathy in Washington. The fate of Britain's Empire, is it still fighting or has there been a political settlement a' la Vichy or worse? An independent pro-Axis India? Kriegsmarine basing out of Tricomalee, Aden, Singapore, Port Stanley? The whole balance of power in the Western Pacific may've shifted.

Perhaps there is no longer a perceived need for the Pearl Harbor operation in Japan as access to the Dutch East Indies is acheived through diplomatic arm twisting the spread of Axis influence.

Opportunist Nazi Gauliters spread throughout the corpse of the British Empire, it is Germany's duty, says Herr Hitler, 'to maintain international order.' Canada, Australia and New Zealand desperately try to forge an alliance with an isolationist America that is still in navel gazing.

By end of the summer campaign of 1943 organised resistance to the west of the Ural mountains has come to an end. An uneasy truce develops. The war in the East continues only in name.

At the 1944 Conference of Axis powers in Berlin the Japanese delegation submits a secret plan for the simultaneous annihaltion of the American Atlantic and Pacific fleets, the seizing of the Panama Canal, and a plan for the prosecution of a war against the United States and Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

On May 7th, a single 15 kiloton atomic bomb explodes 660 ft above the Washington Monument. dropped by a plane that originally identified itself as the scheduled Lufthansa flight from Shannon. The base commander at Newport News is puzzled by the dead line as he tries to let Washington know that his fleet is being destroyed at anchor by Nazi carrier based aviation.

Blah...blah...blah.

Interminate
11-04-2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
It's an interesting one isn't it.

If Britain is knocked out of the war in 1940 then there's no Blitz to curry sympathy amongst the American public, isolationism becomes entrenched, Barbarossa is hardly going to illicit a great deal of pro-Soviet sympathy in Washington. The fate of Britain's Empire, is it still fighting or has there been a political settlement a' la Vichy or worse? An independent pro-Axis India? Kriegsmarine basing out of Tricomalee, Aden, Singapore, Port Stanley? The whole balance of power in the Western Pacific may've shifted.

Perhaps there is no longer a perceived need for the Pearl Harbor operation in Japan as access to the Dutch East Indies is acheived through diplomatic arm twisting the spread of Axis influence.

Opportunist Nazi Gauliters spread throughout the corpse of the British Empire, it is Germany's duty, says Herr Hitler, 'to maintain international order.' Canada, Australia and New Zealand desperately try to forge an alliance with an isolationist America that is still in navel gazing.

By end of the summer campaign of 1943 organised resistance to the west of the Ural mountains has come to an end. An uneasy truce develops. The war in the East continues only in name.

At the 1944 Conference of Axis powers in Berlin the Japanese delegation submits a secret plan for the simultaneous annihaltion of the American Atlantic and Pacific fleets, the seizing of the Panama Canal, and a plan for the prosecution of a war against the United States and Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

On May 7th, a single 15 kiloton atomic bomb explodes 660 ft above the Washington Monument. dropped by a plane that originally identified itself as the scheduled Lufthansa flight from Shannon. The base commander at Newport News is puzzled by the dead line as he tries to let Washington know that his fleet is being destroyed at anchor by Nazi carrier based aviation.


It sounds wonderful.

ploughman
11-04-2005, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Interminate:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
It's an interesting one isn't it.

If Britain is knocked out of the war in 1940 then there's no Blitz to curry sympathy amongst the American public, isolationism becomes entrenched, Barbarossa is hardly going to illicit a great deal of pro-Soviet sympathy in Washington. The fate of Britain's Empire, is it still fighting or has there been a political settlement a' la Vichy or worse? An independent pro-Axis India? Kriegsmarine basing out of Tricomalee, Aden, Singapore, Port Stanley? The whole balance of power in the Western Pacific may've shifted.

Perhaps there is no longer a perceived need for the Pearl Harbor operation in Japan as access to the Dutch East Indies is acheived through diplomatic arm twisting the spread of Axis influence.

Opportunist Nazi Gauliters spread throughout the corpse of the British Empire, it is Germany's duty, says Herr Hitler, 'to maintain international order.' Canada, Australia and New Zealand desperately try to forge an alliance with an isolationist America that is still in navel gazing.

By end of the summer campaign of 1943 organised resistance to the west of the Ural mountains has come to an end. An uneasy truce develops. The war in the East continues only in name.

