Jump to content
HylaHyla

P-51 aerodynamics vs. spitfire

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Pict said:

Seriously, the Hellcat could do everything better than a Zero and the Bearcat was better still but a tad to late for the fight. Then there's Nakajima with the Ki-84 that could do everything but range better than the Mustang

 

Close that book and never open it again.

 

F6F pilots were instructed to never turn with the A6M under any circumstances. The Bearcat couldn't turn with a Zero either. The F8F was optimized for climb performance.

The Ki-84 wasn't as fast as the Mustang.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

My post is absolutely correct but everyone is misreading and putting their own text between the lines.   The Brits asked for it, the Americans thought they would get something nice out of it for themselves while bypassing their budgetary controls but then decided it was a pile of crap and the Brits were welcome to it 🙂   It was indeed a pile of crap.   What it became on the other hand, and I fully agree it was joint effort once the Brits had shown it still had potential, was a very good all rounder even if it was not quite top of the charts in any one category.   

 

This does not conform to literally hundreds of texts on the development of the Mustang.

 

1 hour ago, Pict said:

 

British Air Ministry input was a tad greater than just that. They had a Bf109-E that had been captured intact in France by the french during the Battle of France and brought to the UK before France fell. All data from this 109 was made available to North American by the British Air Ministry during the design & development period of the P-51, as was other combat proven data from British designs like the Spitfire and so on.

 

Also don't forget that Hawker's designed the bubble canopy for the Typhoon, a design which was taken up by the US for the Thunderbolt & subsequent stuff like the P-51D, later Corsairs, Bearcats, YP-80's and so on...

 

or the "ace maker" gun-sight, which was also a British design copied by the US. So like it or lump it, the Mustang had a huge "foreign" input all the way from the start till it's later incarnations as we have in BOX :) 

 

 

The Americans and Brits shared a great deal of data between them. Then as they do now. This isn’t directly spec’ing or designing an aircraft. The Merlin was an absolute game changer but this has nothing to do with the airframe or original spec. It should also be noted that later versions of the Packard Merlin and Rolls Royce engines shared less than ten percent of common parts. Both engines were refined on different continents, largely independently.

 

Late add ons, such as bubbles and gunsights, also have nothing to do with designing the aircraft at the concept phase.

 

The original order was to Curtiss for P-40’s which Curtiss couldn’t hope to fulfill as they were at max production capacity. Curtiss farmed the order out to NAA who had capacity. NAA then upsold the Mustang which EXCEEDED the British spec on paper. Once delivered, it was widely recognized as a substantial improvement over the P-40 though still lacking a supercharger.

 

The Brits suggested the Merlin and NAA realized bolting a supercharger to an Allison would take too long. It was a spectacular marriage and a world class fighter was created. I seem to think the air ministry may have also bolted up a Merlin to an A model but I’m away from my sources for the moment.

 

There is no doubt NAA used combat and technical data in making design decisions. They’d be fools not to. The end result was an AC nearly every Allied Air Force adopted during the war. 

 

*and I’m not even a Mustang won the war guy. This info is easily accessed in any library with a modest aviation section. To state otherwise is naive at best and trolling at worst.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

The P-63 is basically proof that the Allison engine was every bit as good as a DB605 or a Merlin. It just needed a supercharger. The 63 wound up using a D-coupled SC just like the 109.


Yup, that P-63C looks very similar in performance to a K-4, with it's 1800HP Allison with water injection. I wonder if the Soviets got the C variant and used it in WW2 (I think they did mostly get A variants IIRC?)


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Close that book and never open it again.

 

F6F pilots were instructed to never turn with the A6M under any circumstances. The Bearcat couldn't turn with a Zero either. The F8F was optimized for climb performance.

The Ki-84 wasn't as fast as the Mustang.

 

What book? I never got any of that from a book, but I will certainly bow to your superior knowledge :)

 

So, given the opportunity within BOX, which would you prefer...P-51D-30, Ki-84b or F6F-5 ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While a fantastic shipborne AC, the F6F is outclassed by both of those AC in most respects. Generally speaking, shipborne AC didn't match overall land based performance until the Bearcat and Seafury.

 

*yes, even considering the Zero’s climb and maneuverability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While were on it, ill just go right at it.

 

We all acknowledge that the Mustang didn't "win the war." Which would be like saying any particular soldier, even a significant one, won the war. But the Mustang gets alot of hate today because the real meaning of this statement when it is used in books gets completely misinterpreted.

 

While the Mustang did not "win the war" in some kind of general sense, "won the war" in the sense that the Mustang was the decisive newcomer to Operation Pointblank in late 1943. For all the fighting that was done on all front and all time periods of the war, it was the 8AF the did the real manual labor of finally destroying the Luftwaffe as any serious threat. The Mustang showed up when it was needed and rapidly replaced other types in fighter groups doing the business. P-47s did significant work but they could not go to the target. P-38s were not as fast and were needed everywhere else and there were never enough of them in any theatre. The Mustang filled the gap, and then some.

 

Alot of the derision sent the Mustangs way comes from people thinking that pointing out the Mustangs extremely important role and general superiority somehow robs other planes of their significance at other stages of the war and theatres. It doesnt.

 

Another source is people who suddenly discover that the Mustang is not a Spitfire in the turn department, and suddenly decide it was always over-rated.

 

The bottom line is that the Mustangs legend somewhat exceeds its reality, (although its reality was fantastic enough by far), and when people realize this it suddenly becomes a long train of second opinion bias where the Mustang is a junk heap that only succeeded at anything because it was there in large numbers....which is total rubbish.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YIPPEE said:

Operation Pointblank

 

Has still got a divided advocacy...those who think it was useful in ending WW2 in Europe and those who don't . It was not clear cut then as it's not clear cut now and it is still as massively controversial as it was at the time.

 

From what I've read, Germany's war production increased with the increase in bombing and no I won't close that book and throw it away :) 

 

So attributing the ending of WW2 to the Mustang via it's certainly positive contribution to the bombing and devastation of Europe is not going to be agreed on across the board.

 

Sure the Mustang was a fantastic aircraft...but only one of many produced during WW2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Pict said:

Has still got a divided advocacy...those who think it was useful in ending WW2 in Europe and those who don't . It was not clear cut then as it's not clear cut now and it is still as massively controversial as it was at the time.

It has divided advocacy because there has been a major effort to downplay its role due to certain groups not agreeing with it ethically. That is with regards to the industrial aspects of it. German war production only increased because it had not been fully mobilized at the start of the campaign. Analysis of the bombing campaigns that does not take into account its role in reducing industry that might have been, and its other effects are intellectually dishonest or uninformed. The oil industry damage alone was crippling.

 

Bottom line is this: anyone who tells you have obliterating entire cities (or their industrial areas) has no effect on the war waging capacity of a state is outright lying or is extremely ignorant. (I am not referring to you here, but who you might have read)

 

However my comments had nothing to do with the strategic effects regarding heavy industry. The 70-80% of the German single engine fighter force was deployed in the west. Of that, the largest chunk by far was in Germany to defend against the bombers. That does not include units in France doing the same thing. What has not ever been contentious is that said operation is what ruined the Luftwaffe. The massive resource commitment to defending against the bombers massively depleted luftwaffe fighters from operations on all other fronts. Even units stationed in France and Italy had to spend alot of their time intercepting bombers. Destruction of German airfields on the ground, fighters in the air, and oil and aircraft production facilities did more damage to the German air arm than any other effort BY FAR.

Edited by YIPPEE
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

Alot of the derision sent the Mustangs way comes from people thinking that pointing out the Mustangs extremely important role and general superiority somehow robs other planes of their significance at other stages of the war and theaters. It doesn't.

 

Agreed, and has lead to a sort of downplaying of the Mustang's efficacy by some as sort of over-correction (see look at me, I don't think the Mustang was that amazing) due to years of Stangshaming on the boards.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know who exactly came up with the suggestion of the Merlin in the p51? would be very interested to know the story behind its implementation.

