Tony WilliamsThe first point has rather been hashed to death I think, though worth bearing in mind. The second is news to me. Who? Where? Not ‘Them’ who control ‘it all’ was it? Unlike ‘us’ who can be trusted with a whelk stall. :rolleyes:
Can’t give you the details I’m afraid…it was a news item I saw some time ago, complete with ‘before’ and ‘after’ pics. My ageing brain cells don’t retain such details for long…
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony Williamsif you’re interested in ‘What Ifs’ for the RN in the 1970s, this might interest you…
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Alternative%20RN.htm
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsTony WilliamsTony WilliamsAll bombers were overrated before the war; it was widely believed that ‘the bomber will always get through’ and that they would bring catastrophic destruction which would rapidly end any war.
The issue here is surely whether any of the bombers are still overrated today, for reasons of national pride, nostalgia or whatever.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony Williams‘Overrated’ is a difficult one, since most bad designs were known to be bad designs at the time, so not rated highly. For something to be overrated, it would have to have an undeservedly good reputation.
So I’ll stick my head out and nominate the Lancaster. Simply because the Mosquito was a far more efficient way of delivering bombs to Germany. Had it been possible, an all-Mosquito night-bombing force could have delivered the same tonnage at far less cost in lives and materiel. The one advantange held by the Lanc was its ability to carry super-heavy bombs, but delivering those formed a tiny fraction of BC’s effort.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsHurricanes had 40mm Oerlikon cannons mounted to them…can’t say I ever saw a Spit with them also. I’m a fan of the Hurricane also.
Not Oerlikons, please – Vickers Class S guns. 🙁
The Hurricane IID and IV versions which carried these guns were chosen for the ground attack role primarily because they weren’t needed as fighters any more. Much the same could be said of the Typhoon, which was a failure at its designed role as a fighter. The Spitfire was the premier RAF fighter so was generally reserved for that role. There was no reason why it couldn’t have carried the 40mm guns if there had been a need.
The 40mm Hurricanes were effective planes, capable of accurate shooting, but the guns weren’t powerful enough to deal with Tigers and they proved very vulnerable to both enemy fighters and ground fire (one squadron once lost half its planes on a sortie), so they were withdrawn from N Africa.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsThis leads me back to the Hurricane. Someone claimed it was overrated…..all I have to ask is what are you smoking? If you think the Hurricane was overrated, then you need to read some books and magazines. The Hurricane gets little to no mention when the Spitfire is part of discussion. It doesn’t get nearly the credit it deserves (and I’m not just talking about the Battle of Britain).
As I’ve said twice already, it was invaluable in the BoB. It shot down twice as many planes as the Spitfire in that fight (there were twice as many Hurricanes available) but it also suffered higher loss rates.
However, the BoB was its finest hour, and even then its performance was inferior to the Spitfire or the Bf 109. After that, it fell steadily behind because it did not have the same development potential.
I read many books (as well as writing them) and you should read the view of the Russians, who flew various British and American as well as Russian planes. They felt that the Hurricane was the worst, not really fit for combat. The Finns agreed – and reckoned that the Hurricane was the Russian-flown fighter which was easiest to shoot down.
If it hadn’t been for the BoB, the Hurricane would today only be remembered as a transitional type, soon replaced by the much superior Spitfire.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsThis belief that the Nazis had developed all sorts of super-technology (which if only the war had lasted a little longer would have turned the tables and brought them world domination) still forms a little subculture of its own. I find it quite intriguing, since when you look closely at any particular item it falls apart. Take the Sanger hypervelocity bomber, for instance. I no longer have the link, but I read that a senior US officer reported at the end of the war that this was within 6 months of posing a threat. In fact, the Russians took over the whole project, worked on it for many years then gave it up as inherently unworkable.
I suspect the reason may partly be that the German scientists ‘talked up’ the war-winning potential of their projects in order to be left alone to get on with them, since the alternative was to be handed a rifle and sent to the Eastern Front. That doesn’t explain why people have been so gullible about the claims since the war, though.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsI agree about the .50. Those interested in the subject of WW2 fighter armament should take a look at my website, there’s an article examining this in detail. Incidentally, the Luftwaffe’s switch from 15mm to 20mm happened in 1941, long before they had heavy bombers to deal with – they just found the 20mm generally so much more destructive. The heavy bombers needed 30mm…
The fact that the Spitfire XIV – and equally the Fw 190D-9, and to a lesser extent the P-51D – are rated so highly is simply that there was nothing better; it doesn’t mean that they were perfect, just the furthest that WW2 prop fighter technology could be pushed.
As for overrated, I have already mentioned the Hurricane – yes, it was invaluable in the Battle of Britain but had no development potential and became obsolescent as a fighter almost immediately afterwards. It was put to use as a fighter-bomber largely because (like the Typhoon) they had the production lines running and had to use it for something.
I would also propose the Heinkel He 219 Uhu. This night-fighter has been credited with almost mystical powers, but when you look into it the performance was no great shakes and the spectacular kill claims were I understand extremely dubious.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsTony WilliamsIsn’t the belt of 20mm bullets alongside its fuselage very funerable to AAA and such? Or is it armour plated or reinforced?
Why didn’t they go for the bullet housing of the AH-1? Too much drag? Or just no room?
Probably because the nose gun was something of an afterthought (it wasn’t originally fitted) so the installation wasn’t integrated into the design.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsI have some magazine items about this.The Forteam Times did a good feature on this,last year I think.Anyway,discs started in Nazi Germany before the war.They had a fan on top & the sucking motion pulled air down over the sides & underneath.According to a TV show,the build up of air caused the disc to rise.The research continued during the war & production was concentrated in occupied Czeskoslovakia.
At the end of the war,the USA & USSR raced to capture Germany first & both captured varying amounts of German.The USA got most of the disc “Fliegende untertasse” technology & spent the 1940’s & 50’s copying it.Where do you think hovercraft technology came from?
Since then,little is known of what stage disc technology reached.Most likely,it explains many UFO sightings!
The hovercraft came from Christopher Cockerell, a British inventor, and used an entirely different principle to the one you describe.
If a flying disc had advantages, the skies would be full of them.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsEric Brown rates the late-model Mustang quite highly as a fighting machine (albeit not as highly as his beloved Spit XIV or the Dora-9).
The problem with such general questions is that it depends on the timescale and the scenario. You could argue (at a safe distance from its fans!) that the Hurricane was overrated because despite being one of the new generation of monoplanes, the same vintage as the Bf 109, it quickly became outclassed as a fighter so had a very short effective life. However, that short life happened to include the BoB, which was its moment in history.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsI rather enjoyed one story I read about the Beaufighter. When they were quite new in service, many pilots found their landing characteristics rather difficult to cope with so smooth landings were rare. One squadron in particular severely criticised the plane on these grounds, claiming that no-one could land it smoothly. One day, while the pilots were hanging around outside, a Beau came in to land – and performed a perfect touchdown. The pilots, deeply impressed, went to see which ace was visiting them. Out from the plane hopped – a female ferry pilot! After that, no-one complained again…
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Sign In