At the 1944 Conference of Axis powers in Berlin the Japanese delegation submits a secret plan for the simultaneous annihaltion of the American Atlantic and Pacific fleets, the seizing of the Panama Canal, and a plan for the prosecution of a war against the United States and Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

On May 7th, a single 15 kiloton atomic bomb explodes 660 ft above the Washington Monument. dropped by a plane that originally identified itself as the scheduled Lufthansa flight from Shannon. The base commander at Newport News is puzzled by the dead line as he tries to let Washington know that his fleet is being destroyed at anchor by Nazi carrier based aviation.


It sounds wonderful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I vom in your face.

jensenpark
11-04-2005, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Interminate:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
It's an interesting one isn't it.

If Britain is knocked out of the war in 1940 then there's no Blitz to curry sympathy amongst the American public, isolationism becomes entrenched, Barbarossa is hardly going to illicit a great deal of pro-Soviet sympathy in Washington. The fate of Britain's Empire, is it still fighting or has there been a political settlement a' la Vichy or worse? An independent pro-Axis India? Kriegsmarine basing out of Tricomalee, Aden, Singapore, Port Stanley? The whole balance of power in the Western Pacific may've shifted.

Perhaps there is no longer a perceived need for the Pearl Harbor operation in Japan as access to the Dutch East Indies is acheived through diplomatic arm twisting the spread of Axis influence.

Opportunist Nazi Gauliters spread throughout the corpse of the British Empire, it is Germany's duty, says Herr Hitler, 'to maintain international order.' Canada, Australia and New Zealand desperately try to forge an alliance with an isolationist America that is still in navel gazing.

By end of the summer campaign of 1943 organised resistance to the west of the Ural mountains has come to an end. An uneasy truce develops. The war in the East continues only in name.

At the 1944 Conference of Axis powers in Berlin the Japanese delegation submits a secret plan for the simultaneous annihaltion of the American Atlantic and Pacific fleets, the seizing of the Panama Canal, and a plan for the prosecution of a war against the United States and Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

On May 7th, a single 15 kiloton atomic bomb explodes 660 ft above the Washington Monument. dropped by a plane that originally identified itself as the scheduled Lufthansa flight from Shannon. The base commander at Newport News is puzzled by the dead line as he tries to let Washington know that his fleet is being destroyed at anchor by Nazi carrier based aviation.


It sounds wonderful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I vom in your face. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never happen.
Canada had most if not all of the available uranium.
Scientists flock to Canada.
Intead of the Manhattan Project, we would have had the Toronto project.
Canada lays waste to Nazi Germany, Japan and Russia with atomic bomb after bomb.
Canada becomes the world superpower militarily and in hockey.
Hey...it could happen.

ploughman
11-04-2005, 01:13 PM
Vive la Canada. Or however you say it in that strange language called French. I thought though that the Uranium for 'the bomb' came from The Congo.

Aaron_GT
11-04-2005, 01:25 PM
The Allies captured some uranium, which may have been rolled into the Manhattan supplies, from a sub bound from Germany to Japan in 1945.

Friendly_flyer
11-04-2005, 02:47 PM
Ploughman, that is a very frightening, though I must say not at all unlikey scenario. Britain staying in the fight was vital. Lucily, she had some of the best, very possibly the single best, airplane models of the whole war.

Xiolablu3
11-04-2005, 03:58 PM
Japan did well against the US on their own for a while. The carrier battle was far from certain, a lot of luck finding the carriers refueling paid a big part in their destruction.

With Germany fighting too, the outcome would have been uncertain, especially if they hadnt been fighting Russia at the same time.

US would not have had a p51, it would be fighting with Jugs, P40s and hellcats, and would have to ferry everything across the Atlantic, right to the shores of France or Italy, straight into battle. I dont think this is even feasable is it?

The outcome of DDay was uncertain with 10 miles of water to cross, Do you think the US could have mounted the same operation across the Atlantic?


BUT you must remeber that Germany didnt want a war with UK and France, so why should it want one with the US?

The only reason it declared war on the US was cos it was aiding the UK so much....

luftluuver
11-04-2005, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
US would not have had a p51, it would be fighting with Jugs, P40s and hellcats, and would have to ferry everything across the Atlantic, right to the shores of France or Italy, straight into battle. I dont think this is even feasable is it?

The outcome of DDay was uncertain with 10 miles of water to cross, Do you think the US could have mounted the same operation across the Atlantic?

Isn't that what the Americans did in the Pacific and for a much longer distance.

Aaron_GT
11-04-2005, 04:56 PM
With an island hopping campaign the enemy is hamstrung by supply problems too and has to transport its men and material by ship too. This is why the naval control was so important and once the back of the IJN was broken in mid 1942 the writing was on the wall. When attacking a larger body of land, though, the force has to be large enough to establish itself sufficiently to resist counterattack by numerically superior forces. This is why the preparations for the invasion of the Japanese home islands were projected to be so long, partly because the USN had insufficient landing craft and had to wait for them to be transferred over from Europe. The USN complained bitterly throughout the island hopping campaign that it never had enough landing craft.

The expected problems of landing via landing craft was one of the reasons for trying Dieppe. It set the parameters on whether a relatively small force via landing craft could capture a port, allowing that to then be used to land the bulk of an invading force. The result of the raid was that it seemed like this would not be possible, hence Mulberry. In Operation Torch ports were captured fairly quickly, with heavy fighting in only a few areas, but that was a special circumstance, given that the defending force was French and fairly easily (it still took some diplomacy) persuaded to switch back to the Allies.

Xiolablu3
11-04-2005, 05:57 PM
They did it in the pacific, Without a main route covered with Donitz's U boats...

Just which Islands are you going to hop on in the Atlantic? Isnt Ireland the first one you come to??

Its pretty certain USA would never have gone to war with Germany if Pearl harbour and the German decleration of war on them hadnt happened.

USA wanted to leave the war in Europe to the europeans. I am pretty sure if Britian had fallen that the USA would have kept away altogether.

jensenpark
11-04-2005, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The Allies captured some uranium, which may have been rolled into the Manhattan supplies, from a sub bound from Germany to Japan in 1945.

actually for the Manhattan project (and the subsequent bombs) all of it came from the Northwest Territories (northern Canada).

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/proliferat...ountries/canada.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/proliferation/countries/canada.html)

SkyChimp
11-04-2005, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

I would agree that the UK being knocked out would not have been the end, but it would have been the end of any significant US involvement in Europe or North Africa until 1944 or even 1945. I suspect that given a lack of foothold in the region the USA would have finished the war in Japan first then looked towards Europe.



Could be, and that's not inconsistent with what I have been saying.

One of the strategies under the "Germany First" policy dictated that the US would fight a strictly defensive war in the Pacific, allowing Japan to pursue expansionism, while the US concentrated its forces in the Atlantic to 1) defend the western hemisphere from Axis forces embarking from the eastern Atlantic, 2) assist Great Britain to the greatest extent possible, and 3) to establish bases as near to Europe as possible as springboards to Europe to achieve the defeat fo Germany at its earliest possible time. The US even planned on fighting along side the "British Empire" in the event Great Britain itself fell. Of course Britian won the BoB which eased the requirements of "Plan Dog." But it was there. The US recognized that the greatest threat to her security was Germany, not Japan.

Naturally, had Britain fallen, a consolidation and strengthening of US forces would have taken place in order to assure the protection of the western hemisphere, and to assure sufficiently strong forces for any war it intended to prosecute.

SkyChimp
11-04-2005, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
They did it in the pacific, Without a main route covered with Donitz's U boats...

Just which Islands are you going to hop on in the Atlantic? Isnt Ireland the first one you come to??

Its pretty certain USA would never have gone to war with Germany if Pearl harbour and the German decleration of war on them hadnt happened.

USA wanted to leave the war in Europe to the europeans. I am pretty sure if Britian had fallen that the USA would have kept away altogether.

There is no need to wonder what US policy was. Here's some information on what would have happened:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_01.htm

Xiolablu3
11-04-2005, 08:24 PM
Whatever it says on that long page written by someone..,sorry not got time to read it now..

Most people in USA in 1940-41 didnt want a war in Europe. Churchill had to go all out to get US involvement in the European theatre and FDR had to do it all in a slightly 'underhand' way.

There was an investigator sent to Britian in 1940 to assess whether the US should get involved in the war (only if the British were worth helping out, not if they were about to fall) or not. Had this guy decided that Britain was about to fall, it is felt that the USA would have left Europe to its own fate.