 

Any recommended reading on its development appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laminar flow airfoils were a mistake. *drops mike*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

*picks up mic.........

 

A true laminar flow wing offers upwards of 20% better efficiency. The Mustang wing was probably not a true laminar flow wing but offered somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5% better efficiency contributing to a remarkably efficient overall design. Hence it was able to take the bombers to target and back and fight any contemporary fighter design on equal terms. Clearly not a mistake by any reasonable standard.

 

*carfully places mic back on the mic stand where it belongs.*

 

1 hour ago, DD_fruitbat said:

Does anyone know who exactly came up with the suggestion of the Merlin in the p51? would be very interested to know the story behind its implementation.

 

Any recommended reading on its development appreciated

 

Two readily available paperback sources are Planes and Pilots P-51 Mustang From 1940 to 1980, isbn 2-913903-81-9 and Squadron Signal P-51 Mustang in Action, isbn 0-89747-114-8. I'll go through my hardcover stuff if you need anything more detailed.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DD_fruitbat said:

Does anyone know who exactly came up with the suggestion of the Merlin in the p51?

 

Pretty sure it was George that came up with that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Laminar flow airfoils were a mistake. *drops mike*

 

...trips on cord, falls down stairs.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, DD_fruitbat said:

Does anyone know who exactly came up with the suggestion of the Merlin in the p51? would be very interested to know the story behind its implementation.

 

Any recommended reading on its development appreciated

You might like this:

http://axis-and-allies-paintworks.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?326

 

Edited by HBPencil
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

*carfully places mic back on the mic stand where it belongs.*

You’re even more boring than I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

While a fantastic shipborne AC, the F6F is outclassed by both of those AC in most respects. Generally speaking, shipborne AC didn't match overall land based performance until the Bearcat and Seafury.

 

Corsair did. Not only did match it's land based competitors, it outclassed most of them too. Though the difficulties with carrier operations kind of make the Corsair half-shipbourne, half landbased at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

Corsair did. Not only did match it's land based competitors, it outclassed most of them too. Though the difficulties with carrier operations kind of make the Corsair half-shipbourne, half landbased at best.

 

Note: humour 

 

Did the British not also have to sort out the Corsair as they did with the Mustang? Although not as drastic as sticking a Merlin in it, the RN rescued it as a naval aircraft after US relegated it to land based ops 😎

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

What has not ever been contentious is that said operation is what ruined the Luftwaffe

 

That is pretty much for sure and an often overlook point. However it was a side effect of the strategic bombing campaign and not the main objective, which no doubt has come under modern day revisionist scrutiny (which I am very far from subscribing to), but was also contentious back in it's day for more practical reasons not just but along with the questionable ethics of fire bombing cities.

 

Strategic bombers were shown to be most effective when bombing transportation infrastructure like railway marshaling yards and least effective when used against tactical targets like the beach defenses at Omaha.

 

German arms production dispersed and literately in some instances went underground. Strategic bombers are ineffective against such targets and this was already known by the allies during the blitz on the UK when arms production dispersed in a similar fashion.

 

The bombing of cities and the general population was intentional, both admitted and advocated by the allied command under the auspices that it would break the German will to fight. It didn't. Same again as the blitz on the UK.

 

==============

 

I find it interesting to note that it was the USSR putting boots on the ground in Berlin was what in fact ended the war in Europe but they never had a strategic bombing force worth talking about. The obvious logic for that was the the western allies provided it for them.

 

That said it raises an interesting question for me, which is about what happened or more importantly did not happen immediately post German capitulation. Churchill put forward his Operation Unthinkable plans to have the western allies press on and attack the USSR, a plan that was never implemented.

 

Why not? What stopped them? They had told everyone that strategic bombing won the war. They had a massive strategic bombing force and a massive industry geared up to serve it. And they were facing a potential enemy who had none of that.

 

If strategic bombing was all things those who advocated it had portrayed it to be, then the Red army wouldn't have stood a chance.

Edited by Pict
Spelling errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pict said:

....

 

That said it raises an interesting question for me, which is about what happened or more importantly did not happen immediately post German capitulation. Churchill put forward his Operation Unthinkable plans to have the western allies press on and attack the USSR, a plan that was never implemented.

 

Why not? What stopped them? They had told everyone that strategic bombing won the war. They had a massive strategic bombing force and a massive industry geared up to serve it. And they were facing a potential enemy who had none of that.

 

If strategic bombing was all things those who advocated it had portrayed it to be, then the Red army wouldn't have stood a chance.

 

I think that most likely 'what stopped them', at least in part, was the awareness that trying it would have resulted in a large-scale mutiny amongst British forces. Even ignoring the non-negligible numbers amongst the British population who were sympathetic to Stalinist politics, there was a larger group which saw war against Germany as a necessary evil, and who would have seen little merit in a war of aggression against a former ally. As it was, there were several small-scale mutinies amongst British conscripts unhappy with the way demobilisation was going, and it was apparent enough to Churchill that despite the support he had during the war, post-VE-day Britain was going to be less sympathetic to his Imperialist ways. He had an election to win (or attempt to) and wasn't going to commit political suicide by trying to drag a conscript army into a war it wasn't mobilised for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I'll go through my hardcover stuff if you need anything more detailed.

 

Try Paul Ludwig "Development of the P-51 Long Range Escort Fighter". It shows how the P-51 almost died a political death before eventually becoming America's premier fighter of WW2.

There's gonna be a book about the long journey to the P-51B out next year by Bill Marshall. Bill is certainly one of the (if not THE) most knowledgeable person about the Mustang.

 

Merlins had stood in for Allisons already in the P-40 and Packard already was building those for the RAF.

The cowling-volume of the P-40 didn't allow for better supercharging, though, so the airplane was out of the game for high altitudes without significant re-design.

 

2 hours ago, Pict said:

I find it interesting to note that it was the USSR putting boots on the ground in Berlin was what in fact ended the war in Europe but they never had a strategic bombing force worth talking about. The obvious logic for that was the the western allies provided it for them.

 

That said it raises an interesting question for me, which is about what happened or more importantly did not happen immediately post German capitulation. Churchill put forward his Operation Unthinkable plans to have the western allies press on and attack the USSR, a plan that was never implemented.

 

Why not? What stopped them? They had told everyone that strategic bombing won the war. They had a massive strategic bombing force and a massive industry geared up to serve it. And they were facing a potential enemy who had none of that.

 

If strategic bombing was all things those who advocated it had portrayed it to be, then the Red army wouldn't have stood a chance.

 

The Western Allies not only provided the strategic bombing campaign, they also pressure-fed the Soviets with advanced airplanes, trucks, tanks, guns etc.

They greatly relieved the strategic strain onto the USSR.

The bombing campaign also shifted a lot of ressources over from the east into the Reich or into the west.

Stalin was diva'ing about getting helped by a second front in the west. He apparently never understood there was an epic STRATEGIC battle going on in the Atlantic, in the MTO and half a world around in the whole western Pacific/ CBI area - which he conveniently refused to join.

 

Britain and France were pretty much in default by the time the war was over. Keep in mind the war went on for another 4 months in the Pacific, draining resources.

Had the nukes not eventually persuaded Hirohito to surrender, the plans to invade the japanese homelands were on the table with horrendous figures in terms of cost - in both capital means and human lives (on both sides).

 

Truman didn't want to go against Stalin and only changed his mind when Stalin expanded into central Europe and East Asia. Only then, the Containment policy started.

There were plans to nuke the Soviets into oblivion. There weren't enough bombs around, though. By the time the plan became feasible, the Soviets had their own bucket of instant sunshine and a fleet of re-engineered Tu-4 strategic bombers.

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Note: humour 

 

Did the British not also have to sort out the Corsair as they did with the Mustang? Although not as drastic as sticking a Merlin in it, the RN rescued it as a naval aircraft after US relegated it to land based ops 😎

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Yes, after initial difficulties with carrier ops, Corsair in American service was redelegated to USMC, with which it operated exlusively from airfields. It was only after Fleet Air Airm figured out how to "safely" operate it from carriers, Corsair became widely adopted by USN. It was still prone to accidents, and more were lost to operational hazards than in combat, where it managed to achieve 11:1 air kill ratio.

