PDA

View Full Version : Which country fielded the best planes over all valid classes?



JtD
12-02-2006, 08:50 AM
Not the question which plane was THE BEST for whatever role or whichever year or anything, it's more like which country had the best, most effective air force if you do not consider pilot training. Feel free to take failed strategies/concepts into account.

Just a few classes to be considered:
- heavy bomber
- medium bomber
- light bomber
- attack plane
- ground support plane
- fighter bomber
- recon plane
- air transport
- carrier based bomber
- carrier based fighter
- air superiority fighter
- escort fighter
- interceptor
- sea planes of various purposes

Guess there is a lot more...

There is no "right" opinion, just opinions.<form action="http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums" method="POST" name="VOTE">

JtD
12-03-2006, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am not sure that listening to the sound of cannons firing below was a better way of detecting the lurking Me 110, but that's a certainly a 20/20 hindsight.

Yeah, I bet that happened to about all British 4-engined bombers that went on a night raid all by themselves.

Because, in all other cases, the dudes flying formation with you stand the same chance of spotting and firing at a bandit right under you as you ventral gunner stands.

Ventral gunners FTW!

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
I would be interested to know if a Lancaster Radar Guided rear turret could detect a fighter below and engage it successfully...
he Brit's by using a rear turret ( rather than everyone else except the B24 using a flexible mount ) could cover a lot more sky and thus take on fighters below and behind without needing ventral armament.

What are the firing angles for a Lancaster turret?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Aaron_GT
12-03-2006, 10:17 AM
Even though the illustration is wrong, the point stands. Very few British bombers during the war had defense covering the lower hamisphere. Wheter it was because the 'dustbins' on early designs was an outdated method or the night bombing doctrine on the later ones, it was an ISSUE with their self-defense capabilities. I am sure we can agree at least in that the huge blind spot under belly was everything but not a positive addition to the bomber's survivability.

If the RAF had routinely been operating like the USAAF it would have been a huge disadvantage. Operating at night RAF loss rates were no greater than those of the USAAF. It is arguable, given the issue of actually seeing approaching nightfighters against a dark ground, whether ventral defence would have been that useful. Ventral turrets were deployed, especially on Lancasters, but deleted as they weren't deemed very helpful given the weight and speed penalties. Faster speed was probably of more use, hence the suggestion to remove ALL defensive armament from RAF nightbombers.


I wouldn't think the above reasoning is correct. Firstly, the Wellington et co. had a simple 'dustbin', which was rather draggy, and rather inefficient, quite unlike a true turret,

The dustbin was still a turret, simply not a ball or remotely controlled turret. At the time the dustbin was de rigeur for fully rotatable ventral defence (see Ju 52, etc). By the time ball turrets and remotely controlled turrets (not very useful at night due to even more severe sighting issues) the Wellington was being phased out anyway.


I am not sure that listening to the sound of cannons firing below was a better way of detecting the lurking Me 110, but that's a certainly a 20/20 hindsight.

By this point it was already too late to mount an effective defence. The determination was that defensive fire was more effective if the tail gunner (and the turrets could depress to a degree similar to some Luftwaffe aircraft) saw the nightfighter from a reasonable distance. If not then evasive action was considered more effective than trying to return fire.


The Hampden retained the single pea shooter in the back it had from the start - OK

The dorsal and ventral guns were doubled up to two guns per station, which is at least equal to the ventral defence of most Luftwaffe bombers, so if the RAF had pea shooters....

You do have a point about the He 177 - this was well armed, a bit like the Lincoln (4 50 cals, 2 20mm cannon), which marked the RAF's return to day bombing. By this point, though, the specification for the Canberra had been issues - unarmed jet bombers were the way forward.

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 10:33 AM
All bombers got raped in daylight raids by fighters before long range escorts were available.

No matter how many guns they had defending.

Even the US with its massive defensive firepower on their bombers had to rethink unescorted daylight opertations after schweinfurt.

