Chat Forum
It is currently Sat May 30, 2020 10:33 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5610
happyhooker wrote:
Lacrobat wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
backrow wrote:
how on earth could the p38 be slow in the turn if it was the fastest fighter with the best aerodynamics ???

Poor aerodynamics assist rapid turning.


That's the trade-off. More wings = more maneuverable (WWI). Fewer wings = more speed (WWII). More/bigger engines = more power. More/bigger engines = more weight.

modern fighters are now constructed to be deliberatley unstable because it aides manoeuverability.


The p38 was a very complex aerodynamic shape for an age without CFD; it probably looked great in a basic wind tunnel; & that reflected in it's straight line performance; but once the pilots flung it into a turn, they were on their own; as they were completely outside of what the designers had modeled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22860
fishfoodie wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Lacrobat wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
backrow wrote:
how on earth could the p38 be slow in the turn if it was the fastest fighter with the best aerodynamics ???

Poor aerodynamics assist rapid turning.


That's the trade-off. More wings = more maneuverable (WWI). Fewer wings = more speed (WWII). More/bigger engines = more power. More/bigger engines = more weight.

modern fighters are now constructed to be deliberatley unstable because it aides manoeuverability.


The p38 was a very complex aerodynamic shape for an age without CFD; it probably looked great in a basic wind tunnel; & that reflected in it's straight line performance; but once the pilots flung it into a turn, they were on their own; as they were completely outside of what the designers had modeled.

Tl;dr backrow/yeeb is full of shit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 5:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17071
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Quote:
Three’s Company
BY MAX CARTER

SOMETHING OF THEMSELVES: KIPLING, KINGSLEY, CONAN DOYLE AND THE ANGLO-BOER WAR
by Sarah LeFanu

Image

Image

The Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902) has been called the first modern conflict. This is no compliment. Few emerge from the pages of its bloody, cynical history with much credit. Not the “prime instigators,” diamond baron Cecil Rhodes and Dr. Leander Starr Jameson (of Scholarship and Raid fame, respectively). Nor its British officials and generals, the High Commissioner Alfred Milner and Lords Roberts and Kitchener and Redvers (“Reverse”) Buller. The put-upon Boers were, for their part, proud, determined—and, like many of their antagonists, incurably racist.

A forward-looking view of the war—the dawn of mass-media coverage, barbed wire, and concentration camps—emphasizes the bit parts played by 20th-century personages. Winston Churchill, the neophyte correspondent, making his daring escape from Boer captivity; Mohandas Ghandi’s exertions in the Indian ambulance corps; and Robert Baden-Powell’s devil-may-care dispatches from the Siege of Mafeking (“One or two small field guns shelling the town. Nobody cares”; “All well. Four hours bombardment. One dog killed”), which prefigured his Boy Scout movement by 10 years. Sarah LeFanu’s Something of Themselves takes the opposite tack, tracing the lives of the Victorian—in sensibility if not wholly in fact—writers Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Mary Kingsley as they intersect in South Africa in the war.

Something Old, Something New
LeFanu’s title derives from Kipling’s posthumous memoir, Something of Myself (1937), channeling the reticence and “refusal to reveal everything” common to all three. Kipling was born in 1865 in Bombay. A “Raj orphan,” he spent five harsh, formative years boarding in Southsea at the “House of Desolation” (he was punished for, among other things, shortsightedness—“taken as a sign of his ‘showing-off’”—and reading) and another five at the United Services College. The latter spell shored up his adolescent confidence and shaped the “Stalky” tales of the 1890s—“very readable, very funny, and at times quite surprising” in LeFanu’s spot-on appreciation.

When Kipling traveled to Cape Town, he had already spent time with Conan Doyle, pictured here, over golf and “high converse.”
Kipling returned to India at age 16 as sub-editor of Lahore’s Civil and Military Gazette, tossing off finely observed stories and well-turned verse. In his early 20s, he left again for London, traveled the world, married (Henry James gave the bride away), settled for four years in Vermont—producing the Jungle Books (1894–95), Captains Courageous (1896), and the first draft of Kim (ultimately published in 1901)—and acquired considerable literary fame, not least for the Jubilee-themed “Recessional” (1897) and equally topical “The Absent-Minded Beggar” (1899). An admiring friendship with Rhodes fired his imperial imagination. The death, in March 1899, of his beloved six-year-old daughter, Josephine, unmoored him. By his expedition to Cape Town in January 1900 as “propagandist-at-large,” he was “on friendly terms with the big noises in British and colonial circles” and, LeFanu notes, had already spent time with Conan Doyle, over golf and “high converse,” and Kingsley, both (likely) in 1894.

