Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Halo on December 22, 2003, 07:49:12 PM
-
The largest single-engine fighter of WWII, the P-47, does not have the widest wingspan. Didn't notice that until looking at F6F Hellcat beside the new 1/72 Matchbox Collectible P-47.
The Hellcat spans 42 feet, 10 inches; the Thunderbolt spans 40 feet, 9 1/4 inches. That really surprises me, especially with the F6F being a carrier fighter.
Of course the wingspan champ of all nations probably is the FW Ta 152H-1 at 47 feet, 6 3/4 inches.
What fact about WWII fighter planes surprises you the most?
-
How do you define 'large'?
The P-47 is massive no doubt - seeing a pic of a pilot standing next to a P-47, it looks more like a light bomber(!). But in pure size I thought the P-38 was larger than the P-47.
-
F6F is a HUGE plane. It has more wing area than a P47 also.
The first time I saw an F6f in real life (Clark Country Air Show), it was monstrously huge compared to the other fighters.
My favorite 'surprising' fact is that the P-51 can only fly inverted for a few seconds before all the oil drains out of the engine. After which the engine will seize.
-
He said "Single engine", thus eliminating the P-38.
-
don't have the proportions of each of those in visual memory, but I remember visiting one of Phoenix's WWII planes museum, and in the fighters hangar, with a D13, a spitfire, a yak, a P51, a P47 (cage canopy), a 38, and some others, the Corsair was in comparison a titan by stance and volume.
-
Originally posted by moot
don't have the proportions of each of those in visual memory, but I remember visiting one of Phoenix's WWII planes museum, and in the fighters hangar, with a D13, a spitfire, a yak, a P51, a P47 (cage canopy), a 38, and some others, the Corsair was in comparison a titan by stance and volume.
Chandler Airforce Base in Mesa Arizona.
I got to sit in the cockpit of that Yak-9 and The two greatest things I got to do when there was help Push out a B17 from the Hanger to the runway so they could do new engine tests, aswell as Fly in the Nose Gunner position on the HE-111 they had there for half an hour.
If you are ever down there, Ask for Frank and tell him Erik Sent ya, you will get to do some really cool things.
As far as the... what was this subject about? Oh yeah as far as the most suprising Fighter Fact, that would have to be on the Japanese version of the ME-163. Due to not getting all the technical information on the ME-163, Japan was forced to use just a Manual and some photos to create their own version which was fully functional within Six Months.
-
Somethings that don't surprise me, but certainly will surprise others.
P-39D-1 vs A6M2
P-39D climbed to 15,000 feet faster than the Zero 21.
P-39D accelerated much faster than the Zero 21.
P-39D had a much faster roll rate than the Zero 21 from 100 mph on up.
P-39D was 70-90 mph faster in a dive than the Zero 21.
All in all, the P-39D easily out-performed the A6M2 in every category but low-speed maneuverability and range. Yet, today you would think the P-39D was an absolute pig. It wasn't. It also proved very formidable against the Luftwaffe at altitudes below 15,000 feet. It's turn rate was very similar to the later P-63A King Cobra, meaning it was far more maneuverable than the P-51, even slightly better than the F6F. Within the American inventory of WW2 fighters, only the F4F/FM series was more agile than the Airacobra. What hurt the P-39 was its single-speed, single-stage supercharger that limited adequate performance to below 15k. Above that, performance fell off sharply as you went up. Both the Japanese and Germans were aware of the P-39's performance woes up high and they used tactics to take advantage of that. However, down on the deck, the Airacobra was a very dangerous foe. Especially the later models with more power and better guns.
For example, the P-39N was rated for 399 mph at 9,700 feet. How does that compare to late war fighters? Pretty good. It's faster than the La-7 (391 mph) at that altitude! Speed on the deck was very good as well. Where the P-39D could pull only 305 mph (and 368 mph at 12k), the P-39N could exceed 339 mph, 348 mph in WEP. Climb rate was good, if not spectacular. The P-39D needed 5.7 minutes to get to 15k, but the P-39N/Q could get there in 3.8 minutes, which is slightly better than the P-51D. Acceleration was also very good. In fact, it was better than the F4U-4, P-47D-30, and markedly better than the F6F-5. Just so you know, the later P-39s were powered by 1,420 hp Allisons, not the 1,100 hp engines fitted to the P-39D. The later models were also about 200 lbs lighter as well.
Most P-39N/Qs were shipped to the Soviets, but several USAAF fighter squadrons based in Italy flew them, as did the Italians and Free French. When USAAF units switched over to the P-47 near the end of the war, most pilots were unhappy to exchange their P-39s, which quite frankly, was a much better fighter at the altitudes where they spent most of their time. The P-47, however, could haul better than 3 times the weight of under-wing ordnance.
So, while the early P-39D was a better performer than the A6M2 Zero below 15k, likewise, the P-39N/Q series was reasonably competitive with later war fighters at low to medium altitudes.
Wouldn't it be a hoot to have a late model P-39 in Aces High?
So, are you surprised?
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'd love to have an early P39/P400 for pacific war battles. :) I have been asking for one quite some time.
-
Nice Widewing, Nice;)
Did you know that damage to the hydraulics system in the 190 could lead to it dropping one or both legs of gear down? And that with one gear down it could turn very tight to that side!
Or, that a lightly loaded Lancaster could loop!
-
Could a Lancaster loop?!?
I don't have WWII fighter facts but here are a few aviation surprises. Some of them may be urban myths though.
The B-36 bomber could outturn a F-86 Sabre at extreme altitudes due to it's massive wing, a F-86 would simply stall out.
The Handley Page Victor (a 1950's British four engined nuclear jet bomber) could actually break the sound barrier, but only just. It appears to have been the largest aircraft ever to go supersonic. I find it hard to believe but I have it from a TV-programme I once recorded from Discovery channel.
Before they scaled down their airforce The Netherlands were the second largest F-16 operator after the US.
-
Widewing, I have no doubt whatsoever that you can back up your claims, but what are your sources?
The only thing I've heard in all my life is that the P-39 was indeed a pig, with poor performance, dangerous handling characteristics and a very poor rate of climb, especially compared to the A6M.
Seems that for every theory available about WWII fighters someone has the data to disprove it...
On the other hand, the detailed data I've seen on Spits, 109's, F4U's and the technical problems of the P-38 in Europe is simply amazing. It is only a shame that people's judgement is so often clouded by their personal preference :(
-
Originally posted by Angus
Nice Widewing, Nice;)
Did you know that damage to the hydraulics system in the 190 could lead to it dropping one or both legs of gear down? And that with one gear down it could turn very tight to that side!
Or, that a lightly loaded Lancaster could loop!
From http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lang.html
On 3 September 1944, Lang had had mechanical trouble with his aircraft. When he finally took off from Melsbroek at the head of a three aircraft Kette, he had difficulty raising his undercarriage. Ten minutes later USAAF Mustangs intercepted them. Lang was last seen diving vertically with his undercarriage extended. His Fw 190 A-8 (W.Nr. 171 240) “Green 1” hit the ground and exploded near St Trond. It would appear he was the victim of American ace Darrell Cramer (7 destroyed, 1 probable and 1 damaged victories) of the 338 FS, 55 FG USAAF.
-
F6F is bigger than a F4U as well which surprised me!
-
they have an f4u at the Air Museum in Tucson, that thing is huge always though it was bigger then f6f
-
The gull type wings makes the F4U look bigger. Stretched out, it would have a larger wingspan.
-
The Brewster Buffalo, one of America's most maligned fighter aircraft, produced more aces per airframe than the P-51 Mustang.
And I wholeheartedly agree with Widewing; a few varients of the P-39 would be great additions to AH. I think the 'cobra is one of those aircraft that saw service in every theater of WWII, and then enjoyed life on the racing circuit after the war.
Really an amazing airplane!
-
just because the P-47 was the heaviest fighter doesn't mean it needs the biggest wingspan does it?
I mean, it has a very strong engine so it doesn't need that much lift I guess?
-
Sadly, I fear it will be a very very long time before we see any new planes.
-
As for wing span I'd say the Ta152 was the one with bigest wingspan that saw action. Not the largets wing area though.
-
Hi Widewing,
>All in all, the P-39D easily out-performed the A6M2 in every category but low-speed maneuverability and range.
The funny thing is, P-38 ace MF Kirby maintained that the P-400 he was flying over New Guinea was outperformed by the A6M in every respect except top speed - with the Zero being close even there.
>Yet, today you would think the P-39D was an absolute pig. It wasn't.
He also decribed the Japanese bombers with their escorts conducting their attacks at altitudes the P-400 couldn't reach. (For some reason, the P-40E displayed a better high-altitude performance than the P-39/P-400 over New Guinea.)
>It also proved very formidable against the Luftwaffe at altitudes below 15,000 feet.
Well, Pokryshkin enjoyed great success in the type, but he still considered the P-39 too heavy compared to the Luftwaffe fighters. I have to admit that I haven't seen any good performance graphs to analyze P-39 performance so far, and numbers certainly tell us more than opinions.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Well, which single-engine had the most wing area then?
-
Here is the report that Widewing is quoting from regarding the P-39. The thing about the comparison done between the P-39, P-38F, P-51A, F4F-4 and F4U-1 is that the P-39 was way overboosted for the test. They started by running it at 70" MAP but it started to detonate so they reduced MAP to 55".
During that test the A6M2 outclimbed the P-51A, F4F and was superior than theP-38F below 20K. The F4U-1 was superior at sea level and above 20K. Between 5K and 20K the situation varied.
Another factoid is that when the P-39Q was raced in 1946 against Mustangs, P-38s and an F4U-1 it won at 370+MPH lap speeds. Very fast indeed at low alts
Here is the full original report.
A6M2 flight test (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/A6M2test.pdf)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Somethings that don't surprise me, but certainly will surprise others.
Most P-39N/Qs were shipped to the Soviets, but several USAAF fighter squadrons based in Italy flew them, as did the Italians and Free French. When USAAF units switched over to the P-47 near the end of the war, most pilots were unhappy to exchange their P-39s, which quite frankly, was a much better fighter at the altitudes where they spent most of their time. The P-47, however, could haul better than 3 times the weight of under-wing ordnance.
So, while the early P-39D was a better performer than the A6M2 Zero below 15k, likewise, the P-39N/Q series was reasonably competitive with later war fighters at low to medium altitudes.
Wouldn't it be a hoot to have a late model P-39 in Aces High?
So, are you surprised?
My regards,
Widewing
The WW2 fighter pilot we had flying in Airwarrior, and who I believe has an account in AH although I don't think he flies much, flew 39s with the 345th FS, 350th FG, before transitioning to the P47 in September 44. He loved flying the 39, and the key was what Widewing is referring to. At the alts they were flying, the plane did the job very well. He liked the Jug too and won the Silver Star in it, but when asked which he liked to fly, it was the 39.
They fought 109s and 190s down low too and held their own. But they couldn't chase down the Ju88 recce birds at alt, so they ended up with some loaner P38Gs that they had on runway alert to try and get them because the 39 couldn't get up there.
image is Earl in his 39 "Eloise" over Tunisia
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1072208687.jpg)
-
Engine,
The Hellcat had 334Sq ft of wing area. By comparison the F4U had 314 Sqft and the P-47 300Sqft.
The P-47D was the heaviest empty at almost 10,000lbs followed by the F6F at 9200lbs and the F4U at 9,000LBS.
-
I have to say that Goodyear F2G-1D is almost the same size as Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, because that flaunted a huge 28-cylinder, air-cooled radial engine that drives a very large paddle-blade Hamilton-Standard constant-speed propeller.
-
Originally posted by moot
don't have the proportions of each of those in visual memory, but I remember visiting one of Phoenix's WWII planes museum, and in the fighters hangar, with a D13, a spitfire, a yak, a P51, a P47 (cage canopy), a 38, and some others, the Corsair was in comparison a titan by stance and volume.
komandant ..
i think it could have been Falcon field in Mesa Az to.
they had an emil and a yak and a ton of stuff. (the 109 was suposedly the only flyable 109 that exists.. or so the placard said)
i got to see it for about an hour 1 day ..too short.
my biggest suprise was how small the 109 and yak were compared to the allied planes.
btw at the eaa in oshkosh they have a p38 and its not as big as the f4u they have at least in height and diameter of the fuselage.
-
Yes JB73, the 109 and Spit were the F1 cars of the European theatre. The others were dragsters or dump trucks with guns. ;)
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
Widewing, I have no doubt whatsoever that you can back up your claims, but what are your sources?
The only thing I've heard in all my life is that the P-39 was indeed a pig, with poor performance, dangerous handling characteristics and a very poor rate of climb, especially compared to the A6M.
Seems that for every theory available about WWII fighters someone has the data to disprove it...
On the other hand, the detailed data I've seen on Spits, 109's, F4U's and the technical problems of the P-38 in Europe is simply amazing. It is only a shame that people's judgement is so often clouded by their personal preference :(
I have many sources, most very reliable.
One common source available to everyone is Francis (Diz) Dean's monster book, "America's Hundred Thousand". Dean make extensive use of test data and has climb and speed curves for the various P-39 models described. There is also the USAAF's Informational Intelligence Summary No. 85, which was issued to fighter squadrons in the SWPA, PTO and CBI. I have a paper copy, but I'm pleased that F4UDOA has also found it on the web. This way, everyone can view it. Finally, I have a copy of Angelucci and Bowers' "The American Fighter". This is an excellent resource for detailed data and deployment. It's long out of print, but used copies can usually be found at http://www.alibris.com or through Amazon's book search service.
My regards,
Widewing
-
some fighters could carry a greater bombload than several proper bombers...
-
The prototype Tempest managed 472 mph in 1943, in level flight.
Tempest's claimed 11 or 12 air to air kills Vs. Me262's, and in the korean war the Sea Fury (a development of the Tempest) went on to kill a Mig 15.
"The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."
(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)
Hawker Tempest (http://user.tninet.se/~qsq272p/tempv1.mpg)
-
Hehe, an amazing fact.
The weight difference between the first and last production line Spitfire was as much as 35 airline passangers including baggage!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, an amazing fact.
The weight difference between the first and last production line Spitfire was as much as 35 airline passangers including baggage!
and where do they sit exacly?
-
It was the Champlain museum that I was at.
-
Nice find F4UDOA! If you have more of these comparisons I would be extremely happy to read them.
Indeed, the P-39 doesn't seem so bad at all in this test and disproves anecdotal evidence that Zero pilots feared the F4F the most of all American early war fighters. (Of course the F4F tested here is the heavier F4F-4, an F4F-3 might be better)
I think it is also a matter of tactics, unwary P-39 pilots may have engaged the Zero without realising its maneuverability and being slaughtered as a result.
Still I think the message from the report is clear, the Zero is an extremely dangerous opponent and should not be underestimated! If you let your speed drop you are most likely dead against one.
-
how small the spitfire is, and how frikken huge the TBM is.
-
Hi Hogenbor,
>Indeed, the P-39 doesn't seem so bad at all in this test and disproves anecdotal evidence that Zero pilots feared the F4F the most of all American early war fighters.
Actually, the F4F had the advantage of having a two-speed supercharger, which made it competitive at high altitude where the USAAF fighters lost out. I believe it's quite plausible that the A6M pilots would fear the F4F more than the P-39 or P-40.
>I think it is also a matter of tactics, unwary P-39 pilots may have engaged the Zero without realising its maneuverability and being slaughtered as a result.
Well, I've only once heard MF Kirby praise anything about the P-400 he flew, and that was that the big doors made it easy to bail out of it. (As far as I know, he didn't actually have to.)
From his descriptions, normal tactics for his unit seem to have been to fly one attack on the Zeros, then run home as fast as possible no matter what.
After the conversion to the P-38, his unit became a lot more aggressive, employing high speed climbs and wingman tactics including "drags" to successfully deal with the Japanese fighters.
The P-40, which MF Kirby and Clay Tice (who flew P-40 in New Guinea) agreed to be slightly superior to the P-39, was considered obsolete and inferior to the Japanese fighters as well. Clay Tice' unit was constantly refitted with overhauled P-40s from other units, much to their frustration as they hoped to get rid of the type completely and transfer to a better aircraft like the P-38.
Apparently, the memory of the early losses against the Zeros was still fresh, so noone ever tried to turn with them. However, Kirby and Clay both pointed out that pre-war USAAF doctrine was Lufberry-style turnfighting, assuming that with similar aircraft, the better pilot would win. Cooperation was limited to what today is called "welded wing" tactics - the wing man just stuck with his leader without contributing much to the fight.
With regard to the intelligence report on the A6M, it apparently didn't make it to New Guinea, leaving the pilots there without the (highly useful) information on the Zero's weaknesses.
It's my impression that Chennault was far ahead of the USAAF with regard to tactics as well with regard to intelligence, so the Flying Tigers were much better prepared for the fight against the Japanese than the regular Air Force was.
On the other hand, Clay Tice' comments on the RAAF experience in the defense of Australia seem to suggest that the P-40 fared better than the Spitfire (with tropical filters, to be fair), mainly because the RAAF tried to apply the lessons learned in the Battle of Britain without recognizing that the situation in Australia was a bit different.
With regard to the technical capabilities, I haven't seen a speed over altitude graph for the P-39 yet, but the low-altitude advantage it enjoyed didn't help it much over New Guinea. Under tropical conditions, the "low altitude" band might actually be smaller than indicated by a "standard day" graph anyway. And as the fight often took place over mountainous terrain, going low could actually be impossible.
The point about extremely high boost pressures on the P-39 seems to be reinforced by Kirby's and Clay's recollections - apparently, it was standard practice to disregard engine limitations and run at full (probably military) power from take-off to peel-off into the landing pattern, except for going even beyond that power setting in actual air combat.
(These high power settings were used as result of the pressure the - perceivedly - superior Zero was exerting on the USAAF fighters.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Wouldn't it be a hoot to have a late model P-39 in Aces High?
It would be more than a hoot. Growing up in the shadow of the Bell factory (my father worked there along with two of my uncles) it would be great.
afool
-
Speaking of P-39s (many threads eventually include the Airacobra no matter where they started), I still remember my half-brother buzzing my house in Evansville, Indiana, in a P-39 before he went off to Europe to eventually get killed in a P-51.
First time I saw my Mother cry was when she was walking up from the mailbox after some sort of War Department notification.
If you want to see and fly a nice-looking cyber P-39, try Fighter Aces. Allows external views too, though still not as joystick hat intuitive as MS Flight Simulator 2004.
Whatever its eventual contributions and matchups, the P-39 still has to be one of the best-looking aircraft ever flown. So I guess its main connection to this thread is surprise that it wasn't given a supercharger and, like the Brewster Buffalo in Finland, surprise that it was much more valued by another user (USSR) than it was by its nation of origin.
-
I recently read Eric Bergerud's book,Fire in the Sky:The Airwar in the South Pacific.
Many of the early fighters more then held their own(P-40,F4F)against the zero according to many of the pilots who flew them.(after they started using smarter tactics,keeping speed up,not turning with them,etc).
I didn't read a single positive comment about the P-39 by the pilots that flew them in the pac theatre in the book.One even commented about trying to intercept inbound bombers with plenty of advance warning,and not even coming close due to the horrible climb rate.The also stated the ONLY defense against a zero was dive away.They in no way considered it maneuverable or agile.
It's a pretty good book,with many anecdotes from pilots who weren't the top aces.
-
Nanette (Her Pilot's Love Story) by Edwards Park is a rather strange love-hate relationship with a P-39 in the Pacific.
Some excerpts: "Of all the fighters, two could really excite a flyer. One was the P-51, Mustang, lovely to look at, honest, efficient, hard-working, and dependable. In those days she was thought of as a wife, and I know men who married her, back then, and are still in love with her. The other was the P-39, Airacobra. It was slim, with a gently curved tail section, and smoothly faired in air intake, and a perfectly rounded nose with its ugly, protruding cannon. But the Airacobra was lazy and slovenly and given to fits of vicious temper. It was a sexy machine, and rotten. Nanette was like that, and I was a little queer for her."
Most strange is the way Nanette seems to avoid combat and thus keep her pilot alive. Park comes to love his P-39 the way some people fall in love with their favorite machines. Definitely one of the most unusual WWII air combat books.
-
Wasn't the P38 supposed to be able to climb nicely atvery high speed, - something in the direction of 1500 fpm at 300 mph.
Remember reading about 38's that left Zeke's in the dust like this, then being able to hammerhead them as the turned away.
-
Halo, big
to your half-brother.
-
Thanks, Gunther. I only remember seeing my half-brother that one time inasmuch as Mom remarried (hence, me) and moved from Ohio to Indiana. When he buzzed the house, I grabbed Mom's legs and asked, "Is he gonna shoot?" I mean, he practically clipped the treetops ... he was LOW.
I understand that was a morale builder, to let the pilots take their planes to their home towns before they went overseas. That P-39 was a beauty, but it certainly gets mixed reviews in most places.
Everyone was involved in the war effort. I remember that much even though I was only 6 when WWII ended. Every family had fighters and workers somewhere.
All the wars since then have been bad too, but WWII was still the worst. I'm glad to see WWII vets finally getting more of the recognition they deserve since soon there won't be anymore of them living.
Didn't mean to distract the thread, but everytime the P-39 comes up, it's hard not to. I can tell from the way others focus on certain planes that they too have special memories of family or friend involvement.
Who knows -- in another 100 years, Aces High may have no more appeal than WWI simulators do now. But maybe not -- probably always be a market for the last of the aircraft gun fighters.
-
Originally posted by Halo
The largest single-engine fighter of WWII, the P-47, does not have the widest wingspan. Didn't notice that until looking at F6F Hellcat beside the new 1/72 Matchbox Collectible P-47.
The Hellcat spans 42 feet, 10 inches; the Thunderbolt spans 40 feet, 9 1/4 inches. That really surprises me, especially with the F6F being a carrier fighter.
Of course the wingspan champ of all nations probably is the FW Ta 152H-1 at 47 feet, 6 3/4 inches.
What fact about WWII fighter planes surprises you the most?
largest aircraft in the category you mentioned is the Blackburn Firebrand
-
Firebrand is interesting but apparently came along mostly after WWII as a torpedo bomber. Listed for 1946 as torpedo-strike fighter with wingspan of 51 feet, 3 inches.
Surprising too is it took so long to develop, starting in 1939 but hampered by difficulties including suitable engine (according to Chartwell's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft).
-
speaking of other largish single engine aircraft, what wrere wingspans on the Lysander or the Fairey Battle?
-
Westland Lysander 50 feet, Fairey Battle 54 feet, and single-engine bomber Vickers Wellesley 74 feet 7 inches (wider than the twin-engine B-26's 71 feet, 2 inches).
-
The P-39 definitely got an unjust bad wrap. I believe it went into service before the P-38 and P-40. It was also designed with a supercharger but the army didn't want to pay for the extra expense. I believe the original contract was for a coastal patrol low alt short range fighter, a role that the P-39 did well.
I'm a bit especially biased because I live with a P-39 & P-63 pilot who had nothing but praise for those great Bell birds.
eskimo
-
From all I read about the P-39, it seems it went from a beautifully designed and flying beautifully as well, aircraft, into a modiefied flying "pig". By converting to army standards, increasing armour there and here, and etc, the flying characteristics changed drastically to the worse direction.
Makes one wonder whether the central engine mounting made the P-39 too sensible to C of G problems due to crude lift (wing) and weight (armament and armour issues) editing made after the initial designs by the requests/standards of the USAAF.
Just wondering really. Well, after all, it got stuck with the nickname "iron dog"!
-
Hi Eskimo,
>I'm a bit especially biased because I live with a P-39 & P-63 pilot who had nothing but praise for those great Bell birds.
Did he have to fly them in combat? It seems the Bell fighters made a good impression on anyone who flew them in the friendly skies of the USA, but much less so in a hostile environment.
Chuck Yeager commented positively on the P-39, too - but he was flying P-51 in combat.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Eskimo,
>I'm a bit especially biased because I live with a P-39 & P-63 pilot who had nothing but praise for those great Bell birds.
Did he have to fly them in combat? It seems the Bell fighters made a good impression on anyone who flew them in the friendly skies of the USA, but much less so in a hostile environment.
Chuck Yeager commented positively on the P-39, too - but he was flying P-51 in combat.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Yes & no.
He flew them stateside, but he was shot at and was “hit” hundreds of times.
My father-in-law “Bill” was a gunnery instructor in Las Vegas Nevada. He flew the P-39 in mock attacks on B-17s where students would shoot 8mm film guns at his plane. (Processed and reviewed after landing.)
The P-63s he flew were RP-63s. They had all guns removed and were armor plated. Students and instructors in the B-17s would shoot .30 Cal. Frangible bullets at his plane as he made mock attacks. The RP-63 had hit sensors and a spinner that would light up when the plane received a hit.
The P-39 was very much an early war plane and was quickly outclassed. IMO, the P-63 was to the P-39, what the F6F was to the F4F.
eskimo
-
Hi Eskimo,
>My father-in-law “Bill” was a gunnery instructor in Las Vegas Nevada.
Hey, that's fascinating! :-)
I've read about the gunnery training in "Operation Pinball - The USAAF's secret aerial gunnery program in WWII" by Ivan Hickman. In my opinion, it's a great book about a little-known topic, with broad backgrond information, some in-depth detail, veterans' accounts capturing the atmosphere, and a good number of photographs, too.
If your father-in-law doesn't know that one yet, I imagine he would enjoy it!
In fact, I think that the "Pinball" P-63s that were given the duty of being shot at with real bullets (well, the "skin-friendly" flavour ;-) by USAAF gunners immediately qualifies as one of the Most Surprising Fighter Facts in the sense of this thread :-)
I'd actually like to recommend Hickman's book to everyone who's looking for a different perspective on WW2 air combat history :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Eskimo,
>My father-in-law “Bill” was a gunnery instructor in Las Vegas Nevada.
Hey, that's fascinating! :-)
I've read about the gunnery training in "Operation Pinball - The USAAF's secret aerial gunnery program in WWII" by Ivan Hickman. In my opinion, it's a great book about a little-known topic, with broad backgrond information, some in-depth detail, veterans' accounts capturing the atmosphere, and a good number of photographs, too.
If your father-in-law doesn't know that one yet, I imagine he would enjoy it!
In fact, I think that the "Pinball" P-63s that were given the duty of being shot at with real bullets (well, the "skin-friendly" flavour ;-) by USAAF gunners immediately qualifies as one of the Most Surprising Fighter Facts in the sense of this thread :-)
I'd actually like to recommend Hickman's book to everyone who's looking for a different perspective on WW2 air combat history :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
We have a couple of copies of that book and have both read it.
Bill participated in just about everything described in that book and wa involved in gunnery training development throughout the war.
He had lots of great stories, and a surprising number of sad ones.
eskimo
-
Hi Eskimo,
>We have a couple of copies of that book and have both read it.
Bill participated in just about everything described in that book and wa involved in gunnery training development throughout the war.
I guess that means he thinks the book is a keeper :-)
It's reassuring when a guy who was there and did it likes a book that looked good from the armchair perspective! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
After finding that Wellesley wing span so wide, can't resist infiltrating another bomber factoid into this fighter thread, i.e., the Russian four-engine Pe-8 had rear guns in the two inner engine nacelles.
One small step for streamlining, one giant step for making the best of a drag thing. Gorgeous external views of the Pe-8 and more than 100 other aircraft are in Fighter Ace.
-
One surprising fighter fact is that USAF Material Command tried to stop production of the P-51/A-36 in 1942.
gripen
-
some p39D1 info for you..
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
Airacobra (P-39) - Preliminary handling trials, August 1941.
1 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39i1.JPG), 2 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39i2.JPG), 3 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39i3.JPG), 4 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39i4.JPG), 5 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39i5.JPG)
Airacobra - Weights and loading data, ?????.
1 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39ii1.JPG), 2 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39ii2.JPG), 3 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39ii3.JPG)
Airacobra - Climb and level speed performance, September 1942.
1 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iii1.JPG), 2 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iii2.JPG), 3 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iii3.JPG), 4 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iii4.JPG), 5 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iii5.JPG)
Various documents on Airacobra gunnery trials, ?????
1 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iv1.JPG), 2 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iv2.JPG), 3 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iv3.JPG), 4 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iv4.JPG), 5 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iv5.JPG), 6 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iv6.JPG), 7 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iv7.JPG), 8 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iv8.JPG)
http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/usaaf/P39D_flying.pdf
the US Army Air flight test with full charts..
-
Hi Ring,
Thanks a lot, that's highly interesting material!
On browsing it quickly, the bits that surprised me most are about the heavy ailerons at speeds and the massive armour glass installation.
I've been trying to match the British test results with the American findings, but it seems to me that the British Airacobra could not draw even close to 70" Hg.
If I assume 990 HP @ 37" Hg, 2600 rpm, and 1350 HP @ 52" Hg, 3000 rpm, the British Airacobra might indeed outclimb the A6M2 below 2 km if allowed to use that much boost.
(Unfortunately, the A6M2 performance data posted earlier in this thread lacks information on power settings used, so I'm not quite sure if the numbers are accurately comparable.)
The Airacobra is much faster than the A6M2 even without the extra boost, which only helps at extremely low altitude only anyway. (50 - 60 km/h advantage from 0 - 5 km.)
The A6M2 conveniently outclimbs the Airacobra above 3 km, with its advantage increasing with altitude. Above 8 km, the A6M2 is both faster and climbs better.
To my surprise, the Airocobra compares better to the A6M2 than the F4F-4 does. The F4F-4 doesn't gain any speed advantage even at high altitude from its 2-speed supercharger, and while it has a higher climb rate than the Airacobra at 8 km, that's still only half the climb rate of the A6M2.
Of course, the capability to go up to the enemies' altitude (or even above for a diving attack) might have made the F4F-4 a greater threat for the Japanese nevertheless, but I'm still surprised ... :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I came across a Russian site with a couple of articles in English relating to the P-39. While I can't vouch for their accuracy, they seem quite interesting, so:
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/index.htm
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm
-
We always hear about the P-51 being so crucial in WWII for its role in long-range escort of B-17s over Germany, but the fighter range chart in the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft has many surprises.
(Although the chart does not specify, it seems as if the ranges are without external fuel tanks.)
For example, the P-51 range is shown as only 19th highest. Just ahead of it is ... the Brewster Buffalo (18th).
And ahead of that is the Corsair(17th).
12th is the Hellcat, and the best American showing is ... the Seversky P-35 at 9th.
Japanese fighters are credited with five of the top 10 longest ranges, No. 1 being Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden (says chart, but plate shows N1K2-J Shiden-Kai as better with 1,293-mile range).
Four of the top eight are British, three Japanese, and one German. Five of those top eight have twin engines.
And (whew), of those top eight on the chart, the only jet is the Gloster Meteor, in 3rd place, but its plate range is given as 1,390 miles, making it best of all.
Whuda thunk a jet would have even the third best WWII fighter range, let alone possibly the best?
-
Hi Halo,
>And (whew), of those top eight on the chart, the only jet is the Gloster Meteor, in 3rd place, but its plate range is given as 1,390 miles, making it best of all.
Is that chart for internal fuel only? With 2 x 110 gallon drop tanks, the P-51D/K had an optimum range of 2360 statue miles, for example.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
My guess is the chart has only internal fuel. Certainly should have stated that somewhere, but if it did, I can't find it.
And even with this small sample, there are some inconsistencies between chart ranks and ranges shown in some tables.
Oh well, can you imagine proofreading any reference book that size? Whew, challenging enough just to read the data.
-
Not exactly a "fighter" fact, but interesting anyways. In October 1943 a Junkers 390 flew to within 12 miles of New York, a 32 hour round trip from Germany. The world's first intercontinental bomber, also the most heavily armed bomber with eight 20mm cannons and eight 13mm machineguns. Luckily for the US it never got operational since Germany switched to fighter production. It had a loaded weight of 166,448 lbs, a range of 6,027 miles, and could carry a payload of 22,046 lbs.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/ju390.jpg)
-
Good factoid, GScholz. I should have titled this thread Surprising WWII Aircraft Facts but it didn't sound as good as Surprising Fighter Facts.
Anyway, here's another: as far as I can discover, only three six-engine aircraft were operational in WWII. All were German: the Junkers 390 bomber, Me-323 transport, and Bv.222 seaplane. The transport was reportedly the most useful, especially in supplying the beleagured Russian front.
Incidentally, what happened on that Junkers 390 coming so close to the U.S. mainland? Was it discovered and shot down, or did it return to Germany?
-
It was just an endurance test flight. It returned to Germany without incident. The Ju390 also had two crews to allow it to operate for one and a half day at sea in the recce role. The Ju390 never reached production, so I don't think it would be correct to call it operational. Only three prototypes were made.
-
Oops, right you are GScholz, you stated clearly that the Ju 390 never reached production. I should have been more careful, but
your info and pic were so convincing I didn't even check for more Ju 390 info in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft, which after I finally did does not mention the Ju 390 at all.
Still, a fascinating factoid. Can't imagine a behemoth like that flying all the way to the U.S. and back in the middle of the war. Even in 1943, you'd think something Allied would have spotted it and shot it down.
Hollywood should have worked that into the Indiana Jones series.
By comparison, the six-engine B-36 prototype did not fly until a year after WWII ended, Aug. 8, 1946.
-
There is some debate on wether that 390 flight to NYC actually took place.
-
Really?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Nice Widewing, Nice;)
Did you know that damage to the hydraulics system in the 190 could lead to it dropping one or both legs of gear down? And that with one gear down it could turn very tight to that side!
Or, that a lightly loaded Lancaster could loop!
The 190's landing gear, flaps, stabilizer trim, were all electrically operated.
-
my fac facts are some of the secret weapons of WWII. American pilots flying night based mission expirienced strange lights flying fast with them and could easily fly out of sight fast and and back into their sight just as fast. Secret documents were uncovered of these "UFO''s" and today the US has no idea what these plans mean. Except for one strange not that this "craft" out performed all fighters and was faster then their rocket based plane (im guessing the 163) strange that these occurences were just "lights". (This was a german secret weapon btw)
-
Regarding the Ju 390 test flight to NY and back, (which I've heard started from Brest in occupied France, in April, 1944) I assume they timed it to reach New York after dark. And America's homeland radar and nightfighter capabilities at that point would still have been pretty rudimentary.
As to the range of the 390, either that plane or the similar Messerschmidt 264(?) were said to have been briefly used to run a shuttle cargo service between German bases in the Ukraine and Japanese-held Manchuria, until that part of the Ukraine was lost after Kursk.
-
Two more Surprising Fighter Facts:
Of all the single-engine fighters in WWII, only four had eight machine guns, and only one, the P-47, had eight .50-caliber machineguns. (The other three, with .303s, were the British Hurricane Mk. I, the Spitfire Mk. I, and the Fairey Fulmar Mk. I.)
Of all fighters, including twin-engine, possibly the heaviest air to air armament was the six 20-mm cannon of the Heinkel 219 A-2/R.1 night fighter (and some versions included 30mm cannon).
-
Originally posted by Rasker
Regarding the Ju 390 test flight to NY and back, (which I've heard started from Brest in occupied France, in April, 1944) I assume they timed it to reach New York after dark. And America's homeland radar and nightfighter capabilities at that point would still have been pretty rudimentary.
As to the range of the 390, either that plane or the similar Messerschmidt 264(?) were said to have been briefly used to run a shuttle cargo service between German bases in the Ukraine and Japanese-held Manchuria, until that part of the Ukraine was lost after Kursk.
The Ju 390 story has been around for a long time. However, no one has ever offered a shred of proof that it got with 200 miles of NY, much less 12 miles... Odd how that coincides with the normal territorial limit too. Several articles have been written on this story and every one of them conclued that it was extremely unlikely to have occurred as told. Back in early 1943, the USAAF repeatedly tested the early warning systems along the east coast by flying bombers out to sea and returning unannounced to see if they were detected. They did this at high altitude and low altitude. Every attempt was discovered by radar or the standing patrols. Testing the early warning system continued right up the war's end.
There are some issues that are not easily accounted for. Such as what direction did the 390 approach from? It was wasn't from the east as it would have to overfly Long Island. Plus there was the problem with the Montauk Point radar station which was up and running in 1942, and could detect aircraft at greater than 100 miles. Plus, there was the constant fighter patrols off of Long Island and the ASW patrols as well. It didn't come in from the north or west, and the radar at Floyd Bennitt Field would have detected it if it came in from the south, up the New Jersey Coast.
Urban Myth it seems, or propaganda for the Fatherland's consumption.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The Spit VA had also 8 machine guns...
Furthermore, versions of the Hurricane had as much as 12, and this loadout was also carried on prototypes of the Hawker Toronado I believe.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Two more Surprising Fighter Facts:
Of all the single-engine fighters in WWII, only four had eight machine guns, and only one, the P-47, had eight .50-caliber machineguns.
Of all fighters, including twin-engine, possibly the heaviest air to air armament was the six 20-mm cannon of the Heinkel 219 A-2/R.1 night fighter (and some versions included 30mm cannon).
Hurricanes were also equipped with 12 .303 machine cannons. So booo to those puny 8 gun planes :)
Also, I dare say Heinkel 219's 6 x 20 mm cannon equipment still packs smaller punch than the 6 x 30 mm version of the Messerschmitt 262. And that was flown and used, too.
-
Ok Widewing so we have these Germans who claim they flew to NY and back in 1943. And then we have people like you who say they didn't because " Every attempt was discovered by radar or the standing patrols". What "standing patrols"? What would have stopped them? The US didn't have any operational night fighters in 1943. Some US pilots flew British night fighters in England, but the first US night fighters didn't become operational until 1944.
Halo, you were actually right by mistake ;), a single Ju390 became operational with the KG 200 unit, which was used for top-secret missions (long range reconnaissance using captured allied planes and insertions of spies etc.), so the Ju390 was actually operational during WWII.
-
An interresting quote from Harald Fäth's "Geheime Kommandosache S III Jonastal und die Siegeswaffenproduktion":
"A few weeks ago, a former WWII German soldier told me he saw some fellow Germans board a plane full of extra fuel, fly to New York, circle Manhattan and came immediately back to Germany.
When he ask his “Kameraden” so he told me, they answered that this was only a test flight to next go and drop an atom bomb on New York….
I looked into this and found out that early 1945 in Haigerloch south of Stuttgart, Heisenberg built an atomic reactor but when he wanted to start in April with experiments found out it was 1/3e to small. And at the end of the War, allied forces deconstructed it."
No wonder that history fails to record the details of this flight if it was a test flight done by KG 200 to test the feasibility of a nuke bomb-run on NY.
-
which 262 had 6 30's ?
-
some questions....
1. What exactly is a "Frangible" bullet?
2. Are you sure that the 190's U/C was raised by electricity alone?
I though it was just electrically operated hydraulics.
3. I've seen this Ju 390 story somewhere else, and frankly, I belive it. Of course the US could have seen it's "blip", - but just as well as they saw the "blip" at Pearl Harbour, they could have taken it for a friendly. Now, the only raid on a US town was done by a japanese plane which was launched from a submarine. I wonder if that one showed up as well.
I could also very well belive that this is a case to be hushed. A big fat German plane outside NY in 1943? A scandal!
BTW, could not a specially fuelled up FW Condor have reached the same distance?
-
Originally posted by moot
which 262 had 6 30's ?
The one and only Me262A-1a/U5, W.Nr. 112355 with 6 MK108s believed to be have been flown operationally by a German ace of JV44.
There was also the Me262A-1a/U1 with 2 MG151/20, 2 MK108 and 2 MK103.
There was also plans to install 4 MK213 C revolver cannons.
-
SIX 30 mm cannon, EIGHT .50 caliber mg, TWELVE .303 caliber mg -- okay, those have to be the ultimate homogeneous fighter armaments of WWII.
Here's a fighter factoid question: which fighter achieved the highest altitude kill in WWII? At what altitude? Against what aircraft? Using what weapons? Any other details?
I don't have the foggiest idea what the answer is or even where to hunt for it.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Here's a fighter factoid question: which fighter achieved the highest altitude kill in WWII? At what altitude? Against what aircraft? Using what weapons? Any other details?
I don't have the foggiest idea what the answer is or even where to hunt for it.
Could be a Spit V (2 .50") flying out of Alex(??) that got a recon Ju86P at 40,000ft+ over the Med in May 1942. The Spit eventually reached almost 50,000ft, though not on the intercept. The 2 Spits had no specialize high altitude equipement installed.
-
Heard the tile from an old Spit jock that he managed up to 49000 feet. It was a practise flight over England I belive, and the plane was a Mk IX, - perhaps a specialized version for high alt flight.
It was armed though.
-
Oh, speaking of Spits, one late variant (not sure which) was tested with 6 Hispano cannons. Must be the heaviest wing mounted armamaent of WW2.
-
P-51B/C/D range was well over 1000miles with just internal fuel.
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/wwiiol/scans/p38_p51_ferryranges.gif)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ok Widewing so we have these Germans who claim they flew to NY and back in 1943. And then we have people like you who say they didn't because " Every attempt was discovered by radar or the standing patrols". What "standing patrols"? What would have stopped them? The US didn't have any operational night fighters in 1943. Some US pilots flew British night fighters in England, but the first US night fighters didn't become operational until 1944.
Take a look at a map of the NYC area and tell me how they got with 12 miles of NYC....
Then consider the extensive radar coverage of the area, even in 1943-44. Also understand that within 25 miles of NYC were four major aircraft manufacturers, with Grumman and Republic being positively huge facilities and Eastern Aircraft (GM) and Brewster being the other two. Just north of Long Island was Vought-Sikorsky.
ASW patrols by both sea and air were around the clock. Fighters were on standby at no less than 6 airfields. Detachments from three squadrons of P-70 night fighters rotated in and out of various airfields on Long Island (used for training and patrol) beginning in early 1943. When U-Boat activity became heavy off of New York, the number of air patrol aircraft, both day and night increased by more than an order of magnitude (from 3-4 aircraft to well over 50). The only way to approach NYC would be from the south, at extreme low level, in the dark on instruments, using the city lights for a reference. However, Naval ASW patrols were constantly scanning the sea in this area with SG radar (by 1944 some even have SF long range radar capable of detecting single aircraft at 150 miles), that will detect a submarine conning tower at 15 miles. Detecting the massive Ju 390 flying aircraft at low level was what golfers call a "gimme", a sure thing.
It would be extremely difficult to sneak in within 12 miles of NYC in a Taylor Cub, much less a very large plane like the Junkers.
Military units were constantly on alert for possible German terror attacks on NYC or any of the massive aircraft factories.
Finally, there is no evidence beyond anecdotal that this mission ever happened. Surely, they could have taken photos of the NYC lights, which could be seen from 50 miles out to sea. More than a few U-Boats brought home such evidence before their operations were driven out to the continental shelf by the ASW patrols (which took a rediculous 6 months to get operational BTW).
So, could they have done this? Perhaps. Is it likely? No, it isn't. Where's the evidence?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Here's more, with a source, for what its worth:
the second prototype of the Ju 390 actually flew from "Mont de Marsan on the Atlantic coast of France, near Bordeaux, [and] it once approached to within 20 km (12.4 miles) of New York before returning safely to base, thus validating the operational concept" (Ford, Germany's Secret Weapons, p.30).
The four-engine Me 264, initially designed in 1937 and 1938, and referred to inside the German government as the "Amerika-Bomber" or the "New York Bomber", had a range of nine thousand miles and was capable of carrying "a five-ton load of bombs to New York, a small load to the middle West, or reconnaissance missions over the West Coast and then returning to Germany without intermediate bases" (Weinberg, Germany, p.197). The Me 264 actually made its first flight in December 1942, when it flew 30 hours non-stop to New York and returned safely to Europe (Ford, Germany's Secret Weapons, p.30).
-
Hi Widewing,
>It would be extremely difficult to sneak in within 12 miles of NYC in a Taylor Cub, much less a very large plane like the Junkers.
I'd say it would have been much easier than, for example, flying a Cessna through the Soviet air defense system in the 1980s to land it in the heart of Moscow :-)
(Not that I believe the Ju 390 (or Me 264) mission actually took place.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun, was not that Moscow flight monitored the whole way?
-
Hi Milo,
>HoHun, was not that Moscow flight monitored the whole way?
How would I know? :-) It certainly wasn't intercepted!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hehe, Mathias Rust's Moscow flight is not to be forgotten!
And landing safely on the red Square!
Anyway, as previously mentioned, the Pearl Harbour attack was also monitiored, but mistaken (sort of) for a friendly flight.
A single blip on the British radar system in what....1941(?) got British planes scrambled, including the famous ace, Alan Deere. The target got lost while flying low behind mountains, then disappearing. It turned out to be Rudolf Hess!!!!!
Well, how incredible is it that a single blip in darkness makes it within 12 miles of NY, or for that sake, Long Island, say approaching Brooklyn from the South-East, then turning away and flying out of range without returning hails?
I'd say it would be pretty probable, - even more so in heavy inbound and outbound traffic. The more, the merrier, Widewing ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
some questions....
1. What exactly is a "Frangible" bullet?
Frangible bullets are made from powdered lead and Bakelite plastic. They shatter into lead dust and chunks on impact. They still managed to do some damage on occasion. A few RP-63s were actually shot down when fragments found their way into coolant or oil lines. My father in law actually got hit on the cheek by a fragment once (in his RP-63). It made it through the door /fuselage seem even though there were extra baffles in the seam. The RP-63 was only armored for frontal hits. The students and instructors were not supposed to shoot when the RP-63s broke off. Once a student did shoot and hit the aileron. It knocked the stick/wheel out of his hand and busted up the aileron.
eskimo
-
That planes like the sbd and p47 weren't allowed to fly inverted.
-
That the P-47N, developed for Pacific Combat, carried 950 gallons of fuel, had extended wings with squared off tips, and tipped the scales when loaded, at 20,160 pounds. It had a range of 2,200 miles.
A single-engine, single-seat fighter that weighed more than ten tons. Unbelievable.
Shuckins
-
A surprising fighter fact I cannot find is what WWII fighter has the highest percentage of fabric or wood in its construction?
And what is the most successful WWII fighter that includes some fabric or wood in its construction?
And what is the WWII fighter that you would least expect to have that but does?
And finally, if not too lengthy or impractical, a list of the WWII fighters having some fabric or wood in their construction?
I've been surprised periodically to stumble across a comment here and there about x fighter having fabric-covered rudders or even wings, but I don't know a source that makes much of an issue out of that.
Obviously earlier fighters naturally were more likely to have fabric or wood in their contruction, but I'm under the impression that some of the most successful late fighters also had some non-metal parts.
-
Most WWII planes had fabric covered control surfaces - reduced loads on the pilots and minimized inertia.
A number of planes used wood for skin- the swordfish, mosquito, numerous Russian A/C and a few US planes that did not make the front lines. The gypsy moth was still in use in Britain as a tranier and it was almost entirely wood and cloth.
-blogs
Originally posted by Halo
A surprising fighter fact I cannot find is what WWII fighter has the highest percentage of fabric or wood in its construction?
And what is the most successful WWII fighter that includes some fabric or wood in its construction?
And what is the WWII fighter that you would least expect to have that but does?
And finally, if not too lengthy or impractical, a list of the WWII fighters having some fabric or wood in their construction?
I've been surprised periodically to stumble across a comment here and there about x fighter having fabric-covered rudders or even wings, but I don't know a source that makes much of an issue out of that.
Obviously earlier fighters naturally were more likely to have fabric or wood in their contruction, but I'm under the impression that some of the most successful late fighters also had some non-metal parts.
-
Wasn't just a few weeks ago we had an amatuer pilot (drunk) taking turns around the statue of liberty?
Sure they caught him but the point is that he got there and goofed off for some time with a 100 HP engine....
-blogs
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Widewing,
>It would be extremely difficult to sneak in within 12 miles of NYC in a Taylor Cub, much less a very large plane like the Junkers.
I'd say it would have been much easier than, for example, flying a Cessna through the Soviet air defense system in the 1980s to land it in the heart of Moscow :-)
(Not that I believe the Ju 390 (or Me 264) mission actually took place.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
...was the last production fighter that was dynamically unstable, that is until the era of fly-by-wire. In other words, when you push the controls over and let go, the plane just keeps on turning... It took some training to fly this plane. But it could turn on a dime...
-blogs
-
Surprising Fighter Fact:
Kurt Tank designed the F8F Bearcat!!!
-
Did you know that a B-17 was rigged to fly using 'fly by wire' during WW2.
Supermarine look at putting a V-tail and gull wings on a Spit design.
Angus, the 6 cannon was only a mock-up on DP845., a Type 337(MkIV).
-
In the span of just a few years, we went from biplanes to jet fighters. Now, THAT surprises me each time I think about it. :cool:
TBolt
-
I hate your avatar, it freaks me out. Please get a new one.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I hate your avatar, it freaks me out. Please get a new one.
When you turn off the lights and go to sleep tonight, just remember that he's there in the silent shadows . . . watching you. :D
TBolt
-
Someone mentioned the Junkers NY flight was to drop an Atom bomb. This is very possible. Many of the OSS missions Targeting the German Heavy Water production have just been declassified. The Germans were closer than the allies to an Atom bomb at the start of WWII.
They took a different approach than Manhattan and the allies were able to severly hinder their production. Without that interference the Germans probably would have had a working atom bomb years ahead of the allies.
Crumpp
-
"Without that interference the Germans probably would have had a working atom bomb years ahead of the allies. "
Sorry. That's just more Luft'46 type fantasy.
-
Sorry no it's not. There are basically two approaches to building a bomb. We took one route which took a longer time to develop but produced a higher yield weapon. The approach the Germans took would have produced a lower yield much "dirtier" weapon but nonetheless would have worked. They had a working reactor before the war even started. Their approach needed a large amount of heavy water. Their only plants were in Norway and the OSS launched 9 seperate missions to sabotage their efforts.
Here is the story of the most successful attempt to destroy the heavy Water Plants.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0340830158/ref=ase_janeriks/202-6549898-8519046
A letter Albert Einstien wrote to FDR warning of the German Atomic weapons research.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Einstein.shtml
One year before the war started the Germans had produced a fission reaction.
http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/abomb/timeline.htm
In the begining of the war they were farther along than the Allies.
http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/abomb/race.htm
FACT:
December 19, 1938
Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassman and Lise Meitner produce Uranium nuclear fission at Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.
Bohr, who was insturmental in the US bomb program was good friends with Heisenberg who ended up heading up the Nazi program. There is quite a bit of speculation that Heisenberg delibrately sabotaged the German program. This is well documented in the "Farm reports" debriefing the scientist's in the program. One thing is for sure, they started the war ahead but by the end took a wrong term and would never have produced a bomb with the path they were on.
The program was far from fiction. It was a huge threat in 1940 that thru the efforts of some very brave men became a mere shadow of it's begining potential.
Crumpp
-
You keep stating that the OSS did all this. Frankly I fail to see where the OSS was involved, it was the British SOE that led the Telemark actions and all the operatives on the ground were Norwegians.
-
Yes the OSS was involved and launched 9 seperate missions. The OSS and the SOE worked extremely close during WWII. Many of the missions they conducted are "claimed" by both agencies. Jedburgh Program, Norway, Italy, Balkans, N. Africa etc..
I believe the OSS was the main effort in Norway for organizing the resistance.
Some of their Operations are not combined ops. "Cockleshell Commandos", Brigade 77, etc..
Much has still not been declassified but here are some links to show you that yes the OSS was in Norway.
http://hem.fyristorg.com/arcticwar/report_jamtland.html
http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/winter99-00/art5.html
Crumpp
-
Those tough Norwegians from Hardanger ;)
Were there no Brits on that mission?
A former worker of mine knew some old Norwegians that were involved in that mission. That would have been in 1995.
-
GScholz, did you forget that it was the Americans that captured the Enigma machine from the German sub?;) :rolleyes:
Crumpp, kindly stop the flag waving. The Americans did not win WW2 all by themselves though all their help was greatly appreciated.
-
In 1945 yes there were one OSS led Norwegian operation (NORSO), but it had nothing to do with the heavy water raids or with hindering the German A-bomb development. There was a few other SOE operations along the Norwegian coast earlier in the war where a couple of US operatives were involved, but those operations were to observe German shipping in Norwegian waters nothing more.
The eight planes continued north, across the North Sea, over the stark fjords and the white mountains, then up the Norway-Sweden coast past Trondheim, Namsos--almost to the Arctic Circle. By now, night had fallen and the moon was coming up. Below, a faint mist was spreading, taking the sharpness off the rocks, but meaning trouble later.
Then it was midnight, and the pilot called to say that we were 25 miles off course over neutral Sweden.
Whoever wrote this needs a quick lesson in geography. :D
-
Hmm, did the Yanks get any Enigma at all.
I remember 3 right away. One got captured in the summer 1940 when a German sub was forced to surrender for a RAF aircraft flying from Iceland, one was the one HMS Bulldog got, and one was retrived from a sunken sub in the British channel (diver job)
-
Yes Angus, from U-471, was it not. ;) ;) ;) At least, that is what was shown in the movie.:)
-
Dont forget those B-17s that flew really low and dropped bouncing bombs on those dams, they were awesome.
-
Flag Waving!!
More like noodle envy on your part. Sorry to offend your OHHH SOO Sensitive feelings.
:eek:
But, your wrong. The OSS was conducting Unconventional Warfare Operations (UWO) in Norway from '41 til the end of the war. In fact the OSS was the main effort with UWO in Norway due to the large Norwegian-American population. We simply had more contacts in the country than the SOE. Hence many Operations after the US entry into the war were joint. Additionally the SOE had the loin's share of actual operational knowledge. They had been fighting Hitler for longer than the US. The OSS sent operatives on as many SOE missions in the begining as they could to gain experience. With regard to the Heavy Water plants the OSS/SOE worked together. We had the Norwegian contacts/UWO assets, the SOE had the experience in Direct Action. 9 seperate missions were launched before one was successful.
As for the Enigma..I guess that big display at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry is BS. Naw, the US didn't help in that either. Another Joint effort....Maybe???
:eek:
Crumpp
-
The B-17 dropped more tons of bombs than any other plane in World War II.
Only 1 bomb (dropped by British) in 50 fell within 5 miles miles of the target.
-
The B-17 dropped more tons of bombs than any other plane in World War II.
This I really do doubt that. The Lancaster had a higher bomb load and the B-24 was far more numerous than the B-17. Sounds like Hollywood fiction to me.
Only 1 bomb (dropped by British) in 50 fell within 5 miles miles of the target.
Depends on the target and aircraft. The mossie certainly had a higher accuracy than that.
-
Which operation would that be? If you're saying that the SOE and OSS trained and equipped Norwegian operatives, then yes that is true, but name one American who set foot on Norwegian soil before 1945, or one OSS led operation in Norway. Like I said, I believe there were a couple of Americans who joined an SOE surveillance operation on the Norwegian coast ... nothing more. The Telemark operation against the Norsk Hydro heavy water plant was an SOE/Milorg operation which involved only Norwegian operatives in British uniforms. Every sabotage operation in Norway during WWII was done by Milorg or Kompani Linge/SOE.
-
This I really do doubt that. The Lancaster had a higher bomb load and the B-24 was far more numerous than the B-17. Sounds like Hollywood fiction to me.
No, its true. I have seen the charts.
The B-24 was not used extensively in the heavy bomber role. Alot of sorties were spent just patrolling in the PTO.
Lancaster had nowhere near the numbers or sorties that the B-17 did.
B-17 was the work-horse of the ETO, from 42 to 45.
-
During the war, B-17s dropped 640,036 tons of bombs on European targets in daylight raids. This compares with 452,508 tons dropped by Liberators and 464,544 tons dropped by all other U.S. aircraft. The B-17s downed 23 enemy planes per 1,000 raid as compared with 11 by Liberators, 11 by fighters, and three by all U.S. medium and light bombers.
source:http://www.91stbombgroup.com/91history.html
During the war Lancasters carried out a total of 156,000 missions and dropped 608,612 tons of bombs.
Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWavro.htm
-
There wasn't much in it, then: 608,000 to 640,000. Shows just how much more tonnage the Lanc could carry.
-
Only 1 bomb (dropped by British) in 50 fell within 5 miles miles of the target.
1 bomb in 50 is 2%. The Butt report, from mid 1941, concluded acuracy at night up until mid 41 was around 33% within 5 miles. Of course, this was before the introduction of any nav aids, and before the pathfinder force was formed.
By December 1944, the figure had risen to 90% within 5 miles.
During the war, B-17s dropped 640,036 tons of bombs on European targets in daylight raids. This compares with 452,508 tons dropped by Liberators and 464,544 tons dropped by all other U.S. aircraft. The B-17s downed 23 enemy planes per 1,000 raid as compared with 11 by Liberators, 11 by fighters, and three by all U.S. medium and light bombers.
source:http://www.91stbombgroup.com/91history.html
During the war Lancasters carried out a total of 156,000 missions and dropped 608,612 tons of bombs.
Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWavro.htm
No, the USAAF used short tons, the RAF long tons.
1 short ton = 2000 lbs, 1 long ton = 2240 lbs.
That means the B-17 dropped 640,036 short tons, 571,460 long tons, the Lancaster 681,645 short tons, 608,612 long tons.
-
My figures go as this:
The US 8th dropped 693.000 tonnes. The RAF Bomber Command dropped 955 THOUSAND TONS, The US 15th AF dropped 312 000 tonnes.
Regarding accuracy, many of the British raid were remarkably accurate, and I belive that research after the war revealed the incredible outcome that the night raids were just as accurate as the day raids. Much due to the Pathfinders I guess. Anyway, would be interesting to know more about that.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Another factoid is that when the P-39Q was raced in 1946 against Mustangs, P-38s and an F4U-1 it won at 370+MPH lap
A6M2 flight test (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/A6M2test.pdf)
Why is an F4U-1 competing against such later modeled aircraft? At that time, the F4U-4 or F2G would have been a more acceptable entry.
gainsie
-
Hey Gscholz,
Yes they were trained, equipped, and led. From the begining of the war OSS operatives were in Norway involved in the UWO.
UWO are a very misunderstood area even most in Military circles. YOU have to BE in the country to conduct them.
England had plenty of Norwegians who fled the Nazi's. They make great guides for Direct Action Operations NOT for sustained UWO. You think perhaps they are now wanted men in their occupied country? There is alot more to it than just having "G's" in the woods with rifles. Many aspects of UWO even in WWII are still classified today.
People that REMAIN in the country and are willing to cooperate are much more valuable. The US had plenty of Norwegian born citizens who had estabilished families that WERE NOT on a NAZI hit list for fleeing/fighting them to begin to estabilish an organized resistance that can be an effective fighting force. This is an asset the SOE simply didn't have in great supply.
Again there were NINE seperate missions launched. Your reading about one of them that has just been recently declassified and making a blanket assumption that is just flat out WRONG. Why? Because some misguided "Euro-pride" wants to rewrite history.
Crumpp
-
" took a wrong term and would never have produced a bomb with the path they were on. "
Exactly. But it wasn't "later on" in thwe war and it certainly had nothing to do with OSS ops anywhere. The Germans made R&D choices that caused them to go down the wrong path - fortunately. In the end they didn't have a prayer of making one not only because they weren't close but they couldn't have afforded the means to have really developed one.
And fter VE day (at the Farm) the Germans there were in utter disbelief that the Allies (US) had done what the could not. Even more so when they found out how. Thier recorded conversations revealed just how far off a viable path to an A-bomb that they had been.
And I do agree that the Germans made the first chemical fission discovery but sorry, the first nuclear fission reactor was not finished till 1942 and it was done by the scientists on the Manhattan project.
But I do agree it would not have happened if the warnings by Szilad, via Einstien, that Germany may try and develop one lit a fire under Roosevelts butt and he directed the right people to put the best team together. Even then, with more resources and backing than the Germans had the US made a few at a phenominal cost.
However I do not believe Heisenberg "sabotaged" the German effort. IMO many post war Nazi's took on the same "air" and uttered similar alibies to save thier skin and careers.
-
Redtail,
Why is an F4U-1 competing against such later modeled aircraft? At that time, the F4U-4 or F2G would have been a more acceptable entry.
A couple of reasons.
1. It was 1946 so no F4U-4's or F2G's had been sold into surplus for use in civilian Air Racing as of yet.
2. Much of the Air Racing at the time was being sponsered by big money for reasons other than the joy of racing. For instance the modified P-38L being flown was being sponsered fully by Lockheed and was flown by Tony LeVier. The AAF had it's backing from Jackie Cocherane(sp) in the P-51 entries flown by various AAF pilots and Jackie herself.
In 1946 Cook Cleland (Naval Reserve Pilot) had the only F4U entry with his surplus F4U-1. He felt he did not have enough HP to compete with the AAF for bragging rights so he compained to the Navy brass for the F2G to be released into surplus. It was and his crew dominated the Cleveland Air Race until 1949 and the Korean war and the crash of a P-51 Mustang into a house killing a mother and child pretty much ended the Cleveland Air Races. And in 1950 Cleland went back to serve in the F4U in combat in Korea.
Here is "lucky gallon". The first F4U racer.
(http://www.airrace.com/images/Corsair92-1.jpg)
-
I keep seeing "tons" and "tonnes" used interchangeably in the same posts.
1 Ton (imperial unit) = 2000 lbs
1 Tonne (metric unit) = 1000 kg, ~2200 lbs.
Stay consistent.
-
Crumpp, I'm afraid it is you who are trying to "rewrite history" here, and it is most unwelcome.
After Norway was occupied by the Germans on April 1940, small resistance groups grew up in the country. At the beginning of 1941 these groups were brought into MILORG (Military Organization) to support the Allies in case of invasion. MILORG was under the command of the Norwegian Military in London and later joined to SOE. Radio communication was established between Great Britain and MILORG. In this way SOE could give orders about actions, while MILORG would be able to send reports around enemy activities.
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~nhistory/xread/Moland.htm
-
Your right Westy.... WITH the benefit of Hindsight.
Things were certainly not that clear in 1940. The Germans were ahead of the Allies in 1941. Just bother to read the links I posted.
Gosh maybe those "not needed" guys in the SOE/OSS should have just stayed at home and hoped someone did something about it. Instead of going out and putting all of their tommorrows at risk so your's could be a little better.
Crumpp
-
I keep seeing "tons" and "tonnes" used interchangeably in the same posts.
1 Ton (imperial unit) = 2000 lbs
1 Tonne (metric unit) = 1000 kg, ~2200 lbs.
Stay consistent.
There are 3 different tons.
The US "short" ton = 2000 lbs
The British "long" ton = 2240 lbs
The Metric tonne = 2204.63 lbs
Both the British long ton and US short ton derive their measurement from 20 hundredweight. In the US, a hundredweight is 100 lbs, in the UK it's 112 lbs.
The metric tons is derived from 1000 kg, each kilo weighing 2.205 lbs.
The USAAF measured their tonnages in short tons, 2000 lbs each. The RAF measured theirs in long tons, 2240 lbs each.
That's why the Lanc dropped a greater weight of bombs than th B-17.
-
" Just bother to read the links I posted. "
Yes. And I've read a LOT more than just those few above on this very subject. My opinion on how close the Nasties were to the developing an A-bomb just doesn't coincide with yours. The scenario that would have the Germans having build a deliverable a-Bomb is just full of fantasy conjecture ala "what if's" and "had they only..."
As for the OSS? Of course they were needed. They just weren't a reason that the Germans never got close to building an A-bomb.
-
Gscholtz,
Just a short quote from the Group Historian's office:
Unconventional War Plans for Norway
"Early in World War Two, the United States recognized a need for special units with the cultural and linguistic background needed to conduct unconventional warfare operations in countries occupied by Germany or Japan.
Norway was one of those countries. It was hoped that at least four objectives could be accomplished in Norway through the use of unconventional warfare: (1) eliminate Norway as an economic asset for Germany; (2) force Germany to keep large numbers of troops on occupation duty in Norway and away from other active fronts; (3) limit the ability of German troops in Norway to attack allied convoys transporting supplies to the Russian port of Murmansk; and (4) prepare for the future occupation of Norway, and create a link through Norway to Russia.
Plans for the Norwegian operation developed under the code name “PLOUGH.” Initially the primary objective would be to destroy electrical plants. Before operations could be conducted troops had to be identified and trained, and a winter operations support vehicle had to be developed.
The first unit tasked with the Norwegian mission was the 1st Special Service Force. It was activated on 2 July 1942 and was to be trained as infantry with special skills as paratroopers, skiers, and mountain climbers. The T-15 Weasel tracked vehicle was developed to support their winter operations."
The 1st SSF never made it to Norway but many OSS operatives did.
As Forest says...."That's all I got to say 'bout that."
Crumpp
-
This is what you claimed:
Originally posted by Crumpp
Flag Waving!!
More like noodle envy on your part. Sorry to offend your OHHH SOO Sensitive feelings.
:eek:
But, your wrong. The OSS was conducting Unconventional Warfare Operations (UWO) in Norway from '41 til the end of the war. In fact the OSS was the main effort with UWO in Norway due to the large Norwegian-American population. We simply had more contacts in the country than the SOE. Hence many Operations after the US entry into the war were joint. Additionally the SOE had the loin's share of actual operational knowledge. They had been fighting Hitler for longer than the US. The OSS sent operatives on as many SOE missions in the begining as they could to gain experience. With regard to the Heavy Water plants the OSS/SOE worked together. We had the Norwegian contacts/UWO assets, the SOE had the experience in Direct Action. 9 seperate missions were launched before one was successful.
As for the Enigma..I guess that big display at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry is BS. Naw, the US didn't help in that either. Another Joint effort....Maybe???
