Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

Using Germany to defeat the USSR

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    TAG
    They were on a scouting patrol, as I wrote, much farther away from base than any SBD patrol. Of course they chanced upon them, a scout by definition does not know where the enemy is. It is far more defficult to chance upon H8K way out there, than it is for the 2 SBD pilots to chance upon the carrier fleet and attack (with weak 500 lb bombs, because of the plane's limited range) Zuiho in Santa Cruz.
    And, until you cough up a verifiable source this is just more imaginary BS you concocted. Both I and CarpeDiem have produced evidence that P-38's usually, if not always, flew with bombers in the Aleutians.
    They certainly weren't used for "scouting patrol" as you put it. In fact, the main two reconnaissance planes in the Aleutians were the B-24 and PBY.

    If those 2 pilots had flown F5F with 1,000 lb bombs, they would have really damaged or sunk Zuiho and could then linger to locate the other carriers and fight the CAP, strafe planes on deck, etc, Scout planes on neighboring routes would have had the range to converge on the enemy fleet and also attack it, instead of returning to the carrier to refuel.
    No they couldn't. Besides, the Zuiho was first located by PBY 24-P-7 Lt(jg) Robert Lampshire piloting. He also sighted Zuikaku and Shokaku an hour and three minutes later while continuing to shadow the Japanese.
    The next day PBY 51-P-8 found the Japanese again followed by PBY 91-P-3 (Lt Glenn Hoffman) who narrowly missed dropping 4 500 lbs bombs on Zuikaku in a glide bombing attack.
    VS-10 from Enterprise sent out 8 SBD in pairs to scout ahead of their formation. One pair found the main body and stayed out about 15 miles shadowing it.
    The Japanese spotted the SBD's and put up a 20 plane CAP. These fighters went on a hunt for the scouts and found and shot down four of them. The SBD's generally hid in cloud cover to avoid attack if they could.
    The two VS-10 SBD that actually attacked the Zuhio did so after scouting their sector. They turned towards that ship based on hearing the radio report of one of the other SBD's. They were nearly 150 miles away when they turned to head to the Zuhio's reported position.
    They had intermittent cloud cover to help conceal them in their final approach at 14,000 feet. They had complete surprise. One hit wrecked the aft portion of the flight deck and arresting gear meaning Zuiho could no longer land aircraft.
    The two SBD were chased by 3 Zeros (want the pilot's names?) for 45 miles before they gave up.

    There is no way to say that an F5F with a single pilot could have done likewise. First, without the navigation and radio skills of a backseat crewman they have little chance to navigate to a intercept like that. Second, their radio equipment would not be up to it either. Fighters carried pre-set radios that had limited range to allow them to talk to each other and to fighter controllers near the ship when on CAP. They don't carry long range sets like the SBD or torpedo planes would.

    Also, as shown, the PBY's were critical to finding the Japanese in any case. The reason 2 SBD were sent on each scouting sector was in case one had radio trouble and for the navigators to be able to check each other's work.

    As for the reason VS-10's planes carried 500 lbs bombs it was because their primary mission was scouting, not bombing. They carried a bomb just in case not because that was their primary mission. Finding the enemy and shadowing him was.
    As for "fight(ing) the CAP" I doubt one or two F5F stand much of a chance against 20 + Zeros in the CAP much as the SBD didn't. Running or hiding would be about their only option.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Draco View Post
      A pilot with unbstructed view in an F5F can see better than a pilot with a long, fat nose and a propeller and a nanny facing backwards and risking torticulitis for looking sideways and unable to look forward.

      I am sure a depoyed map will be most usefull in midocean, so you know that you're in the blue area.
      Scouts were given an azimuth to follow and a speed. after a certain time they then turned to cover an arc and return in another azimuth. Just by radioing when they saw the enemy, their carrier will know the approximate location.
      This shows you have an ignorance of USN scouting practices with carrier planes (and even patrol planes) in WW 2 as well as no knowledge of ded reckoning and what navigation using a pair of dividers, a parallel rule, and a slide rule actually involves.
      I doubt you have any idea how to even use something like these:





      Fighters with 250 ln bombs can then scramble and fly faster (because they 're lighter and do not need to fly slowly to detect the enemy over a broad area) to relocate the enemy, shoot down the CAP, bomb and strafe it and linger to shoot down planes attempting to take off, until the 1st wave of bombers arrives. By the time the fighters fly back to their casrriers, other fighters have arrived and the carrier will be much closer.
      More complete lack of understanding of US carrier doctrine and practice. For example, the position of the carrier(s) during launch and recovery and their courses are dictated by wind.
      It is entirely possible that the carriers will be in much the same place they started if wind is unfavorable (Marianas Turkey Shoot is a good example).
      Fighters are sent with the attack planes as top cover against enemy CAP. Since they cruise at barely higher speeds than the bombers and need the bombers to help them navigate to target that all makes sense.
      Making uncoordinated attacks on the enemy is not a good idea, nor was it Navy doctrine. Dribbling in a few aircraft at a time is a good way to get most or all of them shot down.
      Midway was like that for the torpedo squadrons. The dive bombers only escaped being similarly worked over by poor Japanese CAP coordination and pure luck.


      As CAP the F5F is much more useful than the Wildcat or Hellcat, since it carries more ammo, it's less likely to be shot down, can take more rounds from the Zeroes and rear gunners and its speed allows it to shoot down more planes in the same time.
      You have produced ZERO evidence to back any of that up. Just how many rounds per gun would an F5F carry? Do you even know?
      Hint: I do... And, you won't like the answers...

      What makes an F5F less likely to be shot down? Why can it take more hits than say an F4F? What evidence can you present to back that up?
      As I stated before USN doctrine for CAP was to ignore the escort and take out the attack planes.

      Even without ammo, the F4F can afford to use its wing to damage or throw out of balance a single engine plane or it can sacrifice an engine and prop to cut off a plane's tail and still return to the carrier.
      You need your meds upped.

      With its high daving speed and amazing rate of climb it can afford to consistently attack bombers first in a frontal dive and then returning from behind and below, safe from the rear gunner.
      This shows an ignorance of USN fighter doctrine. The preferred attack method is a parallel head on one using a high side pass in deflection shooting. The position of the engines on the F5F would make such a maneuver more difficult as the pilot's view of the target would be blanked during much of it.

      USN doctrine also called for the fighters to break contact then regain position and reset for a second pass rather than mix it up. Given that the US CAP by mid war had about 60 to 100 miles of attacking range once vectored in by radar and their controllers on a strike that gives the planes 15 to 30 minutes of time to attack. You could estimate for every CAP fighter one enemy attack plane would be shot down. Their escorting Zeros are meaningless.
      Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 18 Mar 15, 19:57.

      Comment


      • #93
        Taking bets...

        You think Draco is trying to learn how to use one before he replies...?



        http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Taking bets...

          You think Draco is trying to learn how to use one before he replies...?



          http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html

          I doubt he would start trying to get things right now, after all of the wrong.
          The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

          Comment


          • #95
            On the F5F and it's ammo supply:

            The F5F would have carried 400 rpg for its 4 x .50 cal machineguns, the same load out as an F4F-3.
            The F6F carries 450 rpg.
            The F4F-4 has 240 rpg but 6 x .50 machineguns. But, it also has folding wings meaning far more can be carried on a carrier than the fixed wing -3 model.
            The F5F doesn't have folding wings and if produced wouldn't have had them until well into 1943 if production of the fixed wing model started in 1942.

            Now, the XF-50 has a load of 2 x 20mm with 60 rpg and 2 x .50 with 500 rpg.

            That means it carries the exact same cannon ammunition as an A6M Zero and would quickly be reduced to 2 x .50 mg with the same ammo as its contemporaries.

            Green Warplanes of the Second World War Fighters vol 4. p. 97 - 101
            Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 19 Mar 15, 22:14.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              On the F5F and it's ammo supply:

              The F5F would have carried 400 rpg for its 4 x .50 cal machineguns, the same load out as an F4F-3.
              The F6F carries 450 rpg.
              The F4F-4 has 240 rpg but 6 x .50 machineguns. But, it also has folding wings meaning far more can be carried on a carrier than the fixed wing -3 model.
              The F5F doesn't have folding wings and if produced wouldn't have had them until well into 1943 if production of the fixed wing model started in 1942.

              Now, the XF-50 has a load of 2 x 20mm with 60 rpg and 2 x .50 with 500 rpg.

              That means it carries the exact same cannon ammunition as an A6M Zero and would quickly be reduced to 2 x .50 mg with the same ammo as its contemporaries.
              Well the F4F-4s and later had a stowed width of about 15 feet (by 30 feet long), where as the XF5F Skyrocket had a wingspan of 42 feet (by ~29 feet long), so you could easily stow twice as many Wildcats as Skyrockets, two Skyrockets in the hangers side by side takes up some 85 feet, you could technically put 5 Wildcats in their place. Also good luck fitting two of them side by side in a Yorktowns hanger (looking at the general plans as I type). Even with an Essex it would be difficult to fit two side by side.

              Now to be fair in practice the F4F complement only increased to around 27 to 36 aircraft from 18, with the folding wings. So you you like to have 12-20 sky rockets (the lower number is due to it likely just entering production by mid 1942, at best) or 27 to 36 Wildcats?

              Even in the later part of the war it's going to be notably less than the single engine fighters that have folding wings.

              Comment


              • #97
                One might also note that the Grumman G51 (aka XF7F Tigercat) began design in early 1941 and two prototypes were ordered on 7/30/41. At that point, the XF5F was considered obsolete by the USN and development was only continued to support the development of the XF7F. Note, that the F7F used the P&W R-2800 engines that Draco wants to cram on the XF5F. That pretty much tells you that it isn't going to happen. Grumman designed an entirely new and more efficient airframe to use that engine instead.
                The F7F had folding wings but these were outboard of the engines and left the aircraft a rather large storage item. In the end, except for use as a night fighter the F7F remained pretty much a limited use land aircraft and really didn't see any carrier squadron service whatsoever.

                Comment


                • #98
                  I never suggested cramming the R-2800 into the F5F, only the R-2000 (a bored out Wildcat, small Twin Wasp engine) or a lighter, bored out Cyclone. !,350 hp per engine Vs 2,200 hp of the Hellcat. So the F5F with 4 blade props has 338 hp/blade, while the 3 blade Hellcat has 733 hp/blade and a lot more turbulence, noise and torque/thrust.

                  The F4F and F6F usually carried 400 rpg. Only the initial F4F version with 4 guns could carry 450 rpg.
                  Ammo capacity is limited by load capacity, nose and wing volume, all of which are much geater for the F5F than for the F4F and load capacity is also greater for the F5F than for the F6F, owing to 50% greater thrust with 1,200 hp engines and even more with bored out engines.

                  The F5F would obviously have had folding wings if it went into production, like other carrier planes. That would have been the main difference between the even cheaper P-50 and the F5F. With the 4 blade props the engines can be a little closer to the centerline, allowing for a longer stretch of the wing to fold.

                  With drop tanks, its range would have been limited by pilot fatigue.
                  Last edited by Draco; 21 Mar 15, 14:17.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X