LeFanu’s title channels the reticence and “refusal to reveal everything” of her central subjects.
Conan Doyle overcame his father’s alcoholism and the “weary grind” of medical studies at Edinburgh—his professor Dr. Joseph Bell’s “extraordinary powers of observation would feed into the creation” of Sherlock Holmes—before establishing his own practice in Kipling’s dreaded Southsea, where “a man falling off his horse outside the front door and being carried inside … [marked] the increase of patient numbers by 100 per cent.” He kept busy, he assured his doting mother, by “tending my little literary sprouts and making them into cabbages.”

Sponsored by Verdura
The apathetic doctor wed in 1885 and, subsequently, “in the gaps between his consultations and during quiet evenings at home,” altered the course of detective fiction with A Study in Scarlet (1887; the original version, A Tangled Skein, featured one “Sherrinford” Holmes). The Sign of the Four (1890), and the Adventures (1891–92) and Memoirs (1892–93) of Sherlock Holmes cemented his reputation. Conan Doyle killed off the public’s lucrative favorite at the Reichenbach Falls in 1893, lest he become “entirely identified with what I regarded as a lower stratum of literary achievement.” It would be eight years until he revisited his exploits in The Hound of the Baskervilles (1901). Months after Holmes’s plunge, Conan Doyle’s wife, Touie, was diagnosed with consumption. Desperately torn between fidelity to Touie and feelings for Jean Leckie, the woman who would replace her, he volunteered for John Langman’s private field hospital in South Africa in 1899. His departure preceded Kingsley’s by one month.

Kingsley was nothing if not original and someone I would dearly like to have met. She spent her teens, LeFanu recounts, acting as her egomaniacal physician-adventurer father’s “secretary and assistant, sorting his notes, helping to classify his specimens” and learning German “so that she could translate what he needed for a proposed work on sacrificial rites.” He died in 1892, bequeathing his wanderlust and £8,000, to be shared with Mary’s ill-deserving younger brother, Charley. She heeded the call of “science” to “learn your tropics”: “Where on earth am I to go? I wondered, for tropics are tropics, wherever found; so I got down an atlas and saw that either South America or West Africa must be my destination, for the Malayan region was too far off and too expensive.” Africa it was. Owing to “the high attrition rate amongst Europeans,” her liner sold only one-way tickets.

In 1900, Kingsley followed Kipling and Conan Doyle to South Africa to nurse the war’s injured.
She kept up appearances (“You have no right to go about in Africa in things you would be ashamed to be seen in at home”) but roamed with economy, carrying “spare clothes, along with a blanket, a copy of Albert Günther’s An Introduction to the Study of Fishes and her well-thumbed copy of Horace’s Odes, and some notebooks and nets and collecting jars.... About her person she kept a small knife and a revolver (for brandishing rather than shooting).” Hers was the empiricism of the century’s finest explorers: “One by one I took my old ideas derived from books and thoughts based on imperfect knowledge and weighed them against the real life surrounding me, and found them either worthless or wanting.” She distilled her experiences and lightly worn expertise into the magical Travels in West Africa (1897). Kingsley’s sangfroid in the bush has always reminded me of Aunt Dot in The Towers of Trebizond (1958), the final novel of LeFanu’s earlier biographical subject, Rose Macaulay—minus the rumors of espionage and autumnal romance. (See Mary fending off crocodiles and leopards with paddles and pots and Dot’s pragmatic brush with cannibals.)

“One by one I took my old ideas derived from books and thoughts based on imperfect knowledge and weighed them against the real life surrounding me, and found them either worthless or wanting.”
In March 1900, Kingsley followed Kipling and Conan Doyle to South Africa to nurse beleaguered soldiers. For LeFanu’s stoic trio, the war—the reporting of which is drawn largely from Thomas Pakenham’s grand, stylish The Boer War (1979)—proved alternately disillusioning and tragic. Kipling would come to lament the Empire’s “political suicide” and, in LeFanu’s words, mourn South Africa as “another locus of loss.” Conan Doyle’s account, The Great Boer War (1900), was profitable—and hopelessly ephemeral, reaching readers two years before the war’s conclusion. Kingsley succumbed to typhoid within three months of her arrival. Per her wishes, she was buried at sea.

From these disparate parts, Something of Themselves makes for elegant and moving group biography, remedying various degrees of neglect and misjudgment. Kingsley has been overlooked, Conan Doyle overshadowed, and Kipling deplored—though never forgotten. His moral and spiritual lessons from the war live on in the stirring conditionals of “If” (1910), which were inspired not by the pluck of the Boers but by his friend, their bogeyman, Dr. Jameson.

