Kaffy Mintcake

I understand, and don't think you meant that comment to be offensive. We all needed to join together to try to make things right again.

Ray

What everybody forgets is that era ....news was heavily censored
there was no television for the masses ..just a radio people sat around every night...
when the Pearll harbor attacked was mentioned ..it would have just been a foreign land where there were no
Tommys fighting and the average Brit person then would be unlikely to have even known where Pearl harbor was..

elfman

I don't buy the "everyone knew in advance but deliberately let it happen" Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories: If they knew the attack was coming, they could have made preparations to deter it and the attack would still have constituted an act of aggression by Japan. They could have still used it to justify America's entry into the war, but with fewer deaths, destruction of resources and it would have been less of a national humiliation.

Bob

like we'd be able to pick up two languages in over 60 odd years? don't be daft.

Rushman

Not that I am disagreeing....but alot of this speculation is because the US Navy deployed its carriers out to open sea exercise just prior to the attack. Carriers being the most vital and hardest to replace vessels. Not to mention that (I believe) its unusual to a Navy to only deploy one class of vessel on exercise, usually (again I believe) it would at least have a destroyer or frigate presence. This is where we could do with Rosifumi, he'd know for sure.

elfman

It's true that as a rule carriers deploy with a destroyer escort at the very least, but (and I haven't looked into this particularly hard) I haven't seen anything to suggest that they didn't have a destroyer escort on this particular deployment. Also, from the link I posted upthread:

None of the US Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor when the attack came. This has been alleged by some to be evidence of advance knowledge of the attack; the carriers were supposedly away so as to save them (the most valuable ships) from attack.

In fact, the two carriers then operating with the Pacific Fleet, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver fighters to Wake and Midway Islands. (The third, Saratoga, was in routine refit at Bremerton, in the Puget Sound shipyard.) These assignments sent the carriers west, toward Japan and the Kido Butai, lightly escorted. At the time of the attack, Enterprise was about 200 miles (370km?) west of Pearl Harbor, heading back. In fact, Enterprise was scheduled to be back on December 6th, but was delayed by weather. A rescheduling had her estimated time of arrival as 7:00, almost an hour before the attack, but she was also unable to make this schedule.

Furthermore, at the time, aircraft carriers were classified as fleet scouting elements, and hence relatively expendable; they were not capital ships. The most important vessels in naval planning even as late as Pearl Harbor were battleships (per the Mahanian doctrine followed by both the U.S. and Japanese navies at the time).

ETA: just noticed that the quote above mentions that they were escorted.

Lord Lionheart

Anyone bother to listen to the NPR article I dug out?

ugacrew

Side by side comparison for my good friend Rush

P-51 Mustang Performance
* Maximum speed: 437 mph (703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
* Cruise speed: 362 mph (580 km/h)
* Stall speed: 100 mph (160 km/h)
* Range: 1,650 mi (2,655 km) with external tanks
* Service ceiling: 41,900 ft (12,770 m)
* Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16.3 m/s)
* Wing loading: 39 lb/ft² (192 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)
* Lift-to-drag ratio: 14.6

Spitfire Performance
* Maximum speed: 330 knots (378 mph, 605 km/h)
* Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi, 760 km)
* Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,140 mi, 1,840 km)
* Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (11,300 m)
* Rate of climb: 2,665 ft/min (13.5 m/s)
* Wing loading: 24.56 lb/ft² (119.91 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (360 W/kg)

Hawker Hurricane Performance
* Maximum speed: 340 mph (547 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
(320 mph (514 km/h) at 19,700 ft (6,004 m) with two 250 lb bombs)
* Range: 600 mi (965 km)
* Service ceiling: 36,000 ft (10,970 m)
* Rate of climb: 2,780 ft/min (14.1 m/s)
* Wing loading: 29.8 lb/ft² (121.9 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 6.47 lb/hp (3.94 kg/kW)

As you can see the P-51 has a higher service level (decreases the amount of drag on a plane for better fuel consumption and less noisy from the ground making it easier for sneak attacks), range (so you are able to penetrate deeper into enemy territory thus increasing the amount of damage you can do to the enemies infrastructure), rate of climb (very useful in positioning yourself in a dog fight especially in the split-s maneuver and limiting damage in ground to air combat), and higher maximum speed (better for dogfighting and maneuvering out of ground to air missile attacks).

So run that by me again? :

Thydney

But only with the Merlin on board

elfman

It all depends on which variants you're comparing: these are for the Spitfire Mk XIV

Max Engine power: 2035 hp.

Max Speed: 721 km/h.

Max Climb Rate: 5,200 ft/min.

ugacrew

A poorly designed airframe can make the best engine suck. However I'm not discussing engines only. If we were then I'd have no argument. I'm comparing the overall packages. AND NO! I'm not comparing the packages of Thydney or Rushman. I'm not ready to bring out my microscope just yet.

Thydney

We've ten kids between us so at least they work

And there are a good few years from the initial design of the Spitfire to the Mustang technology made huge leaps

Rushman

Nice stats...from an American aviation site were they

From an R.A.F comparison tests at the time they were both in service and given that the P-51 was the brainchild of the RAF hardly unlikely to be biased towards the Spit.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...stang-881.html


"Maximum Climb The Spitfire XIV is very much better.
Turning Circle The Spitfire XIV is better.
Rate of Roll The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV."

So given that the Spitfire actually DID climb much better, had a better turning circle and rate of roll it was therefore better at what it was designed to be..."An interceptor fighter" .... a purpose built "dogfighter" whereas the Mustang was an long range "Escort fighter"

and just for the record we are obviously talking a WW2 theatre so "range (so you are able to penetrate deeper into enemy territory thus increasing the amount of damage you can do to the enemies infrastructure)" is cobblers because it wouldn't have been used for this purpose...that would be the task of the bombers.

ugacrew

It still had poor range limiting the missions that it could go on. I think at best it could achieve a little 600 miles outfitted with drop tanks. It's engine was a gas guzzler unfortunately.

Thydney

I cant believe we've got this far without one person crying 'Infamy, infamy everyones got it in for me'