Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Bay ManThe Typhoon entered services a low level, ground attack, plane despite
its initial design brief.
No actually, it entered service as a fighter, mainly a bomber destroyer,
deleted text,
"but saw little action because of engine problems. It also faced the
problem
even the bombers were flying higher than early in the war.
The Typhoon was made to work as a fighter bomber. Following on from
the Hurricane. The Hurricane IId and IV were meant as low level ground
support types. The Typhoon became their replacement."
Post by Bay ManBut low level the high altitude problem was noticed in the testing.
I see, that fact the Typhoon had good low level performance is supposed
to mean we can ignore yet another Bay Man invented fact. It must help
the fiction to delete anything that contradicts it.
I do suppose you are aware in 1941 the RAF was worried about how it
could fight at 40,000 feet?
Post by Bay ManYou get to know more about WW2.
Not from Bay Man, that is obvious.
Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Bay ManThe Thunderbolt was intially a heavy fighter but due to being less
manouverable than say the Spitfires and Me109, it role was changed.
You really do not know much about WWII do you? The P-47 was
replaced in the 8th Air Force by the longer range P-51,
Which was better at high level bomber protection and engaging manoeuvrable
German fighters.
Actually the P-47 had the better altitude performance, the advantage of
turbo versus mechanical supercharging. Next comes the fact the P-47D
was quite good fighting in the vertical, had a better climb rate than
the P-51, when it came to turning the P-51 was about 10% better but
the P-47 accelerated faster.
See America's Hundred Thousand by Francis Dean for detailed comparisons.
The P-51 had a longer range and that was what the 8th Air Force wanted.
"though the role
was reversed when the P-47N appeared, look up Pacific P-47 operations.
In Europe, like the P-38, it was used as a fighter bomber as the P-51 took
over escort operations. The change had nothing to do with the P-47
versus Bf109 manoeuvrability.
In the first 6 months of 1944 the USAAF fighters in the ETO claimed
some 2,500 kills, about half of which were by P-47s."
Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Bay ManThe ground attack P-47s were pretty well only for that role.
I gather you have never bothered to read about the many 9th Air Force
P-47 high altitude escort operations in 1944. Nor a history of the P-47.
Deleted text
"So tell us all what changed between the P-47 escort and the P-47 ground
attack version? Did they take the supercharger out? Did the hard points
only get wired for bombs, not bombs or tanks?
What was the change? They were all P-47D, the M was faster than the
P-51D, but only one group used them, the N was a long range version
that served in the Pacific.
By the way the answer is there was no change. The P-47 was one of
the best high altitude fighters and stayed that way. The 9th Air Force
often used a mixture of drop tanks and bombs to give loiter ability."
Post by Bay ManAgain...The ground attack P-47s were pretty well only for that role.
I see, Bay Man is into chanting rather than reason. Hence the need to
delete what does not fit the fiction.
Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Bay ManHowever what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made
a specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -
Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.
You see this totally contradicts the Bay Man claim, so time to ignore it.
The plane was a dog with few made and used. They only made it because
they had some captured French engines.
Translation, the plane was in combat for three years, anything up to 1,000
built and seems to have been liked by the pilots, but was handicapped by
fragile engines.
And the Hs129A was being made before the French engines became
available.
Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Bay ManThe Me262 was a waste of resouces and German pilots - it killed more
Germans than allied planes.
Ah, you mean something like the Typhoon for example when it came to
killing pilots?
No the me262. Read avove. Itn is easier that way.
I presume the non reply is designed to sound authentically confused.
You do know how many kills were claimed by Typhoon pilots?
The Typhoon and Tempest Story by Thomas and Shores lists the kill
and probable kill claims, and has an entry for each pilot in any shared
claims, the list is under 5 pages long. It covers about 250 kill claims
and a good working estimate would be around half were actual kills.
The Me262 shot down around 180 to 200 western allied aircraft,
mostly 4 engined bombers.
deleted text,
"I presume you have a list of German pilots killed in Me262 accidents and
it is higher than the 180 to 200 aircraft the western allied aircraft the
Me262s shot down? Or do you count pilots killed when their aircraft was
shot down as well?"
Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairIn reality the Me262 was probably worth it to the Germans,
deleted text,
" firstly the aircraft
it shot down, secondly the extra escorts the allies felt they needed, so
keeping those fighters from other missions and finally the amount of
bombs devoted to Me262 production and airfields."
Post by Bay ManIt wasn't at all. It took resouces that were needed in proven aircraft
designs.
Try this, when you look at the Me262 combat performance in 1945
you see a more effective fighter than the piston engined types, it
shot down aircraft more per sortie and probably had a better
survival rate.
So tell us all which of the proven combat designs should have been
produced more in late 1944 and early 1945?
deleted text, to next >
"On introduction the Typhoon lacked minor things like bomb racks, they
were fitted later. It was designed as and meant to be a fighter, like the
Hurricane, in fact the Hurricane replacement.
Typhoon production started in June 1941, 28 built by the end of the year.
Sydney Camm made the proposal to fit wing racks to Typhoons on 7
November 1941. Following on the success of the Hurricane fighter
bomber.
Number 56 squadron received Typhoons in September 1941, or a year
before the fighter bomber idea was to be tried but problems with the engine
meant it also retained Hurricane II until March 1942. Then came 266
squadron receiving Typhoons in January 1942 but also retaining Spitfires
until June 1942. Next was 609 squadron which received Typhoons in
April 1942.
The first Typhoon offensive operation was on 20 June 1942.
The RAF Air Staff sanctioned two trial Typhoon fighter bomber squadrons in
July 1942, for formation in September. Some 300 Typhoons had been built
by the end of June 1942.
As for the interception of German fighter bombers doing tip and run raids on
England, that is what the initial Typhoon operations were largely about.
The Spitfire XII was built for the same task, it was actually the official
response to the Fw190 low altitude performance."
Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Bay Manthey never had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects
like a poor jet plane.
No actually, they did not divert ground attack design resources to the
jets.
Resources used for Jet could have been used for more practical plane
applications, rather than a mere prototype thrown into combat.
Translation Bay Man invents history.
Translation. You have poor comprehension.
No, I have a good grasp of history and know Bay Man invents history.
Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairAnd the working Me262 had an edge over allied fighters until the
end of the war.
Its impact was so minimal it was not worth talking about - but the
resources to make the dog could have been used to better effect elsewhere.
The threat of the Me262 played a major part in 8th Air Force thinking
in 1944 and operations in 1945.
Again...Its impact was so minimal it was not worth talking about - but the
resources to make the dog could have been used to better effect elsewhere.
Again Bay Man retreats to chants rather than cope with reality.
deleted text,
"The threat of the Me262 played a major part in 8th Air Force thinking
in 1944 and operations in 1945."
Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairSo tell us all where could the resources have been used better?
Read Wages of Destruction. That might give you a clue.
Clearly Bay Man has not understood Wages of Destruction, as
various people have pointed out.
deleted text,
"You see when unable to answer pretend the answer is somewhere else.
The rest is text that was considered to be unanswerable.
Meantime the Typhoon and P-47 "designed as a fast interceptor fighter
can only be a compromise when adapted for ground attack" Furthermore
the results of examining the battlefields indicates in the west the attacks
rarely destroyed tanks. I do like the way the dedicated ground attack
P-47 was carrying so much supercharging and also doing most of the
8th Air Force escort missions until mid to late 1944. The Typhoon was
made to work as ground attack, given its problems when used as an
interceptor.
Short of deploying USN dive bombers or the Vultee Vengeance the
western allies did not have any dedicated ground attack design."
Post by Bay ManPost by Geoffrey SinclairThe Fw190F and G were ground attack aircraft, better than the P-47
in that they were optimised for low altitude, and better than the
Typhoon as they had radial engines.
deleted text,
" There were around 6,600 F
and G models produced, twice the number of Typhoons and about
half the number of P-47s."
Post by Bay ManThere is no proof that radial engiens performced any better than water
cooled engines.
Actually there is any amount of proof, and by the way in WWII the coolant
tended to be glycol, not water, or a mixture of the two.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.