General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

W Bertie
Ed Nash's Military Matters
comments

Comments by "W Bertie" (@wbertie2604) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

"not quite as insane you might think" is still fairly nutty
147
The Blackburn squared seemed to have put the pilot on top of the engine, and still not given him a great field of view. That takes skill.
121
You had me up to the concept of rails being easy to repair. The USAAF could just have dropped a leaf in the general area to render the concept useless.
23
Finally a solution to keeping warm at high altitudes - use the cockpit as the condenser.
14
Technically, the nose guns were a flexible turret sighted by the pilot (I am too lazy to get my book of British turrets off the shelf to check the number). In practice, such an arrangement wasn't really practical so they got fixed in place. There was a dual 50 version of the top turret but it was never fitted. (B.X mk. 2 or something where X is unknown, not ten as there was an actual B.X turret but I think that was in the Blenheim)
12
Clearly, the LEM is a naval aircraft. It landed on a sea on the moon and on Earth.
12
Given the use of KLF you should have suggested the engine was one based on the one designed to run on pulverised coal (which was real) but redesigned to run on burning RM100 notes :).
10
@radiosnail yes, the prevailing assumption in 1941 was that armament was required and they tried to cram some on a Mosquito. Five years later it has all changed. The last UK bomber design, outside maritime, with defensive armament was thus the Lincoln, including the twin 20mm Bristol B.17 turret.
9
I used to have a copy of the WW2-produced book "Britain's Wonderful Airforce" from around 1941 and it rated the P-400 highly. And the Manchester.
9
@MrHws5mp The UK still had plenty of strike aircraft that could operate from carriers. None could maybe carry the amount of ordnance or have the same loiter time but you could send them out for fleet defence OR strike. A Wyvern trying to take out an IL-28 isn't likely to work. So in terms of making the best of space on your carrier an fighter that's an adequate strike fighter is better than something that's unreliable and only just adequate as a strike fighter and of no use as a general fighter. Of course, you could possibly have just four Wyverns per carrier to save on space but then you are talking about a lot of specialist maintenance training in the fleet for a small number of aircraft so on economic grounds something passable at a particular role can be better than something slightly better but specialist. The USA is larger so the specialist training cost and other considerations make more sense as there is more of an economy of scale.
8
I first became aware of this when I was a kid. Definitely one of the better-looking planes of the period.
8
@killerkirbydude It's supposed to be a humorous reference to a frequent excuse for problems running trains in the UK: leaves on the line. Or the wrong sort of snow. Or, well, anything really.
8
It's not just existing UK aircraft (for example the Tempest, later Spitfires such as the XIX or Spiteful) it was competing against, but also the P-51H which was a bit slower, but delivered in quantity during WW2, even if too late to see service. First flight to service was typically one to two years, so it was going to miss WW2.
7
The USA also flew Beaufighters
7
@mikearmstrong8483 and an incredibly short service life.
7
6, 4 rear firing. The RAF was also looking at a Supermarine design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Type_324 - I have books with more info, but not easy to link to!), almost a sort of twin-engined Spitfire, with 6 20mm forward, PLUS an option of an additional 12 .303s, which made it to wooden mock up. Nothing rear firing, though.
6
@christopher5723 in terms of keeping 4. 303, that was down to Beaverbrook cancelling a number of projects for 50 and even 20mm turrets in 1939 to concentrate on production of existing designs to ensure there were SOME turrets and then a slow restart to 50 calibre turret efforts. Harris was livid as from 1942 he wanted 50 calibre turrets for night use as they hit so much harder than 4 303s.
6
Obsolescent rather than obsolete, but definitely on the way out.
6
Even with Lend Lease, it was an uncertain supply until the start of 1942 and the USAAF wanted them too. By that point, it probably made more sense to make the Albemarle for transport to keep B-25s for bombing.
6
A one second burst could have dropped the speed to by about 5 mph, assuming that the forces of thrust and drag were balanced precisely, but that would still put it 5 mph above the stall speed (100 mph). However, there is always a margin for error. But there were often issues in early gets of the engines ingesting fumes from the guns and stalling the engines rather than the aircraft. But at now 105 mph any loss of thrust would have been an issue. With a prop aircraft and a gentle stall you'd be able to push the throttle forward and recover, possibly, but the spool up time of a jet was too long back then. I expect the pilots were experienced, but the F-94 was pretty new.
6
Actually, the exhaust system of both the Tempest II, Sea Fury, and F8F were influenced by that of the Fw-190, but that's about it. The F8F used a radial as that's what the USN required. I'm not sure what the exact requirement for using the Centaurus was for Hawker. It worked out better than the Vulture in the Tornado...
6
Or the A-26, which entered service in 1944. The glass nose versions had a front-facing armament greater than the Buckingham and greater flexible armament too.
5
Ironic, given that Buckingham was slower than all Mosquitos.
5
Yes, the Gamecock was 20mph slower, but first flew two years earlier, and had full military equipment. The Rohrbach doesn't actually seem that impressive in terms of speed to me. Dangerous spins make it unsuitable as a dog fighter in that time period.
5
This could be handy for city-centre airports, assuming the high (400mph or so) performance was good enough for short flights. However, most Europe city centres have trains which are lower energy methods of mass transport, so maybe not in Europe. I could see it could be useful for rural stuff - Outback, Canadian wilds.
5
With MAP/RAF requesting a wingspan reduction, I wonder if it expected Shorts to do exactly that. Shorts was a bit caught out by the fact that the original specification was basically impossible to achieve well, and then it got changed anyway. There were heavy bomber specifications issued in 1934 (Whitley), 35 (Warwick) AND 36 (Stirling). And P.13/36 effectively became a pair of heavies. And more heavy bomber specifications followed prior to WW2. And that's not counting the 1932 specification that led to the Wellington.
5
@660einzylinder yes, the Tempest used a laminar flow wing based on NACA information, and a in-line engine. It has much more in common with something like the P-51 than the Fw-190, but not really much in common with the P-51 either.
