Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Era of unease in greater body armor, aircraft detail.

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>
  • To: WarrenSmith AT PalmettoBuilders.net, homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Era of unease in greater body armor, aircraft detail.
  • Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:44:23 -0700

Warren F. Smith wrote:

Just a question here...
Why didn't we wait til we had P-51's or Corsairs or Avengers?


TVO wrote:

"flying helpless P-26's against Japanese Zeroes"




TVO wrote:

"flying helpless P-26's against Japanese Zeroes"


tvoivozhd---wrong question.. We didn't have anything else in WWII, Philippines---the Jap Air Force attacked the Philippine bases, nothing but P-26's to send up against them, even though it turned out to be suicide.
Let me add a more accurate question---why did the Roman Legions go into battle without the tall, curved shields, carrying only the Roman Short Sword (Gladius)

Answer, they didn't, that means, Dear Watson, it never happened and would never have happened.

In all recorded U.S. combat forces history, BUSH AND BUSH ONLY EVER SENT ANY TROOPS INTO COMBAT WITHOUT BODY ARMOR. I hope a fool and his presidency is soon parted.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/tactics.html (Roman, Byzantine, Saracen tactics)

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/leg-equip.html (Roman Legion battle-dress, including the long, semi-round shield---equivalent of U.S. Forces body armor in Iraq.

On carriers we started out with F4's. Not a good match for Zeroes, but did a fair job because our pilot's were better trained. Our kill-ratio went up sharply when F-6's arrived in short order--something like loss of 300 F-6's against 6000 Zero losses. The Navy initially turned down Corsairs---poor pilot landing visibility outweighed all else on pitching, plunging, rolling flight deck. Black Sheep Squadron rescued them operating off non-naval airstrips and restored Corsair credibility late in the war, though they remained largely a Marine specialty.

No relationship to Iraq. We had plenty of body armor, armored Humvees---could have shipped them from German bases, or simply sent in what troops we had with body armor and armored Humvees, held back unarmed troops until armor arrived---unarmed troops are of little use in battle, why deliberately kill them ?

Body armor is not a high-tech thing---anyone can make uniforms with big pockets. Any half-ass metalworking shop can make body armor plates to drop or sew in the pockets. We have enough depleted uranium to cover the earth three feet deep.
If the P-51 could go from concept to flight in 120 days, so can easier-to-make body armor. Hell, Kaiser Shipyards cut the Liberty-Ship building cycle down to four days and a few hours when they wanted to. Do you think a few plates of body armor are such a herculean task they could not be made in four days? Na-a-ah, no sense of urgency from the Safe-In-A-Soft-Bed Guy

Review of WWII aircraft, U.S. and Japanese as below published:


http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f4f_wildcat.html (F4F Wildcat) I don't know where it would be mentioned, but the Zero rolled left like lightning, but right very sluggishly due to engine-torque opposing a right roll in a very light airframe---a weakness that could be exploited by the F4F which rolled equally well in either direction.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f6f_hellcat.html (the 1943 F6F was a demon in the air, superior in all respects to the Zero---later U.S. aircraft were cream on the U.S. air combat cake in the Pacific)

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html (the first U.S. combat airplane I flew. I really liked it below 15,000 feet---it was useless at higher altitudes. Had to be careful in a dive---it was so aerodynamically-clean you would quickly hit compressibility---the sound-speed barrier, and "tumble" out of control, hard or impossible to recover at low altitude. But the 37 mm cannon was wonderful against enemy aircraft within its altitude limits---point and shoot, no converging cone of fire to calculate.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p38_lightning.html (one of my favorite airplanes, since I graduated from advanced flying school as a multi-engine rated pilot, I learned to appreciate redundancy in engines---crashed eight single-engine aircraft, and only one P-38, that due to electric prop governors that ran away, Hamilton Standard hydraulic governors (stolen from Jacobs wind-generators seen on numerous 1930's farms) would not run away unless their oil-supply was shot away.

The P-38 would not turn a tight circle, would not roll fast enough to cope with a fast-rolling Zero, so no U.S. pilot attempted to do so. Faster P-38 attacks were always made from above, hit and run, then fly off, climb, turn around and do it again and Zeroes were lunchmeat. Pleasant plane to fly, take-off and landing speed a little over 70 knots, but bailing out unless inverted was near-suicide, pilot body bouncing off horizontal stabilizer or chute entangled on it. Not a notable accomplishment, but I was first person to fly over Mount Everest. Used a P-38, was unable to do so with a Northrop Black Widow (P-61) in an earlier attempt. The exhaust-driven superchargers (not existing in a P-39), let the engines produce almost as much power at 40,000 feet as at ground-level, but P-61 engines overheated in a climb, reaching the redline mark at about 30,000 feet..

A P-38 was a fine gun platform---point and shoot like P-39, no converging cone of fire to calculate, only how much to lead a Zero, but shared a similar design defect with the P-39, both aerodynamically-clean airplanes---P-39 would lose control when it hit compressibility in a dive, the long P-38 stabilizer would disintegrate when it hit compressibility)


.http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p40_warhawk.html (I flew the P-40 in Burma when attached to a British Hurricane and Spitfire squadron stationed at Myohaung and disliked it, my first one came close to killing me and I crashed it on a metal landing strip, cartwheeling it when I hit the grass. Should have bailed out but we could not afford to lose any aircraft, so I rode it in and was lucky enough to survive with a repairable P-40) Incidentally this URl describes the P-40 as deriving from a P-36, a lot of nonsense, I was an enlisted crew chief on a P-26, P-35, P-36, P-37---the P-37 was the predecessor of the P-40---similar inline liquid-cooled engine, same lousy forward visibility, same lousy tendency to tip over forward and destroy prop and engine if the throttle were opened up too wide at testing the engine at rest, or or take-off. .

The P-40 was THE contemporary of the Japanese Zero in the earliest days of WWII---the P-26 was still around in one isolated incident, , that of the Philippines where no Japanese attack was anticipated, and for which no preparation was made.

On the other hand, if you could get a P-40 in the air, with Chennault-taught tactics with which I was totally-familiar (I am the possessor of a pilot's commission in the Chinese Air Force, pilot-wings S.N. #032---a fairly low serial number), a P-40 could kill a Zero almost every time.


http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p47_thunderbolt.html (all things considered, I fell in love with "The Jug"---wouldn't climb well, but it would ALWAYS bring you home---I flew one for six hours with a piston entirely gone, worried hell out of me, but the only visible affect on the long ride home, was slightly-reduced manifold-pressure, slightly reduced horsepower. Had I been in a P-51, I would have been dead.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html (I put a LOT of hours in a P-51---it was most useful as escort in a bomber-war as occurred in Europe because of its fuel-range. It handled well at all altitudes, but was horribly vulnerable to groundfire---a .22 caliber slug in the oil-cooler dangling below the fuselage, meant you had exactly seventy miles to decide where you would put down or bail out---not comforting if you are five hundred miles from home.


http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p61_black_widow.html (I put quite a few hours in a P-61 too, regarded them as wasted, though you could creep up on the rear of a slow German night-bomber with it. In the CBI, we took nightly night-bomber attacks from the Japanese, but had it been by entire squadrons or groups, the sole advantage of defensive P-61's was airborne radar. In small numbers, my preference was any contemporary fighter-plane---if you were as familiar with nighttime instrument flying as daytime visual. I didn't know anyone else in CBI fighter aircraft fully familiar with instrument combat flying as I was, why spent a lot of time flying British Generals around, but I guarantee most U.S. pilots could learn the craft in a month or so, and the radar used by U.S. escort fighter aircraft in Europe could have been quickly added to CBI nighttime fighters, and upgraded as necessary to be the equivalent of P-61 radar.)

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/jap_fighters.html (Zero advantages, limitations and why they were doomed to failure---ihcluding the Japanese stupidity in keeping their best pilots fighting at the front, when they should have returned to Japan to train replacement pilots.)









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page