Top products from r/WWIIplanes

We found 23 product mentions on r/WWIIplanes. We ranked the 50 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/WWIIplanes:

u/ResearcherAtLarge · 2 pointsr/WWIIplanes

One of my favorites on the US side is Thunderbolt! by Robert Johnson. If you're interested in the China-Burma theater (or want to start learning) I'd recommend Into the Teeth of the Tiger and God is My Copilot.
Bader's book mentioned by /u/thebroadwayflyer is a biography and not an autobigraphy, for what it's worth. If you're not 100% set on autobiographies then Bader's Reach for the Sky and Robert Tuck's Fly For Your Life are good. One RAF autobiography I enjoyed was To War in a Stringbag by a pilot who flew Swordfish during some big and important events during the war.

u/Layin-Scunion · 9 pointsr/WWIIplanes

You asked questions, I answered. You don't like the answers so you argue?

The field kits were poor range, poor reliability and not nearly as functional as factory installed radar.

Range is important for any interceptor....especially night fighters being as they had to be guided to their target all the way down to a firing solution. Unlike day time where they were more or less given a direction/altitude and pilot discretion came much more into play.


Took a lot of time compared to a day time engagement. It's much better to be loitering and above your target than scrambling to reach it 150km out wouldn't you agree?

> Which radar was that?

Neptun FuG 217

Edit: Also the Neptune FuG 218

Some books to read if you're genuinely interested:

Schnaufer: Ace of Diamonds. A biography of the highest scoring night fighter. I personally like autobiographies but this was a good read.

Nachtjagd, Defenders of the Reich 1940 - 1943. This is the book I referenced to answer your question.

u/klystron · 1 pointr/WWIIplanes

During the lead-up to the invasion several hundred gliders were produced and stored on airfields, waiting for their one-way trip. In English weather this caused a lot of them to develop mould and collect water inside, which could have caused the gliders to break up in flight.

In The New Science of Strong Materials by JE Gordon, we are told about the problems this caused and how they were overcome. This is in the chapter Glue and Plywood which also discusses the problems of constructing planes such as the Horsa and the Mosquito out of plywood.

A fascinating book and an interesting look at some of the technicalities involved in constructing them.

u/Gopher64 · 1 pointr/WWIIplanes

I highly recommend Ted Lawson's 30 Seconds Over Toyko about the Doolittle Raid. It goes into the crew selection, training for the raid, the raid itself, and the aftermath of the crew and aircraft.
Worth the time and effort to find a copy.
https://www.amazon.com/Thirty-Seconds-Over-Tokyo-Lawson/dp/0743474333

u/Orlando1701 · 3 pointsr/WWIIplanes

Recently read the book 'The Aviators' which is partial about him. Highly recommend it.

u/billymcsilly · 2 pointsr/WWIIplanes

I looked into the aircraft at this link here. It was assigned to the 351st Fighter Squadron, 355th Fighter Group stationed at Steeple Morden, England. However, the drawing shows the airplane when the unit had been moved to Germany as an occupying force after the end of the war, as the unit carried those three stripes around the tail just under the radio mast only while they were in Germany. If you're interested in finding more about the unit, these two books are on it: HERE, and HERE.

u/SnarkMasterRay · 1 pointr/WWIIplanes

It's from a well-known (to some - I have a thing for VF-17) series of photos shot from the carrier island. Lee Cook's book has some, if you can get a copy.

u/MossyOak_vs_RealTree · 2 pointsr/WWIIplanes

I can't help you find a non-technical book, but you need to get yourself this book right here. Every WWII aircraft fanatic needs that book.

u/librarianhuddz · 1 pointr/WWIIplanes

I just found out that many of the bombers didn't have the Norden and just bombed when the Norden equipped leader did. If that plane was blown out of the sky....well then thing fell where they may. Also timing/movement/chaos caused errors even when the lead was undamaged. Read that in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Higher-Call-Incredible-Chivalry-War-Torn/dp/0425255735

u/badgrafxghost · 2 pointsr/WWIIplanes

FYI, the book the series is to be based on, Masters of the Air: America's Bomber Boys Who Fought the Air War Against Nazi Germany is an absolute phenomenal read. It chronicles the history of the 8th Air Force and their role throughout the war touching on everything from prewar strategic bomber doctrine and theory to technical details about the strengths and limitations of the B-17, and includes tons of personal recollections and narratives from the various men who flew them.