Luckily he decided that Britain had fight left in her and FDR started his lend lease etc.

It was Germany which declared war on the US remember not the other way round.

This made it a lot easier for FDR of course, who wanted to get involved anyway. (good bloke)

EDIT: have read a bit, interesting read, thx http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
11-04-2005, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Whatever it says on that long page written by someone..,sorry not got time to read it now..

Most people in USA in 1940-41 didnt want a war in Europe. Churchill had to go all out to get US involvement in the European theatre and FDR had to do it all in a slightly 'underhand' way.

There was an investigator sent to Britian in 1940 to assess whether the US should get involved in the war (only if the British were worth helping out, not if they were about to fall) or not. Had this guy decided that Britain was about to fall, it is felt that the USA would have left Europe to its own fate.

Luckily he decided that Britain had fight left in her and FDR started his lend lease etc.

It was Germany which declared war on the US remember not the other way round.

This made it a lot easier for FDR of course, who wanted to get involved anyway. (good bloke)

EDIT: have read a bit, interesting read, thx http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good, I thought it was interesting, too.

About 1/2 way through addresses the US observers.

ImpStarDuece
11-04-2005, 08:54 PM
I hw to laugh at the paranoid theories about the German nuclear project.

Some of the facts are

1. Germany was following the wrong path with the "heavy water" route. It was slower and less efficient than Allied efforts.

2. German effort in nuclear weapons was miniscule. Neither the heavy water plants nor the PLANNED atomic piles had acceptable output to properly support an effecitve research operation, let alone a weapon program.

3. The Germans never achieved a self sustaining nuclear pile. The Manhattan project did that more than 2 years before they produced any weapons. The one very small pile that German scientists did try to produce a self sustaining chain reaction from in 1945 melted down due to fundamental miscalculations and mistakes made by their team.

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 01:25 AM
Going off topic...

The lack of a German atomic bomb may have been due to Heisenberg, either deliberately or through scientific failure. Previous accounts of his meeting with Bohr suggested a stormy relationship but the recent release of contemporaneous accounts suggest it was actually quite cordial (Bohr cooked Heisenberg dinner, they played piano etc). This was the meeting that led to Bohr escaping west, reporting on atomic developments in Germany, sparking off the Manhattan project. But now documentation seems to suggest that Heisenberg's account of the meeting may be more accurate. It is going a bit far to say that this then makes Heisenberg's account of his attempts to derail the project are necessarily true, but it does enhance his credibility as a witness.

In the end the German atomic project was reduced in priority and ebbed away.

stathem
11-05-2005, 01:57 AM
Ah, but Heisenberg, in principle, was never certain....

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 02:22 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
11-05-2005, 05:33 AM
Hi SkyChimp,

Thanks for posting that link to the document on US Strategic Policy. I have studied it thoroughly and found it enormously interesting.

Although I cannot agree with ALL of the conclusions you seem to have drawn from it, one thing does seem clear:

Whatever the division of US public opinion may have been on these issues (and regardless of what some of their politicians and bureaucrats may have believed) the document strongly supports your position on the US General Staff being firmly committed to a 'Germany First' policy, notwithstanding the fact that this fitted FDR's stance and suited British interests. This undoubtedly helped to cement American strategic direction, during the course of the war, as it unfolded.

IMHO, something else we can all be grateful for!

On this particular point, then - thanks to your info - I have updated and slightly amended my views.

I've always believed that the USA made the right decision here, but must also admit that I'd felt somewhat uneasy that so many Americans (according to some sources I've read) had been opposed to it.

It will no doubt always remain an interesting subject of speculation and debate, as to how things might have unfolded if the USA had been required to confront the entire Axis Alliance on its own. A very difficult prospect, I feel, even for such a powerful nation.

Have enjoyed these discussions so far.


Best regards,
panther3485

JtD
11-05-2005, 12:42 PM
The strict Europe first policy meant that in 1942 the US sent four times the men and material to the PTO they sent to the ETO.

This only changed after the Allies gained the upper hand at Midway and Guadacanal.

SUPERAEREO
11-05-2005, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Ah, but Heisenberg, in principle, was never certain....