German bombers got raped in the Battle of Britain even with fighter escort (partly becasue they didnt have any drop taks tho)

British Blenhiems got raped thru 1940-1941 on daylight raids with Spitfire escorts in the early war too. They used to set a few bombers up as 'decoys' with a lot of fighter cover to try and tempt the Luftwaffe up to fight, but as this was the 'FW190 time', both the bombers nad SPitfire V's got hit bad.

Unescorted bombers all though the war were a very bad idea, not just British ones, after all the Lancasters and other heavies had more defensive armament than the average German bombers (He111,Do17,Ju88).

Britain and Germany (in the West) decided to make night bombing work, (using hi tech 'beams', radar and such) the USA decided to make day bombing work by using escorts (P51 came around just at the right time).

No doubt if Britain had a P51 in 1940 or even a Spitfire VIII with drop tanks (Much better range on the Mk VIII), it would have fared better when bombing Germany by day.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Aaron_GT
12-03-2006, 10:36 AM
In the end even to make night bombing work it required escort (or 'bomber support' Mosquitoes)

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In the end even to make night bombing work it required escort (or 'bomber support' Mosquitoes)

I think these were just pathfinders werent they Aaron?
I didnt know that Mosquitos officially 'escorted' (in the classic sense of the word) the Lancs?

How I read it the Mosquitos went in first and dropped different coloured markers on different cities.

Then the main force was told which city and which color marker was the main target.

A few Lancs may come in first and drop 'window' (strips of metal) to jam the German radars.

First wave dropped normal explosive bombs to knock the roofs in and expose the wooden rafters and inside

Second dropped incendries to set alight all the wood and flammable stuff in the buildings.

Additional waves dropped mostly incendries to keep the fire burning and do more damage.



DO you have anything to read on Mosquitos escorting Lancs at night please Aaron? I have never heard of that before.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
I would be interested to know if a Lancaster Radar Guided rear turret could detect a fighter below and engage it successfully...
he Brit's by using a rear turret ( rather than everyone else except the B24 using a flexible mount ) could cover a lot more sky and thus take on fighters below and behind without needing ventral armament.


Didn't the Germans eventually develop a Radar which could detect the Radar in the rear turret of the Lanc?

I think I read somehting about it once.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Aaron_GT
12-03-2006, 10:57 AM
I think these were just pathfinders werent they Aaron?

No, specifically nightfighters to escort. I can't remember which mark of NF it was started with, but it went all the way up to the NF.30 during WW2. Given the relative lack of trade for NFs over the UK it was the major way in which NFs were employed, apart from intruder raids (and often the old NF.II soldiered on in the intruder role).

Aaron_GT
12-03-2006, 10:58 AM
A few Lancs may come in first and drop 'window' (strips of metal) to jam the German radars.

At first it was Mosquitoes that did this. If I hadn't lent out Bowyer & Sharp I could tell you when and which squadron.

DomJScott
12-03-2006, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:Even the US with its massive defensive firepower on their bombers had to rethink unescorted daylight opertations after schweinfurt.

B17 defensive armament if anything was worse than a 0.5" armed Lancaster. By using flexible mounts you need more weapons to cover similar arces to a turret armed aircraft. The FOUR 0.5" rear guns would assist with beam attacks, cover the rear aspect, provide some element of ventral protection ( I believe it's about 120degree's of elevation, 60 degree's either side of horizontal ). the Mid upper turret will put 2 gun's against beam attacks and of course the entire upper quadrant's. (which are all covered by single 0.5's on a '17) and then the front has 2 .303's normally and is similarly protected to a chin turret'd B17. So only ventral protection is worse then a 17. Beam attacks will allways see the fighter targeted by a minimum of 2 0.5's. Attack's against turret armed RAF aircraft would often see the target attacked, often at once, by two turret's.

The best example of this is the attack's by JU88's on Sunderlands. If you read that you'll see several incedents where the 88's where being attacked simultaniously by multiple turret's.

That said all heavy's need an escort, period, in daytime.

@Aaron what are these escorts you speak of?

Aaron_GT
12-03-2006, 10:59 AM
Didn't the Germans eventually develop a Radar which could detect the Radar in the rear turret of the Lanc?

I don't know, but Lancs sometimes carried detectors to detect the LW NF radar.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
12-03-2006, 11:00 AM
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsML.htm

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsRear.htm

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsFront.htm

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsMU.htm<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/1822.jpg

Aaron_GT
12-03-2006, 11:05 AM
B17 defensive armament if anything was worse than a 0.5" armed Lancaster. By using flexible mounts you need more weapons to cover similar arces to a turret armed aircraft. The FOUR 0.5" rear guns would assist with beam attacks, cover the rear aspect, provide some element of ventral protection ( I believe it's about 120degree's of elevation, 60 degree's either side of horizontal ). the Mid upper turret will put 2 gun's against beam attacks and of course the entire upper quadrant's. (which are all covered by single 0.5's on a '17)

I don't entirely agree. The B17 did have (in the E onwards) a twin 50 top turret, a twin 50 ventral turret, a flexible pair of 50s for the rear, and two waist guns (Waist guns were employed on a number of RAF aircraft at various points, notably some Stirlings, Wellingtons, Halifaxes, Sunderlands). Whilst the tail mount was not as good as the later twin 50 Frazer Nash turrets of the Lancaster due to a more limited field of fire and more dispersion, it wasn't entirely useless. It was enough to make the Luftwaffe try frontal attacks where in the F model the B17 did lack serious firepower until remedied with the G. The chin turret had better lower front quadrant protection than the Lancaster (firepower and depression), and could be further supplemented with the ball turret (which the flexible Preston-Green mount in the Lancaster could not do, I am not sure about the field of fire of the Frazer Nash FN.64 remote ventral turret).


The best example of this is the attack's by JU88's on Sunderlands. If you read that you'll see several incedents where the 88's where being attacked simultaniously by multiple turret's.

Some marks of Sunderland carried Vickers K guns waist guns, some carried only mid upper turrets, some both.

hop2002
12-03-2006, 11:08 AM
I don't think because of the losses - those were continously decreasing.

Ie.
August 1940 - ?????? bomber sorties flown, 184 bombers lost to enemy action - ??? % loss rate per sortie.
September 1940 - 11 037 bomber sorties flown, 165 bombers lost to enemy action - 1.49% loss rate per sortie.
October 1940 - 7210 bomber sorties flown, 64 bombers lost to enemy action - 0.80% loss rate per sortie.

Only after October they went to night bombing of the industry via electronic navigational aids, but that's pretty understandable after there was no imminent hurry for 'invasion' ('postponed' already in September) to press the attacks on the RAF.

The losses for August were 7.4% of the 3334 bomber sorties dispatched against Britain.

Incidentally the other figures you quote bear little relation to actual Luftwaffe daylight sorties. September, for example, saw 3093 Luftwaffe bomber sorties against Britain in daylight, with 4.75% losses, according to Ruy Horta, quoting from Die Jagdfliegerverbände der deutschen Luftwaffe 1934 Bis 1945 Teil 4 Teilband I

According to ER Hooton the figures were 4,125 bomber sorties in the day in September, 3,650 at night.

The Luftwaffe switched the main weight of their attack to night time in mid September, from that point onwards the bomber sorties in daylight were drastically reduced.