352 pages, Hurst (distributed by Oxford University), $30

Something of Themselves is available at your local independent bookstore and on Amazon.

Max Carter is the head of the Impressionist and Modern Art department at Christie’s in New York

https://airmail.news/issues/2020-5-9/threes-company


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Gtfo HH, you are mixing up terms and deliberately avoiding my jibe at calculus.
Instability in a fighter is not the same as aerodynamics / drag , a ww2 aircrafts ability to turn (a measure of how manoverable it was) has more to deal with wing shape , loading , weight, than how sleek it is.

Eg Stirling bomber could at low level turn very tightly , in some cases tighter than a me109 - because it had a thick wing mostly. A spitfire could also turn tightly , but was far more aerodynamic.
A mustang was sleeker still and could turn, a thunderbolt was fast but turned and climbed poorly.

Your ‘poor aerodynamics assists turning’ statement is just misleading in the extreme. The most manouversble fighters in ww2 tended to be Japanese, they were aerodynamic and had very efficient shapes and long ranges - but their ability to turn had more to do with low weight and wing loading , than how aerodynamic they were or were not. Not having any armour was a decent part of this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 6:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17071
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Two cabs to the Toucan...

Image

Quote:
Douglas XB-43 Jetmaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XB-43_Jetmaster


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17071
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Going to the shops:

Image

and a bunch of other what I'm going to call generically, "Bren Gun Carriers"...

https://dieselfutures.tumblr.com/post/1 ... nOf0wYzBm4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:43 am
Posts: 3304
Dr. Seuss on Irish neutrality, WW2:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:43 am
Posts: 3304
Have to like that reaction:

https://9gag.com/gag/awB71RD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18807
Location: Centre of the Universe
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18807
Location: Centre of the Universe
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2533
Location: Italia
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
Quote:
Three’s Company
BY MAX CARTER

SOMETHING OF THEMSELVES: KIPLING, KINGSLEY, CONAN DOYLE AND THE ANGLO-BOER WAR
by Sarah LeFanu

Image

Image

The Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902) has been called the first modern conflict. This is no compliment. Few emerge from the pages of its bloody, cynical history with much credit. Not the “prime instigators,” diamond baron Cecil Rhodes and Dr. Leander Starr Jameson (of Scholarship and Raid fame, respectively). Nor its British officials and generals, the High Commissioner Alfred Milner and Lords Roberts and Kitchener and Redvers (“Reverse”) Buller. The put-upon Boers were, for their part, proud, determined—and, like many of their antagonists, incurably racist.

A forward-looking view of the war—the dawn of mass-media coverage, barbed wire, and concentration camps—emphasizes the bit parts played by 20th-century personages. Winston Churchill, the neophyte correspondent, making his daring escape from Boer captivity; Mohandas Ghandi’s exertions in the Indian ambulance corps; and Robert Baden-Powell’s devil-may-care dispatches from the Siege of Mafeking (“One or two small field guns shelling the town. Nobody cares”; “All well. Four hours bombardment. One dog killed”), which prefigured his Boy Scout movement by 10 years. Sarah LeFanu’s Something of Themselves takes the opposite tack, tracing the lives of the Victorian—in sensibility if not wholly in fact—writers Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Mary Kingsley as they intersect in South Africa in the war.

Something Old, Something New
LeFanu’s title derives from Kipling’s posthumous memoir, Something of Myself (1937), channeling the reticence and “refusal to reveal everything” common to all three. Kipling was born in 1865 in Bombay. A “Raj orphan,” he spent five harsh, formative years boarding in Southsea at the “House of Desolation” (he was punished for, among other things, shortsightedness—“taken as a sign of his ‘showing-off’”—and reading) and another five at the United Services College. The latter spell shored up his adolescent confidence and shaped the “Stalky” tales of the 1890s—“very readable, very funny, and at times quite surprising” in LeFanu’s spot-on appreciation.

When Kipling traveled to Cape Town, he had already spent time with Conan Doyle, pictured here, over golf and “high converse.”
Kipling returned to India at age 16 as sub-editor of Lahore’s Civil and Military Gazette, tossing off finely observed stories and well-turned verse. In his early 20s, he left again for London, traveled the world, married (Henry James gave the bride away), settled for four years in Vermont—producing the Jungle Books (1894–95), Captains Courageous (1896), and the first draft of Kim (ultimately published in 1901)—and acquired considerable literary fame, not least for the Jubilee-themed “Recessional” (1897) and equally topical “The Absent-Minded Beggar” (1899). An admiring friendship with Rhodes fired his imperial imagination. The death, in March 1899, of his beloved six-year-old daughter, Josephine, unmoored him. By his expedition to Cape Town in January 1900 as “propagandist-at-large,” he was “on friendly terms with the big noises in British and colonial circles” and, LeFanu notes, had already spent time with Conan Doyle, over golf and “high converse,” and Kingsley, both (likely) in 1894.

