Unusual Facts about Planes.
Discussion
Movies4Men have been showing some cracking documentary films about WWII fighters and bombers recently and there have some fascinating facts mentioned that I'd never heard before. Given the level knowledge on here I thought I'd start a thread that I enjoy reading:
So, my interesting facts.
So, my interesting facts.
- When the P-47 arrived in the UK, the standing joke by RAF pilots was that the best way the P-47 pilot could avoid enemy fire was to unstrap and dodge around inside the airframe.
- The leading US fighter ace flew a P-38
- The P-38 was used as an air ambulance, using modified drop tanks with clear perspex noses.
- The Mosquito had a bigger bomb load by weight than the B17. Which given the tiny losses incurred by the Mosquito does make you wonder it would have been a far more effective strategic bomber than the B-17, in terms of accuracy of strike and loss of life??
In theory, the Mossie would have been better but
a) it was British
b) the US had committed to large scale production of more conventional heavy bombers such as the B-17 and B-24 and had also set up massive training programmes to train the crews. B-17s and B-24s were manufactured and assembled by many, many dozens of large factories under sub-contract and hundreds of smaller componenent manufacturers. Cancelling all those contracts and bringing in new companies would have been a massive interruption to what was already in existence
Once such huge projects are under way it would take a very brave and possibly foolhardy decision to cancel and change tack.
One of the great achievements of the US in WW2 was the harnassing of its industrial potential to churn out the weapons and equipment needed to win the war. Changing course every time the "next great thing" appeared on the horizon could have been disastrous. In some way, this temptation to switch to someting "new and shiny" on a whim was what hampered German mass production.
Some Mossies were manufactured in Canada but there were safety and quality control issues surrounduing the Canadian production. For its time, the Mossie was new technology and it took a while for those involved in making them to get the construction techniques correct.
a) it was British
b) the US had committed to large scale production of more conventional heavy bombers such as the B-17 and B-24 and had also set up massive training programmes to train the crews. B-17s and B-24s were manufactured and assembled by many, many dozens of large factories under sub-contract and hundreds of smaller componenent manufacturers. Cancelling all those contracts and bringing in new companies would have been a massive interruption to what was already in existence
Once such huge projects are under way it would take a very brave and possibly foolhardy decision to cancel and change tack.
One of the great achievements of the US in WW2 was the harnassing of its industrial potential to churn out the weapons and equipment needed to win the war. Changing course every time the "next great thing" appeared on the horizon could have been disastrous. In some way, this temptation to switch to someting "new and shiny" on a whim was what hampered German mass production.
Some Mossies were manufactured in Canada but there were safety and quality control issues surrounduing the Canadian production. For its time, the Mossie was new technology and it took a while for those involved in making them to get the construction techniques correct.
rhinochopig said:
* The Mosquito had a bigger bomb load by weight than the B17. Which given the tiny losses incurred by the Mosquito does make you wonder it would have been a far more effective strategic bomber than the B-17, in terms of accuracy of strike and loss of life??
Mosqutoes did incur smaller losses but compared to the 'heavies' they were relatively few in number and were much used at night. The US would never have adopted the Mosquito, even if it was better, because they didn't make it.Accuracy of strike was more to do with height not aircraft - Mosquitos have a reputation for being accurate (eg Amien http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jericho) but that was very difficult, low-level work probably beyond the average squadron pilot. Pathfinder Mosquitos were flown by crack crews.
Sadly if the Amiens raid was carried out today the RAF would only be pilloried for killing some of the prisoners, friendly fire yada
One of Russia's top aces during WWII - Alexander Pokryshkin achieved most of his kills while flying a P39 Aircobra. He had the trigger button modified so that when pressed he would fire the 37mm cannon and the two .50 caliber machine guns at once. German aircraft would desintegrate upon impact...
Eric Mc said:
Once such huge projects are under way it would take a very brave and possibly foolhardy decision to cancel and change tack.
One of the great achievements of the US in WW2 was the harnassing of its industrial potential to churn out the weapons and equipment needed to win the war. Changing course every time the "next great thing" appeared on the horizon could have been disastrous. In some way, this temptation to switch to someting "new and shiny" on a whim was what hampered German mass production.
Hence why we perserved with the Sherman (albeit up-gunned) when the Germans and Russians were bring out newer and better models. It may have taken 5 Shermans to knock out a German tank but we had 10 to every 1 of theirs......industrial war becomes a numbers game, which is of little comfort to the boys in the Sherman coming up against a Tiger.One of the great achievements of the US in WW2 was the harnassing of its industrial potential to churn out the weapons and equipment needed to win the war. Changing course every time the "next great thing" appeared on the horizon could have been disastrous. In some way, this temptation to switch to someting "new and shiny" on a whim was what hampered German mass production.
Eric Mc said:
Absolutely.
The US and British aircraft industry were churning out essentially obsolete designs right up to the surrender of tyhe Japanese. As soon as the war was over, most of the inventory went straight to the scrapyards - some directly off the production lines.
Necessity is the mother of all invention......the Germans needed jet fighters to combat allied bomber formations. We didn't as we were content with sending up thousands of Mustangs and Thunderbolts. Hence the German jet fighters being more advanced and introduced earlier than ours. Had the Germans introduced jet fighters in numbers in '42, then we would have had to respond quicker.The US and British aircraft industry were churning out essentially obsolete designs right up to the surrender of tyhe Japanese. As soon as the war was over, most of the inventory went straight to the scrapyards - some directly off the production lines.
TEKNOPUG said:
Necessity is the mother of all invention......the Germans needed jet fighters to combat allied bomber formations. We didn't as we were content with sending up thousands of Mustangs and Thunderbolts. Hence the German jet fighters being more advanced and introduced earlier than ours. Had the Germans introduced jet fighters in numbers in '42, then we would have had to respond quicker.
So to paraphrase, when you're losing, you have to introduce new technology which slows your production so you lose even faster!Simpo Two said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Necessity is the mother of all invention......the Germans needed jet fighters to combat allied bomber formations. We didn't as we were content with sending up thousands of Mustangs and Thunderbolts. Hence the German jet fighters being more advanced and introduced earlier than ours. Had the Germans introduced jet fighters in numbers in '42, then we would have had to respond quicker.
So to paraphrase, when you're losing, you have to introduce new technology which slows your production so you lose even faster!Simpo Two said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Necessity is the mother of all invention......the Germans needed jet fighters to combat allied bomber formations. We didn't as we were content with sending up thousands of Mustangs and Thunderbolts. Hence the German jet fighters being more advanced and introduced earlier than ours. Had the Germans introduced jet fighters in numbers in '42, then we would have had to respond quicker.
So to paraphrase, when you're losing, you have to introduce new technology which slows your production so you lose even faster!TEKNOPUG said:
Necessity is the mother of all invention......the Germans needed jet fighters to combat allied bomber formations. We didn't as we were content with sending up thousands of Mustangs and Thunderbolts. Hence the German jet fighters being more advanced and introduced earlier than ours. Had the Germans introduced jet fighters in numbers in '42, then we would have had to respond quicker.
The main problem was Hitler insisting the Me262 was a fighter bomber... if it had been available in large numbers as a fighter in 42-43, the Aliied strategic bombing raids would have been decimated
foilist said:
The main problem was Hitler insisting the Me262 was a fighter bomber... if it had been available in large numbers as a fighter in 42-43, the Aliied strategic bombing raids would have been decimated
I believe that was because he felt attacking ground forces was more important than attacking bombers. I guess what he didn't reckon on was the mass and non-stop day/night bombing campaign.And of course we had the Meteor quite early on but didn't seem to do much with it apart from shoot down V1s.
TEKNOPUG said:
Simpo Two said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Necessity is the mother of all invention......the Germans needed jet fighters to combat allied bomber formations. We didn't as we were content with sending up thousands of Mustangs and Thunderbolts. Hence the German jet fighters being more advanced and introduced earlier than ours. Had the Germans introduced jet fighters in numbers in '42, then we would have had to respond quicker.
So to paraphrase, when you're losing, you have to introduce new technology which slows your production so you lose even faster!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff