Homestead mailing list

[Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>]

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.)