LeFanu’s title channels the reticence and “refusal to reveal everything” of her central subjects.
Conan Doyle overcame his father’s alcoholism and the “weary grind” of medical studies at Edinburgh—his professor Dr. Joseph Bell’s “extraordinary powers of observation would feed into the creation” of Sherlock Holmes—before establishing his own practice in Kipling’s dreaded Southsea, where “a man falling off his horse outside the front door and being carried inside … [marked] the increase of patient numbers by 100 per cent.” He kept busy, he assured his doting mother, by “tending my little literary sprouts and making them into cabbages.”

Sponsored by Verdura
The apathetic doctor wed in 1885 and, subsequently, “in the gaps between his consultations and during quiet evenings at home,” altered the course of detective fiction with A Study in Scarlet (1887; the original version, A Tangled Skein, featured one “Sherrinford” Holmes). The Sign of the Four (1890), and the Adventures (1891–92) and Memoirs (1892–93) of Sherlock Holmes cemented his reputation. Conan Doyle killed off the public’s lucrative favorite at the Reichenbach Falls in 1893, lest he become “entirely identified with what I regarded as a lower stratum of literary achievement.” It would be eight years until he revisited his exploits in The Hound of the Baskervilles (1901). Months after Holmes’s plunge, Conan Doyle’s wife, Touie, was diagnosed with consumption. Desperately torn between fidelity to Touie and feelings for Jean Leckie, the woman who would replace her, he volunteered for John Langman’s private field hospital in South Africa in 1899. His departure preceded Kingsley’s by one month.

Kingsley was nothing if not original and someone I would dearly like to have met. She spent her teens, LeFanu recounts, acting as her egomaniacal physician-adventurer father’s “secretary and assistant, sorting his notes, helping to classify his specimens” and learning German “so that she could translate what he needed for a proposed work on sacrificial rites.” He died in 1892, bequeathing his wanderlust and £8,000, to be shared with Mary’s ill-deserving younger brother, Charley. She heeded the call of “science” to “learn your tropics”: “Where on earth am I to go? I wondered, for tropics are tropics, wherever found; so I got down an atlas and saw that either South America or West Africa must be my destination, for the Malayan region was too far off and too expensive.” Africa it was. Owing to “the high attrition rate amongst Europeans,” her liner sold only one-way tickets.

In 1900, Kingsley followed Kipling and Conan Doyle to South Africa to nurse the war’s injured.
She kept up appearances (“You have no right to go about in Africa in things you would be ashamed to be seen in at home”) but roamed with economy, carrying “spare clothes, along with a blanket, a copy of Albert Günther’s An Introduction to the Study of Fishes and her well-thumbed copy of Horace’s Odes, and some notebooks and nets and collecting jars.... About her person she kept a small knife and a revolver (for brandishing rather than shooting).” Hers was the empiricism of the century’s finest explorers: “One by one I took my old ideas derived from books and thoughts based on imperfect knowledge and weighed them against the real life surrounding me, and found them either worthless or wanting.” She distilled her experiences and lightly worn expertise into the magical Travels in West Africa (1897). Kingsley’s sangfroid in the bush has always reminded me of Aunt Dot in The Towers of Trebizond (1958), the final novel of LeFanu’s earlier biographical subject, Rose Macaulay—minus the rumors of espionage and autumnal romance. (See Mary fending off crocodiles and leopards with paddles and pots and Dot’s pragmatic brush with cannibals.)

“One by one I took my old ideas derived from books and thoughts based on imperfect knowledge and weighed them against the real life surrounding me, and found them either worthless or wanting.”
In March 1900, Kingsley followed Kipling and Conan Doyle to South Africa to nurse beleaguered soldiers. For LeFanu’s stoic trio, the war—the reporting of which is drawn largely from Thomas Pakenham’s grand, stylish The Boer War (1979)—proved alternately disillusioning and tragic. Kipling would come to lament the Empire’s “political suicide” and, in LeFanu’s words, mourn South Africa as “another locus of loss.” Conan Doyle’s account, The Great Boer War (1900), was profitable—and hopelessly ephemeral, reaching readers two years before the war’s conclusion. Kingsley succumbed to typhoid within three months of her arrival. Per her wishes, she was buried at sea.

From these disparate parts, Something of Themselves makes for elegant and moving group biography, remedying various degrees of neglect and misjudgment. Kingsley has been overlooked, Conan Doyle overshadowed, and Kipling deplored—though never forgotten. His moral and spiritual lessons from the war live on in the stirring conditionals of “If” (1910), which were inspired not by the pluck of the Boers but by his friend, their bogeyman, Dr. Jameson.