Edited by 4./JG26_Onebad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 10:31 PM, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Anecdotally, the 51 is now the hardest AC in game for me to slow down in on landing approaches. That honor used to belong to the 109. She is one slick b*tch.

 

109 huh?

 

More like the 190

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

There's gonna be a book about the long journey to the P-51B out next year by Bill Marshall. Bill is certainly one of the (if not THE) most knowledgeable person about the Mustang.

 

Bill posts on a few boards. His father flew the Mustang in WW2.

17 minutes ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

Yes, after initial difficulties with carrier ops, Corsair in American service was redelegated to USMC, with which it operated exlusively from airfields. It was only after Fleet Air Airm figured out how to "safely" operate it from carriers, Corsair became widely adopted by USN. It was still prone to accidents, and more were lost to operational hazards than in combat, where it managed to achieve 11:1 air kill ratio.

There was some redesigning of the F4U, mainly the undercarriage (too much bounce on landing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

 

I think that most likely 'what stopped them...

 

I find this interesting, but what I understand is that you suggest that Churchill got political cold feet and backed out of a plan he was pushing. When in the end he lost his bid for re-election anyway.

 

30 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Western Allies not only provided the strategic bombing campaign, they also pressure-fed the Soviets with advanced airplanes, trucks, tanks, guns etc.

They greatly relieved the strategic strain onto the USSR...

 

There were plans to nuke the Soviets into oblivion. There weren't enough bombs around, though. By the time the plan became feasible, the Soviets had their own bucket of instant sunshine and a fleet of re-engineered Tu-4 strategic bombers.

 

Yes indeed lend lease was also a benefiting factor which would have been removed the USSR had the allies gone ahead with Unthinkable.

 

These nuke plans I find very interesting as it shows serious intent to go with the Unthinkable scenario, yet little or zero confidence in the conventional strategic bombing they had so advocated up to that point.

 

====

 

All interesting stuff from both of you and I appreciate it :good:

 

In a sort of round about way back to the topic, I would be interested to compare the P-51 (and other western allied fighters of the time) with the like of the La-7 (and other Soviet fighters of the time), hopefully within IL2 BOX at some point down the line.

 

We often compare Axis with Allies or as is the case with this topic, fighters from the same side who are on the same battlefield, but a comparison of aircraft that may have taken part in an Operation Unthinkable scenario would also be interesting. Someone at some point in an official capacity must have made such a comparative assessment?

 

Anyhow I find Operation Unthinkable a far more plausible "what if" scenario than Luft '46 ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 10:31 PM, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Anecdotally, the 51 is now the hardest AC in game for me to slow down in on landing approaches. That honor used to belong to the 109. She is one slick b*tch.

The infamous nasty low speed stall is very much there...

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Try Paul Ludwig "Development of the P-51 Long Range Escort Fighter". It shows how the P-51 almost died a political death before eventually becoming America's premier fighter of WW2.

There's gonna be a book about the long journey to the P-51B out next year by Bill Marshall. Bill is certainly one of the (if not THE) most knowledgeable person about the Mustang.

 

Merlins had stood in for Allisons already in the P-40 and Packard already was building those for the RAF.

The cowling-volume of the P-40 didn't allow for better supercharging, though, so the airplane was out of the game for high altitudes without significant re-design.

 

 

The Western Allies not only provided the strategic bombing campaign, they also pressure-fed the Soviets with advanced airplanes, trucks, tanks, guns etc.

They greatly relieved the strategic strain onto the USSR.

The bombing campaign also shifted a lot of ressources over from the east into the Reich or into the west.

Stalin was diva'ing about getting helped by a second front in the west. He apparently never understood there was an epic STRATEGIC battle going on in the Atlantic, in the MTO and half a world around in the whole western Pacific/ CBI area - which he conveniently refused to join.

 

Britain and France were pretty much in default by the time the war was over. Keep in mind the war went on for another 4 months in the Pacific, draining resources.

Had the nukes not eventually persuaded Hirohito to surrender, the plans to invade the japanese homelands were on the table with horrendous figures in terms of cost - in both capital means and human lives (on both sides).

 

Truman didn't want to go against Stalin and only changed his mind when Stalin expanded into central Europe and East Asia. Only then, the Containment policy started.

There were plans to nuke the Soviets into oblivion. There weren't enough bombs around, though. By the time the plan became feasible, the Soviets had their own bucket of instant sunshine and a fleet of re-engineered Tu-4 strategic bombers.

Also when Kennedy was Pres and LeMay head of SAC apparently LeMay urged the President to atttack the Soviets whose bomber force was weak compared to the US ans their ICBMs were not likely to work most of the time. LeMay and others were convinced we could win a surprise nuclear attack.

When Kennedy asked about estimayed US losses LeMay said "only 30 million".  Kennedy wisely threw him the fu*k out of his office after calling him madman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Krisu said:

 

109 huh?

 

More like the 190

 

I can slip the 190 hard enough to almost do an auto-rotation (helicopter) with it. I'm not saying I can't get the 109 slowed but she takes a bit more effort. I'm getting the 51 under control now too.

 

6 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

Corsair did. Not only did match it's land based competitors, it outclassed most of them too. Though the difficulties with carrier operations kind of make the Corsair half-shipbourne, half landbased at best.

 

I'll accept that to a certain extent. Still a little behind the Mustang and Thunderbolt for WWII absolute speeds and heights. Mustang remained the long distance champion. Overall a fantastic AC which I overlooked in my original statement regarding naval aviation.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I can slip the 190 hard enough to almost do an auto-rotation (helicopter) with it.

 

I'll accept that to a certain extent.

 

I'm so confused, in a 109 you can easily throttle down if you screw up without having to play with the rudder/bank too much. In a 190 that thing just holds on to its speed for like ever, you pass half the run way before you realize....but I guess it's easier to slow down by slipping in a 190, maybe? Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/5/2019 at 5:36 PM, Pict said:

 

Has still got a divided advocacy...those who think it was useful in ending WW2 in Europe and those who don't . It was not clear cut then as it's not clear cut now and it is still as massively controversial as it was at the time.

 

From what I've read, Germany's war production increased with the increase in bombing and no I won't close that book and throw it away :) 

 

So attributing the ending of WW2 to the Mustang via it's certainly positive contribution to the bombing and devastation of Europe is not going to be agreed on across the board.

 

Sure the Mustang was a fantastic aircraft...but only one of many produced during WW2

Pointblanks real value layvin the emphasis of destroying the Luftwaffe 'no matter where he went, to his fields, defending the bombers, relentlessly pursuing them to a conclusion one way or another.'..

Which btw General Doolittle was HATED by bomber crews for his initial orders for fighters to pursue the Luftwaffe to destruction.  Until the results were born out later he had death threats apparently the whole 9 yards.

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2019 at 10:13 AM, =BES=Savage-6 said:

Just cut throttle max out rpm and throw her into a level side slip (cross controls). Level side slips are a MAJOR no-no IRL GA aircraft, but this sim doesn’t punish uncoordinated slow flight enough, so use it!

Yes i noticrd I can drop speed FAST just flying level and jerking rudder left and riggt hard. You may "float" up a hundred or 2 hundred feet but I can drop 150-200 mph in 20 seconds or less that way. It doesnt work so hot for combat - more for like emergency slow downs for landings or formations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Note: humour 

 

Did the British not also have to sort out the Corsair as they did with the Mustang? Although not as drastic as sticking a Merlin in it, the RN rescued it as a naval aircraft after US relegated it to land based ops 😎

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

More humor? 