:eek:
Crumpp
"In fact the OSS was the main effort with UWO in Norway due to the large Norwegian-American population. We simply had more contacts in the country than the SOE."
By 1942 Norway had been occupied, and resisting, for two years while the US had just entered the war. By 1945 MilOrg had 40,000 men, all of them Norwegians living in Norway.
I see you now only talk about plans. What nine operations were launched by the OSS in Norway? What targets?
Did you even read the link I provided?
The usual pattern was for Linge soldiers to be dropped in the vicinity of the target, or even sometimes in Sweden. They would then launch the attack, often helped by local Milorg men. Three groups of targets were hit: ships, industry and railways. It is impossible to go into detail about these operations here. The most famous, Operation Gunnerside against the heavy water plant at Vemork in February 1943, is, however a good example of thorough Anglo-Norwegian planning, the use of Norwegian agents who knew the area like the back of their hand, and, in the sinking of the Hydro ferry carrying semi-finished heavy water, in cooperation with the local Milorg group. It is also an example of the effectiveness of coup-de-main operations as compared with heavy bombing, in terms of both casualties and accuracy, a theme that was often on the agenda in Anglo-Norwegian meetings and in which SOE, FO and Milorg took a unanimous view in favour of the former.
From the turn of the year 1943, the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied European Forces (SHAEF) decided the lines of policy to be followed in Norway. In other words, the joint British-Norwegian resistance had to adjust itself to the framework of SHAEF. Because of the plans SHAEF had at that time for the invasion of the Continent, no commitment in Norway was wanted, and Milorg was strongly warned that it should not encourage any rising in Norway. Ironically, the old Milorg slogan 'lie low, go slow' now had a renaissance. The idea was to grow in strength and wait for the day to come. Any untimely rising, like that of the French maquis in the Vercors, would not be supported.
Nevertheless, the more than 30,000 men in Milorg waited eagerly to do something more than mere training, and after the Allied invasion on the Continent they were allowed to attack and sabotage German shipping, lines of communication, industries etc. This was quite important as the restlessness amongst the rank and file increased. The sabotage of the offices for labour conscription in the spring of 1944 represented a little outlet of steam. However, when the above mentioned directive came in June, the opportunities for action increased. Regular clashes with the Germans were still to be avoided. Usually, the attacks were planned and launched by combined groups of Milorg and SOE personnel. But even before this new directive, Milorg's role in these joint British-Norwegian operations had been steadily increasing. In fact, Feather II, which crossed the border from Sweden on 22 April 22 1944 to attack the Thamshavn railway, was the last British operation planned outside Norway. Henceforward, it was the Central Leadership of Milorg that decided on these issues. Meanwhile, Milorg grew in strength and numbers. Supplies, equipment, instruction and training were provided by SOE and FO in London. This was no easy task considering Norway's topography and climate.
All in all, Allied aircraft flew 717 successful sorties out of a total of 1241, dropping 208 agents, 9662 containers and 2762 packages with arms, munition, explosives, radio equipment, uniforms, medicine etc. In addition, supplies were sailed from the Shetlands: in 194 trips, 190 agents and 385 tons of arms and equipment were landed in Norway and 345 agents were brought back to England. Instructors were sent to train members of Milorg, together with W/T operators. It was mainly in the last year of cooperation between SOE and Milorg that the figures grew to such proportions and thus gradually increased Milorg's striking power.
The SHAEF directive of June 1944 was based on the assumption that it would be easier to let the Germans retreat from Norway and defeat them in central Europe. However, as the situation in this part of Europe changed towards the end of 1944, SHAEF changed its strategy. In a directive of 5 December 1944, Milorg was told to attack the railways in Norway on a large scale to prevent the Germans from withdrawing their fresh troops from Norway and sending them to the central European theatre for use against the Allies. Milorg was naturally very pleased to get this opportunity. After the surrender in Finland, an enormous number of troops were withdrawn into Finnmark in northern Norway and thence southwards. In close cooperation with SOE parties which had been held in readiness, Milorg attacked railways and bridges on a large scale. So well did Milorg carry out its task that, according to the head of SOE, Major-General Sir Colin Gubbins, 'From Norway, there was a reduction in rate of movement from four divisions to less than one division a month'. However, German documents such as the Kriegstagebuch, do not support such an unreserved conclusion. Eleven divisions were withdrawn from June 1944 until the end of the war, seven of these in the first four months of 1945.
Despite sabotage activity, the main objective for Milorg in the last year of the war was protection against German destruction of communications, transport, industries,
ports etc., in case of a German withdrawal accompanied by the scorched earth policy practised in Finnmark in the autumn of 1944. The detailed plans were made in London and a total of 110 officers were sent in from Great Britain to lead this work. In addition, a considerable number of Linge officers already in Norway on various other missions were directed to such tasks in the last phase of the war. Milorg also established a few bases - groups of specially handpicked men placed in camps far away in the forest and up in the mountains - ready to strike if the signal was given. The leaders and instructors were SOE personnel.
At this stage, in the spring of 1945, approximately 40,000 Milorg men, equipped, trained and well disciplined were prepared for the worst alternative, a German last stand in Norway. The equipment as well as the training and partly, I should say, the discipline, could be attributed to the fruitful cooperation with SOE which in turn had at its disposal some of the best specimens of Norwegian youth. Milorg obeyed SHAEF's order not to provoke the Germans but could not avoid a few clashes as the Germans attacked. On these occasions, Milorg proved their capability to defend themselves and even strike back. Their losses were small compared with German casualties.
As we all know, the German Commander in Norway, General Boehme, signed the German surrender in Norway on 8 May 1945. Milorg did not have to fight at all. Their role in this rather risky period of transition was to stand guard, protect buildings, arrest traitors etc. They were finally demobilised in July 1945.
Yes, you are "flag waving", either out of sheer ignorance or nationalistic zeal. Either way it is despicable.
-
Here's a link to work Gscholtz's!
Sorry bud but I trust the Unit Historian much more so than you or some internet source.
You don't have a clue between Direct Action, UWO, FID, or any other type of Special Operations, do you?
Here is the schoolhouse....
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/jfksws.htm
Crumpp
-
Just like I thought. You can't name even one operation or one target. You're a flag waiving weasel that has no respect what so ever for the truth or the people that actually were there and made the difference and you disgrace their memory by claiming their accomplishments as your own for petty nationalistic reasons. I have no respect for you. Your words mean nothing.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I'm heartbroken.... Say it isn't so!!
I'm sorry the world isn't how you wish it to be.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp and Nashwan, two sides of the same coin.
You haven't provided one single proof of your claims that the OSS was "the main effort with UWO in Norway due to the large Norwegian-American population. We simply had more contacts in the country than the SOE". You can't, because it is not true. The SOE had tens of thousands of contacts in Norway through MilOrg, what did the OSS have? A hand full perhaps, if even that? Yet you claim that the OSS was the "main effort". You're a fraud, a liar and a disgrace to your nation.
-
:aok
Crumpp ;)
-
When in 1941 were these operations, dirt-eater?
-
Never heard of Americans participating in ops or commando raids in Norway, just Norse and British. Please inform me.
-
I'm a flag waving lying loser. We can leave it at that!!
Sorry to have wasted your time. On this one, seems I was wrong.
Crumpp
-
No prob bud :)
-
Well, at least he has the balls to admit it.
Btw. cute kid you've got there Crumpp.
-
It's official: This thread has been hijacked and is being held hostage in a fjord. Send in the Beaufighters and Swordfish.
Swordfish? There's a return to the thread -- was the Swordfish the most successful biplane of WWII?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Nice Widewing, Nice;)
Did you know that damage to the hydraulics system in the 190 could lead to it dropping one or both legs of gear down?
The amazing things you hear!
How did this happen, since the Fw190s retract/extend system was electric? Note, so was stab-trim and flaps.
I had heard that the B17 guys would loop and roll their B17s. Unloaded and over friendly realistate in areas where no one important would be found.
Hadn't heard that about the Lanc's, but those Brits were just as crazy...
-
I know of at least one documented case of a fully loaded B-17 looping. B-17 was climbing into formation in thick cloud cover. It came right up behind another B-17 and the propwash threw the plane into a loop. Airspeed got up to about 375 during recovery but the pilot managed to regain control. Only damage was rivets torn out of tail.
-
First fly-by-wire a/c.
Nope not a fighter but a B-17,(afaik;) ) and during WW2 > electricity, electric motors and pots.
-
Well, it must have been due to a failiure in the electrics system then. I read a pilots account of an engagement where a burst of 50. cals into the belly of a 190 caused this to happen, then later I also saw that on a guncam picture somewhere. This is even featured in the good old flying game "Aces over Europe"!
Maybe some damage just caused the wheel lockk to disengage so the wheel dropped. don't really know, but would be interesting.
-
A few fighters in WWII had only two-bladed props, many had three- or four-bladed props, but how many had five-bladed props? Six-bladed?
I can find only one five-bladed prop fighter, the famous Spit XIV.
The only six-bladed prop fighter might be the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden canard which was only a prototype.
Even after WWII, the only other five-bladed prop plane seems to be the Hawker Sea Fury.
(Not counting counter-rotating twin props, of which there are several after WWII.)
Any other five- or six-bladed WWII fighters ... or any other type?
-
hmmm.Angus I believe you may have the 190 and the 109 mixed up.
The 109 would occasionally take damage in the hydraulic system causing one or both gear to fall. This caused a bit of confusion for allied pilots occasionally, as gear down was also a signal that they surrender and would land.
Cheers,
RTR