More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with added nationalistic abuse (was: #1 Jet of World War II)

ArtKramr wrote:

ubject: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with
added nationalistic abuse (was:
From: (Guy alcala)
Date: 9/2/03 9:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

." Here's the sortie count and
bomb tonnage for the B-25 and B-26:

We never flew "sorties" We flew missions. Fighters flew sorties.

You, fighters and everyone else flew missions that involved a certain number of
sorties, effective and ineffective, and records were kept of both. If you want to
know what the average effective bombload per a/c was, just counting missions isn't
going to do it, because you need to know how many a/c flew on each mission for the
number to mean anything; in short, you need to know the number of sorties. The
figures I gave above are presumably either effective sorties (those assessed as
having dropped bombs), or at least those that were officially counted (i.e. you'd
crossed the enemy/occupied coast or whatever the criteria was in the particular
theater/timeframe).

Guy

Subject: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
From: Guy Alcala

We never flew "sorties" We flew missions. Fighters flew sorties.

You, fighters and everyone else flew missions that involved a certain number
of
sorties, effective and ineffective,

Missions that involved sorties???? What does that mean?. I flew all missions.
No sorties

because you need to know how many a/c flew on each mission for the
number to mean an

We flew 56 Marauders on every mission. Max effort every time.

The
figures I gave above are presumably either effective sorties (those assessed
as
having dropped bombs), or at least those that were officially counted (i.e.
you'd
crossed the enemy/occupied coast or whatever the criteria was in the
particular
theater/timeframe).


Yeah, that was a bad habbit of ours. We always crossed into enemy territorry
and dumped 4,000 pounds of bombs all over them. We called these missions. Not
sorties


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 2 Sep 2003 21:17:46 -0700, (Guy alcala) wrote:

snip

Vader states that the Mk VIIIs had the 'C' wing, which implies that
the Mk. IXs should have been able to be given LE tanks with little
difficulty. I'm under the impression that the substantive changes to
the Mk. VII/VIII were in the fuselage, and except for the tanks the
wings were identical. Does anyone actually KNOW what the
structural/internal changes were from the Mk.V/IX etc. to the Mk.
VII/VIII? We all know about the tail wheel, but there had to be more
than that.

I don't know, but the internal wing spars, which I suspected would
show a difference, appear to be identical between the Vc and the VII,
in which case there should be no problem with deleting the outboard MG
positions in favour of more fuel tank capacity in the Vc-airframed IX.
The shorter-span ailerons appear to be shortened at the wing-tip end.

If there were any fuselage differences, they didn't stop the
late-production IXs getting rear-fuselage tanks anyway.

Gavin Bailey
--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
From: Guy Alcala

We never flew "sorties" We flew missions. Fighters flew sorties.

You, fighters and everyone else flew missions that involved a certain number
of
sorties, effective and ineffective,

Missions that involved sorties???? What does that mean?. I flew all missions.
No sorties.

As explained by another poster, a sortie is one flight by one a/c. X number of
a/c in a squadron, group or what have you can all fly a single mission, which will
count as X number of sorties total. Think of a sortie as the aircraft equivalent
of a man/day. If you have a job that is supposed to take 10 man/days to complete,
then to do it you can (ignoring any practical difficulties that might preclude
some of the combinations) either use 1 man for ten days, 2 men for 5 days, 5 men
for two days, or 10 men for one day. Sorties work similarly: 1 a/c flying ten
missions, 2 a/c flying 5 missions, 5 a/c flying two missions, or 10 a/c flying one
mission, all count as ten sorties.

because you need to know how many a/c flew on each mission for the
number to mean an

We flew 56 Marauders on every mission. Max effort every time.

Which is 56 sorties. But medium units didn't always fly 56 a/c. At least in
1943, it was usual to fly 36 a/c group formations (group UE was increased later)
in the ETO, and fighter and heavy bomber units had different establishments and
flew different formations consisting of different numbers of a/c. the typical
heavy bomber group in 1943 would put up between 18-24 a/c for a single mission,
i.e. 18-24 sorties.

The
figures I gave above are presumably either effective sorties (those assessed
as
having dropped bombs), or at least those that were officially counted (i.e.
you'd
crossed the enemy/occupied coast or whatever the criteria was in the
particular
theater/timeframe).


Yeah, that was a bad habbit of ours. We always crossed into enemy territorry
and dumped 4,000 pounds of bombs all over them. We called these missions. Not
sorties.