352 pages, Hurst (distributed by Oxford University), $30

Something of Themselves is available at your local independent bookstore and on Amazon.

Max Carter is the head of the Impressionist and Modern Art department at Christie’s in New York

https://airmail.news/issues/2020-5-9/threes-company


Not known to many - an Italian legion fought alongside the Boers; comander of the legion was Ricchiardi.
The Italian legion was responsible for the action that lead to the capture, among others, of Winston Churchill (who should have been executed later on, because he was found still carrying a gun while in detention - but Ricchiardi spared him, not reporting the incident)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Nieghorn wrote:
Image


Spitfire v buffalo - again this doesn’t exactly demonstrate that USA with its aerodynamics and radial engines, was as good as other countries in the mid to late 1930’s - it flew 9 months later then the spitfire and 277 mph versus spitfires 349mph.

First service models were 346mph spit in aug 1938, versus 304mph buffalo in Dec 1939

The more aerodynamic Spit was also more manouverable, dispelling HH’s assertion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18807
Location: Centre of the Universe
Do you know much about how the P47 handled? It's a big, fat thing of a fighter, but I get the impression it was highly comparable with the best the Jerries had.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Nieghorn wrote:
Do you know much about how the P47 handled? It's a big, fat thing of a fighter, but I get the impression it was highly comparable with the best the Jerries had.


Yes, yes, and nope
It was fast and could dive extremely fast, but had poor climb and turn radius, despite good rate of roll.
The mustang was a much better dog fighter and was superior / comparable with the best German and (much less well known) Italian fighters in performance and manouverability stakes.

P47 had a quote from a pilot saying something like ‘it’s good it can dive as it sure as hell cant climb ‘ - will try to find the quote


Lots of things affected ww2 fighter aircraft fighting success:
Pilot skills - toward end of war , German skills and experience were much less than in 1940
Aircraft toughness (p47 probably toughest of them all, and one reason Japanese aircraft suffered)
Ease of maintenance (fabric hurricane much easier to keep in air than metal spitfire)
Tactics - british V was shit, as was ordering me109’s to stay close to bombers and , amusingly, the heavy escort fighter 110’s. See also Thatch weave


Last edited by backrow on Sun May 24, 2020 3:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Don Blakeslee m

From wiki:
When his unit (4th Fighter Group) was equipped with Thunderbolts, ace Don Blakeslee said, referring to the P-47's vaunted ability to dive on its prey, "It ought to be able to dive. It certainly can't climb."[46] (Blakeslee's early-model P-47C had not been fitted with the new paddle blade propeller). The 4th Fighter Group's commander hated the P-47, and his prejudices filtered down to the group's pilots; the 4th had the fewest kills of any of the first three P-47 squadrons in Europe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8935
Image

Image

More information:"Bob Semple tank".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18807
Location: Centre of the Universe
It does look like the sort of thing some nutter makes from a bulldozer to rampage through his home town in a futile attempt to get back at "the man".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11104
The Brazilian air fore flew p-47s in in Italy during WW2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm
Posts: 2966
Nieghorn wrote:
It does look like the sort of thing some nutter makes from a bulldozer to rampage through his home town in a futile attempt to get back at "the man".


Thought it was something out of "Dad`s Army" :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5142
backrow wrote:
Aircraft toughness (p47 probably toughest of them all, and one reason Japanese aircraft suffered)


Thunderbolts were only utilised in the European theatre.

Interestingly, whilst the P38 had little impact in Europe (Bar Pathfinder/photo Recon), it's range and speed made it idea for the Pacific


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 2:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:43 am
Posts: 3304
Auckman wrote:
Image

Image

More information:"Bob Semple tank".


Counterpoint:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8hRRCFdnnk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 3:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4360
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
backrow wrote:
Aircraft toughness (p47 probably toughest of them all, and one reason Japanese aircraft suffered)


Thunderbolts were only utilised in the European theatre.

Interestingly, whilst the P38 had little impact in Europe (Bar Pathfinder/photo Recon), it's range and speed made it idea for the Pacific


I think he was referring to the fact that Japanese aircraft eschewed armour and such protection as self sealing fuel tanks to remain light and increase range and maneuverability. It made them very vulnerable to heavily armed allied fighters - the .50s on American fighters just shredded Japanese aircraft.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 4:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18807
Location: Centre of the Universe
Was watching the Russian war movie They Fought for Their Country (1975) on youtube and this came recommended ... a look at the massive anti-tank rifles the Russians had. Yet another example of something they made that was simple but got a job done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUO3Bmt5XTQ ... another of one being shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIU1eJk-P5A ... but commenters saying the cartridge seems underpowered as the first vid's host says the recoil is meant to kick the shell out and the bolt all the way back so a new cartridge can be loaded in quicker. The comments below that first vid are pretty funny.

