SBD Dauntless Discussion Group

lesofprimus · 09-14-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Did he shoot them down? I dont think so.

So once again ur calling him a liar.... I suppose his gunner was lying as well.... I also suppose u discount everyones claims, even if they were verified....

You know what I think??? <edited by administrator>

Quote:

If a Stuka pilot claimed he turned into attacking Spitfires and using two MG, managed to shoot down 3 planes, would it make you wonder if it could have happened?

If the Stuka pilots gunner verified the account, and the Stuka pilot was a very respectable individual, no I would not wonder about it... I would shake the mans hand and thank him for his service to his country...

And for the record, he shot down all 3 in head on passes... If anyone can remember, it aint too hard to knock a Zero outta the sky.....

plan_D · 09-14-2005, 12:47 PM

I imagine it would have been simple for the man once he had the foolish Zero pilots turning towards him and going head on. After all the American pilots were told to go head on into Japanese attacks because their planes could not take much damage, if any at all.

That would be vastly different for a Spitfire vs. Stuka. The Stuka could turn into the Spitfire but the Spitfire could take it's punishment (Unless it was a Ju-87G and a 37mm splattered the Spitfire). The Spitfire would mostly likely get on the tail of the Stuka before the pilot even thought of turning into him. The SBD was more agile than the Stuka...a lot more.

syscom3 · 09-14-2005, 12:47 PM

I remember reading about the USN Submarine war in WW2, and many captains wrote in their reports that they heard the torpedo explode, they saw the ship on fire and they saw it sink. After the war they were shown proof that the ship didnt sink and it was still afloat. If you want to know the name of the book, send me a PM and when i get home, i will let you know.

Did that make them liars? Nope. It just proved that in the stress of battle, they thought they saw it happen and were simply mistaken.

Once again, you attack me for asking questions.

plan_D · 09-14-2005, 12:48 PM

If the SBD pilot saw the Zero go down in flames then he hasn't made a mistake. Since we're talking the Zero, the odds are the aircraft fell apart or burst into flames when hit. I think that's a pretty safe bet that it's gone to hell.

syscom3 · 09-14-2005, 01:05 PM

If you read what I have been saying, I am not denying the SBD gunners shot down planes, Im just saying that its not as many as was claimed. If three gunners shoot at the same plane and see it explode and crash, from their point of view, three planes were shot down.

The Germans seemed to have the strictest rules for awarding claims, and the US wasnt nearly so strict.

Unfortunatly for the navy, claims made in the middle of the ocean when theres no gun film, can be hard to prove/dissprove. Unless those claims can be correlated with Japanese records, then some of the claims should be looked at under a critical eye.

Should I believe at face value that all the German fighters claimed by the B17's and -24's be true? Or do you use some analysis to it and figure out a more reasonable tally?

plan_D · 09-14-2005, 01:09 PM

He wasn't the gunner though, he was the pilot and he was on his own.

FLYBOYJ · 09-14-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

He could have used the dive flaps to slow down to good effect but the end result would him being at a slow speed and low energy state.

Forget a low energy state, have you ever turned in an aircraft with full flaps?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-14-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

And in the course of an action where there's enemy planes about, do you always expect someone to look down at his watch and take out a pencil and note the time?
- Actaually yes. All pilots were asked to give the best estimate of time of events as it happened. The pilots actually had clocks in the cockpit for them to look at from time to time. If the AAF could do it, the surface ships do it (when they were shooting at enemy planes and ships) then I think it would be resonable for the naval Air Arm to request the same things from their pilots.

If everytime my aircraft had missle fired at it in Iraq me or the rest of the crew had checked out watches or looked at the 2 clocks on the instrument panels to see what time we were engaged I would not be typing right now. Trust me in the middle of a deadly situation or combat the last thing you think about is the time.

evangilder · 09-14-2005, 01:48 PM

Yep, That is the truth there. Can you imagine someone yelling "timeout" so that they could put down their weapon, pull out their trusty notebook and pencil to mark then time? Then call "okay, resume killing"? Not going to happen. The last thing on your mind when you are in the middle of bad guys is what time it is.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-14-2005, 01:50 PM

Trust me I know that feeling. A typical engagement went by so quick that you did not even have time to **** in your flight suit. Thankgod I did not have to experience that many times.

evangilder · 09-14-2005, 01:54 PM

Yep, and the concept of time is completely skewed when under fire. Minutes turn to hours quickly in that situation. I know that happened to me a few times. It seemed like hours, but with the amount of firing going on, we would have needed a mountain of ammo to go on for hours. So at that point its pretty much a guess.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-14-2005, 01:58 PM

Yeap 1 minute seems like an hour. An 8 hour mission over Iraq felt like 1 hour to me.

syscom3 · 09-14-2005, 02:10 PM

Theres a vast difference between saying you had an event happening approx. around a specific time and then saying you had a 30 minute window when it happened.

Those planes only had endurance really measured in minutes and the pilots were looking at the clock from time to time.

Plus part of their navigation was decided upon specific times (minutes from ship, minutes from rally point, etc.)

If you look at the list he provided, there were exact times specified on some of the claims. So that proves it was done.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-14-2005, 02:15 PM

Yeah it was looked at, after the fact so you did not know the exact time. Trust me I have been in the situation. Not dogfighting ofcourse but under fire while flying and the clock was the last thing on my mind.

evangilder · 09-14-2005, 02:17 PM

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. There may have been guys that put their best estimate on the time, while others gave a range. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. Unless you personally know the person making the claim and the way that he did his time marks, there is no way to know for sure.