5
One of the odd things about the Wellesley is that Wallis wasn't sure he could punch a hole in the structure to put in a bombay, so the bombs are in panniers below the wings. It limited the size of bombs that could be carried. It was sometimes used to transport wounded, but I am not sure if they put them in the fuselage or the stretchers into the bomb panniers. I'd tape off the bomb release mechanism if they were in there, just to be on the safe side. Obviously, the bomb bay issue was sorted out for the Wellington.
4
@Alex-cw3rz When Swordfish tried to attack in daylight during the 'Channel Dash' they were slaughtered.
4
@steventhompson399 Against naval AAA they were very vulnerable, demonstrated in the Channel Dash, and also against modern fighters. Hence Swordfish missions tended to be where no fighters were expected (e.g. sinking subs off Ireland with rockets) or at night (e.g. Taranto and most operations in the Med). For the same reason the Po-2, be it in WW2 or Korea, was also primarily operated at night.
4
60 inches is about +15lbs boost. The Merlin 60 series was cleared for +18, 70 series ultimately +25. The problem was that Merlin P-40s only got the equivalent of 20 series engines with a maximum of +12 in the most highly rated versions. So the issue wasn't the Merlin, just the version provided for the P-40.
4
With filmstar looks, though!
4
For a transport, de Havilland had some decent options in 1938.
4
@SoloRenegade pretty much all of those you listed had a longer service life than the B-58. The B-17 had a service life of 30 years. Even the F7F managed the same ten years as the B-58 despite being during the transition to jet power. The B-58 managed ten years in a period of time with a slower rate of evolution than 1944-54. It's short for the period, although shared with a few other US aircraft of that time. A short service life in the late 1940s or early to mid-1950s is more typical as the pace of development was very rapid then. In the case of the Hustler, it was short because the mission profile evaporated, being superseded by ICBMs, and it's slightly surprising to me that it got built as it was clear it would have a short life from the outset, just covering a period when the number of ICBMs was not at intended strength, which ended in the mid-60s. The mission still existed for France as it didn't have ICBMs at the time.
4
@henrikgiese6316 Only 2 at a time at most, I suppose. 4x20mm for rear defence in a single turret was proposed, and flown as a mock up, for the Mosquito. The new standard for British medium and heavy bombers was supposed to become a dorsal and ventral quad 20mm turret. Of course none of this happened.
3
Napier liked the H shape
3
@Allan_aka_RocKITEman It still had F4U night fighters available and in use (IIRC) in Korea.
3
@jamesbottger5894 I'd looked up the performance of the P51H at 67" (+18). At 80" (+25) it's basically the same as the MB-5, but 6mph faster at altitude. Lots of maximum speeds for the P51H quote the speed at 90" (+30), and then it is faster, but that wasn't really achievable in service for any length of time in a flight or for an engine in terms of life, and I'm not aware of it actually being used outside testing. The P51H was at least available in significant numbers in 1945.
3
@christopher5723 You're right about one thing - convergence would be a nightmare with the Windsor. You'd want radar to continually change that for you. It was an attempt to get around the immense, flat but wide 4 cannon turrets the RAF had in mind for bombers of that era which would have required either very wide fuselages or, as on a AWA design (can't remember the number and my father has the relevant book) that had it atop the fuselage, blended into a shoulder wing. There were supposed to be 4 cannon ventral turrets too, but it was never really explained how they were supposed to work. Presumably, periscopically sighted and utterly useless in practice.
3
@radiosnail it's out of print but I will get round to typing the full title at some point. Some of the photos and text get naughtily posted on the interwebs. I doubt there's quite enough interest to justify a reprint. I think my physical copy cost about £40 in good condition.
3
@MrHws5mp and my point was that most of the use of the Skyraider in Vietnam was from land bases as the USN preferred faster aircraft given limited carrier space. Plus it was easier to give the Skyraider a heavier load from land bases. The UK might have regretted it had it been involved in Vietnam but it might have been able to use jet light strike like the Gnat from land, F4s and Buccaneers from carriers
3
@mikepette4422 I also owned a book by the British Communist party from early 1941 saying how awful Churchill was, which I bought as I was just surprised it got published!
3
Come on, it's not a 30s French aircraft...
3
Are you and Rex having a competition on who can do a video on the nuttiest aircraft?
3
There's only so much space on a carrier. If a Sea Vixen or Sea Hawk can cover the strike role even passably then they win out over the Wyvern which can't be an effective fighter or interceptor for fleet defence as you can use the same aircraft for more than one role and thus make better use of hangar space.The only hope was torpedo attack but the intention was to replace that with the Buccaneer and tactical nuclear weapons. Combine that with unreliability and the Wyvern was doomed.
3
At the time of the initial sale, the Cold War hadn't started. Shortly after the sale of the Nene, the situation changed and sales of further materials were blocked. However, no one expected a Nene derivative to be used for military purposes as centrifugal flow was a passe technology. There was no suggestion of selling the latest axial flow engines.
3
@WALTERBROADDUS Very impressive to get two in two wars 20 years apart!
3
@SoloRenegade it was in service with other airforce after WW2. The B-58 was not in service with other airforces after its service with the USAF. Even the He-111, in its Spanish variants, saw service in the early 1960s. Don't discount service in other airforces. The F8F, for example, saw service until 1958 in the Vietnamese airforce
3
@cowboybob7093 Steel tube for fuselages and wooden wings were pretty common at the time. The logic is that the stresses on the fuselage are less so flexible steel tube with its low structure volume makes sense as you maximise internal fuselage volume. Wooden wings were more of a known quantity for structural strength for wings and a bit more structure volume wasn't an issue. Duraluminium will burn if you dump enough gasoline on it and add a 200mph wind, so it wouldn't matter than much in that regard. With wood you have to build in an extra margin of error in case you have a piece of pine with hidden knots in, or other variations in wood quality. In other words, with metal you can ultimately build lighter as you can quality-control metal production to tighter tolerances and build lighter structures leveraging that and make better use of stressed-skin construction that makes the skin a part of the structure. With wooden wings, you can lose more of the overall wing structure and have it still work, but it's better to be lighter, 10mph (or 15km/h) faster and not get holes put in the wing by passing German aircraft.
3
If you look at Thunderbirds and state - of - the - art research of the time, there's overlap in what is portrayed and real projects. But then Anderson always wanted to do real, big budget, live action sci-fi, not puppetry. That was down to cost. Edit: but he still tried to get hard, sci-fi projections in, apart from some fanciful speed figures in UFO, and the whole of Space 1999. You're allowed one preposterous element of course, like the Mysterons in Captain Scarlet. I wish someone would do a good live action version of that without overly modernising it.
2
P.13/36. Stirling and the Supermarine were to B.12/36
2
@EuroScot2023 it didn't get very far. Supermarine was trying to build some Spitfires. When the Stirling was entering service the Supermarine 316/7/8 was still just two partially complete fuselages
2
@RedXlV Yes, the F-111K was a really botched project :(
2
@RedXlV it's a bit more complex. There were a lot of mergers (Hawkers and Vickers were big groups, but the subsidiaries were quite independent) as funding reduced during the 1950s, so management was very messy, and RAF changed ORs of projects that had already started quite a lot. But the F-111K seemed to suffer from that and politics.
2
@Thekilleroftanks At the time of development, 20mm cannons were just getting used, though. And this aircraft was making extensive use of 20mm cannon for defensive armament, which was somewhat ahead of its time. The UK was planning such a move, and Japan was just beginning to field aircraft with such, but that's about it.
2
@Matt_The_Hugenot The Gannet originally had two crew, only later three and in particular for the AEW role. It got the AEW role because the ASW role went to helicopters and a long loiter time at a decent altitude was something it had and could be exploited. By the time the Wyvern was in service the latest ORs (operational requirements) were deemphasising torpedos for the next generation of aircraft with tactical nuclear weapons being the intended option to destroy what was expected to be an attack by multiple ships with sufficient AAA to render torpedo attack ineffective. That is, take out several ships with one bomb. The Buccaneer was to be the aircraft for that role with a high subsonic speed at low level as low level was seen as more vital than supersonic speed. It turned out to be excellent in the conventional strike role too. The USN took a similar path, although with a supersonic capability, with the A5 Vigilante. That had a performance profile more like the TSR2 or Mirage IV than the Buccaneer, though. The FAA was offered a TSR2 variant but felt that it couldn't wait and filled the supersonic capability with the F4 Phantom.
2
@Alex-cw3rz It should have been vulnerable to .50s which was developed just after WW1 as an aircraft gun to shoot down planes just like the Po-2!
2
@Alex-cw3rz The 50 cal was intended to be able to smash ribs, spars, etc. and cause structural failure in wood and wire aircraft. It would certainly be more vulnerable than jets.
2
 @Alex-cw3rz Swordfish were vulnerable to fighter aircraft. Normally wooden, canvas-covered biplanes were very vulnerable to modern fighters in WW2.
2
@leighrate If you look at the success rate of interceptions, even by the 1950s quite a lot of nightfighter sorties saw nothing. It was only really German ones in 1944 that did well and because there were often 1000 bombers up at one time. So finding the enemy at all was still quite a challenge.
2
It carried twice the typical load of a Mosquito (few carried Cookies) further but rather slower. The better comparison is the A-26 which was available to the UK from 1944. The A-26 was better in most regards apart from maybe cockpit visibility.
2
@christopher5723 RAF night bombers used reflector gun sights and the day bombers the same. Both gained gyroscopic options later in the war, but not the ballistic (drop) compensation that US turrets gained. But radar targeting was added, as also to some B-29s for the tail. In the dark it proved a mixed blessing, including attracting night fighters and some friendly fire instances.
2
@christopher5723 For fighter aircraft, it was the USA that adopted the RAF gyroscopic sight, and it's what the RAF later used on bombers too. It was the Sperry ballistic computer that was more revolutionary. Village Inn was used on the FN121 (FN120 basis, which was an improved FN20) and FN82 (50s). I thought most were on FN121s. I wasn't aware of Village Inn ever being used with the Rose turret. My books don't mention it being used, and wikipedia says one on a Lincoln as a trial. Some Lincolns with the BP type D.
2
From memory, the AWA design was for the same spec as the Windsor.
2
MAP and RAF wanted to have Shorts design something smaller, I think. It was bigger before a shorter wingspan was requested, to meet the original specification. Also, shorter wings have less drag. Ceiling was an issue. Even bombload was an issue as it could often not carry as much on a mission as the Lancaster or Halifax, from what I've read.
2
@jimdavis8391 383 for the Wyvern at SL, about 390 for the Hornet but the Sea Hornet was a bit slower. At 20,000 ft then about 380 for the Wyvern, 470 for the Hornet, 430 for an NF Sea Hornet.
2
@mattheweagles5123 it depends on height. At some speeds it might have 30mph advantage, at others less or more. It depends on loads carried, paint, dampers, etc. And by 1942, Germany had newer, faster Dorniers and Junkers.
2
@WarblesOnALot the timing of Barbarossa wasn't decided on until after the Battle of Britain, so couldn't have been a factor in the provision of drop tanks. It's more that it wasn't expected that they would be needed for the 109. They were available for the 110 as that was supposed to be the long-range fighter but when it was found to be a bit vulnerable there was a scramble to fit tanks to the 109, and they appeared right at the end of the Battle of Britain. Note that the 110 wasn't intended to be a close escort, but rather to sweep ahead of the bombers. It was also related to the French multiplace, multirole aircraft as bomber and reconnaissance versions were developed, although not produced. The 210 was to combine everything into a single airframe with just different armament fits rather than different nose, etc like the "Jaguar"
2
24 troops . A platoon was 36, so it's 2/3 of a platoon, which seems an odd choice. 20 might have made more sense, as you'd then transport a platoon in two aircraft with a bit of spare space for extra kit. But maybe 24 is half a platoon plus a few more bits, or 24 troops if you don't bother with extra kit.
2
@robertsanders5355 The P-38 was absolutely designed pre-war to fight at that altitude. The P-39 was supposed to have been too, but botched.
2
@robertsanders5355 The design of the P-38 predates that of the A6M, so no the P-38 was not a counter to the Zero. The P-38 was designed as a bomber interceptor.
2
@robertsanders5355 I'm not 'nuking' it, just noting that the P-38 (and 39) specification was for the USAAC's requirement, as defined by it, in the late 1930s for a high-altitude bomber interceptor with cannon.
2
@davidjones332 Also, the Blenheims were often going in a such low altitude, it was fairly pointless. The upper turret was hard to get out of on the early Blenheims (it was replaced later with a Bristol X) so the poor top gunner stood no chance of getting out if shot down, and getting shot down was pretty common. I don't know how they got people to go on missions.
2
@Carson Ogenic Probably not on armour. After Normandy the determination was that rockets were great against trucks, etc., and scaring people, but had destroyed all of about three tanks. It might have been a bit better in 1940. Against merchant shipping, yes, although not really a concern the French had in the late 1940s - it was more tanks. Dropping bombs turned out to be more effective. A lot of debate rages about how accurate the claims of 37mm armed Stukas in the USSR actually are, but they might have worked against tanks with thin armour (BT-7, T-70, etc.) which would have meant German tanks in 1940 might have been at risk.
2
@SoloRenegade F8F - 18 years not 7. Not all in the USN, though.
2
@SoloRenegade yes, I understand that other air forces are not the USA. You can define it your way, I'll define it my way. So, if you consider only USA service, the B-58 is not unique, if you consider overall service life, the B-58 is unique. Both can be true. I think your definition is quite limiting, though. That the USA decided not to make the B-58 available to other nations is relatively unusual as it exported numerous other types before, during and after the service life of the B-58.
2
@SoloRenegade of course I can handle objective analysis, I just don't agree with your definition of service as it is a narrow one relating to service only in one country, not entire service life.
2
@SoloRenegade as I've explained multiple times, restricting things purely to USA service is one particular view of service life, but generally service life of a type is not narrowly defined as service only in the nation of original design. You are using a definition that is not the typical definition of service life of a type. You are trying to argue that service life in the USA is equivalent to total service life when that is not the case. If you went to a fairly canonical source such as Jane's it would not define service life of a type as service life in one country.
2
@allangibson8494 stop spoiling my joke with facts!
2
@cowboybob7093 It seemed to be the fashion of the time, e.g, 'the flying suitcase' (Hampden) or the DB7 to have very narrow attack and/or medium bombers with poor accessibility and ludicrous 'options'.
2
Fairey's solution, in particular for carriers where centre thrust was a bonus, was a series of designs culminating in the Gannet. Many of the early ones had dual Merlins mounted behind or at least partly behind the pilot rather than under the pilot, resulting in a plane with a much less deep fuselage. There were about a dozen or so such designs. My father has my book, though, so I can't remember all the details. Many were just paper designs feeling towards the Gannet. Two engines were preferred for two reasons - redundancy when over the sea, and fuel efficiency for longer loiter times. Submarines aren't exactly nippy so one engine would have been enough to chase one, although they might have given the Short Seamew a run for its money.
2
Certainly one of the prettiest of WW1.
2
@babaganoush6106 The USA based its command and control for artillery on that of the UK due to both its accuracy and rapidity. When XXX Corps finally got into range of radios in Arnhem (mostly the radios worked - don't believe the movie, the issue was more range and the different networks) the forward observers with the paras were able to direct the guns onto individual tanks attacking the paras. Guns firing from about five miles away. It's very possible that the British units in Italy in that area had worn out guns compared to the US artillery, though.
2
For a ring and bead you have to line up target, ring and bead and it takes more skill to do so. With a reflector, the sight picture is more open and moves with your head. Simply put the dot where you want to fire. By war's end RAF and USAAF were both using gyroscopic sights for bombers - dial in range and target size and then putting the dot on the target ensures a hit. The RAF even replaced the waist guns with powered versions with reflector sights
2
That seems unlikely. The Cold War was on before the Comet flew and it entered service during the Korean War.
2
The Manchester was designed for P. 13/36, along with the Halifax, which was for a medium bomber (8000lb nominal load, IIRC) not technically as a heavy bomber. It was the Stirling that was the heavy, initially as the back up to the Supermarine 316/7 with a design target of, IIRC, 14, 000lb. In the end the Manchester had a maximum short-range load of 10,000lb, when it worked, the Stirling theoretical 16,000lb, but on a mission to Germany sometimes as low as 3, 500lb over a distance the specification said 14,000lb should be able to be carried.
2
@Dave5843-d9m What would concern me would be with overly fast cutting and over-the top action scenes and mumbled dialogue. Gender or colour of the protagonist I don't care about as long as it's well plotted (just use the original plots) and the action scenes are well done. Mind you, watch something like old Dr. Who or Blake's 7 and the issue is often the underwhelming action scenes.
1
@babaganoush6106 Bristol was working on cannon turrets around 1940, but was asked to stop as the war situation required immediate answers. Eventually it did complete the B. 17 turret with 2 20mm cannon for the Lincoln.
1
The earlier ones were too slow, and the newer ones not fully developed.
1
@Schlipperschlopper I don't know much about the 223.4 but the 222 series were slower, shorter ranged, and carried less defensive and offensive armament than the FW-200.
1
Very much the French style at the time.
1
Although the expressed mission of the TSR-2 was different, the actually specification required in the associated OR is pretty much the same. Unfortunately, the TSR-2 was a victim of the issues of the UK's aerospace industry in the 1950s and the massive cut in funding after the Sandys report. It was due to be in service the year this Mirage entered it. The USN Vigilante was quite similar, apart from being carrier-capable and having having a munitions delivery system inspired by a hen.