The caption for this says training, but I can't imagine using a one-shot weapon on aircraft! (It's in the movie as well and poorly done as the character shoots when the plane is nearly on top of him.)

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 7:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 572
backrow wrote:
Don Blakeslee m

From wiki:
When his unit (4th Fighter Group) was equipped with Thunderbolts, ace Don Blakeslee said, referring to the P-47's vaunted ability to dive on its prey, "It ought to be able to dive. It certainly can't climb."[46] (Blakeslee's early-model P-47C had not been fitted with the new paddle blade propeller). The 4th Fighter Group's commander hated the P-47, and his prejudices filtered down to the group's pilots; the 4th had the fewest kills of any of the first three P-47 squadrons in Europe


Tbf the c series wasn't as good as the d series onwards , particularly the ones with the bubble canopy.

Hell of a ground attack aircraft /jabo too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 572
There was talk of British aircraft carriers vs US ones earlier in the thread. I just finished this

https://www.amazon.com/Kamikaze-Hunters ... 0230768199

The British carriers sounded pretty awful, unsuited to the pacific with inadequate ventilation which made life onboard for the crew miserable . They had three or four in the pacific in 1945 , their first mission was bombing Indonesian oil refineries that B29s had failed to destroy.

Also just for Backrow, they flew a lot of US aircraft-Corsairs and Avengers. The seafire lacked the range of US fighters and its undercarriage wasn't really suited to landing on a carrier and the fulmar wasn't as good as the avenger.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 9:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Harvey2.0 wrote:
backrow wrote:
Don Blakeslee m

From wiki:
When his unit (4th Fighter Group) was equipped with Thunderbolts, ace Don Blakeslee said, referring to the P-47's vaunted ability to dive on its prey, "It ought to be able to dive. It certainly can't climb."[46] (Blakeslee's early-model P-47C had not been fitted with the new paddle blade propeller). The 4th Fighter Group's commander hated the P-47, and his prejudices filtered down to the group's pilots; the 4th had the fewest kills of any of the first three P-47 squadrons in Europe


Tbf the c series wasn't as good as the d series onwards , particularly the ones with the bubble canopy.

Hell of a ground attack aircraft /jabo too.


Yup re ground attack, iirc the plane was designed around the engine and turbo and all that ducting underneath did seem to help the planes toughness and act as armour of sorts for the pilot and engine (radial being less susecpetble to damage also than inline) . Plus, being a large machine, like the Corsair you could lump a lot of bombs on it without really hurting performance at low level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Harvey2.0 wrote:
There was talk of British aircraft carriers vs US ones earlier in the thread. I just finished this

https://www.amazon.com/Kamikaze-Hunters ... 0230768199

The British carriers sounded pretty awful, unsuited to the pacific with inadequate ventilation which made life onboard for the crew miserable . They had three or four in the pacific in 1945 , their first mission was bombing Indonesian oil refineries that B29s had failed to destroy.

Also just for Backrow, they flew a lot of US aircraft-Corsairs and Avengers. The seafire lacked the range of US fighters and its undercarriage wasn't really suited to landing on a carrier and the fulmar wasn't as good as the avenger.


I know less about fleet air arm and Pacific activities, none of my family was involved there so heard no stories and read less books. Did they have hellcats too as they were the most useful carrier fighters?

As for carriers, was the main US v British difference unarmoured / armoured flight decks, or the ventilation ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 646
Lacrobat wrote:
Auckman wrote:
Image

Image

More information:"Bob Semple tank".


Counterpoint:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8hRRCFdnnk


Number 8 wire ingenuity taken to extreme lengths. A tad embarrassing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 572
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
There was talk of British aircraft carriers vs US ones earlier in the thread. I just finished this

https://www.amazon.com/Kamikaze-Hunters ... 0230768199

The British carriers sounded pretty awful, unsuited to the pacific with inadequate ventilation which made life onboard for the crew miserable . They had three or four in the pacific in 1945 , their first mission was bombing Indonesian oil refineries that B29s had failed to destroy.

Also just for Backrow, they flew a lot of US aircraft-Corsairs and Avengers. The seafire lacked the range of US fighters and its undercarriage wasn't really suited to landing on a carrier and the fulmar wasn't as good as the avenger.


I know less about fleet air arm and Pacific activities, none of my family was involved there so heard no stories and read less books. Did they have hellcats too as they were the most useful carrier fighters?

As for carriers, was the main US v British difference unarmoured / armoured flight decks, or the ventilation ?


Its actually well worth a read, I knew very little about the FAA either . They used Hellcats as well, apart from shooting down kamikazes their other role was ground attack.

The steel deck was horrible to work on in the pacific heat , the ventilation issues were never resolved and in the engine room it was awful for the crew. The ships weren't set up as well as the Japanese/American ones which were equipped to be away from port longer in the pacific and the british ones were intended for the med/atlantic . The next generation of carriers no doubt were a lot better but most were cancelled due to the war ending.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 572
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
backrow wrote:
Don Blakeslee m

From wiki:
When his unit (4th Fighter Group) was equipped with Thunderbolts, ace Don Blakeslee said, referring to the P-47's vaunted ability to dive on its prey, "It ought to be able to dive. It certainly can't climb."[46] (Blakeslee's early-model P-47C had not been fitted with the new paddle blade propeller). The 4th Fighter Group's commander hated the P-47, and his prejudices filtered down to the group's pilots; the 4th had the fewest kills of any of the first three P-47 squadrons in Europe


Tbf the c series wasn't as good as the d series onwards , particularly the ones with the bubble canopy.

Hell of a ground attack aircraft /jabo too.


Yup re ground attack, iirc the plane was designed around the engine and turbo and all that ducting underneath did seem to help the planes toughness and act as armour of sorts for the pilot and engine (radial being less susecpetble to damage also than inline) . Plus, being a large machine, like the Corsair you could lump a lot of bombs on it without really hurting performance at low level.


The yanks didn't have the thunderbolt in Korea so they used a version of the Corsair set up for ground attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4 ... Korean_War

I can't believe someone got away with naming their plane "lucky Pierre" :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8935
GWO2 wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
It does look like the sort of thing some nutter makes from a bulldozer to rampage through his home town in a futile attempt to get back at "the man".


Thought it was something out of "Dad`s Army" :lol:


They literally took a tractor and put armour plates and machine guns on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7843
Location: London
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
There was talk of British aircraft carriers vs US ones earlier in the thread. I just finished this

https://www.amazon.com/Kamikaze-Hunters ... 0230768199

The British carriers sounded pretty awful, unsuited to the pacific with inadequate ventilation which made life onboard for the crew miserable . They had three or four in the pacific in 1945 , their first mission was bombing Indonesian oil refineries that B29s had failed to destroy.

Also just for Backrow, they flew a lot of US aircraft-Corsairs and Avengers. The seafire lacked the range of US fighters and its undercarriage wasn't really suited to landing on a carrier and the fulmar wasn't as good as the avenger.


I know less about fleet air arm and Pacific activities, none of my family was involved there so heard no stories and read less books. Did they have hellcats too as they were the most useful carrier fighters?

As for carriers, was the main US v British difference unarmoured / armoured flight decks, or the ventilation ?

Without researching it - I would assume that the armour contributed to the poor ventilation. These ships were built for the North Atlantic - we were only able to set up the BPF because we'd decisively beaten the German and Italian navies


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18807
Location: Centre of the Universe
Speaking of NZ...

Spoiler: show
Image



Quote:
Avenger TBF-1C NZ2523 being re-armed at Piva on Bougainville, about May 1944. Note the yellow mission
markers below the windscreen and the white 523 on the lower nose. (RNZAF)

No.30 and 31 Squadron, No.30 Servicing Unit
On 26th January 1944, the first RNZAF Avengers left for Espiritu
Santo flown by the crews No.30 Squadron. No.30 Servicing Unit
traveled by Hudson bomber or ship and by 10 February all were on
Espiritu Santo to maintain the Avengers. After operational training,
No.30 Sqn flew to Piva, Bougainville on 23 March during a period
of Japanese attacks and almost immediately commenced
operations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2020 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4699
Harvey2.0 wrote:
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
There was talk of British aircraft carriers vs US ones earlier in the thread. I just finished this

https://www.amazon.com/Kamikaze-Hunters ... 0230768199

The British carriers sounded pretty awful, unsuited to the pacific with inadequate ventilation which made life onboard for the crew miserable . They had three or four in the pacific in 1945 , their first mission was bombing Indonesian oil refineries that B29s had failed to destroy.

Also just for Backrow, they flew a lot of US aircraft-Corsairs and Avengers. The seafire lacked the range of US fighters and its undercarriage wasn't really suited to landing on a carrier and the fulmar wasn't as good as the avenger.


I know less about fleet air arm and Pacific activities, none of my family was involved there so heard no stories and read less books. Did they have hellcats too as they were the most useful carrier fighters?

As for carriers, was the main US v British difference unarmoured / armoured flight decks, or the ventilation ?


Its actually well worth a read, I knew very little about the FAA either . They used Hellcats as well, apart from shooting down kamikazes their other role was ground attack.

The steel deck was horrible to work on in the pacific heat , the ventilation issues were never resolved and in the engine room it was awful for the crew. The ships weren't set up as well as the Japanese/American ones which were equipped to be away from port longer in the pacific and the british ones were intended for the med/atlantic . The next generation of carriers no doubt were a lot better but most were cancelled due to the war ending.


Actually the British ships were setup to not for a particular geographical region but built with the expectation that they would have to rely on their own AA and armour to mitigate air/surface attacks which in the context of the 1930's when they were designed makes sense (no reliable search radar so no way to vector fighters in on attackers before they arrive).

I have not read any accounts that indicate conditions were particularly bad in the context of the Pacific but that may be the case. But to be fair from what I understand conditions were bad for everyone including the US and Japanese particularly as crew sizes grew way beyond design as more and more AA guns were added to ships superstructure.
Its true however that British ships built in the 1930s were built with very little consideration for crew comfort - crews were expected to eat, sleep and socialise in adhoc spaces that had to be cleared for action.

The main drawback for British carriers in the Pacific was smaller airgroup but I think the armoured flight deck concept was vindicated by the Americans using it with the Midway class.

British carrier aircraft design was in a bad state throughout the war so the wholesale use of US designs is not a surprise - this is mainly down to the RAF being in charge of the process before the war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2020 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1993
Location: Switzerland
tc27 wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
There was talk of British aircraft carriers vs US ones earlier in the thread. I just finished this

https://www.amazon.com/Kamikaze-Hunters ... 0230768199

The British carriers sounded pretty awful, unsuited to the pacific with inadequate ventilation which made life onboard for the crew miserable . They had three or four in the pacific in 1945 , their first mission was bombing Indonesian oil refineries that B29s had failed to destroy.

Also just for Backrow, they flew a lot of US aircraft-Corsairs and Avengers. The seafire lacked the range of US fighters and its undercarriage wasn't really suited to landing on a carrier and the fulmar wasn't as good as the avenger.


I know less about fleet air arm and Pacific activities, none of my family was involved there so heard no stories and read less books. Did they have hellcats too as they were the most useful carrier fighters?

As for carriers, was the main US v British difference unarmoured / armoured flight decks, or the ventilation ?


Its actually well worth a read, I knew very little about the FAA either . They used Hellcats as well, apart from shooting down kamikazes their other role was ground attack.

The steel deck was horrible to work on in the pacific heat , the ventilation issues were never resolved and in the engine room it was awful for the crew. The ships weren't set up as well as the Japanese/American ones which were equipped to be away from port longer in the pacific and the british ones were intended for the med/atlantic . The next generation of carriers no doubt were a lot better but most were cancelled due to the war ending.


Actually the British ships were setup to not for a particular geographical region but built with the expectation that they would have to rely on their own AA and armour to mitigate air/surface attacks which in the context of the 1930's when they were designed makes sense (no reliable search radar so no way to vector fighters in on attackers before they arrive).

I have not read any accounts that indicate conditions were particularly bad in the context of the Pacific but that may be the case. But to be fair from what I understand conditions were bad for everyone including the US and Japanese particularly as crew sizes grew way beyond design as more and more AA guns were added to ships superstructure.
Its true however that British ships built in the 1930s were built with very little consideration for crew comfort - crews were expected to eat, sleep and socialise in adhoc spaces that had to be cleared for action.

The main drawback for British carriers in the Pacific was smaller airgroup but I think the armoured flight deck concept was vindicated by the Americans using it with the Midway class.

British carrier aircraft design was in a bad state throughout the war so the wholesale use of US designs is not a surprise - this is mainly down to the RAF being in charge of the process before the war.

My understanding was that the Mediterranean theatre had a significant impact on the design of British carriers.
The realisation quite early on that they would be required to operate in a 'restricted' zone to support the fleet based there heavily influenced the armoured flight deck concept.

The Italian attempts at aircraft carriers were also heavily armoured for the same reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2020 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17071
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Image

Wouldn't the Aces be the German Fighters who shot down British Bombers?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Biffer29, bimboman, Blackrock Bullet, Bogbunny, camroc1, danthefan, Edinburgh01, EverReady, Google Adsense [Bot], iarmhiman, Leinsterman, Mr Mike, Nolanator, PCPhil, P in VG, Pole, Rabulah Conundrum, Raggs, Ramming Speed, Red Revolution, Still Not Playing and 108 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group