armored warfare in the PTO during WW2

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

I find it amusing that the Sherman was the king of the battle field in this theater, while it was a death trap in Europe.

That was true in the air of the P-38 as well. The highest-scoring US aces ever flew them against the Japanese. In Europe and North Africa they were average at best.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That was true in the air of the P-38 as well. The highest-scoring US aces ever flew them against the Japanese. In Europe and North Africa they were average at best.

Another major plus with the P-38 was two engines. In the Pacific, long flights over water were required. Loss of an engine was very very dangerous. That's why the bulk of PTO aircraft were radials, since air-cooled engines are far more robust. The '38 got around that by having a spare engine. So any trade offs were worth it in terms of pilot survivability.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by tater

Another major plus with the P-38 was two engines. In the Pacific, long flights over water were required. Loss of an engine was very very dangerous. That's why the bulk of PTO aircraft were radials, since air-cooled engines are far more robust. The '38 got around that by having a spare engine. So any trade offs were worth it in terms of pilot survivability.

IIRC they made a pod (basically a converted drop tank) that was hung under one of the wings of the P-38 so that could carry a mechanic with the plane to service it on isolated airstrips.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

IIRC they made a pod (basically a converted drop tank) that was hung under one of the wings of the P-38 so that could carry a mechanic with the plane to service it on isolated airstrips.

Now that is extremely interesting....never knew that

[tater]

The Zero is as grossly over rated in popular history as Admiral Yamamoto, or General Patton are.

It was a fine aircraft against lesser air forces (in quality or numbers), but it was effectively the ultimate plane for the wrong war. It was like a ww1 plane on steroids.

It NEVER sustained a positive kill ratio vs the USN/USMC, for example, not over any period of time long enough to include a decent number of engagements (read both of Lundstrom's excellent First Team books for details of virtually every single encounter for the first year of the war). The rest of the world was already moving to higher wing-loading, faster planes—"energy" fighters, not turn and burn.

[Raptor1]

The Zero is certainly overrated in popular culture, but it certainly had it's advantages. For example, the Zero outclassed all Allied carrier aircraft in range, a critical factor in carrier warfare.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

IIRC they made a pod (basically a converted drop tank) that was hung under one of the wings of the P-38 so that could carry a mechanic with the plane to service it on isolated airstrips.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Standard Lightnings were even used as crew and cargo transports in the South Pacific. They were fitted with pods attached to the underwing pylons, replacing drop tanks or bombs, that could carry a single passenger in a lying-down position or cargo. This was very uncomfortable way to fly; some of the pods weren't even fitted with a window to let the victim see out or bring in light. One fellow who hitched a lift on a P-38 in one of these pods later said that whoever designed the damn thing should have been forced to ride in it.

Source:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38_2.html

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Source:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38_2.html

Well, ok, than.

Sounds like a strange way to travel, and possibly dangerous.

I couldn't find any images of it w/a quick Googling.

[Task Force]

Just imagine if the pilot pulled the release switch.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That was true in the air of the P-38 as well. The highest-scoring US aces ever flew them against the Japanese. In Europe and North Africa they were average at best.

And basically for the same reasons. For instance, the Zero, although lighter and more agile than most Allied aircraft, was lightly armed (I remember reading one story about a flight of Zekes that emptied all their magazines into a B-17 in a prolonged fight, only for the bomber to surive the trip back to base [albeit in horrible condition]), even more lightly armored, and lacked self-sealing fuel tanks, which meant that many times just a quick burst was enough to light one on fire. Even though they were fairly modern craft at the beginning of the war, from the mid-war on they were outclassed by their Allied counterparts.

Although the army did have some pretty good aircraft... they had several types throughout the war that were just as good as the aircraft they went up against, and late-war models closed the gap even more, although by then they had about as much effect as Germany's experimental U-boat models. So actually maybe it wasn't all that similar overall, except when it came to the IJN.

[Raptor1]

I wouldn't classify the Zero as lightly armed, it was pretty much equal in firepower to the German Bf 109E with dual 7.7mm MGs and dual 20mm cannons (Curiously, these guns were based off the same Oerlikon FF that the 109's MG FF was). While this was probably sufficient against fighters, the B-17 was notoriously hard to take down, which was one of the main reasons the Germans switched their cannons to much larger 30mm guns.

The lack of armour, self-sealing tanks and a proper replacement was fatal though.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Maybe inadequate would be a better word. IIRC the Zeroes had somewhat smaller magazines (Or maybe it was just for their cannons), and American aircraft for the most part were sturdy and well protected.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

I wouldn't classify the Zero as lightly armed, it was pretty much equal in firepower to the German Bf 109E with dual 7.7mm MGs and dual 20mm cannons (Curiously, these guns were based off the same Oerlikon FF that the 109's MG FF was). While this was probably sufficient against fighters, the B-17 was notoriously hard to take down, which was one of the main reasons the Germans switched their cannons to much larger 30mm guns.

The lack of armour, self-sealing tanks and a proper replacement was fatal though.

I can tell you when I've played a Battle of Britain map in a Spitfire in IL-2, my lack of a cannon is a real downer. I've emptied all my ammo into various German bombers and they wouldn't go down.

[nikimcbee]

The Jap tanks armor is measured in MM. I think a bb gun penetrate them.
IE: Type 89a max armor: 17mm
Panzer iv: max 50mm
Panther: 100mm