My argument wasn't that captain obvious. It was that durability of a plane doesn't matter when statistically you are just as likely to be shot down as your counterparts.
Advertisement
by Datlofff » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:28 am
by The New California Republic » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:34 am
by Fartsniffage » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:44 am
by Telconi » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:50 am
by Fartsniffage » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:57 am
by Pepe the Hate Symbol » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:59 am
by The Transhuman Union » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:03 pm
by Pepe the Hate Symbol » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:04 pm
The Transhuman Union wrote:I like most aircraft of WW2, but my favorites by far were the Ilyushin Il-2 and B-29 for the Allies, and the Fw 190 and A6M Zero of the Axis. Plus they looked real good.
by East Ustya » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:05 pm
by Telconi » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:06 pm
by Fartsniffage » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:08 pm
Pepe the Hate Symbol wrote:Telconi wrote:
But is that due to the plane or other factors?
It was due to a few things such as sorties and other things. B-17s were used much more in the European theater than B-24s. Pilots also hated the B-24. The B-17 was the better aircraft almost all around. If you ever read Unbroken the author says the primary reason they probably crashed was because of the poor maintenance and performance of the B-24.
by Democratic Exodian Territories » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:09 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Pepe the Hate Symbol wrote:
It was due to a few things such as sorties and other things. B-17s were used much more in the European theater than B-24s. Pilots also hated the B-24. The B-17 was the better aircraft almost all around. If you ever read Unbroken the author says the primary reason they probably crashed was because of the poor maintenance and performance of the B-24.
I'm not sure why we're even talking about this. The best heavy bomber of the war was the Lancaster.
RBC News Channel, brought to you by Sapphire Systems Ltd:
| US President MacArthur doubles down on internal corruption | Aid sent to Nicaragua after Tropical Storm Marta | Stocks down 2 points |
by Pepe the Hate Symbol » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:09 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Pepe the Hate Symbol wrote:
It was due to a few things such as sorties and other things. B-17s were used much more in the European theater than B-24s. Pilots also hated the B-24. The B-17 was the better aircraft almost all around. If you ever read Unbroken the author says the primary reason they probably crashed was because of the poor maintenance and performance of the B-24.
I'm not sure why we're even talking about this. The best heavy bomber of the war was the Lancaster.
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:10 pm
Galloism wrote:Pax Nerdvana wrote:I love aircraft and aviation in general, and I've never seen a thread here specifically devoted to flight and aviation on this forum before. I would love to be a pilot, or at least work with aircraft in some manner. This thread's purpose is the discussion of aircraft, aviation, and spacecraft. I'm especially interested in WWII military aircraft, one of my favorite aircraft is the P-51D Mustang. What airplanes do you guys like? Would you want to be a pilot?
Welcome friend. Being a pilot is fantastic - just don’t go into debt for it. It’s not lucrative until you get to very high levels.
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by Fartsniffage » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:10 pm
Telconi wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
Those numbers were averaged out over the entire war so other factors should even out.
Uh, no, because the numbers used varied throughout the war, the the bombers had different capabilities and we're assigned to different roles, etc. The two types were not used in consistent ratio's in every place throughout the entire war.
by Fartsniffage » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:15 pm
by Democratic Exodian Territories » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:18 pm
RBC News Channel, brought to you by Sapphire Systems Ltd:
| US President MacArthur doubles down on internal corruption | Aid sent to Nicaragua after Tropical Storm Marta | Stocks down 2 points |
by Telconi » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:21 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Telconi wrote:
Uh, no, because the numbers used varied throughout the war, the the bombers had different capabilities and we're assigned to different roles, etc. The two types were not used in consistent ratio's in every place throughout the entire war.
So someone has done it just for the European theater after December 1943.
B-17: 1.42% per sortie.
B-24: 1.11% per sortie.
Happier?
by Fartsniffage » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:24 pm
by Pax Nerdvana » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:44 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Well this isn't supposed to happen...
by The New California Republic » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:53 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:I'm not sure why we're even talking about this. The best heavy bomber of the war was the Lancaster.
by Pax Nerdvana » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:55 pm
by Telconi » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:03 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Deblar, Elwher, Ethel mermania, Gonswanza, Grinning Dragon, Ineva, Kerwa, Nantoraka, Page, Parouty, Pathonia, Takhur, The Kerbal United Republic, The Web Citadel, Tiami, Valrifall
Advertisement