1
@edsutherland8266 the Victor wasn't capable of low-level at high speed without excessive wing stress. A super Victor to deal with this with podded engines was proposed but it was decided just to use the Vulcan. Anything other than low level attack wasn't possible from about 1965 due to SAMs. The intended mission of the TSR-2 was low level strike ahead of the slower Vulcans to take out the SAMs. That was intended for roughly 1964-70ish with a secondary and follow up role as reconnaissance and the nuclear role being taken over by Polaris in 1970. However, the TSR-2, in 1963, wasn't projected to be in service before 1970, and the original decision was taken to cancel in 1963, with a brief reprieve until 1964 and final and definitive cancellation. Buying Mirage IVs off the shelf in 1964 was potentially an option, but with France outside NATO, the F-111 was seen as the more appropriate political choice, and with more assured supply due to a bigger manufacturing base in the USA. But then so many changes were requested for various reasons to the base F-111 costs became too high and by 1968 it was clear it wasn't going to be in service in a useful time frame either, so it was canned. Despite changes to the F-4, that project DID work, so some of the secondary strike role the F-111 might have taken on went to RAF Phantoms. But as noted, the Mirage IV would probably have managed that TSR-2 role in 1964.
1
@Thekilleroftanks They had jamming issues when used in WING installations, having been designed mostly for rigid installations, e.g. moteur-cannon (HS).
1
@Thekilleroftanks In terms of ammunition count, it's not a lot per cannon, but designed to provide maximum firepower for a fleeting moment. But it's limited due to drums, which was solved in 1941 for HS.
1
327 - 6 cannon, but also the wing packs for ground attack as an additional option.
1
The Gannet was for use against submarines, not a torpedo bomber or strike aircraft. Different roles and with limited hangar space, no surprise the Wyvern was dropped.
1
@Matt_The_Hugenot It's not just budget but also space and logistics. With three different types of aircraft you potentially need three different sets of pilots and space, food, etc., maintenance crew, spare parts, maybe even fuel. Hence since the 1940s navies have generally sought to find aircraft to cover multiple roles wherever possible.
1
No action. A couple of squadrons started getting deliveries in February 1945 but the war ended before anything became of it in Europe and not enough time to then move them to the Far East
1
 @Dave5843-d9m single seat was driven by the pressurisation requirement and was quite common in the 1940s and early 1950s. The B-29 was one of those that bucked the trend.
1
@scootiepatootie7721 The D was used in Korea, the K was not.
1
And they are legion amongst bombers.
1
@TollHammer Crecy publishing - quite ironic!
1
@christopher5723 Actually I checked. the Mk IIC gyro gunsight also adjusted for wind and bullet drop like the Sperry, so the RAF sights were pretty fine. It was the IIC in the FN 121 with Village Inn. For FN120s with IIC you'd have to use foot pedals to set range, etc., a bit like in a Sperry ball turret, but with the 121 it was automated, although how that worked with multiple targets I have no idea! It's providing range to cope with the gyroscopic lead, but if a fighter was coming from more-or-less directly astern you'd fine at short range with 4 .303s anyway, it's just bullet drop to account for. With the Windsor, get the range and convergence wrong and even with a fighter coming directly astern you could miss it completely!
1
No. The decision had been taken years before that medium types would be purchased from the USA. The Buckingham was never really more than an insurance policy had US neutrality curtailed sales as the Buckingham origin is prior to US entry. It was also a way of keeping Bristol design busy as the Blenheim wound down as although the Buckingham wasn't a big priority, there might have been a need for something else later on. If the war had continued, perhaps Bristol would have made a new heavy rather than the Brabazon. We see something similar with the P-39 - not a domestic success but government funding continued as much to keep Bell design going as provide the USSR with machines
1
The RAF, even as the V-bombers were introduced, calculated that by 1960, they would be vulnerable to SAMs and obsolescent. Hence low-level being examined with Valiant and Victor low-level designs being considered before it was considered simpler to use the Vulcan. So I'm unconvinced that the Valiant B.2 was cancelled because low-level intruders were considered to not required. Indeed, if you look at the ORs for types to meet post-1960 mission profiles they emphasise a low-level approach with a pop up to deliver Blue Steel. The other ekement specified in the mid-50s was a low-level, supersomic strike aircraft with a tactical nuclear load designed to take out SAMs, radar, airbases. That was to become the TSR-2 but after many delays its projected in-service date was the year the V-bomber force was to be finally stood down (1970) due to the agreement to buy Polaris.
1
@paulflocken2730 the USAAC required turbocharging for high altitude fighters but Bell was having issues mating the turbocharger to the airframe (odd, since it was required). So, the USAAC asked Bell to stop the attempts and get something working as an adjunct to the P-40 rather than P-38. It was originally a back up to the P-38.
1
@paulflocken2730 the P-47 came much later. This was during P-43 development and not even deployment. But the USAAC, even though the P-43 was never going to be a combat type, had more faith in Republic (the P-35 was in service) than Bell to deliver on a high altitude interceptor, which was the P-47 design remit. ( And prior to P-43, a lightweight one)
1
@ivanthemadvandal8435 no, the bit about the USAAC terminating the turbo isn't nonsense, it's true. The P-38 looked promising, Republic was promising a lightweight, turbo-assisted P-35 development and Bell didn't look competent in not being able to fit in the turbo that was a requirement. But the USAAC didn't want to kill Bell as it might still produce a useful adjunct to the P-40. But the idea that the USAAC was expecting only low level requirements IS nonsense as its later support for the P-43 and 47 shows. However, strategy at this point did tend to change with the passing seasons
1
@Jeroen_Maes the turbo was banned for export prior to 1942 along with all sorts of other things. In September 1939 all exports of military equipment to belligerent powers was banned for a while which is how the UK ended up with Airacobras in part as France's orders were delayed and many were not delivered or not yet brought into service, weakening France
1
@Jeroen_Maes yes, Congress had allowed sales to complete and also new sales in 1940. But ordering, production, delivery, reassembly, fitting of country-specific equipment, testing each aircraft, writing manuals, issuing to units, training takes a while. So even for orders placed on 1st January they would barely have been in service by June. And the early P-38s, even with turbos, were quite flawed. The issues weren't really fixed until the last model, L
1
@Jeroen_Maes no, I said there was an ARMS ban in 1939 when WW2 started and it was later lifted (I'd need to look up the exact date). The ban applied to everything military. I didn't say anything about a turbo ban and the restrictions on arms in general in 1940. I don't know if there was an additional turbo ban in 1940. There wasn't a ban by the time the UK got B-17s (from memory, 1941).
1
@Jeroen_Maes sorry, that was a typo and should have read 1940. That's why I was surprised as it's not something I'd have intentionally said and why I doubled down on mentioning 1940. The RAF received its Fortress I in 1941 after the Lend Lease act in 1941, for example.
1
I checked the dates and the 1937 Neutrality Act was extended in March 1939 to ban all arms exports to belligerents and only in November was it returned to 'cash and carry'. So in the summer and autumn of 1939, French orders for aircraft placed in 1938 and 9 couldn't be exported as war broke out, leaving little time to get them and work them up into service before May 1940 when cash and carry came back. Hence the RAF inheriting so many aircraft and contracts.
1
@Jeroen_Maes there was a ban until November 1939 for sure (I'd need to check when FDR signed the Act). I'm not aware of an explicit ban after that or not prior to Lend Lease. There might have been a supply issue, of course, in 1940.
1
I presume that there were off-the-shelf components to suit smaller gear so it was probably just pragmatism. It would also use less vertical height in the fuselage when retracted.
1
@tsd550 it's surprising that better flaps were employed, although building mechanisms to extend flaps backwards (most large modern aircraft, but some contemporaries of the Stirling) as opposed to hinged split flaps would probably have added more weight and complexity compared to long undercarriage legs.
1
@kevvywevvywoo yes, it did have flaps, but the extreme angle of incidence from the undercarriage seems to suggest that some reliance was being placed on angle of attack, a bit like the Whitley.
1
@kevvywevvywoo the shorts solution was definitely better, apart from now and then when the u/c failed
1
My take was that I'd read it as Ly-comb-ing for a million years but that given how you were pronouncing it I must have been wrong
1
@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 I've never heard of a Beaufighter with 6 20mm cannon, just 4x20mm and 4x0.50 Brownings.
1
It could take bombs under the fuselage too, in theory, but I've never seen a photograph of one loaded out that way.
1
They did try to bring in a 'sports Beaufighter' with a skimmed fuselage but it went nowhere. Then was the Beaubomber, leading to the Buckingham and Buckmaster, and the Brigand which sometimes shot itself down. Bristol went through a rough patch after the Beaufighter.
1
For balance, the catapult would need to be powered by diesel.
1
@mattheweagles5123 I'd have said avgas, but I'm imagining you'd want a big marine diesel with lots of torque to try to fling a plane into the air. Or maybe you use a big marine diesel as a big weight and drop it and gear that to the catapult. Then you get the engine to raise itself back up again.
1
Best looking of the three, IMHO.
1
@allangibson8494 "And the Lancaster had a heavier bomb load than the B-29…" No, it didn't. The maximum load of an unmodified Lancaster was 14,000lb. For a B-29 it was 20,000lb. Yes, a very few modified Lancasters could carry 22,000lb, but the B-29 could, with modification, carry 44,000lbs in the form of a Grand Slam under each wing.
1
@allangibson8494 tests were successfully conducted with a Grand Slam under each wing. Photos of exist of at least one flying B-29 with two, available from one of the USAAF archives and to be found online. RAF Washington B.1s were fitted with racks for two Grand Slams. They were never carried even singly operationally AFAIK, but the B-29 could definitely lift two. As you noted, it could also carry the T.12 of 43,600lbs. That required modification to fit it on the centre line, but then the Lancaster B.1 special also required modification and only a couple of dozen were. But the main message is that the B-29 could definitely carry a greater weight of bombs than the Lancaster.
1
@allangibson8494 reference photo Boeing 95561
1
@MrHws5mp the Malay emergency ended in 1960 and the likes of the Hornet were available for most of it. Oman? I didn't think the RAF or RN provided air power there.
1
@MrHws5mp the relative unreliability might have been a factor. Buying in a dozen or two Skyraiders might have been a better option as it was pretty solid and more adaptable.
1
@None-zc5vg Heinemann?
1
If it's in the Battle of Stalingrad series as an extra, I see a purchase coming up later today...
1
 @stephenjacks8196 the USA also produced dedicated dive bombers throughout WW2, and diving attacks were a common bomb delivery method for Allied fighter bombers.
1
 @stephenjacks8196 I don't think the Luftwaffe was requesting many Tiger tanks.
1
If you look at the timeframe that the He-177 was specified, it wasn't an unusual request as P.13/36 which led to the Manchester with a similar engine concept also suggested dive bombing. That was very quickly deleted, along with steam catapult launching, though, as the manufacturers indicated they were nonsense requirements. The catapult launch was so in overload condition it could take off without increasing aerodrome size, presumably because it was expected that a catapult would be cheaper than making every aerodrome four times the size.
1
To be fair to the Gladiator, it may have entered service in 1937, but there were possibly fewer differences between it and the Gauntlet than the Spitfire I and XIV, so you could make an argument about how much of a new aircraft it was. You could view it as an improved Gauntlet as a stopgap.
1
Was this for torpedoes or growing tomatoes at sea to avoid scurvy?
1
@eze8970 the Allies seemed to use heavy bombers effectively in Normandy most of the time, but they had to be used on specific targets and using them in close support wasn't always successful and ended in the death of a US general on one occasion. But it was effective at dealing with targets a few miles behind the front.
1
@eze8970no, Defiants were not supposed to be escorted, they were designed to attack unescorted bombers and not need any escort.
1
 @jamesricker3997 cannon was being fitted during the Battle of Britain.
1
Pe-2/3 look OK.
1
The prototype Spifire, even with a two-bladed, fixed-pitch prop was about 15mph faster than a production Mk. I in 1939. It's a smaller percentage, but the Mk. I had a much more efficient prop. So 20mph faster for a prototype than an older design isn't that great.
1
When your aircraft is outclassed by the Buffalo, you have a problem
1
Fairey had a go at making planes like it before it came up with the unparalleled beauty that was the Gannet.
1
It's not entirely accurate to suggest that the Luftwaffe didn't have any interest in strategic bombing or heavy bombers. The likes of the He-111 and Ju-88 were expected to be capable of such a role, much as the Wellington was, which had broadly similar characteristics. Strategic bombing at reduced cost. The specification that led to the Stirling was forward thinking. The original B-17 requirement was for long range, not heavy bomb load (2000-4000lbs depending on range, so that of an He-111, just a lot further). They managed to cram a fair load in later despite the relatively cramped bomb bay. And a heavy bomber was in development from 1937. It just wasn't very reliable and wasn't built in large numbers. But the He-177 was used against the UK.
