I think all the fighter pilots irrespective of their uniform colour did a magnificent job protecting bombers. Just shows that courage is in everyone who dares to look for it.
That said Spits are much prettier than 'Stangs

But the Spit is more agile! Don't forget the 'Stang was a lardy thing until it got a Merlin engine and the USAAF didn't want it only the RAF did. Then the Americans saw the P-40s take a pasting and finally got their heads on the right way around
Oh and having spoken to people who flew both types they always said the Spit was better in a scrap (and this from an Eagle Squadron guy)

dcunning30 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2007 at 4:43pm:


That's why we went at night. I'm fairly sure several US commanders wanted to join us - as was seen when the USAAF turned to night bombing in Japan.

As for the long legs - the 'stangs may have been longer, but I bet it wasn't retrofitted to carry beer barrels...

Bomber Command had excellent accuracy in the second half of the war as we'd learned from our mistakes. It still makes me laugh that a B-17 only had the same bomb load and range as a Mossie.
However all those guys who drove "down town" as it were deserve our respect for the incredible courage they displayed..... you'd never get me flying one of those buses into flak!

ozzy72 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2007 at 5:21pm:


Mistakes aside, there were obstacles that they faced that they could not have been overcome with the current period technology.  It wasn't a matter of mistakes, the technology just wasn't there.  With 1940's technology, how was a navigator/bombadier going to accurately identify a target and isolate it from the surrounding area, which often was urban areas full of surrounding buildings?.....during a blackout being enforced by the target city?  they could only get a really good approximation and hope for the best.  It wasn't a matter of mistakes, they just didn't have the technology to achieve any better accuracy.

dcunning30 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2007 at 5:58pm:


That's why generally the area bombing tactic was employed. As for technology, Bomber Command came up with a number of solutions. The Pathfinder force, and target marking techniques therein; Gee; Oboe (very precise, although limited range) and finally of course H2S, which was last used operationally in 1982 over a certain group of islands in the South Atlantic. Hence the great increase in accuracy by 1944-45, and the limited daylight operations by smaller forces.

Quote:


The RAF's bomber fleet was designed that way from the start, hence only 7 crew members on most of our bombers.

Quote:


I think the term "practical bomb load" ought to be used. Yes the B-17 could carry a fair weight (although still 5 tons under a "Grand Slam"), it's limitation was in the physical dimensions of the (compartmentalised) bomb bay itself, which limited it to relatively small munitions. In this way, the British bomber had a superior design characteristic, and as we saw with the Dams raid and "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam", allowed modification to be completed relatively easily. It also allowed the RAF to carry a greater variety (for example, a 4000lb blast bomb, a few smaller bombs and incenduries too. On the negative side though it made out bombers a lot more vulnerable on daylight operations.

Quote:


Not to hand. I'm fairly sure it was mentioned in Sir Arthur Harris' war memoirs. The obvious choices would have been either Spaatz or LeMay - I doubt it was LeMay because he initially still favoured day bombing in Japan.

Charlie wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 4:47am:


Exactly, that was I was originally referring to when I spoke of the increased horror on the civilian population.

Quote:


I never said they didn't have technological solutions, but I did say the technology wasn't there in the 1940's to achieve precise nighttime bombing.  It helped, but it wasn't anything resembling precision.

Quote:


Surely you wouldn't have us to believe the H2S technology used in 1982 was essentially the same technology and accuracy as that used in 1944-45.  

Quote:


There were no limited daylight raids by smaller forces in 1944-45.  

Quote:


Did the RAF bombers have gunners?  LeMay removed defensive armament and their gunners.

Quote:


Quote:
it's limitation was in the physical dimensions of the (compartmentalised) bomb bay itself, which limited it to relatively small munitions. In this way, the British bomber had a superior design characteristic, and as we saw with the Dams raid and "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam", allowed modification to be completed relatively easily. [/quote]

That's an unfair assumption.  First of all, the British saw a mission they neede to achieve and improvised to meet that goal.  We have no historical evidense that the US had a need to accomplish such a task, so there is NO record that the B17 was considered for such a modification and that couldn't be done.  It's one of those theings that we don't know one way or another, so by making such a claim is basically unfair.

Quote:


It was Spaatz.  I've read that there was much debate prior to the final decision, with much consideration to what the British was doing.  However, when the decision was made, it was made and all debate ended.  And history tells us it was a success.

All I expressed was my opinion that Spits look better than P-51s..... that and a small historical fact regarding the P-51 and her engine.
I'll never be swayed from the path of Spits are best.
That said it is nice to hear something positive said about pilots from ones own county. Especially in these days of hi-tech weapons and we're still having blue-on-blues and other terrible accidents. Alas the armchair experts will always have an idyllic view of war. Soldiers know the reality.
Now the Mk. IX was of course......

The D-335 would have practically used the tactics that all Luftwaffe aircraft used: Boom and zoom.

ozzy72 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 12:47pm:


Most American WWII fighters tend to not be dogfighters.  They were heavy, well powered, well armed and well armored.  Energy tactics are the standard.  The Corsair was essentially building an airframe around the most powerful radial engine at the time.  Chance-Vought had to use inverted gull wings so they could clear the ground with that very large prop, but didn't have to worry about weak landing gears for carrier operations if the gear was too long.

update

Regarding armor, I've read an account of a Wildcat pilots just huddling up in front of the backplate armor as a Zero just pumped rounds into it, and it kept flying.  Grumman made unbeliavably rugged planes.

ozzy72 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 1:50pm:



It's so huge, when a Jug pilot needed to escape, he just pushed the stick forward and rarely can the Luftwaffe pilot keep up.

Quote:


Fair enough - they'd got to the Mk9 by 1982, as opposed to the Mk3 in 1945...

Quote:


Depends on the term precision - 120m average from the equipped aircraft/master bomber, at night from high level was pretty good for 1940s standard.

Quote:


The RAF certainly did, often with just one or two Sqns at a time. Particularly of note during the Battle of the Bulge. One pilot at least was awarded the Victoria Cross whilst leading one (using Oboe) over Cologne:

"On 24 December 1944 the Pathfinder Force (27 Lancasters & 3 Mosquitos) attacked the Cologne-Gremberg railway yards (by daylight). With no sign of the forecast cloud bombing orders had been changed en route: instead of bombing on OBOE leaders, each aircraft was to bomb visually. This was because OBOE bombing accuracy depended on the pilot holding a straight and level course on the final approach, and in clear weather the Cologne guns were notoriously effective. Unfortunately the first OBOE leader, Squadron Leader R. A. M. Palmer of No 109 Squadron but on loan to No 582, failed to receive the message in the air. As he approached the target on his straight and level course, flak hit his aircraft in several places and set two engines on fire. Believing that he was setting the bomb pattern for others to follow he still pressed on, despite also coming under attack from fighters. He scored direct hits on the target, then spiralled down in flames.

Statistically, Palmer was a dead man long before he perished: he was on his 110th operation*. The citation for his posthumous Victoria Cross referred with justice to "his record of prolonged and heroic endeavour".

*(More than 3 "tours of duty")

Quote:


Taking a Lancaster as an example, normally two from a crew of seven; the tail gunner and the mid upper gunner. The bomb aimer normally manned the front turret (unless he was aiming). The "special" Lancasters lost the mid upper turret first (Dambusters and Tallboy - although for these the mid upper gunner moved permanently to the front turret), and then for the Grand Slam (22,000lb), the nose turret as well.

Quote:


I think the point is that the RAF bomb bays were designed from the outset to carry varied loads - whether by luck or judgement. I'm not saying the B-17 couldn't be modified, just loking at it from an engineering point of view, looking at the layout, dimensions and location of the bomb bay (and the ball turret and radio compartment), it's hard to see how it could be done without some serious redesign.

Quote:


I wonder if that had anything to do with Spaatz's sourjourn in North Africa for a while?

Quote:


Can't beat a radial engined fighter from the US, particularly a) if it's made by Grumman, or b) if you're on a carrier. Shame the Sea Fury was a little too late.

Moosizzle wrote on Jul 20^th, 2007 at 8:11pm:



P-47 = Lead (as in Pb) aeroplane
Bf109 = Feather in comparison!