Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

HoHun · 12-29-2007, 04:14 AM

Hi Elvis,

>and might I add, Wikipedia can also fall into that catagory, in the sense that the info is can be constantly altered by whoever views whatever subject they're looking at.

Wikipedia is actually a bit more complex - authors there tend to be very territorial about their articles. First you have to fight to stake your claim, then a sort of compromise with the other fighters is reached, and finally the fighting parties form a clique who defend their article against changes that don't fit their "party line".

The articles end up as subjective, opinionated and error-fraught as anything you might find on a personal website, but unlike the personal website, it's nearly impossible to find out exactly who is responsible for a certain statement in the article.

Statements of fact (and often, of opinion) have been regularly padded with foot notes for a while, but as it's possible to find any misconception you could dream up in print, that hardly improves matters. Due to the continuing edit process, there is not even a way to check that the currently displayed statement actually matches the statement that was in the article when the foot note was introduced.

Still, I use the Wikipedia, too - but only "to get a wrong impression quickly", and (when it comes to aircraft types) for a look at the pictures. At least, if you find a Wikipedia article, you have a clearly defined subject and the certainty that they won't try to sell you something, as many of the other Google hits will.

Wales' suggestion to build a search engine based on user-contributions seems actually to be designed to employ the effect that works best in the Wikipedia, and I'm looking forward to see the results of that project ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

drgondog · 12-29-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elvis

renrich & drgndog,

Re: TV.

Agreed....and might I add, Wikipedia can also fall into that catagory, in the sense that the info is can be constantly altered by whoever views whatever subject they're looking at.

Elvis

They are both useful - but frequently subject to perspectives and beliefs based on 'common knowledge' as contrasted with serious research to gather enough facts to offer substantiation to a Point of View - which we are all guilty of.

I like wikipedia for quick reference then decide what else I have to dig up

renrich · 12-29-2007, 05:17 PM

I agree with youall about wikipedia and the net in general as far as accuracy. I tend to have more trust in books that have extensive references and are footnoted but even there one has to be armed with a bit of skepticism. I recently finished a book from the library entitled "The War" based on Ken Burns' tv documentary and I found numerous mistakes in the text. Obviously that book was whipped out to take advantage of the TV show and was not meant as a serious reference. My favorite references are Lundstrom's two books about the early days of the USN's air war in the Pacific. Wish there were books as well documented about the whole of WW2 in the air. Perhaps Bill will oblige.

Elvis · 12-30-2007, 05:03 AM

my point was simply that the content of any "reference source" that can be edited by anyone who comes along, has to be taken with at least a little "salt".
Like the rest of you, I too use Wikipedia, if only out of convenience, but only as a basis for further research.
Sort of an "internet directional indicator", if you will.
Am I on the right track? Seems so, let's keep going in this direction...that kind of thing.

Elvis

drgondog · 12-30-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

I agree with youall about wikipedia and the net in general as far as accuracy. I tend to have more trust in books that have extensive references and are footnoted but even there one has to be armed with a bit of skepticism. I recently finished a book from the library entitled "The War" based on Ken Burns' tv documentary and I found numerous mistakes in the text. Obviously that book was whipped out to take advantage of the TV show and was not meant as a serious reference. My favorite references are Lundstrom's two books about the early days of the USN's air war in the Pacific. Wish there were books as well documented about the whole of WW2 in the air. Perhaps Bill will oblige.

I have never seen a well documented, detailed, and comprehensive book about WWII airpower or war chronology. It is difficult enough to find one well researched, accurate book about something as well chronicled as say, the 8th AF.

My Roger Freemans, Kent Millers, (and my own stuff) etc are well and truly marked up as I find and correct errors

kool kitty89 · 12-31-2007, 05:56 PM

They were obviously less volnerable, but where is the oil ciiler on the P-47 and F6F?

renrich · 12-31-2007, 06:33 PM

The oil coolers(2) were located beneath the engine in the nose of the P47. The oil cooler in the Hellcat was behind the engine in the lower part of the fuselage. I do not believe there was any armor protecting the oil cooler in either AC.

kool kitty89 · 01-01-2008, 01:56 AM

Ok, I thought they were with the engine, that is one of the least volnerable places, even without armor...

B-17engineer · 01-01-2008, 09:11 AM

FIghter: P-47
Ground attack: IL-2
Bomber: B-26
Carrier take-off: SBD

My picks i choose is a P-47 we all know its tough, The Il-2 because it was fast and durable, the B-26 that thing could take a pounding, and the SBD very tough.

lesofprimus · 01-01-2008, 10:26 AM

The Fw 190F and G were much more durable at low level than the IL2 ever was....

renrich · 01-01-2008, 11:45 AM

It is hard to say just looking at a small sketch but a round entering the bottom of the engine cowl either directly from the front or below on the P47 might injure the oil coolers and a round coming from below just aft of the engine cowl might get the cooler on the F6F. I believe that most damage to AC happened to the rear half of the airplane because of not enough lead so that would make the coolers pretty safe perhaps a little safer on the F6F but one would have to see the installation in situ to be sure.

kool kitty89 · 01-01-2008, 04:14 PM

The nose mounted oil-cooler(s) would be somewhat volnerable to head-on attack then, or defensive fire reom a rear gunner, but still there's not a much safer place to put them...

The IL-10 solved the oil-cooler problem of the IL-2 didn't it? It was also quite fast for a ground attack a/c, though not so much as the Fw-190G or P-47...

And the 190G was not as tough as the P-47, though certainly more so than the IL-2 in terms of volnerabillity, the high performance of the 190 and P-47 were also a big plus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-17engineer

FIghter: P-47
Ground attack: IL-2
Bomber: B-26
Carrier take-off: SBD

My picks i choose is a P-47 we all know its tough, The Il-2 because it was fast and durable, the B-26 that thing could take a pounding, and the SBD very tough.

How was the IL-2 ever fast???

renrich · 01-01-2008, 05:52 PM

When you think about it an oil cooler had to have a source of outside air to cool the oil in the cooler. If you recall the shape of the P47 and F6F the fuselages were not cylindrical like the Corsair so that allowed air scoops to be incorporated below the engine in or around the leading edge of the engine cowling which would not be blocked by that big round engine. Those air scoops were in the leading edge of the stub wing on the Corsair which was why the oil cooler was in the wing.

lesofprimus · 01-01-2008, 06:12 PM

Saying the IL2 was fast is like saying that Hillary is attractive...

kool kitty89 · 01-01-2008, 08:28 PM

I know about the corsair's cooler, but the F6F and P-47's placements are gennerally less volnerable, especially to ground fire.

And that statement about the IL-2's "speed" baffles me, inless he meant the IL-10, and still then not nearly as fast as the P-47 or 190G...