1
@Eric-kn4yn Not really. It was a case of a medium altitude bomber expected to be adequate to the task or a redesign and no bombers at all in 1940/1. The latter would have been worse. Not great optoins, admittedly.
1
 @paulqueripel3493 yes, that was proposed. Also, at one point, landing aircraft on VTOL airborne carrier aircraft. Gerry Anderson seemed to have an eye on such concepts.
1
Keynes went to the USA after WW2 to ask for loans. I'm not aware of him doing so in the interwar period. He died not long after his 1940s visits, though, IIRC.
1
 @TyrannoJoris_Rex there were no Lend Lease debts. There were debts from loans, however.
1
Germany paid off the reparations mostly because they were reduced massively under USA pressure and rampant inflation also reduced the amount payable. Overall, Germany paid about 10% of the sum set in 1919 in real terms.
1
MAP and RAF told HP to abandon the Vulture part way through development but asked Avro to keep on with it. It was Avro that cheated as it started work on a Merlin 4-engined version in parallel with the last phases of Manchester development to be called Manchester III.
1
The comments on French military prowess seem to have vanished, but Agincourt and Crecy - those were battles. Last time I checked there weren't any bits of France still under British control, so I think the French won that one. Quebec - yes, a French loss, but France was on the winning side 1775-1783, so that's more mixed. I had neglected to think of the events in India, though, and people tend to forget that even in the 1950s there was still some French presence there.
1
Cute - they put a smiley face on it.
1
It's a MUCH slimmer profile fuselage than the Beaufighter, and shorter and lighter, so 350mph seems very possible. The 'Sports Beaufighter' with a similarly slim fuselage never, er, got off the ground. Nor did the versions with a 4 gun turret.
1
 @neiloflongbeck5705 and the Buckingham was developed into the Brigand, also not the name of a stately home.
1
@neiloflongbeck5705 before or after shooting themselves down?
1
The range was about the same as the Lancaster and Halifax. The VLBR versions of the B-24 were much better than any of them.
1
@fighterpilot5105 Which North American aircraft used turbochargers? It wasn't the P-51 or B-25.
1
@Peoples_Republic_of_Devonshire it was designed to attack unescorted bombers. Unfortunately, after the Battle of France, the bombers were escorted. The Bf. 110 had the range to escort from Germany, but wasn't designed as an escort, but rather to sweep fighters ahead (Frei Jags) so the Defiant might have worked even with 110s. It had to fly at night to meet unescorted bombers but without a dedicated radar operator on those with radar, with was a bit problematic. Note that the P-61 had a turret. One of the UK companies was working on a twin boom, long loiter time night fighter with forward firing guns and a turret as a form of Schrage Musik. The concept was passed informally to Northrop in late 1940 with the hope of building something for the RAF but instead it was used by USAAF. I don't know if the twin boom design was based on the British design (paper and model only, no mock up) or coincidental.
1
The Maginot line wasn't intended to stop an attack, it was intended to SLOW one. The French standing army was no bigger than than of Germany, but it had a lot of reserves. With an attack slowed, remaining reserves would be activated and the DLMs (cavalry divisions) would basically do a reverse Blitzkreig. That's actually what started to happen in May 1940, except then the Germans attacked through the Ardennes and in behind the DLMs and French command and control fell apart. The German advance through the Ardennes nearly failed and was the biggest traffic jam the world experienced until some later ones on the Eastern Front which are still the biggest ever experienced.
1
@jameslawrie3807 It was politically controversial as the Belgians thought that France was basically seeking to fight WW2 in Belgium and avoid it happening in France and the Belgian government was perhaps understandably annoyed so sought to make Belgium hard to take itself and try to aim for neutrality and avoid having 90% of the country be a battlefield again.
1
It looks so awful, you could swear it was Blackburn
1
At lower weights it wasn't an issue, but the B-24 gained a lot of additional weight. Also the early versions just had a hand-held single gun in the tail. Adding a powered turret there creates somewhat of a pendulum effect
1
The RAF wanted to restrict the overall size of bombers for B.12/36 so enough could be produced by actually having something a little smaller than the Stirling ended up being. Later, there were specifications for bombers with wingspans closer to 150ft.
1
IIRC, the nose gun was also a Vickers K, although belt-fed.
1
It looks like the back end of a Hurricane, front end of Martin-Baker.
1
 @mpetersen6 Fairey made a version of the D-12 (the Fox) and it powered several aircraft that it put forward for RAF specifications so I don't see how the Air Ministry was blocking it.
1
@mpetersen6 ah, yes, Felix. Fox was an aircraft using it. Too much alliteration. Thanks for the informative response.
1
The single tail would have permitted a better field of fire from the tail turret, except it was paired with a tail turret with a much reduced field of fire. The improvement would have been mostly evident for the waist guns.
1
All British bombers of the period were designed with ventral protection: Wellington, Hampden, Whitley, Halifax, Stirling, Manchester, Lancaster. The issue was the turrets weren't very effective. Some did carry the Fraser Nash or Boulton Paul ones in WW2. Those not fitted with H2S or similar might also have various official or semi-official fittings with a Vickers K, 50 calibre MG or 20mm cannon. Some had the Preston Green Mk. II ventral turret (mostly Halifaxes) with 1 50 calibre by default or 2 in some instances. About the only not designed with it was the Blenheim, but one of two Bristol turrets were later available for ventral defence of slightly dubious effectiveness. With some irony, upward firing guns were developed and used by RFC and RAF in WW1.
1
The origins of the Windsor wing goes back to the second half of the 1930s for studies that led to 1939 requirements that included the 8000lb load but also an eight cannon defensive armament. Some designs had up to six engines. They also had wing spans up to 170+ feet. No issues with the myth of hangar size limiting wing span.
