Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Battleships: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau in Brest?

2

Comments

  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Better yet if you can show me another aircraft of that conflict that had as much statistical impact in the ground attack role I'd love to see it.
    Different conflict and lots of things had to go right before they could get to the target but in the first year of the war in the Pacific these but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBD_Dauntless took out six Japanese aircraft carriers.

    Shōhō ,Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū and Ryūjō

    Very important at the start of the war.

    Later on the production capacity of the US showed up when they were churning out a escort carrier every two weeks. The American's had build 50 Casablanca class escort carriers and 45 Bogue class escort carriers by the end of the way. And there were other classes of escort carriers and there were the big fleet carriers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Apparently everything is irrelevant unless its about a Stuka! TBH I'm completely baffled why someone would want to derail a thread with top trump statistic's about an aircraft of complete irrelevance to the bombing of these ships, because not only was it not an allied aircraft, it had been withdrawn from the western theatre at this point. Bombing in WWII was in general inaccurate. One specialist aircraft does not buck that trend. If the allies had Stuka's and tried to use them to attack these ships, the aircraft would have been annihilated.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    BostonB wrote: »
    Stuka could only operate where they had complete air cover otherwise they'd get slaughtered. Rudel was was shot down or forced to land 32 times!

    Rudel flew over 2000 missions.

    I'll say that again, 2000 missions. I think the odds of getting hit by anti-aircraft fire would be pretty high if you're flying that much. In early 1945 he lost his right leg when his Stuka was shot down, he rapidly recovered and went back into action flying a Fw-190D-9 in which he scored 9 kills thus becoming an air ace as well as already being an anti-tank ace.

    The Stuka could still operate quite well over the eastern front right into the latter part of the war, the stukas of Kurt Kuhlmey's formation is held to have been pivotal in helping the Finnish army stop the Soviets at the Battle of Tali-Inhantala which saved the Finns from Soviet occupation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Bismark had difficulty in shooting down the swordfish because they few too slowly for the fire control systems

    By the end of the war the Allies had radar controlled guns, using an analog computer, firing shells with proximity fuzes.

    Found this interesting thread on that...

    http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    BostonB wrote: »
    Apparently everything is irrelevant unless its about a Stuka! TBH I'm completely baffled why someone would want to derail a thread with top trump statistic's about an aircraft of complete irrelevance to the bombing of these ships, because not only was it not an allied aircraft, it had been withdrawn from the western theatre at this point. Bombing in WWII was in general inaccurate. One specialist aircraft does not buck that trend. If the allies had Stuka's and tried to use them to attack these ships, the aircraft would have been annihilated.

    No unescorted aircraft would have been able to sink these ships, JG2 and JG26 had a covering force over the flotilla constantly.

    Added to that, there were something like 50 support ships sailing with the battlecruisers and Prinz Eugen that were able to put up anti-aircraft fire.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    BostonB wrote: »
    Bombing in WWII was in general inaccurate. One specialist aircraft does not buck that trend.
    by the end of the war rockets meant that most fighter aircraft could launch a fairly accurate attack roughly equivalent to a broadside from a destroyer or light cruiser.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    BostonB wrote: »
    Apparently everything is irrelevant unless its about a Stuka! TBH I'm completely baffled why someone would want to derail a thread with top trump statistic's about an aircraft of complete irrelevance to the bombing of these ships.
    I was simply making the point that dive bombing of ships was quite accurate(about as accurate as you could get at the time) and often effective and not just in one theatre as Capt'n Midnight pointed out.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    I wish people would stop using wikipedia - if you are going to quote from it, at least attribute it as a source:)

    Budiansky in Air Power describes the dedicated dive bomber as a technological dead end whose time had well passed by 1941.

    Tactical airpower from then on was about the fighter-bomber, something the Germans started with their Jabos (bomb carrying Me109s), but the Allies developed to a higher level of sophistication.

    The Allies never developed a dedicated fighter-bomber as such, but a lot of designs that started as interceptors proved to be formidable figher-bombers, for example the P-38, the Typhoon and the P-47. Design of fighters emphasised raw speed, which meant power which had a side benefit that payload could be increased - a P-47 could carry the same bombload as an A26.