I'd say its a must-read for anyone even remotely interested in WWII aviation.

u/rustyschneids · 15 pointsr/WWIIplanes

Read the book “Flyboys” by James Bradley. It talks specifically about the war on Chichi Jima. Flyboys

u/bitter_cynical_angry · 4 pointsr/WWIIplanes

FYI, if you're a nostalgic war nerd you can get these and other old reference books on Amazon for dirt cheap, from the used book sellers. I've accumulated a bunch, basically for the price of shipping.

Edit: Here it is on Amazon, about $8 or $9 shipped. Then just go through the "Customers who bought this also bought..." links and click on whatever looks interesting. I have a bunch of Bill Gunston books and various Cold War reference books I've gotten this way.

u/LayinScunion · 1 pointr/WWIIplanes

> 36,183 IL-2s were produced between 1941 - 1945.

IL-2s were known for being dependable after working out teething problems during first trials. Very widely known of taking awful amounts of damage and still being able to fly home. Pilots loved them mostly because of this fact. It was dubbed the "Flying Tank" due to the amount of damage it could handle and still be flyable. I'd say that is some great quality. Just because an aircraft is produced in huge numbers, does not make it shit.

>Should I also check casualty numbers of WW2 alone to prove that Russia tends to take the brute force approach?

Being that Russia was on the offensive for nearly 4 years of the war, I'd say that's quite an easy thing to grasp. A defensive military will almost always take less casualties than a military on the offensive. This is a commonly accepted fact that has been known since the dawn of warfare.

>That's the thing with having lots of resources and a chain of command focused only on wining.

What else are you supposed to concentrate on during a war? Kill ratios? Propaganda? I'd say winning is by far the most important aspect of a war. Wouldn't you agree?

>They can just keep throwing bodies at a problem until it goes away.

No. They did no such thing. I recommend reading this book and this book especially because it addresses the Goebbels propaganda of "Soviet human wave" bullshit. You realize that's where this thought comes from correct? Nazi propaganda. It was meant to make Soviets look like barbaric animals....and it apparently still holds salt in some minds today. Your's for example.

>Look at the battle of Stalingrad. 1,129,619 casualties, 4,431 lost tanks, and 2,769 lost aircraft.

First off, your numbers are ridiculously way off. Approximately 4400 tanks? The Soviets lost around 1500 tanks total. Your number is probably including half tracks, SPGs, and things of that nature which makes it look like something it is clearly not. When adding up Axis vehicles total, it nearly triples the losses if I simply pass them all off as "tanks".

"Look at the Battle of Stalingrad. ~900,000 casualties, ~1,000 aircraft, ~700 tanks (actual tanks, not armor in general) and 5,500 artillery pieces for the Axis." I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make. It was the absolute biggest loss of human life in the history of warfare and there were huge losses on both sides.

>This is also the same military force that had a secondary line of soldiers behind the front lines that was ordered to shoot any deserters running from the battle.

Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary. The NKVD attachments were there to corral deserters or broken down men who could not take the front anymore. Most were put into hospitals. A minuscule amount were executed. Let me make this a point, every one of the belligerents in WW2 executed deserters.

Back to the NKVD:

>The order also directed that each Army must create "blocking detachments" (barrier troops (заградотряд, заградительный отряд)) which would capture or shoot "cowards" and fleeing panicked troops at the rear. Both measures were cited in the preamble of the order as having been successfully used by the Germans during their winter retreat. The requirement for Armies to maintain companies of barrier troops was withdrawn after just three months, on October 29, 1942. Intended to galvanize the morale of the hard-pressed Soviet Army and emphasize patriotism, it had a generally detrimental effect and was not consistently implemented by commanders who viewed diverting troops to create barrier units as a waste of manpower, so by October 1942 the idea of regular blocking units was quietly dropped.[3] By 20 November 1944 the blocking units were officially disbanded.

So after 3 whole months the blocking detachments were not a thing anymore. And most commanders did not execute anyone retreating. A lot were simply put back at the front. To think this happened throughout the war is naive at best.

So much of what you said is just ignorance. Hopefully not willfully. I'd highly recommend the two books I mentioned. It shows the way the Soviets truly operated and quite frankly, it's damn impressive.

Edit for quotes