1
 @Demun1649 could be the F4 phantom, or Garland's 109
1
It did forsee fighting above 15,000 feet, and its bombers were designed to fly well above that, as were many of its fighters. Bell just failed to get the P-39/400 up to that standard, hence it going to Lend Lease on the whole.
1
@robertsanders5355 Politicians didn't write the specification, which was for a high-altitude bomber interceptor for P-38 and P-39.
1
@nikbear There were two options of Bristol turret - one manual, one power assisted. Whether they were effective is debatable. 2 Browning 303 in both versions.
1
@SoloRenegade I'm including other air services as to me they are a valid part of the service life of an aircraft.
1
@SoloRenegade that's quite limiting.
1
@SoloRenegade I don't agree with you in terms of the service life in the USA being affected by decisions pertaining to the USA, I simply disagree with you in terms of your narrow, single-country definition of service life. Most sources take a wider view of overall service life, and may note service life in individual nations. Some US aircraft saw no service in the USA at all, and only as export types, and that also applies to a few aircraft types from any of the main aircraft producing nations
1
@SoloRenegade maybe I should have said unusually short. There are examples with short service lives, although most or all of your examples have longer service lives. I understand what the B-58 was, which is not really a subject of debate. With the B-50, there's a definitional issue as originally it was a subtype of B-29, the B-29D, so it being later called the B-50 is somewhat arbitrary as sometimes very different versions of aircraft have retained the same type classification, more different than the B-29 and B-50. The B-58 is obviously a singular type.
1
@donjones4719 doh, of course you are right. I botched my joke!
1
@allangibson8494 the P-51 was a prototype only and the FJ-1 was a failure. The FJ-2 did somewhat better. I'm not aware of a B-25 ever landing on a carrier, only taking off. That doesn't qualify the B-25 as a naval aircraft.
1
The specification actually indicated storage was to be outside, so hangars weren't even very relevant.
1
In 1939 the UK had only really just ramped up production of Browning 303s. Turrets for 50 calibre guns were being developed, but guns and ammunition would have to be bought for cash from the USA. 20mm cannon were already seen as the ultimate end point for fighters and bombers. Beaverbrook took the decision to deprioritise 50 calibre turrets, to allow existing types to be built quickly. In the end a decision to try 50 calibre ones was made a bit late, in 1943, and few UK 50 calibre turrets made it into service, although Lancasters did get Martin turrets on some marks. The UK turned over a lot of turret development data to the USA which helped the USA development cycle. They should probably have considered adapting more aircraft to US turrets, but it would have been a lot of retooling and redesign to put a Consolidated nose and tail turret from a Liberator onto a Lancaster compared to turrets the British designed to basically drop right in.
1
@johnedwards1685 Yes, dangerous for those in the nose, but standard British doctrine in 1939-40 was to attack from behind in a vic of three aircraft. Given the level of armouring by 1940, it wasn't nearly as effective as 4 20mm cannon per aircraft would have been. 4 20mm cannon was, by 1937, the armament the RAF was proposing ultimately for future fighters, initially in twin-engined designs to the F.X/37 (I can't remember what the X was now, but maybe 4 or 34 - I'd have to look it up), such as designs from Gloster, Supermarine (323? - from memory) and Westland, with Hawker proposing a 4 cannon Hurricane derivative, but not to a specification requirement, but privately. In this the RAF was correct. Actually Supermarine proposed increasing to 6 20mm cannon, with an optional additional fit of 12 .303 in the wings for strafing, canted slightly down. Attacking from the front or beam was a tactic developed during the Battle of Britain due to .303s not being very effective when attacking from the rear, which also exposed the fighters to the most effective defensive fire.
1
The 50 calibre rate of fire is only a bit more, at 750rpm in aircraft versions, than the Hispanos at 600. Given the choice between a Mustang Mk. IA (4 20m cannon) and a Mk. III (4 .50s) then provided you could accept slightly higher weight of the armament, the IA would be preferable. The USN actually wanted to standardise on 4 20mm cannon but the USA had issues with 20mm cannon production during WW2. The P-38 could cope with it as it was possible to recock the gun when in the nose. The UK, after 1940, didn't have issues with its Hispano guns.
1
This is the same Beaverbrook who is 1939-40 was masterminding the creation of Castle Bromwich for producing Spitfires, right?
1
 @allangibson8494 that wasn't about size but about cost.
1
The P-36 didn't use turbocharging.
1
I was surprised by these figures so I looked them up. It's 147 (10 are F-35s) fighters and 75% serviceability. I see someone else beat me to it a bit. Just on a single exercise with the USAF in November the RAF deployed 26 Typhoons.
1
@tommiatkins3443 The B&Q item probably isn't the same. But even then, a lot of the additional cost is the consistency of specification between batches (you don't get that for a 15p washer at B&Q ) so it behaves consistently in a complex machine, and testing to ensure it has the correct specifications and then getting it into the stores system so it is there to be used in a Typhoon. It's not that much different if you are building electronics and want to put a capacitor in. Yes, you can get a 100uF capacitor for a few pence (less than 15p, quite possibly), but it will have a 20% tolerance. That's fine if the circuit tolerates it, but if you wanted a 1% tolerance part you are paying over £1. If you want ones that are TESTED and ASURED to be within that 1%, double that. Costs for illustrative purposes as I haven't been on RS Components today, but last time I was building something with tight tolerances required, that is roughly the cost increase I saw, although I simply bought a couple of extras and did my own testing as it was likely to catch any bad 'uns at a slightly lower total cost. But then I don't charge myself for my own time on hobby projects, but RAF technicians do expect pay.
1
@stephenrickstrew7237 That had the nose .50s too. Many P-63s in USSR service had the wing guns removed too.
1
Yes.
1
@RemusKingOfRome changes of trim when traversing turrets was common. The Halifax front turret, for example, with just two 'pop guns' made the plane almost uncontrollable until they added little flaps on the turret to even out the drag.
1
@johnhudghton2287 what was taken from the Fw-190 was pretty much limited to the exhaust system for the Centaurus.
1
It depends on the shock absorbing, etc. AFAIK, the B-24 legs "dangle" a few extra inches.
1