DomJScott
12-03-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I don't entirely agree. The B17 did have (in the E onwards) a twin 50 top turret, a twin 50 ventral turret, a flexible pair of 50s for the rear, and two waist guns (Waist guns were employed on a number of RAF aircraft at various points, notably some Stirlings, Wellingtons, Halifaxes, Sunderlands). Whilst the tail mount was not as good as the later twin 50 Frazer Nash turrets of the Lancaster due to a more limited field of fire and more dispersion, it wasn't entirely useless. It was enough to make the Luftwaffe try frontal attacks where in the F model the B17 did lack serious firepower until remedied with the G. The chin turret had better lower front quadrant protection than the Lancaster (firepower and depression), and could be further supplemented with the ball turret (which the flexible Preston-Green mount in the Lancaster could not do, I am not sure about the field of fire of the Frazer Nash FN.64 remote ventral turret).

I wasn't aware of the midupper turret of the later model B17's - stand corrected there. In which case the armament for most quadrants was probably pretty similar except lower quadrants.

What is the depression/elevation on the 17's nose? On the Lanc it's 45 down/60 up ( same as rear ).

Interestingly the midupper on a lancy can fire 45 degree's downwards in some aspects. A neet cam system preventing you shooting your own aircraft.

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think because of the losses - those were continously decreasing.

Ie.
August 1940 - ?????? bomber sorties flown, 184 bombers lost to enemy action - ??? % loss rate per sortie.
September 1940 - 11 037 bomber sorties flown, 165 bombers lost to enemy action - 1.49% loss rate per sortie.
October 1940 - 7210 bomber sorties flown, 64 bombers lost to enemy action - 0.80% loss rate per sortie.

Only after October they went to night bombing of the industry via electronic navigational aids, but that's pretty understandable after there was no imminent hurry for 'invasion' ('postponed' already in September) to press the attacks on the RAF.

The losses for August were 7.4% of the 3334 bomber sorties dispatched against Britain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting math - Wood and Dampster notes 184 bombers lost in August to enemy action, in 3334 DL sorties you claim - 5.5%.
I guess this lands the same place where your previous claims about recce missions.


Incidentally the other figures you quote bear little relation to actual Luftwaffe daylight sorties.

September, for example, saw 3093 Luftwaffe bomber sorties against Britain in daylight, with 4.75% losses, according to Ruy Horta, quoting from Die Jagdfliegerverbände der deutschen Luftwaffe 1934 Bis 1945 Teil 4 Teilband I

According to ER Hooton the figures were 4,125 bomber sorties in the day in September, 3,650 at night.

Further prooves my point, the Luftwaffe bomber losses went down continously, using your figures -

3334 DL sorties, 184 bombers lost in August -> 5.5% loss rate
3093 DL sorties, 165 bombers lost on 7215/7775 missions, 2.1-2.2% loss/sortie (4.75% in daylight)
October 1940 - 7210 bomber sorties flown, 64 bombers lost to enemy action - 0.80% loss rate per sortie.

It appears that LW bomber and fighter losses, both per missions flown and both in absolute numbers, were continously going down. RAF losses went up. I do wonder, are critics of Goering are right after, for it appears he found the correct tactic of overwhelming escorts for the bombers, attacking a target the RAF could not ignore.


The Luftwaffe switched the main weight of their attack to night time in mid September, from that point onwards the bomber sorties in daylight were drastically reduced.

Wood and Dempster notes 7210 bomber sorties flown still in October. Only 64 bombers were lost.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Didn't the Germans eventually develop a Radar which could detect the Radar in the rear turret of the Lanc?

I don't know, but Lancs sometimes carried detectors to detect the LW NF radar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Off the top of my head, there were two passive radars developed by the Germans. These being passive, did not emit signals at all, just picked up the signals from Allied active radars - they would not give away the night fighters position.
The codenames were 'Naxos' and 'Flensburg'.

One picked the radar signals of the RAF heavies 'Monica' tail warning radar. The other homed onto the H2S ground mapping radar.

These passive radar sets were quite usuful, it would lead the Nachjäger onto it's prey from some 150 km.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 11:44 AM
I dont htink toomany Lancs actually had the .50 armament did they?

Plus on that site which LowFlyer posted (Thanks mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif it says that the 4 303's were replaced with 2x.50's.

Not very much when you are faced with 2x20mm and 4x.303 or maybe even Mk108 from a German nightfighter.

I am quite sure that B17's had much better defense than the Lancaster. After all, this is what it was built to be a 'self defending bomber'.

The Lancaster was more focussed on massive bomb loads than defense.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

DomJScott
12-03-2006, 11:45 AM
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/range.jpg

Interesting.. a Lancaster could fly WAY past the bulk of Germany with a Grandslam, and was only about 600miles short of a B29 with 7000lb's on board.

DomJScott
12-03-2006, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Didn't the Germans eventually develop a Radar which could detect the Radar in the rear turret of the Lanc?

I don't know, but Lancs sometimes carried detectors to detect the LW NF radar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they did but it wasn't good enough to target an aircraft just hint at the location of a bomber stream.

JtD
12-03-2006, 11:53 AM
Admittedly, I learned one thing from this topic. Germany actually won the BoB. Good to know.

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 11:56 AM
From what I have read, the Germans could actually home into the radar at one point in the war, thus the warning radar was actually giving away the bombers position.

Luckily for the RAF, unlucky for the LW, it was discovered not to long after when a German Nightfighter was shotdown over England. The RAF were back to square one and using their eyes again<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 12:00 PM
Here we go , 'Monica' and 'Flemsburg'

The Tech War Between Britain and Germany:-

'When the RAF deployed a tail warning radar named "Monica" on their bombers in June 1943 as a means of warning the pilot that an attacker was on his tail, the Germans quickly invented a device named "Flensburg" to home in on Monica emissions. This was particularly ironic, since Monica had been so prone to false alarms due to other bombers in the stream that it was of little use in the first place.


Interesting detailed reading on the Measures and Counteremeasures developed by each side in the Night war :-

http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz9.html

Funny quote :-

For a time after the introduction of Window, RAF Bomber Command conducted night raids over Germany with relative impunity. Field Marshal Erhard Milch, in charge of German aircraft procurement, commented: "I am beginning to think that we are sitting on a limb, and the British are sawing that limb off."

Hermann Goering was disgusted. "In the field of radar they must have the world's greatest genius. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops ... The British would have never dared use the metal foil here if they had not worked out 100% what the antidote it. I hate the rogues like the plague, but in one respect I'm obliged to take off my cap to them. After the war's over, I'm going to buy myself a British radio set, as a token of my regard for their high-frequency work." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


He was dead wrong of course, both sides developed ingenious measures and countermeasures against the other all throught he war.


More interesting reading on the Night bombing campaign :-

http://www.ww2guide.com/britishb.shtml<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

DomJScott
12-03-2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
From what I have read, the Germans could actually home into the radar at one point in the war, thus the warning radar was actually giving away the bombers position.

Luckily for the RAF, unlucky for the LW, it was discovered not to long after when a German Nightfighter was shotdown over England. The RAF were back to square one and using their eyes again

I don't think it was the radar but the jamming equipment used for Jamming German radar.. they discontinued it's use but in fact they didn't really need to because it wasn't accurate enough to home in on the bomber sufficient to kill the bomber ( and given your radar is being jammed you can't use that to finish the job ).

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 12:11 PM
As a matter of fact, Düppel (=Window, as the Germans called it) was a known procedure to the Germans when the British first used it. The Germans didn't up to that point, preferring to keep it secret, as obviously it would help the British more once they'd learn about it. (see Goering's concerns above).

After it was first used by the RAF over Hamburg, there were no more such concenrns and both sides happily covered each others the countryside with alumium foils. After a while, however Window was neutralised as radar crews got used to it, selectable frequencies were introduced etc. Experienced nighfighters would soon know wheter the vectored night bomber's crew was a newbie one.. the green ones usually dropped Window once in a while, effectively leaving a 'bloodtrail' after themselves.. one just had to follow the nice, large signals from the 'Window' clouds until visual ID...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 12:13 PM
Yes in fact it says on that page that the Germans were so sure that the British would have a countermeasure to it, that they did not use it.

In fact they did not have acountermeasure at all.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsML.htm

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsRear.htm

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsFront.htm

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsMU.htm

Thanks m8. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yes in fact it says on that page that the Germans were so sure that the British would have a countermeasure to it, that they did not use it.

In fact they did not have acountermeasure at all.

As a matter of fact - no-one today has either AFAIK. 'Chaff' is still used.

@Aaron,

Fair comments, I don't think I want to argue much over them, expect maybe on the dustbin vs. turret thing, ie. the former is open -> slipstream being an issue.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
12-03-2006, 12:23 PM
The British held off from using window as they were concerned about inspiring the Germans with such a simple idea.

It was all to do with the length of the aluminium strips in question.

Throughout the war (particularly in the field of electronic countermeasures) both sides relied on the other providing a working example of their latest technology. This in turn delayed the appearance of many pieces of equipment for fear of it falling intact into enemy hands.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/1822.jpg

DomJScott
12-03-2006, 12:49 PM
AHA!!! I KNEW it wasnt' the radar controlled turret..

Monica was a rear facing radar but purely for giving warning of approaching aircraft.

Village Inn was the turret and AFAIK wasn't used as a homing device by the germans.

H2S was used to help warn for Ventral attacks btw.

MB_Avro_UK
12-03-2006, 12:49 PM
hi all,

I've enjoyed reading this thread and have become a little wiser http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Great contributions, and at times lively but analysis of history is always debatable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It's a pity that the politicians didn't have to fly both day and night missions.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Aaron_GT
12-03-2006, 01:08 PM
Fair comments, I don't think I want to argue much over them, expect maybe on the dustbin vs. turret thing, ie. the former is open -> slipstream being an issue.

Fair point. It was a draughty turret :-)

JtD
12-04-2006, 09:47 AM
Even though the discussion didn't quite go the way I had hoped for, I thank you all for the participation in the poll.

We have half the board voting for US, one third for UK and the rest is undecided between Latvia, Greece and Bulgaria.

Good to know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

reisen52
12-04-2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
The Brit's by using a rear turret ( rather than everyone else except the B24 using a flexible mount ) could cover a lot more sky and thus take on fighters below and behind without needing ventral armament.

Mid model B-17G's were equipped with the optical gun sight Cheyenne turret, which is named for the facility that made the first installations of this turret.

The older tail guns used a ring and bead sight and had limited range of motion.

Aaron_GT
12-04-2006, 11:32 AM
mid model B-17G's were equipped with the optical gun sight Cheyenne turret, which is named for the facility that made the first installations of this turret.

I think DomJScott's talking about the relatively small field of fire from the tail turret in the B17G as compared to the Lancaster et al, not the sighting, but I see what you are getting at. I still suspect the Lancaster's rear turret probably had a better range of motion overall, but then Lancasters were not protected by a combat box, nor close escort.

DomJScott
12-04-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">mid model B-17G's were equipped with the optical gun sight Cheyenne turret, which is named for the facility that made the first installations of this turret.

I think DomJScott's talking about the relatively small field of fire from the tail turret in the B17G as compared to the Lancaster et al, not the sighting. The Cheyenne was better than perviously, but still down on the typical RAF turret, but the B24's turret was pretty much equal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep was talking about the range of motion of the rear weaponry not the sighting ability. Doesn't matter how good your sighting is if you can't actually move your weapon to target the aircraft.

Aaron_GT
12-04-2006, 11:38 AM
I saw what reisen was getting at and edited my post a bit.

DomJScott
12-04-2006, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I saw what reisen was getting at and edited my post a bit.
Granted about the protection although of course they had the cover of night. Would be interesting to see how good lancy's would have been combat boxes.

ryankm
12-04-2006, 07:40 PM
America had the best heavey bomber of the war hands down. HAs everyone forgot fatmAN AND LITTLE BOY

SkyChimp
12-04-2006, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by ryankm:
America had the best heavey bomber of the war hands down. HAs everyone forgot fatmAN AND LITTLE BOY

You know those were bombs, not bombers? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

GreyFox5
12-04-2006, 11:02 PM
Cool!

Kinda looks like a VW thing.

Nice bike. I saw a Harley WWII bike at an airshow once and another one at Pensacola NAS.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/GreyFox5/HDMILITARYWLAL_600.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/GreyFox5/Il2-009.jpg
Check your "6" M8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HotelBushranger
12-04-2006, 11:10 PM
Nice...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/fokkerdxximodel3ds_Sig.jpg
You can have no idea just how hostile aircraft can be until they come to your area...
Aircraft which strafe or bomb your positions should be regarded with suspicion, if not deep mistrust. Aircraft which bomb and strafe your position and wear a red circle should certainly be regarded with deep mistrust. In fact, the deeper the better. A six-foot-deep slit trench is an ideal place from which to mistrust them...
Australian soldier VX116124
www.magnum-pc.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com) Be sure.

The-Pizza-Man
12-04-2006, 11:12 PM
My grandad used to say that he wished the entire German army rode motorbikes because they were forever crashing and killing themselves on them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg

HotelBushranger
12-04-2006, 11:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That reminds me of a story I read.

A bunch of Australian prisoners were getting transported back from the lines on German trucks, when a whole motorcade of Italians on motorbikes came by, going the opposite direction. The CO of the Italians, upon noticing the prisoners were Australian, proceeded to give them a gesture, which involved snapping the left arm down on the right elbow, as the right forearm came up. Well the CO did it, then the whole motorcade, then one wobbled, then another, then they all crashed into each other, about 100 bikes. The Aussies and Germans looked at each other and burst out laughing, forgetting about the war for a few precious seconds.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/fokkerdxximodel3ds_Sig.jpg
You can have no idea just how hostile aircraft can be until they come to your area...
Aircraft which strafe or bomb your positions should be regarded with suspicion, if not deep mistrust. Aircraft which bomb and strafe your position and wear a red circle should certainly be regarded with deep mistrust. In fact, the deeper the better. A six-foot-deep slit trench is an ideal place from which to mistrust them...
Australian soldier VX116124
www.magnum-pc.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com) Be sure.

SithSpeeder
12-05-2006, 08:44 AM
OMG, LOL...that's really funny if it's true.

* _54th_Speeder *<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/~ijhutch/_images/360x200signew.jpg (http://www.fiftyfourth.com/)
Also, my personal webspace dedicated to WW2 Combat Flight simming can be found at:
simace.com (http://www.simace.com/)

BSS_AIJO
12-05-2006, 08:47 AM
sweet!

Yes, the kubelvagen and the thing are pretty close to the same *thing* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Back when I was in college there was one that was perpetually for sale next door to Mitchell Field here in Milwaukee. I coveted it muchly.. Back then I was driving a 69 beetle with a number of *um* upgrades. They origonally came with 40 horse engines, by the time I was done mine was around 120, and still weighed nothing. I used to get alot of enjoyment pulling up next to someone who thought they could out accelerate me from a stop and then blowing them away. Problem was I never got to really experiance the top speed because after about 90 miles per hourse the front end would start bobbling like a p51 in game. Useing the handbrake to pull 90 degree turns out of nowhere was also fun for me and not fun for the passengers. I really miss the good old days with my Air cooled bug. That car was too much fun for its own good.. 8^)

VW's are Uber

BSS_AIJO<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"I know that Stalin and Voroshilov are clever, sensible men and I can't understand how they were led to this idiotic war. What do we need cold, dark Finland for anyway?"