 

That would be a No. Tom Blackburn went to bat to keep it as a shipborne aircraft because he felt it’s performance was superior to the F6F. His maintenance officer, Butch Davenport worked with Vought engineers Russ Clark and Ray DeLeva to fix the nasty low speed stall characteristics which dropped the wing, and the bouncing oleo struts. He turned out to be right and his group “The Jolly Rogers” did some good work with it. I believe it was still in service with the Navy after the F6F as retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The F6F was phased out very quickly after the end of the war, as was the F8F Bearcat, as the role of single seat fighter was taken over by jet aircraft.  The Corsair, on the other hand served into the 1950s, finding it's place as a superb CAS aircraft during the Korean War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Pict said:

However it was a side effect of the strategic bombing campaign and not the main objective

This is not true. The entire Objective of Pointblank was to destroy the Luftwaffe. Not only were fighter tactics changed, but the industrial targets were changed to prioritize things like aircraft production. And the industrial bombing had huge effects. It greatly mitigated German industrial expansion. It obliterated 75% of German synthetic oil production which crippled every arm of the German military for the rest of the war in just a few strikes. You do realize that the "failed" ball bearing strikes in late 1943 nearly brought German industry to the brink right? This was not to be in the end, but the fact that a mere two strike were capable of potentially do this is important.

 

17 hours ago, Pict said:

Strategic bombers were shown to be most effective when bombing transportation infrastructure like railway marshaling yards and least effective when used against tactical targets like the beach defenses at Omaha.

This is completely false. To say that bombing tactical targets with big bombers was ineffective is like saying artillery is ineffective because it didnt kill everything and everyone. Reference operation Cobra, the damage to German ground forces was immense.

 

17 hours ago, Pict said:

German arms production dispersed and literately in some instances went underground. Strategic bombers are ineffective against such targets and this was already known by the allies during the blitz on the UK when arms production dispersed in a similar fashion.

It became dispersed after the bombers started doing massive damage. There is a reason industry is concentrated. When you are forced to disperse it, it stops being as good and making things.

 

17 hours ago, Pict said:

The bombing of cities and the general population was intentional, both admitted and advocated by the allied command under the auspices that it would break the German will to fight. It didn't. Same again as the blitz on the UK.

This largely has nothing to do with the American bombing, at least in Europe. The American bombing was dedicated to precision bombing of legitimate strategic targets. With some exceptions.

 

17 hours ago, Pict said:

If strategic bombing was all things those who advocated it had portrayed it to be, then the Red army wouldn't have stood a chance.

right............because the entire logic of declaring war on russia hinged on the strategic bombing force.........🙄

 

 

Anyone who thinks the strategic bombing did not significantly affect German ability to wage war is being ridiculous. It completely ignores economics and logistical realities. Strategic bombing did not end the War in a week as some advocates thought it could. But the idea that nation can have its cities brought to ruins and just "keep on keeping on" at the same pace as before is delusional.

 

The irony of this is virtually everyone on both sides of this issue recognizes that part of what made America capable of such enormous material production during and after the war was due to its having not been bombed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This largely has nothing to do with the American bombing, at least in Europe. The American bombing was dedicated to precision bombing of legitimate strategic targets. With some exceptions."

 

While largely true, the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden were dedicated to the destruction of the cities and the AAF was complicit. "With some exceptions," doesn't really cover the scope of the civilian casualties inflicted. Let others gloss over their histories, we should not. We generally stayed true to our stated goal of military industrial targets but we have to own our mis-deeds as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

"This largely has nothing to do with the American bombing, at least in Europe. The American bombing was dedicated to precision bombing of legitimate strategic targets. With some exceptions."

 

While largely true, the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden were dedicated to the destruction of the cities and the AAF was complicit. "With some exceptions," doesn't really cover the scope of the civilian casualties inflicted. Let others gloss over their histories, we should not. We generally stayed true to our stated goal of military industrial targets but we have to own our mis-deeds as well.

And it must be said that in nearly all cases the term precision bombing in WWII was a misnomer at best and war planners knew it. The technology was not there to hit a factory and miss the residential districts around it, even if one wanted to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a limitation which could not be overcome in the course of hitting legitimate targets.  I don’t include it in my criticism, personally. Your mileage may vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...