    Stukas persisted on the Eastern Front long after they had been rendered obsolete elsewhere because if the nature of the fighting there. The Soviets 'lacked imagination' - the Red Army offensives were massive, grinding and methodical based on massive concentration of firepower in the form of tanks, artillery, attack aircraft and wave-upon-wave of troops - a 'target rich environment' for any pilot.

    The Stuka was not the A-10 of it's day, the A-10 was conceived and built as a ground attack aircraft, if anything it's lineage goes back to something like the P-47D.

    Rudel was an exceptional pilot, but the battleship he 'sunk' was the Marat, which was at anchor and his bomb went down the funnel. Also the ship was not permanently put out of commission - 3 of her 4 turrets continued to function as an artillery battery and she was re-commissioned about 18 months later as the Petropavlovsk.

    Which still supports my original contention that a well handled ship, maneuvering aggressively is a tough target to hit, even for a dive bomber. It was really only with the introduction of the Frtiz X radio guided bomb that the Luftwaffe began to have a serious impact on capital ships, but given these were often released from over 15,000ft it wasn't divebombing.

    Success in the Pacific had something to do with divebombing, the type of bombs used ('proper' armour-piercing delayed action ones) and use of naval aviators (on both sides). The Luftwaffe was conceived to provided tactical support to the Heer, and took a while to build up any kind of anti-shipping / maritime capability.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Jawgap wrote: »
    The Allies never developed a dedicated fighter-bomber as such, but a lot of designs that started as interceptors proved to be formidable figher-bombers, for example the P-38, the Typhoon and the P-47. Design of fighters emphasised raw speed, which meant power which had a side benefit that payload could be increased - a P-47 could carry the same bombload as an A26.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider
    Produced just at the end of the war. Single (piston) engined carrier aircraft capable of carrying an 8,000 lb / 3,600Kg payload.

    8,000 lb was an average load for a B17 !

    and more than maximum of most 'medium' bombers earlier on
    B25 Mitchell 6,000 lb

    nearly twice Wellington 4,500 lb / Heinkel He 111 4,400 lb


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Ok, I'll qualify my earlier remark:)

    The Allies never developed and deployed a dedicated ground attack aircraft during WWII.

    The US Navy didn't deploy the Skyraider until 1947 - 19th March was the flight of the prototype according to this article.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Re the six carriers sunk by SPD's in the first year, it could easily have been seven or more

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Sh%C5%8Dkaku
    In September 1942, a Type 21 air-warning radar was installed on Shōkaku's island atop the central fire control director, the first such device to be fitted on any Japanese carrier.
    ...
    At Santa Cruz, on 26 October 1942, Shōkaku was again seriously damaged, taking at least three (and possibly as many as six) 1,000-lb. bomb hits from a group of fifteen Douglas SBD-3 dive bombers launched from Hornet. With ample warning of the incoming American strike, Shōkaku's aviation fuel mains to the flight deck and hangars had been drained down and she had few aircraft on board at the time of the attack. As a result, no major fires broke out and her seaworthiness was preserved. Her flight deck and hangars, however, were left in shambles and she was unable to conduct further air operations during the remainder of the battle

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Zuih%C5%8D
    Two of Enterprise's Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers hit Zuihō with 500-pound (230 kg) bombs and damaged her flight deck enough that she could not conduct flight operations although she was not seriously damaged otherwise


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    by the end of the war rockets meant that most fighter aircraft could launch a fairly accurate attack roughly equivalent to a broadside from a destroyer or light cruiser.


    Problem with rockets was it slowed the aircraft down. If you are attacking at low level against a heavily defended target with air cover and a lot of AA, slow is what you don't want to be. If you read "The Big Show (Le Grand Cirque)" - Pierre Clostermann he describes very well, the risks in attacking such targets. Seeing the losses in other flights attacking with rockets, and also attacking targets flat out, the engine to the stops to try and survive.

    I also thought that rockets weren't that successful in knocking out tanks.
    From three British studies on Panther tanks found by British forces.

    From 6 June 1944 till 16 January 1945 the "cause of death" was:

    Armour piercing rounds: 63
    Hollow charge projectiles: 8
    HE rounds: 11
    Aircraft rockets: 11
    Aircraft cannon: 3
    Destroyed by crew: 60
    Abandoned: 43
    Unknown: 24
    There's one instance where a flight of Typhoons rocketed a German tank formation. They missed entirely, the rockets falling in a wood to the east of the tanks. When overrun, the British found the remains of a shattered German infantry battalion who had moved into the woods just before the attack. The rockets had literally destroyed them.

    From

    http://www.warandgamemsw.com/blog/539228-figther-bombers-in-normandy-1944/
    "Tank Killing, Anti-tank warfare by men and machines" by Ian Hogg.

    I think spin stabilised rockets are much more accurate.

    That said a ship is much bigger, and I could be mistaken but I think rocket attacks against ships were mainly employed when they were less well defended.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I seem to remember reading somewhere that the A10 isn't quite as useful as popular opinion likes to think of it, in recent conflicts. Its slow to get on mission, and in general they wouldn't be at low level they generally all stay at medium height away from any threats. And something like a fast jet has faster response time and more accurate with a smart bomb. Still a great jet though, and arguable has other advantages, doesn't need finished runways, lots of hard points, now has sniper pods and smart bombs etc. With some of these opinions its hard to know was it some pilots pushing their own aircraft over others etc.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    BostonB wrote: »
    I seem to remember reading somewhere that the A10 isn't quite as useful as popular opinion likes to think of it, in recent conflicts. Its slow to get on mission, and in general they wouldn't be at low level they generally all stay at medium height away from any threats. And something like a fast jet has faster response time and more accurate with a smart bomb. Still a great jet though, and arguable has other advantages, doesn't need finished runways, lots of hard points, now has sniper pods and smart bombs etc. With some of these opinions its hard to know was it some pilots pushing their own aircraft over others etc.
    Tougher than the Harrier, but the Harrier could turnaround faster and operate far closer to the front line from smaller airstrip.

    Re sniper pods, the RAF deployed ex navy Buccaneers in Iraq because they had laser targeting that the Tornado's didn't. Needless to say the Harriers got sold on and the Tornado's kept. Anyone care to guess how many billion this will cost the MoD over the lifetime of the carriers ? compare to the Falklands when many of the car ferries and container ships had crude landing strips welded on.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    BostonB wrote: »
    Problem with rockets was it slowed the aircraft down. If you are attacking at low level against a heavily defended target with air cover and a lot of AA, slow is what you don't want to be.
    Always handy to have air supremacy

    Didn't the Henschel Hs 129 have a ratio of one aircraft lost per tank killed ?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    BostonB wrote: »
    With some of these opinions its hard to know was it some pilots pushing their own aircraft over others etc.
    +1000 There's defo that angle going on B. Pilots can have a serious love affair over their mounts and ignore/overcome shortcomings. The Spitfire a fairly good example of that. Lauded all over the place with rarely a dissenting view. Even though it's controls were quite unbalanced, it's rudder control was so so and it's ailerons got real heavy, even locked up at speed, never mind the earlier marks that couldn't handle negative G. It's view outside wasn't exactly great either. The ME109 even moreso. Folks like Galland kept flying them even when better aircraft came along. The ME was a killer(literally) on the ground, was incredibly claustrophobic and was variable at different altitudes.

    I suppose what it shows is that in the hand of a master who had confidence in their plane many otherwise meh aircraft could be very effective. The previously mentioned stuka the perfect example of that(BTW IIRC outside the Russian theatre they sank a few ships in the Greek campaign including Mountbattens? Could be wrong there, running on memory). When you look at the Battle of Britain stats, you note that it was a minority of pilots that got the vast majority of the "kills" and that tends to run true whichever air battle you look at it. It's more down to the pilot. So I;d reckon, yes the German battleships might well have been vulnerable, even sunk by air attack if you had a Rudel/Hartmann/Bong/Kozhedub[delete as applicable] in the seat of a SBD/Stuka/Boxkite[delete as applicable]

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Wibbs wrote: »
    The Spitfire a fairly good example of that. Lauded all over the place with rarely a dissenting view. Even though it's controls were quite unbalanced, it's rudder control was so so
    The rotary engines on some fighters during world war one had a huge gyroscopic effect, great if you could use it to you advantage, a killer if you didn't react to massive differences in turning left or right

    And of course it was the Hurricane that won the Battle of Britain ;)
    So I;d reckon, yes the German battleships might well have been vulnerable, even sunk by air attack if you had a Rudel/Hartmann/Bong/Kozhedub[delete as applicable] in the seat of a SBD/Stuka/Boxkite[delete as applicable]
    Then again wasn't the Bismark scuttled rather than sunk ?

    But a lucky hit and it's game over.


  • Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭Jim S


    Capt M'night
    But a lucky hit and it's game over.

    Bismarck may indeed have been unlucky to have taken the hit in her vitals but to some extent a series of decisions (in relation to fueling options) worked against her, had she topped up her tanks in Norway she might have been beyond the range of the Ark Royals Swordfish or may have been under the cover of German aircraft.
    Also the long repeated signal to Berlin was a terrible error as it put Tovey back into the hunt.
    Scuttling , it probably did play a part in speeding her end.

    Other surface ships also had the misfortune of taking hits in the rudder area.
    Admiral Scheer had her stern almost blown off by a torpedo from a British submarine, Prinz Eguen had the same fate, luckily being close to shore both ships were not lost.
    Tirpitz almost suffered the same fate as Bismarck , a FAA attack narrowly missed her stern / rudders.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    With regard to the A10, even it is vulnerable and depends on agility and nap of the earth flight to survive. The biggest killer of ground-attack aircraft is Russian-made anti-aircraft guns,such as Dshkas, ZPUs, ZUs, ZSUs and basic SAMs such as the SA-7 and it's newer cousins. They are usually handed out like Smarties to Russia's clients and the Gulf Wars (and every other war since about 1950) showed how dangerous they are to attack aircraft. They can't be jammed, they can be operated by scarcely-trained conscripts, they last a lifetime and are comparatively cheap. They are also deadly in land warfare. Apart from that, A10s take a long time to fix, being dependent on the US supply system.

    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Apart from that, A10s take a long time to fix, being dependent on the US supply system.
    The cloth covered wings of the original Hurricane meant it was very easy and quick to repair, that one feature may account for victory in the Battle of Britain.

    IIRC there was a story that when a Sunderland arrived in the US the locals started to count the patches, they gave up counting sometime after 1,000


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    The UK also had a very large repair network in place before the battle for very fast turnaround of damaged aircraft.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    The Hurricane was allegedly easier to repair, provided nothing under the fabric was seriously damaged. If it was, then it was usually trucked or ferried to the Civilian Repair Organisation. It depended on the availability of people trained to repair the built-up truss structure of the Hawker, which they had because most aircraft of the day were built in that fashion.Because the new generation, typified by the 109 and the Spitfire, has sheet-metal monocoque airframes and there were less sheet-metal repairers available, the Hurricane got the reputation that it was easier to repair, which depended entirely on whether the substructure had been damaged. Both sides in the Battle of Britain adopted the policy of sending heavily damaged airframes back to the factories for repair or even gutting for spares, because it tied up too much manpower to repair them at squadron level.

    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    You can't really compare the Spit, with the Me109 with the Hurricane - and say one is 'better' than the other.

    Apart from being cantilever mono-plane fighters, they don't have much else in common. They are each the product of different design philosophies and were each intended to do very different jobs.

    Messerschmidt designed the Me109 to have the lightest, smallest airframe with the most powerful engine he could squeeze into it. It made for a wonderfully responsive aircraft, but also one that had a high wingloading and was very unforgiving for a novice pilot - the leading edge slats it needed to prevent it stalling were a British design. Also, the cannon they used were there by necessity - they wanted to use 8 guns as the British were doing but the wing couldn't take them, hence the cannon - good decision as it turned out.

    Camm's Hurricane evolved from the Fury (a bi-plane) and he wanted to make a plane that could be built and maintained using existing facilities, so he used and re-used much of what went before. Which meant the Hurricane was cheap to make, maintain, and repair. It was a stable gun platform and easy to handle in the ground, but burned ferociously when hit - pilots reckoned if you got out in less than 6 seconds, you'd be burned badly enough for a hospital stay, 8 seconds you were for the specialist burns unit at East Grinstead, 10 second you were dead. It could not out turn the Me109, but often did because Me109 pilots often backed off a hard turn when there slats popped out, but it was slow relative to the other fighters .

    Spitfire was revolutionary - Mitchell effectively started with a blank sheet and didn't worry too much about manufacturing practicalities associated with a stressed metal monocoque design - the elliptical wing also has a slight twist to it which made it difficult to manufacture and repair but it was responsive and much more forgiving than the Me109 - the root stalled before the tip (unlike the Me109) which meant the plane juddered when it stalled - unlike the Me109 which just fell out of the sky when the pilot when beyond the stall point. It lacked fuel injection and 8 guns (especially when they were harmonised beyond 250 ft) rarely provided enough of a punch to knock down another aircraft on a single pass. The Me109 was better engineered.

    You pays your money you takes your choice.....

    I'd go for the Spit - especially the Mk XIX - faster than an Me262 jet!

    .....and everyone knows it was radio direction finding (early radar) that won the BoB;)


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Don't the Americans have a crazy number of Abrams tanks awaiting repair stateside ?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Great post JG, but I'd haggle with ya on a couple of points :eek: :D
    Jawgap wrote: »
    It could not out turn the Me109, but often did because Me109 pilots often backed off a hard turn when there slats popped out
    Of the three fighters(spit/Hurri/Emil) the ME had the highest wing loading, even with flaps, which reduced the gap, but not quite enough. You can't argue with physics on that score. IIRC 30 odd pounds per square inch for the Emil compared to 20 odd pounds per square inch of the other two. Wartime tests on both sides tended to agree on this point, though both sides noted the superior handling qualities of the ME at low speeds. Throw in as you pointed out the ME having a tendency to snap out of control with zero warning at the edge. The Spit being about the most easygoing and stable of any wartime fighter in an actual stall, barely drops a wing and like you say with plenty of warning beforehand(never mind a juddering stick, if you decided to be a real badass at higher speeds it would actually pop some rivets telling you to cop the hell on Ted :)), meant the other two had the obvious if slight advantage in turning circle. I recall watching a youtube vid of an interview with a stuka pilot(them pesky things again:)) who noted that he was slightly less worried(though pretty fubared either way) if engaged by a spit, because he could hope to outturn him, whereas a hurricane who dropped his flaps could get a firing angle on him.

    I'd go for the Spit - especially the Mk XIX - faster than an Me262 jet!
    Certainly not in level flight. The 262 could hit 550 odd MPH. The fastest piston engined fighter ever(toss up between sea fury/mustang) barely scrapes 500. Again physics tends to screw with you regarding propeller speed and shockwaves forming on same at those kind of speeds. Maybe the Spit had the better climb rate? I dunno TBH. It was certainly more forgiving at slow speeds compared to the 262 and the pilot was far less worried his engine would go kaput on him.
    .....and everyone knows it was radio direction finding (early radar) that won the BoB;)
    Yep plus fighting over home ground made a huge diff. More fuel, more time, quicker resupply and if UK pilot crash lands or successfully bails out, he's back in the fray the next day, even the same day with some nutters. German guy does similar and he's packed off to Scotland or Canada for the remainder. Throw in utterly daft tactics ordered by above(stick close to the bombers) which crippled a fighters advantage and the eyeswiveling daft lack of the ability for fighters and bombers to talk to each other(on diff frequencies*) and it was a recipe for disaster. IMH it was as much a surprise that the Luftwaffe kept the pressure on as long as they did.


    *that was bad enough, but the fact that the German radios were pretty crap by comparison and Luftwaffe pilots were still using wing waggling and hand signals even at that stage says it all.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    The spit is lovely, I especially like later bubble canopy models. But 4x30mm cannon is hard to ignore.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Wibbs wrote: »
    The fastest piston engined fighter ever(toss up between sea fury/mustang) barely scrapes 500. Again physics tends to screw with you regarding propeller speed and shockwaves forming on same at those kind of speeds
    Of course the Russians have never let a minor obstacle like the laws of physics get in the way of over engineering a solution.

    Tu-95 has propellers, and gets up to around Mach 0.87 ( 575 mph )
    though at this speed the tips of the eight 5.8m counter rotating propellers are travelling past the speed of sound and it's a tad noisy. And not very radar stealthy either.

    Where did I hear someone talking about the Spitfire vs. the Mustang ? He said that even though the Spitfire was more manoeuvrable he'd rather be in a Mustang when over Berlin, because it had the range to fly home. It's horses for courses. I'm reminded of the radar war where the Brits were rushing the third best radar into production simply because while they could make a better one, and could make the best one it would take time and a radar today was better than the second best one tomorrow.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    My comparison of the fighters related to the alleged easier repair ability of the Hurricane over the stressed-skin construction of the Spitfire and 109 and is not about their relative performance. With regard to radios, the British pilots hated their own TR9 sets, as is noted in many British combat reports.
    regards
    Stovepipe


Advertisement