Placing the Fairey Battle.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Graham, would you mind letting us know the CORRECT CMN data? After all, mr. Brown was personally involved in those CMN tests so he supposedly knows what he is talking about.

As for the 20,000 ft: it is because Mason gives the data for this altitude.

[Graham Boak]

Re P-39. I suggest you raise this as a separate thread. A very interesting subject. The effectiveness of the Typhoon is well recorded - see Nick's postings - and accounts of the battle of Mortain (?), amongst others.

Re Critical Mach Number: I refer you to Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag, which presents the equation of the curve defining this parameter, and how the results from a wide range of aircraft fit closely on it. I forget the chapter/page number, or quite where I placed my copy of the relevant pages (I don't own a copy of the book, unfortunately). If I get the time, and remember, I'll look for it tonight, but I think I'm on family ferrying duty.

[Juha]

Jukka
AFDU seems to have thought that the Tempest V was a great improvement on the Typhoon IB.
See http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...mpestafdu.html

Juha

[Graham Boak]

Without knowing the Pressure Error Correction it is impossible to be certain, but it looks as though the Tempest had an critical mach of 0.9 or higher, which seems to be fairly equivalent to the Spitfire with a similarly slim wing. That's assuming no safety margin was applied - but if there was, then that's a remarkable figure.

There's no doubt the Typhoon would be unable to get anywhere near that with its thick wing: even Mustangs and Me 262s only get to 0.84 or thereabouts.

Incidentally, if you follow the links you'll find that the RAF considered the Typhoon and Tempest to have very similar turning circles, whereas the USAAF pilot considered the Typhoon significantly superior. An indication of the problems in using comments from a single pilot and/or a single flight.

[Steve49]

Graham, It wasn't my intention to suggest the Skua's should have done better, rather to point out even dive-bombers of the 1940's were not that accurate. Lets not forget the cruiser was alongside a quay at the time of the attack.

As for the BC attack I guess the reported 'two squadrons' relates to 12 Wellingtons (from 9 and 115 Sqn) and 12 Hampdens (from 50 Sqn) launched on a general anti-shipping strike in the Bergen area on the afternoon of the 9th (not the next day). Not clear how many of the aircraft actually attacked the cruiser, as some attacked nearby shipping, 50 Sqn claiming one vessel sunk (though none appear to have actually been lost). The lack of success was hardly surprising considering the aircraft used and the limited training in this type of mission.

There is no denying that dive-bombers in the face of limited air defence offered a better weapons platform for 'precision' attacks and the failure to provide dedicated ground attack aircraft hampered the Allied forces in the first half of the war. The fact that squadrons of Cannon/bomb armed Hurricanes/Spitfires were the only aircraft available to support the ground forces during Dieppe raid in 1942, is a case in point. They suffered heavy losses to flak whilst providing little effect support. It is a fact that unprepared as they were, most parts of non-Axis world suffered painful lessons as they tried to catch-up and even the vaunted Red Army only survived to learn its lessons through trading land and at a terrible cost.

Imperfect though the Typoon may have been, to suggest that a dedicated ground attack aircraft would have been any less vunerable to flak is questionable. And in the absense of a fighter arm, by 1944/45 flak was the only reliable weapon available to the Germans.

Regards,

Steve

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Steve49

The lack of success was hardly surprising considering the aircraft used and the limited training in this type of mission.
Steve

There seems to be a pattern.

Information is provided to justify a statement that has been questioned.

The comment comes back that the information is "not surprising".

I find that surprising.

[Steve49]

'tcolvin', to quote me out off context is fine, but did you bother to read the post. If you had you would have noticed that I was agreeing that for a 1940's 'precision' attack dive-bombers would probably have offered the most accurate platform. All I was questioning was the use of the sweeping statement that Bomber Command 'failed' to sink the cruiser as a means of supporting your dive-bomber crusade. Using the failure of two squadrons that were not even specifically attacking the KONINGSBERG as evidence hardly supports the claim in itself.

Regards,

Steve

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Steve49

'tcolvin', to quote me out off context is fine, but did you bother to read the post. If you had you would have noticed that I was agreeing that for a 1940's 'precision' attack dive-bombers would probably have offered the most accurate platform. All I was questioning was the use of the sweeping statement that Bomber Command 'failed' to sink the cruiser as a means of supporting your dive-bomber crusade. Using the failure of two squadrons that were not even specifically attacking the KONINGSBERG as evidence hardly supports the claim in itself.

Regards,

Steve

BC dropped 30 bombs on the Koenigsberg and missed. The FAA Skuas sank it. In my book it is evidence for the claim that BC lacked competence.

But if this doesn't do it for reasons which you give but I cannot understand, please explain what evidence would convince you that a country's bombing force was incompetent. Let's ignore the divebomber versus level bomber debate, which you agree was decided in favour of the divebomber.

Would you accept the following as evidence that a country's bombers were incompetent in contrast with another country.

Two aircraft of country X surprised warship Z and dropped bombs on it, causing extensive damage and killing 31 sailors and wounding 74. The ship had to abandon its mission and return to the shipyard for repairs. The two attacking aircraft returned unharmed to base.

Ten aircraft of country Y surprised warship Z and dropped bombs causing negligible damage. The ship remained on station. Five of the attacking aircraft were shot down.

Would you say this was evidence that country Y's bombers were incompetent, or would you say that their failure was not surprising?
Contrastingly, would you say that Country X's bombers were outstanding, or would you say that their success was unsurprising?

By the way, this is no whatif.

Tony

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by Juha

Jukka
AFDU seems to have thought that the Tempest V was a great improvement on the Typhoon IB.
See http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...mpestafdu.html

Juha

Did you read the report carefully for it compares a 3-bladed+ old style canopy Typhoon to the Tempest while I compared 4-bladed+bubble canopy Typhoon to the Tempest. The 4-blade prop improved the Typhoon´s speed by 10 mph.

[Kutscha]

I have to ask, was the P-47 a failed fighter, for it to was transferred to ground pounding duties?