If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote:
... Translation Walter is as bad at character assassination as history. You lied. You got caught. Again. Mr. Sinclair came to a valid conclusion about you. You wrote: Meantime Eaker convinced Robert Lovett, the Assistant Secretary of War for Air to push for a long range fighter. Eaker never said anything during the summer of 1943 to Asst. SecWar Lovett such as you said he did. Were you there, as for him not saying it there are a good numbers references that say that conversation did take place. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Keith Willshaw wrote:
"ArtKramr" wrote in message ... Subject: Night bombers interception.... From: "Nele VII" AP Date: 7/19/2004 9:48 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: ArtKramr wrote in message ... ubject: Night bombers interception.... From: "Keith Willshaw" hat single aircraft ended up over targets was a result of the extremely poor reliability of the aircraft, it was not uncommon for half the dispatched aircraft to have to return to base. Indeed the USAAC described the B-17C as being unsuitable for combat use. Why do you think we gave them to the Brits? Same reason we gave P-39's to the Russians. Pokrishkin was grateful for P-39 achieving "only" 59 victories! So much for an "Iron Dog" in the hands of an ace ))))) Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer How a plane performs in the hands of an ace is meningless. There were too few of them to matter. Its flat spin problems killed too many average pilots to be acceptable to us. We had better planes so why suffer a dog? THe Russians were not so fortunate The USAAF operated over 2000 P-39's at peak in early 1944. Most of these were in the PTO and MTO as the type suffered heavy losses against the Luftwaffe over France and was replaced by the Spitfire V in the 31st Fighter Group based in southern England. They were heavily used in the Med however and post war analysis showed that they had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any USAAF fighter used in the European theatre. The P-39 worked fine for us when it was used as intended, at low/medium altitudes, which is how the soviets used it. It certainly outperformed the P-40 in that part of the envelope. The US's biggest problem with the a/c was its lack of range, something that couldn't be improved owing to the lack of space forward and aft-mounted engine; there was just no room to put fuel where it wouldn't screw the Cg. Where that wasn't an issue, and the a/c was used well forward (as the Russians did), it was fine. And the Soviets had their share of excellent a/c. IIRR it was only used by one or two groups in the Med, but still managed to fly 30,547 combat sorties (mostly strafing missions) while only losing 107 a/c in combat, a loss rate of just 0.4%. US P-40s flew about twice as many combat sorties in the MTO, 67,059, but lost 553 in combat, or 0.8%. They claimed a lot more A-A kills, though, 481 vs. 14, which represents their different tasking, and also dropped a lot more bombs than the P-39 (same Cg/range problem). The P-63 eliminated the P-39's handling quirks and improved its performance, but range was still limited and by the time it entered service the USAAF was using the P-47 as its prime fighter-bomber. But the Russians certainly liked both the P-39 and P-63, because its range wasn't an issue for them. It's interesting to speculate how the P-63 would have done in the 9th AF after the invasion, as a fighter-bomber in lieu of the P-47 or especially the P-51. The Soviets did like the 37mm cannon, and the engine was certanly better protected against flak during strafing attacks than was a P-51's. Guy |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: Guy Alcala Date: 7/20/2004 2:36 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Keith Willshaw wrote: "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... Subject: Night bombers interception.... From: "Nele VII" AP Date: 7/19/2004 9:48 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: ArtKramr wrote in message ... ubject: Night bombers interception.... From: "Keith Willshaw" hat single aircraft ended up over targets was a result of the extremely poor reliability of the aircraft, it was not uncommon for half the dispatched aircraft to have to return to base. Indeed the USAAC described the B-17C as being unsuitable for combat use. Why do you think we gave them to the Brits? Same reason we gave P-39's to the Russians. Pokrishkin was grateful for P-39 achieving "only" 59 victories! So much for an "Iron Dog" in the hands of an ace ))))) Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer How a plane performs in the hands of an ace is meningless. There were too few of them to matter. Its flat spin problems killed too many average pilots to be acceptable to us. We had better planes so why suffer a dog? THe Russians were not so fortunate The USAAF operated over 2000 P-39's at peak in early 1944. Most of these were in the PTO and MTO as the type suffered heavy losses against the Luftwaffe over France and was replaced by the Spitfire V in the 31st Fighter Group based in southern England. They were heavily used in the Med however and post war analysis showed that they had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any USAAF fighter used in the European theatre. The P-39 worked fine for us when it was used as intended, at low/medium altitudes, which is how the soviets used it. It certainly outperformed the P-40 in that part of the envelope. The US's biggest problem with the a/c was its lack of range, something that couldn't be improved owing to the lack of space forward and aft-mounted engine; there was just no room to put fuel where it wouldn't screw the Cg. Where that wasn't an issue, and the a/c was used well forward (as the Russians did), it was fine. And the Soviets had their share of excellent a/c. IIRR it was only used by one or two groups in the Med, but still managed to fly 30,547 combat sorties (mostly strafing missions) while only losing 107 a/c in combat, a loss rate of just 0.4%. US P-40s flew about twice as many combat sorties in the MTO, 67,059, but lost 553 in combat, or 0.8%. They claimed a lot more A-A kills, though, 481 vs. 14, which represents their different tasking, and also dropped a lot more bombs than the P-39 (same Cg/range problem). The P-63 eliminated the P-39's handling quirks and improved its performance, but range was still limited and by the time it entered service the USAAF was using the P-47 as its prime fighter-bomber. But the Russians certainly liked both the P-39 and P-63, because its range wasn't an issue for them. It's interesting to speculate how the P-63 would have done in the 9th AF after the invasion, as a fighter-bomber in lieu of the P-47 or especially the P-51. The Soviets did like the 37mm cannon, and the engine was certanly better protected against flak during strafing attacks than was a P-51's. Guy Every WW II pilot I knew who flew the P-39 was glad ot be rid if it. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote:
Every WW II pilot I knew who flew the P-39 was glad ot be rid if it. I know of several, starting with Yeager and Anderson, who liked its handling and would happily have gone to war in it. It had its handling quirks, but so did every other a/c. The P-40 was renowned for its tendency to groundlooping, and also (IIRR) for its nasty stall/spin. The P-38 had serious compressibility problems, and like all twins could bite you if you lost an engine on takeoff. The Merlin P-51 had to be very careful not to get into combat with the aft tank more than about 1/3 - 1/2 full, and there were yaw issues at high speed. About the only USAAF fighter I can think of that wasn't commonly associated with any bad handling quirks was the P-47 (quite typical of Republic fighters, judging by the jets that followed). Guy |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Was that in the MTO?
Yep. Chris Mark |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: Guy Alcala Date: 7/20/2004 3:48 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: ArtKramr wrote: Every WW II pilot I knew who flew the P-39 was glad ot be rid if it. I know of several, starting with Yeager and Anderson, who liked its handling and would happily have gone to war in it. It had its handling quirks, but so did every other a/c. The P-40 was renowned for its tendency to groundlooping, and also (IIRR) for its nasty stall/spin. The P-38 had serious compressibility problems, and like all twins could bite you if you lost an engine on takeoff. The Merlin P-51 had to be very careful not to get into combat with the aft tank more than about 1/3 - 1/2 full, and there were yaw issues at high speed. About the only USAAF fighter I can think of that wasn't commonly associated with any bad handling quirks was the P-47 (quite typical of Republic fighters, judging by the jets that followed). Guy I think all questions are answere by looking at the total recordsof the P-51, P47 and P-39. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: ost (Chris Mark) Date: 7/20/2004 4:40 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Was that in the MTO? Yep. Chris Mark Figures. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
WalterM140 wrote in message ...
Firstly some deleted text I wrote, on what Eaker said to Lovett, the source for my comments, Williamson Murray in his book Luftwaffe, quoting Boylan, in The development of the long range fighter escort, pages 90 to 91 and 121. This has to be deleted. It cannot exist if Walter is to try and smear. (snip) I find no evidence that Eaker thought it imperitive to provide escort or that he communicated such with Lovett. So why were P-47s fitted with drop tanks and used as escorts during Eaker's period of command? You seem to have just made it up. Translation Walter is as bad at character assassination as history. You lied. You got caught. Again. Walter's definition of telling lies is basically pointing out unpleasant facts that ruin his preferred fiction. You wrote: Meantime Eaker convinced Robert Lovett, the Assistant Secretary of War for Air to push for a long range fighter. Eaker never said anything during the summer of 1943 to Asst. SecWar Lovett such as you said he did. I presume Walter has the transcripts of all the Eaker Lovett conversations, to make this claim but I doubt it. Alternatively he has read the Boylan book I referenced, but I doubt that as well. It appears Eaker is set up as the 2 dimensional bad guy, so the fact the 8th did improve escort range and numbers during his command is to be ignored, the fact people have noted Eaker did understand the idea of long range escorts has to be dropped. Bye, Sinclair. Hey great, Walter is going to move onto something else. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
I find no evidence that Eaker thought it imperitive to provide escort or
that he communicated such with Lovett. So why were P-47s fitted with drop tanks and used as escorts during Eaker's period of command? You seem to have just made it up. Translation Walter is as bad at character assassination as history. You lied. You got caught. Again. Walter's definition of telling lies is basically pointing out unpleasant facts that ruin his preferred fiction. Sinclair wrote: Meantime Eaker convinced Robert Lovett, the Assistant Secretary of War for Air to push for a long range fighter. Eaker never said anything during the summer of 1943 to Asst. SecWar Lovett such as you said he did. I presume Walter has the transcripts of all the Eaker Lovett conversations, You made the statement. You can't back it up. You lied. You got caught. Eaker did not discuss the development of a long range fighter with Lovett when Lovett came to England in the Summer of 1943. Eaker did not urge the rapid development of such an aircraft at that time. You lied. You got caught. Walt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
regaining night currency but not alone | Teacherjh | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | May 28th 04 02:08 PM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane? | Matthew G. Saroff | Military Aviation | 111 | May 4th 04 05:34 PM |
Night of the bombers - the most daring special mission of Finnishbombers in WW2 | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 4 | March 22nd 04 11:19 PM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |