OT: Japanese B-17's?

[Footslogger]

Neat video? I knew that captured enemy equipment was always used, but B-17's with the Norden Bombsight?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR-Yx4DojKg

[btd64]

I read about the Japanese B-17's some years ago. Very interesting stuff....GP

[jagsdomain]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Neat video? I knew that captured enemy equipment was always used, but B-17's with the Norden Bombsight?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR-Yx4DojKg

Thanks for the link.

[DHRedge]

Its funny how the AI attempts to rewrite history to try and maintain a narrative shown flawed.

Clark airbase was bombed days after pearl harbor, and part of why there was so much anger by FDR when it was a successful raid where Clark Field had not prepared for the attack, planes were still on the runway and were not flying cap.

Of coarse this is because war planners expected a period of time where Japan tried to make some argument, and did not expect them to quickly calculate that being framed for attack on Pearl Harbor was not something they were going to be able to discuss with diplomacy as USA mobilized and had already declared war with such an infamous act of framing.

Interesting how control of media limits some actions to only the path of warfare instead of dialog. If only the USA people knew who was responsible for Pearl Harbor bombing, things would have been different, but when has the public been part of actual accurate information... such as the date of attack on Clark Field.

The interesting thing is how Gandhi who later supported breaking away from British Empire control knew that any act of violence would never achieve a victory, and focused all his effort on letting the British people know what was being done in there name. While competition of German fuel production with syth fuels was much of hostilities in europe, Japan modernization was considered a threat to British Empire, and in the same way of outlawing clothing factories in India, they wanted to control competition in production in other parts of the world.

However the Indian ideas of going to the people of Britain were successful, a method not available to Japan in ww2, and a question some of you should be asking today,

Do you hear the real story and the real history?
Would ghandi be described as a violent terrorist if he did the same thing in today's media culture?

It is more interesting when you see the entire picture.

[fcooke]

DHR,

Please find help. For your mind.

Regards,
Frank

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

DHR,

Please find help. For your mind.

Regards,
Frank

He still has not answered how he got away from Nurse Ratched.

[John 3rd]

That video was fascinating. Makes sense but have never really thought about it.

USA took captured Japanese planes for evaluation so it makes perfect sense that someone else would.

[DHRedge]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

DHR,

Please find help. For your mind.

Regards,
Frank

Your funny, you don't make any argument why your experience would have a better evaluation then my experience, but you are funny.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

The Japanese should had learned a thing or two about aircraft's structural integrity. so obvious in the B-17, so lacking in Japanese designs

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The Japanese should had learned a thing or two about aircraft's structural integrity. so obvious in the B-17, so lacking in Japanese designs

Remember that structural strength is a design *choice*; US aircraft were generally tougher, yes, but paid for that in reduced range, increased material cost, etc.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

yes but it was a choice that brought consequences

moreover, it is a design decision that the Japanese maintained for most of their post-1942 expansion phase designs. Reminds me of the German obsession with dive bombing added to every bomber design

it was really no need to keep trying to increase the range of Nell/ Betty bombers beyond escort ranges

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

yes but it was a choice that brought consequences

All design choices bring consequences. The "right" design for an airplane needs to take into account its intended usage - which should include consideration of your doctrine for use of that type.

The US was obsessed with single manually-aimed machineguns for bomber defense. Did they work? They got some kills. Were they an effective use of personnel (gunners), resources (the guns themselves, ammo, etc.), AND payload fraction (drop two gunners, two BMGs with mountings and ammo, and their associated gear and you can *easily* carry an extra 500lb bomb)? It seems unlikely.

[BBfanboy]

Japanese doctrine seemed to be to send their airmen off on missions to die a glorious warrior death as far away as possible. That's the way I interpret their long range Ronson aircraft.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: DHRedge

Its funny how the AI attempts to rewrite history to try and maintain a narrative shown flawed.

Clark airbase was bombed days after pearl harbor, and part of why there was so much anger by FDR when it was a successful raid where Clark Field had not prepared for the attack, planes were still on the runway and were not flying cap.

Of coarse this is because war planners expected a period of time where Japan tried to make some argument, and did not expect them to quickly calculate that being framed for attack on Pearl Harbor was not something they were going to be able to discuss with diplomacy as USA mobilized and had already declared war with such an infamous act of framing.

Interesting how control of media limits some actions to only the path of warfare instead of dialog. If only the USA people knew who was responsible for Pearl Harbor bombing, things would have been different, but when has the public been part of actual accurate information... such as the date of attack on Clark Field.

The interesting thing is how Gandhi who later supported breaking away from British Empire control knew that any act of violence would never achieve a victory, and focused all his effort on letting the British people know what was being done in there name. While competition of German fuel production with syth fuels was much of hostilities in europe, Japan modernization was considered a threat to British Empire, and in the same way of outlawing clothing factories in India, they wanted to control competition in production in other parts of the world.

However the Indian ideas of going to the people of Britain were successful, a method not available to Japan in ww2, and a question some of you should be asking today,

Do you hear the real story and the real history?
Would ghandi be described as a violent terrorist if he did the same thing in today's media culture?

It is more interesting when you see the entire picture.

Once again...

WTF. I don't have time for this.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The Japanese should had learned a thing or two about aircraft's structural integrity. so obvious in the B-17, so lacking in Japanese designs

Maybe not so much as they didn't know, but more because of a 'philosophical', or should I say, Bushido outlook. Japan emphasized speed and maneuverability above all, because her pilots were to be on the attack, never on the defensive.

Only problem with that is... When you're on the defensive.[:D]

[Jorge_Stanbury]

their engines were also weaker than US equivalents,
I am more questioning that they keep that philosophical need for longer range, once they lost initiative.

Zeros/ Netties were good planes for early war, but design should had shifted to stronger, short legged builds by mid 42/ early 43

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

their engines were also weaker than US equivalents,
I am more questioning that they keep that philosophical need for longer range, once they lost initiative.

Zeros/ Netties were good planes for early war, but design should had shifted to stronger, short legged builds by mid 42/ early 43

Capturing a B-17 would give samples of the material used to make fuel tanks self-sealing, but that does not tell them how to make it.

I suspect the frames of IJ aircraft were similarly flimsy, so adding armour to the aircraft would also require beefing up the frame, which would require rebalancing the design, which might mean redesigning shape or placement of the wings and tail assembly. At some point they may have decided it would be better to wait until their newer designs came online rather than try to upgrade the old ones.

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I am more questioning that they keep that philosophical need for longer range, once they lost initiative.

Zeros/ Netties were good planes for early war, but design should had shifted to stronger, short legged builds by mid 42/ early 43

Not an expert on Japanese industry, but I doubt IJA/IJN aircraft design cycles were short enough to start a clean-sheet design in 1943 (or even mid 1942) and have it in production in useful numbers in time to do any good.

Note that almost every US airplane major model that saw combat service had its origin before the war; and if you're radically changing your design you really need a new major model.