Seeing through the fog of war is difficult.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4600 (22-Apr-2008 02:25:48) |
|
||
|
jlyons97 |
On paper, a P-40 shouldn't stand a chance against a Zero, .. | ||
|
Posts: 1445 (22-Apr-2008 03:58:28) |
but in the right hands the Warhawk prevailed nicely."
Actually, it does not appear that the AVG ever encountered Zeros where they did business. Their most common fighter opponent was the Ki-27 Nate, followed by the Ki-43. Both were agile airplanes, more agile than the Zero actually. Overall, the P-40 bested them. |
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4601 (22-Apr-2008 05:18:59) |
Actually, it does not appear that the AVG ever encountered Zeros where they did business. Their most common fighter opponent was the Ki-27 Nate, followed by the Ki-43. Both were agile airplanes, more agile than the Zero actually. Overall, the P-40 bested them. I might add: The Soviets used the P-40 quite effectivly against the Fw-190. |
||
|
JBren1 |
|||
|
Posts: 191 (23-Apr-2008 17:06:29) |
seasick wrote: I think that gets back to your correct point about fog of war though. There are actually two-side documented cases of P-40/Kittyhawk units besting
Fw190's in the Med theater. It's obviously possible, pilots and other factors often dominated contests between planes of anything like similar
capabilities. So, I'm sure it happened on occasion in the East as well. But commonly? if we're relying on claims (anybody's claims in WWII really,
but Soviet ones might warrant a little extra caution on top of that) to establish that we're on shaky ground IMO. When I said AVG P-40's bested Type
97's (and Type 1's actually, though in a lot fewer engagements) I'm basing it on what each said it lost in the same combats, combat by combat,
fighters only, around 3:1 in the AVG's favor over its whole period of operations. I highly doubt the P-40 had a fighter-fighter exchange ratio above 1 on
the Eastern Front. Of course an Fw190 (or Bf109) isn't a Type 97 (or even a Type 1), and the AVG was an unusual fighter unit (had much better results than
other Allied fighter units facing similar Japanese opposition in the first 1/2 of 1942).
|
||
|
1Big Rich |
|||
|
Posts: 1853 (24-Apr-2008 04:22:16) |
Admiral Beez wrote: Beez,
You would perhaps like to volunteer to finance the the show's 'Round the World tour, to spend time with pilots of other nationalities, record their
stories and have their stories translated to Computer Generated Images?
Realize too that that first and foremost, the History Channel is about entertainment, not history. The important contribution "Dogfights" makes in my opinion is providing a visual record for historical events which have no visual record associated with them. Though the product can be flawed, one man's recollection of events 30, 40, 50 or 65 years ago, guesses by the animators at the movements of his out-of-sight opponents and sometimes inaccurate or misleading CGI, at least some kind of visual record is created. Previously, this was accomplished only by artists with canvas and oils. If that entertainment, that flawed visual record causes one mind, especially a young one, to open one book to learn more, that, as they say in 1066 and All That, is a very good thing... My thoughts,
Your Text Signature ...
|
||
|
pukalshik |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 19 (24-Apr-2008 09:14:57) |
1Big Rich wrote:You are wrong. Russian television now is full of such kind of "patriotic" stuff. Those former thiefs and bandits who became billionares now feel themselves as a heart of Russia and spend lots of money on such TV programms. Interviews with Pepelyaev, glorifying of russian weapon, etc. |
||
|
JBren1 |
|||
|
Posts: 192 (24-Apr-2008 17:02:43) |
1Big Rich wrote: 1. Yes. 2. But IMHO commissioned paintings of famous episodes told from one side, when the other side's account is known and differs substantially or totally, are just an embarrasment to everyone concerned. Some examples which come to mind are one calendar of air combat paintings I saw in a bookstore, one with AVG P-40 shooting down a Zero, AVG never met Zeroes. Or here's another, dramatic painting of Type 3 fighters (Ki-61 Tony) being shot down by one of the Doolittle Raid's B-25's. Interestingly a pre-production Type 3 *did* pursue a Doolittle B-25, though wasn't shot down, the two-sided reality is still highly interesting (if link doesn't work it's the cover of Osprey's "Campaign-The Doolittle Raid"). But again I find a painting like that an embarassment, and that goes for similar typical Dogfights episodes. Actually I talked to a guy who did research for those commissioned air combat paintings to try to avoid that problem if possible, to find the other side, or at least be somewhat sure a completely contradicting account wasn't easily accessible to put it perhaps a bit more cynically. At least some of those commercial artists care about that kind of thing I guess, but History Channel probably less so, back to point 1. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1841769185/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link Joe |
||
|
1Big Rich |
|||
|
Posts: 1854 (25-Apr-2008 17:29:15) |
JBren1 wrote: Point taken, Joe, but I was thinking more along the lines artists who have a reputation for historical accuracy, like John Hamilton, whose War at Sea
volume has dozens of paintings of battles which had no photogaphic or motion picture film record, or the works of the likes of R. G. Smith or Tom Freeman.
Your Text Signature ...
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