Art, not every a/c that took off crossed into enemy territory. There are
inevitably aborts for various reasons. Depending on where the abort occurred, it
might or might not count towards completing the tour requirement. The USAAF
usually defined an effective sortie as one which dropped bombs on a target. So,
for instance, on the Regensburg-Schweinfurt Raid, the 4th Bomb Wing dispatched
146* B-17s on VIIIth BC Mission Number 84, to Regensburg, or 146 sorties (*sources
are a bit schizophrenic, as most say 146, but detail 147). Of that number, 11
aborted over England or the North Sea for reasons other than enemy action, but
four were replaced by airborne spares, making 139 that crossed the coast. None of
the crews of a/c which aborted for these reasons prior to crossing the Dutch coast
were allowed to count this mission towards their tour.

By the time they got to Regensburg, fourteen more had been shot down, two more had
left the formation, dumped their bombs and were hoping to cut the corner and catch
up, and one a/c had remained in formation but had had to jettison its bombs. The
crews of these a/c were allowed to count the mission towards their tour, but none
of these sorties were counted as 'effective', because they didn't/couldn't put
bombs on target. The remaining 122 a/c were all able to bomb, so 4th Bomb Wing
recorded 146 sorties dispatched (not counting spares), but only 139 combat sorties
consisting of 122 effective and 17 ineffective sorties. Being able to bomb a
secondary or tertiary target or a target of opportunity, rather than just
jettisoning bombs, would usually be counted as an effective sortie (depended on
the time and theater); a/c which were unable to bomb an allowed target for any
reason would count as an ineffective sortie.

Guy

ubject: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/3/03 1:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
From: Guy Alcala

We never flew "sorties" We flew missions. Fighters flew sorties.

You, fighters and everyone else flew missions that involved a certain
number
of
sorties, effective and ineffective,

Missions that involved sorties???? What does that mean?. I flew all
missions.
No sorties.

As explained by another poster, a sortie is one flight by one a/c. X number
of
a/c in a squadron, group or what have you can all fly a single mission, which
will
count as X number of sorties total. Think of a sortie as the aircraft
equivalent
of a man/day. If you have a job that is supposed to take 10 man/days to
complete,
then to do it you can (ignoring any practical difficulties that might
preclude
some of the combinations) either use 1 man for ten days, 2 men for 5 days, 5
men
for two days, or 10 men for one day. Sorties work similarly: 1 a/c flying
ten
missions, 2 a/c flying 5 missions, 5 a/c flying two missions, or 10 a/c
flying one
mission, all count as ten sorties.

because you need to know how many a/c flew on each mission for the
number to mean an

We flew 56 Marauders on every mission. Max effort every time.

Which is 56 sorties. But medium units didn't always fly 56 a/c. At least in
1943, it was usual to fly 36 a/c group formations (group UE was increased
later)
in the ETO, and fighter and heavy bomber units had different establishments
and
flew different formations consisting of different numbers of a/c. the
typical
heavy bomber group in 1943 would put up between 18-24 a/c for a single
mission,
i.e. 18-24 sorties.

The
figures I gave above are presumably either effective sorties (those
assessed
as
having dropped bombs), or at least those that were officially counted
(i.e.
you'd
crossed the enemy/occupied coast or whatever the criteria was in the
particular
theater/timeframe).


Yeah, that was a bad habbit of ours. We always crossed into enemy
territorry
and dumped 4,000 pounds of bombs all over them. We called these missions.
Not
sorties.

Art, not every a/c that took off crossed into enemy territory. There are
inevitably aborts for various reasons. Depending on where the abort
occurred, it
might or might not count towards completing the tour requirement. The USAAF
usually defined an effective sortie as one which dropped bombs on a target.
So,
for instance, on the Regensburg-Schweinfurt Raid, the 4th Bomb Wing
dispatched
146* B-17s on VIIIth BC Mission Number 84, to Regensburg, or 146 sorties
(*sources
are a bit schizophrenic, as most say 146, but detail 147). Of that number,
11
aborted over England or the North Sea for reasons other than enemy action,
but
four were replaced by airborne spares, making 139 that crossed the coast.
None of
the crews of a/c which aborted for these reasons prior to crossing the Dutch
coast
were allowed to count this mission towards their tour.

By the time they got to Regensburg, fourteen more had been shot down, two
more had
left the formation, dumped their bombs and were hoping to cut the corner and
catch
up, and one a/c had remained in formation but had had to jettison its bombs.
The
crews of these a/c were allowed to count the mission towards their tour, but
none
of these sorties were counted as 'effective', because they didn't/couldn't
put
bombs on target. The remaining 122 a/c were all able to bomb, so 4th Bomb
Wing
recorded 146 sorties dispatched (not counting spares), but only 139 combat
sorties
consisting of 122 effective and 17 ineffective sorties. Being able to bomb a
secondary or tertiary target or a target of opportunity, rather than just
jettisoning bombs, would usually b

OK I got it now. But nobody called it that in WW II.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(ArtKramr) wrote:

OK I got it now. But nobody called it that in WW II.

Yes, they did, whether you knew it or not.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

Jonathan Stone wrote:

In article ,
Guy alcala wrote:

snip

Green says they were supposed to get new wings of 135 ft.(!) span.

Compared to the original design wingspan (widely cited as 112 feet)
135 ft. isn't such a stretch.

Compared to the Stirling production wingspan of 99 feet, it is ;-) But it
sure would be nice to see the predicted performance for a Stirling with a
112 foot span, high aspect ratio wing. That wing would be up in B-24
territory. Oh well, I can dream.

Guy

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:37:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

And the Wellington was upgraded to become the Warwick.... Have you
seen the thickness of the Stirling's existing wing?

Nothing like extending the tips to lower the overall t/c ratio.

Yes, but those wings needed an Atkins diet or something. They're
almost as thick as the fuselage.

Even moving the
tips out for greater wing area is going to leave it struggling with
poor engine output at altitude and serious airframe weight issues.

The engine output should be no worse than the Halifax III, but I grant you
the weight issues. OTOH, the Stirling seems like it was quite strong, so a
boost in MTOW may have been possible.

Actually, reducing the weight might have helped more to raise the
ceiling, and you won't be getting many Hercules XVI engines until 1944
as the Halifax production will eat them up. You might as well stick
to using them pretty much as is as an interim type, and get another
ten squadrons to increase the short-penetration supporting missions
along with the six-eight squadrons of 2 Group. They can then re-quip
with the B-24 over time, after gaining daylight experience during the
supporting ops.

Just don't ask me to fly in them....

[snip Sabre-engined gibbering]

[B25 bombload]

Personally, I wonder if your source that claimed 2 x 1,000 'and' 4 x 500
should have read 'or', as that would fit better with the claimed bomb bay
capacity in several sources. It wouldn't be the first time that has
happened.

Agreed, and I will check the Squadron ORBs when I get the chance. Any
American stats to compare with this?

You think the Good Old Days on Usenet (as you define them) are gone? A quick
skim of posts on this or most any other forum will show that, as the
Republican Party's semi-official theme song says, Happy Days are Here Again!
But then, you've never been there and done that, you're just another wannabe
;-)

And if you'd ever seen Serdar Argic strafing an unprotected and
immobilized newgroup with .50 calibre-crosspostings with your own
eyes, maybe your reading would be different. We never made posts in
those days, just threads. The time was this group once had real
veterans like Orville and Wilbur Wright conducting their flamewar with
Langley and Curtis, and now they've been driven off by the
wannabes.....[tirade continued ad nauseam].

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

Subject: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
with added nationalistic abuse (wa
From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
Date: 9/5/03 1:06 AM Pacific

e Halifax production will eat them up. You might as well stick
to using them pretty much as is as an interim type, and get another
ten squadrons to increase the short-penetration supporting missions
along with the six-eight squadrons of 2 Group. They can then re-qu

with the B-24 over time, after gaining daylight experience during the
supporting ops.

Just don't ask me to fly in them....

If you are ordered to fly them, you will damn well fly them. And nobody cares
whether you approve of the thickness of the wing or not. Or anything else for
that matter. When you are ordered to fly, you will fly.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 05 Sep 2003 14:55:35 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Just don't ask me to fly in them....

If you are ordered to fly them, you will damn well fly them.

No I won't. What are you going to do about it? March me at gunpoint
to an airworthy B-25 and demand that I fly it?

And nobody cares
whether you approve of the thickness of the wing or not.

How shockingly ungrateful of the swine. I'm sure my opinion of wing
thickness on all aircraft is a matter of urgent concern to governments
and the mass of the population across the globe.

Or anything else for
that matter.

I'd be more impressed with this assertion about how little you or
anybody else cares about my posted opinions if you weren't constantly
following up my posts in an effort to troll me.

When you are ordered to fly, you will fly.

You're not in a position to order me about, however much you might
want to. And nobody in their right mind was going to order me to fly
*anything* - I volunteered for the infantry (and for service in NI and
the Gulf), not aircrew training forty-five years beforehand. I do
appreciate your quest for redundancy though.

How about making similar assertions about how you would have ridden
with the Charge of the Light Brigade if you had been ordered to,
regardless of your opinion on the price of cheese or Cardigan's
tactical competance or any other matter? Seems about as relevant to
the actuality of my posts in this thread as your yibbling about WW2
airmen carrying out their orders. Of course they did. Who contended
that they didn't? If you think I did, post the proof. I'll be
waiting a long time for you to manage that, won't I?

Now, if you're going to continue to followup my posts, I suggest you
attempt to address the issues I have previously raised in response to
you, including your own apparent hypocrisy over the use of third-party
evidence to teach others, in the " #1 Piston Fighter was British"
thread.

No answer? Funny that. Still, feel free to start another "wannabe"
fandago with another straw man if it makes you feel better.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell