Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

Discussions on the Allies and the Neutral States in general and the countries that does not have sections of their own.
User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 20 Feb 2004 22:45

ChristopherPerrien wrote:The Douglas Devastator Torpedo Bomber , " I hope the Finns did not fly this duck too".
No, but we had much more advanced types like Blackburn Ripon, Fokker C.VD/C.VE and Fokker C.X. It was very close we would get even as succesful planes as Blackburn Roc s... :lol:

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 20 Feb 2004 23:32

Tony Williams wrote:I can't resist this one!
Polynikes wrote: Not sure the Westland Whirlwind deserves a worst weapon label though.
Agreed. It was as fast as a Spitfire, very compact and with four 20mm in the nose had devastating firepower. Its main problem was that development took too long; if it had been ready in time for the Battle of Britain (as it should have been) it would probably be regarded as one of the classic planes of WW2, because it would have chewed up the Luftwaffe bombers far more than the Spitfires and Hurris could. Then it was unlucky to use the Peregrine engine, which was half of a Vulture. When the Vulture was cancelled, the Peregrine went too, so it effectively had no engine, in terms of any future development.
Have sometimes wondered was it really impossible to mount Merlins to Whirlwind ??

Ofcourse it would have been necessited extensive modifications to the aircraft - but if end result might have been like early war DH Hornet...

I have ended to conclusion that it was more about resources than growth potential of airframe: In 1940-41 Merlins were scarce and valuable like gold-teeth, and as effective Merlin-Whirlwind would had been - it would had consumed two of them - though it is practical impossibility that some fighter has double the combat effectiveness of Spitfire...

Regards, Mark V

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 1358
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:31
Location: UK

Post by Tony Williams » 21 Feb 2004 08:07

Mark V wrote:Have sometimes wondered was it really impossible to mount Merlins to Whirlwind ??
Probably - the Merlins were big and heavy and the Whirlwind was very small.

I think it might have done better with Bristol Taurus radials. I know those engines were little used and underdeveloped as well, but at least they stayed in production, and might have seen more development if the Whirlwind were successful with them. They were the same weight as Peregrines but about 20% more powerful.

The real advantage of using the air-cooled Taurus would have been in ground attack, where they would have been less vulnerable to ground fire. And the configuration would have made it possible to fit a big anti-tank gun. Add some more armour and you've got an Hs 129 with the performance of a fighter!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11538
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 21 Feb 2004 13:34

ChristopherPerrien wrote:" I hope the Finns did not fly this duck too".
too?

Regards, Juha

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 21 Feb 2004 16:33

Interesting thought Tony - especially since Whirlwind ended serving as fighter bomber and fared quite well in that role (engine problems not included).

Very fast on the deck, 4 Hispanos concentrated to the nose and around 500 lbs of droppable ordnance.

Mark V

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 21 Feb 2004 18:02

Juha Tompuri wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote:" I hope the Finns did not fly this duck too".
too?

Regards, Juha


Yes, "too" , it is a direction, like "North" "South" "West" "East".
"Too", a direction that we are not going to go toward.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 21 Feb 2004 19:15

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Yes, "too" , it is a direction, like "North" "South" "West" "East".
"Too", a direction that we are not going to go toward.
You sound afraid. :D

Don't worry - i think Juha (and the others in Finn horde) will spare all of you this time.... :wink:

Mark V

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11538
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 21 Feb 2004 22:48

Mark V wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Yes, "too" , it is a direction, like "North" "South" "West" "East".
"Too", a direction that we are not going to go toward.
You sound afraid. :D

Don't worry - i think Juha (and the others in Finn horde) will spare all of you this time.... :wink:

Mark V
8)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 22 Feb 2004 03:03

Well, that is an real Brewskyglas. :lol: :D


Cheers to you also.

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003 21:54
Location: Stockport, England

Post by redcoat » 24 Feb 2004 00:19

ChristopherPerrien wrote:How about the British subs with the 12" cannons.?
The only British sub armed with a heavy gun (12 inch) was the M2 in 1928, the trial was a failure and the gun was removed soon after.

The only allied submarine armed with heavy guns in WW2 was the French submarine the Surcouf armed with two 8" inch guns, lost in 42 while serving with the free French navy.

User avatar
adrian
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 May 2002 03:46
Location: Boree Creek, Australia

Post by adrian » 24 Feb 2004 21:55

I'm surprised that those steam powered Submarines (K Series?)of the immediate post war period haven't got a mention!

adrian

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003 21:54
Location: Stockport, England

Post by redcoat » 25 Feb 2004 00:52

adrian wrote:I'm surprised that those steam powered Submarines (K Series?)of the immediate post war period haven't got a mention!

adrian
How about because its the wrong period (WW1) :roll:

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4774
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 19 Jun 2004 05:00

How about Westland Welkin ?

I love the looks of that 21.34 m spanned high altitude fighter.
Unfortunately none of them were used in combat..77 built.

I think Westland Whirlwind was too small to be equipped with Merlins.

Welkin had too thick a wing..like a Hawker Hurricane.

-----------------------------------

Brewster matter once more.

I think it was not that the Soviet pilots were all that bad, but the I-16 early models and I-153 were too slow and thence inferior to a Brewster.

Definitely A Zero was a far more advanced aircombat machine than a I-16 "RATA".

I-16 by the way was the first fighter with retractable undercarriage. It's later models 28-29 were really good and could stood up with Me 109 F in horisontal fight.

BTW: I read that Soviets tested Mustangs but found it very unpleasant to fly. Why was this ?

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003 21:54
Location: Stockport, England

Post by redcoat » 19 Jun 2004 21:25

Topspeed wrote:How about Westland Welkin ?

I love the looks of that 21.34 m spanned high altitude fighter.
Unfortunately none of them were used in combat..77 built.
The Welkin while it was never used cannot be described as ineffective and deficent,
The major reason it was never put into service was the fact that the Luftwaffe had stopped using high altitude aircraft by the time it was ready for service
Definitely A Zero was a far more advanced aircombat machine than a I-16 "RATA".
?
Its not really fair to compare an aircraft which entered service in the early 30's against one which first entered service in 1940 :wink:

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4774
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 20 Jun 2004 18:17

redcoat wrote:The Welkin while it was never used cannot be described as ineffective and deficent,
The major reason it was never put into service was the fact that the Luftwaffe had stopped using high altitude aircraft by the time it was ready for service

Its not really fair to compare an aircraft which entered service in the early 30's against one which first entered service in 1940 :wink:
Here is a link:

http://hsfeatures.com/welkintc_1.htm

http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/ ... kin_en.htm

You'll find all the shortcomings over there in the latter link.

Germany devoloped its best high altitude fighter at the end of the war.

Precisely.....my "finnish friends" earlier here said Brewster was not bad but the american pilots were...Finnish pilots did good against the soviets just because Brewster was a helluva tougher fighter than an early model I-16 ( Zero was way superior to I-16 ).
Sorry REDCOAT I forgot where the original topics I referred to were, that is why I couldn't quote them ! It is here somewhere.

Here it is..especially I detest the last remark:
Mark V wrote:It is funny that it just don't get into heads of our dear American friends. Brewster was very good airplane - in Marine and USN use it was just bit overburdened with too heavy equipment and fuel load.

Brewster really doesn't deserve the reputation it has in US and Britain.

When flown in lighter condition by competent aviators it ruled our sky uncontested where ever it was seen till the end of 1942 - and i am not talking about Ratas. Brewster was many ways superior against Hurricane (which FAF pilots found especially easy prey) and LaGG-3.

In 1943-44 enemy fighters with superior performance (Hey - what you expect ?? - more than double amount of horsepower than in war-weary R-1820 Cyclones !!) started causing troubles for Brewsters. But even then - La-5s and Yaks had every reason to take Brewster very seriously - like victory statistics prove.

What Brewsters of Fighter Squadron 24 did to I-153s and I-16s in summer-autumn 1941 i don't care to discuss further, as it was more slaughter than aerial combat.


Regards, Mark V


PS. But hey, i guess some explanation why inferior race orientals with poor eye-sight :P shot US and Brit pilots down by dozens must be found. And the easiest is the equipment.
Look at that Westland Welkin..it is awesome ! Really I mean it.

Regards,

Jukka T / Finland

Return to “The Allies and the Neutral States in general”