LOL!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
11-05-2005, 01:37 PM
You really cant blame the US mothers and fathers not wanting to send their boys into what was essentially 'Europes war'

Hell Europe had been squabbling for hundreds of years, If I had been an American in 1940, I would have been cautious too.

Luckily for us Europeans Churchill was persuasive and managed to pull you guys into the war. It would have been a much harder struggle without the US onboard.

Good job guys.

MB_Avro_UK
11-05-2005, 03:48 PM
Not only is this Sim excellent but also the posts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Keep it up guys please as I'm learning so much!!

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-05-2005, 04:09 PM
On top of everything else that made Churchill the right man at the right time, don't forget that he was half-American, by virtue of his mother. Did this have any bearing on his dealings with FDR...or with FDR's dealings with him?

panther3485
11-05-2005, 07:59 PM
From JtD:
The strict Europe first policy meant that in 1942 the US sent four times the men and material to the PTO they sent to the ETO.
This only changed after the Allies gained the upper hand at Midway and Guadacanal.

From Xiolablu3:
You really can't blame the US mothers and fathers not wanting to send their boys into what was essentially 'Europes war'.
Hell Europe had been squabbling for hundreds of years, If I had been an American in 1940, I would have been cautious too.
Luckily for us Europeans Churchill was persuasive and managed to pull you guys into the war. It would have been a much harder struggle without the US onboard.
Good job guys.

Generally, I agree with both of you.

These factors, among other things, are reasons that have always made me doubt whether the US would have otherwise been so committed to the ETO. On the other hand, the document posted by SkyChimp does highlight strategic concerns that the USA would have had if Britian went down in 1940, especially if the British and French fleets were intact and the Axis had been able to gain control of both.

In this scenario, and with the Japanese threat on the other side, the US Chiefs of Staff could see that they might have been pushing the brown stuff uphill just to safeguard US interests, never mind anything else.

Further, by the time the US would be able to counter such a situation, they would then have the daunting prospect of trying to retake a Europe/Med totally dominated and controlled by the Axis (probably with the Soviets also neutralized out by then). IMHO, this is just as likely, or even more likely, to have lead to an unpleasant standoff, rather than the US retaking Europe from the Axis, at least for some considerable time.

You only have to look at what the Nazis were doing in Europe for the few years of control they had. The consequences are terrible. Unthinkable.

Once FDR and key US leaders had witnessed Britain's successful resistance through 1940 and could see that the British would fight on, they were resolved to help, as far as they could within the constraints of their domestic political situation. They understood the far-reaching consequences of a British defeat, which would have been disastrous for the Allied cause and could potentially put the USA in a very difficult position.

I reckon we can all be thankful this didn't happen.


From Low_Flyer_MkII:
On top of everything else that made Churchill the right man at the right time, don't forget that he was half-American, by virtue of his mother. Did this have any bearing on his dealings with FDR...or with FDR's dealings with him?

Churchill always enjoyed a warm, cordial and friendly relationship with FDR. The fact that Churchill's mother was American certainly didn't hurt this relationship!


Best regards,
panther3485

JtD
11-06-2005, 12:27 AM
Imho, if Britain had gone out of the war then it most likely had been similar to the Versailles treaty, as I really doubt that the Germans could have made a successful invasion of Britain - probably up to 1943.

With that happening I'd expect major parts of the British fleet to run away to overseas bases like Asia, with another part beeing scuttled to avoid German seizure (like the Germans scuttled their Hochseeflotte after WW1 in Scapa Flow).

This would have opened the door to a German controlled Europe, failure in the East beeing less likely, and to an Axis controlled near East.

The Japanese themselves might have concentrated on fighting the remains of the Commonwealth, attacking Birma, Australia, India without attacking Pearl Harbour.

The US could have stayed outside the war completely depending on policy.

However, with so little Axis troops spread out over so much territory harboring so many people, civil unrest, partizan warfare an the like could have easily gone off the scale, making territories impossible to control. In combination with the racist attitude the Axis leaders showed / the genocide they promoted/comitted this would easily mean a death toll in the billions in a neverending war.

panther3485
11-06-2005, 02:20 AM
Hello JtD,

Quote:
".....This would have opened the door to a German controlled Europe, failure in the East beeing less likely, and to an Axis controlled near East.
The Japanese themselves might have concentrated on fighting the remains of the Commonwealth, attacking Birma, Australia, India without attacking Pearl Harbour.
The US could have stayed outside the war completely depending on policy.
However, with so little Axis troops spread out over so much territory harboring so many people, civil unrest, partizan warfare an the like could have easily gone off the scale, making territories impossible to control. In combination with the racist attitude the Axis leaders showed / the genocide they promoted/comitted this would easily mean a death toll in the billions in a neverending war."


Hmmm, yes.... very interesting alternate scenario. If anything, this prospect is even more grim than the one I have imagined. Certainly no better! Seems any probable way you cut the cake after a British fall, the outlook is gloomy. At least for Europe, if not for the whole World.

Best regards,
panther3485

Frequent_Flyer
11-06-2005, 09:07 AM
What I beleive is being overlooked is the fact that when the US entered the war it had at best the fifth rated airforce, and maybe the fourth or fifth Navy. By wars end the US had the best Navy and Airforce. It had sucessfully prosecuted a war on two fronts thousands of miles apart. To get the men and materials from the US to Euroupe alone the men and material travelled almost twice as far as Germanys furthest penetration into Russia.Much is always made of Germanys in ability to fight on two fronts only several hundred miles apart. Add to this the 'third front ' could be the Lend Lease material supplied to all of her allies.Pearl Harbor truly " woke a sleeping giant", an irresitable force.

mynameisroland
11-06-2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
That was the same as every other spitfire model before it, The mk9 turned a bit worse than the 5 as did the 14 a bit worse than the 9. Every evolution in spitfire got heavyer and heavyer the only thing was it kept its turn advantage over its contemporaries. The 21 did actually gain manoverability at high speeds, its high speed controls were significantly better.

The big difference was the mk 21's entirely new wing. Less drag, but less lift. It seems it lost most or all its low-mid speed turn advantage over the Mustang, but matched or even exceeded the Mustang's high speed manueverability.

The funny thing is that as the Spitfire was getting heavier, the Mustang was getting lighter to the point that the P-51H with 205 U.S. gallons of internal fuel was virtually identical in weight to the Spitfire 21.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire 21 didnt even see service, the ultimate Spitfire for WW2 would be the Spitfire XIV. This had performamce enought o out match the Mustang D, out climb out speed at some altitudes and outgun. The Spitfire 21 was actually considered dangerous it was so unlike the previous Spitfires with their docile handling.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 11:27 AM
The Spitfire 21 was actually considered dangerous it was so unlike the previous Spitfires with their docile handling.

This was a CofG issue, fixed in the almost identical Mk. 22. The handling problem meant the 21 missed the war, though, in terms of service (not in terms of first flight, of course).

p1ngu666
11-06-2005, 11:29 AM
nah, it saw service, just not much, and the bugs where graduly ironed out, it didnt handle as good as the XIV tho.

XIV is the ultimate wartime spit

panther3485
11-06-2005, 11:31 AM
Hi there, Frequent_Flyer

Quote:
What I beleive is being overlooked is the fact that when the US entered the war it had at best the fifth rated airforce, and maybe the fourth or fifth Navy. By wars end the US had the best Navy and Airforce. It had sucessfully prosecuted a war on two fronts thousands of miles apart. To get the men and materials from the US to Euroupe alone the men and material travelled almost twice as far as Germanys furthest penetration into Russia.Much is always made of Germanys in ability to fight on two fronts only several hundred miles apart. Add to this the 'third front ' could be the Lend Lease material supplied to all of her allies.Pearl Harbor truly " woke a sleeping giant", an irresitable force.

Yes indeed, well stated.

I believe it was Yamamoto who said, after the Pearl Harbor attack, "I fear that all we may have done is waken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve."

For Hitler, this would become the fulfilment of his worst nightmare - an alliance between the British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. An alliance that Germany, with its slender resources, could never hope to defeat.

I believe the World today owes much to the fact that this alliance was able to come together the way it did.

Nevertheless, from December 1941 it would still take the best part of four more years of bloody warfare to bring the last of the Axis to final defeat.

By the end, the reckoning in dead alone was approx 55 million; 11 million on the Axis side and 44 million on the Allied side. A horrendous cost, which might have been even worse.


Best regards,
panther3485

stathem
11-06-2005, 11:33 AM
Ah no Roland, the Mk21 was equipping 'Zimbabwe' Squadron(sorry, can't remember the number, maybe 600 something) by December 1944, and doing sweeps of the Low countries in March-April 1945

mynameisroland
11-06-2005, 11:38 AM
Are you sure Stathem ? Please post a link for your info because I have it becoming operational on the 10th of April 1945 Seeing hardly any service. 600 models produced and seeing action from Xmas 1944 sounds extremely optomistic.

mynameisroland
11-06-2005, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire 21 was actually considered dangerous it was so unlike the previous Spitfires with their docile handling.

This was a CofG issue, fixed in the almost identical Mk. 22. The handling problem meant the 21 missed the war, though, in terms of service (not in terms of first flight, of course). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info, The ultimate Spitfire for me is the XIV or even the IX not the 21 or 22. I think the design was compromised at this stage.

stathem
11-06-2005, 11:42 AM
Whoops, sorry, 91 Sq., Nigeria

http://www.rafcommands.currantbun.com/Fighter/91F.html

That Squadron only, they went out of service for a couple of months early '45, were back by about March.

Some links have disappeared since the last time I looked into this.

IMO, it's equivalent to the Ta152H-1, except not as much opportunity to make contact with the enemy

luftluuver
11-06-2005, 01:26 PM
Spitfire 21 production began at Castle Bromwich in July 1944 with ~120 a/c being built to Dec 1945. (Spit: The History)

ImpStarDuece
11-06-2005, 02:15 PM
No 91 squadron never engaged in air to air combat with the MMk 21..

They did engage in air to ground sweeps though. In fact, while flying the Mk 21, Flt. Lt. W. Marshall and J. Draper claimed a midget submarine sunk off the Hook of Holland on April, 26.

They also made attacks on MET and airfields in Northern Europe.

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 03:18 PM
600 models produced and seeing action from Xmas 1944 sounds extremely optomistic.

I think he means squadron 600 something or other, not 600 Mk. 21s produced. I thought the production figure for Mk.21s was around 150 total. Edit: I see it was 120. I am not sure how many 22s were produced, about the same I think.

stathem
11-06-2005, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">600 models produced and seeing action from Xmas 1944 sounds extremely optomistic.

I think he means squadron 600 something or other, not 600 Mk. 21s produced. I thought the production figure for Mk.21s was around 150 total. Edit: I see it was 120. I am not sure how many 22s were produced, about the same I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Aaron, yes, that is what I meant. I'd just got back from the pub and was a little hard of thinking.

panther3485
11-06-2005, 08:35 PM
Hi guys!

Just had a quick look in 'Spitfire', by Stewart Wilson:

Spitfire 21 -
1 x production prototype by Supermarine
120 x series production by CBAF
total 121

The handling problems initially suffered have already been mentioned. The book adds, in part:
"By the time the Spitfire 21 was sorted out and cleared for service, the European war was as good as over and the need for it had passed. Service entry: March 1945."

Spitfire 22 -
28 produced by Supermarine
260 produced by CBAF
total 288

"Did not enter service until 1947.....with only one regular RAF squadron (No. 73) from Malta in 1947-48 before re-equipping with Vampires.
Seven Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons also operated the type between 1947 and 1951...."


Spitfire 24 -
54 produced by Supermarine.

"No. 80 Squadron was the only operational RAF unit the fly the F.24, receiving its first aircraft in January 1948 in Germany and relinquishing them in December 1951 when based in Hong Kong."

There was also the Seafire 45 (50 produced), 46 (24 produced) and 47 (90 produced), based on Spitfires 21, 22 and 24 respectively. The last model and a handful of the earlier two were fitted with a more powerful Griffon 87 or 88 driving counter-rotating propellers. The types entered service during 1946-47. Only the Seafire 47 served in front line Fleet Air Arm squadron, seeing some action up to and during the early part of the Korean war.
The final Seafire 47 was delivered in January 1949 and was the last of the Spitfire/Seafire line.

Seems, though, that these later Spitfire/Seafire models were so different that an alternate name was seriously considered.

Interesting, huh?


Best regards,
panther3485

luftluuver
11-06-2005, 08:47 PM
Yes the British were in no hurry to put their latest a/c, even the Spit XIV, into mass production as the a/c they already had were capable of dealing with anything (prop driven) the Luftwaffe had.