Talk:Morane-Saulnier M.S.406

Casualties ratio

From this article:

"400 were lost in combat for only 175 kills in return (as well as more destroyed on the ground)."

From the article on fr:

"les unités équipées de MS.406 revendiquèrent la destruction de 183 appareils ennemis en combats aériens, pour la perte de 130 des leurs"

"The units equipied with the MS.406 claimed 183 enemy aircrafts, against 130 of their own lost".

Perhaps we should double-check these numbers. Also, the "more destroyed on the ground", here, seems a little bit ambiguous; intuitively, I would assume that these were MS.406s destroyed no the ground by the Luftwaffe, but the wording, as such, leaves open the interpretations that the MS.406 destroyed aircrafts on the ground beyond the 175 shot down in combat. Rama 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• From "Ils étaient là" by J. and P. Martin (a detailed account of all 1939-1940 losses by the Armée de l'air), frontline units of the Armée de l'air lost 130 MS.406s in air combat, 26 to AAA, and 34 to accidents between September 3rd, 1939 and June 24th, 1940. However this does not take into account local defense patrol units losses, as well as obviously the number of aircraft destroyed on the ground, abandoned by retreating units, or which were stored for repairs but eventually never were.

PpPachy 22:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Breffort & Jouineau 2005, p.50 says "At the time of the armistice, about 300 machines had been lost, a figure which takes into account the machines which were abandoned during the dramatic retreat south" further in the text "the ms 406....suffered the highest attrition rate (387, of which about 150 were lost in combat or shot down by German flak)" Dirk P Broer (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of "terms"..

"France surrendered".. this is not correct, they were totally beaten and driven to position in which the succesful defence of the nation was no longer possible and the BEF too took good beating (routed, fled in disarray..), only thing that saved them was too cautious German advance after the initial gain and trust to Göring that he could prevent the evacution. Also this is the same thing that happened to Germans in summer of 1944, after being finaly beaten in Normandy they rapidly lost the hold of the rest of the nation too. But neither gave up with out brisk fight and this kind of term i cannot see been used by anybody else than some neo-nazi conservative American who votes for Bush and thinks Europeans are bunch of lefties that just roll over and die. So i reject using statements like this cause they certainly arent objective nor potray the truth of what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.215.244.106 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lengthy article on the Battle of Moscow, and there's an article about the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Battle of Smolensk (1941). Wikipedia does not have an article about the Battle of Paris (1940), or the Battle of Lyons (1940), or the Battle of Marseilles (1940). You are perfectly welcome to start these articles. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a suggestion, Sedan, Dunkerque and Abbeville certainly deserve their own articles. PpPachy 01:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Prototypes were 406 and not 405?

This article starts with a section on the 405 and then talks about its development into the 406. However, the prototypes, from which these changes were apparently taken, are lab led 406 and placed in the 405 section. It appears that something is wrong in one of these two sections. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The first 2 prototypes were MS.405-01 and MS.405-02.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

I’ve flagged this, in the Morko-Morane section, mainly because I think it needs clarifying. The specs say the MS406 had a Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 engine, rated at 830 kW (1,110 hp), while the Morko section says the ones upgraded by the Finns were fitted with captured Klimov M-105P engines (which it says were licensed versions of the HS 12Y), rated at 820.3 kW (1,100 hp). So was it virtually the same engine, then (maybe a little less powerful)? And if so, how did it make such a difference to the performance? Does anybody know? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources I've seen quote the 12Y-31 engine as having a take-off power of 830 hp, not 830 kW - and the article specifications did say 830 hp prior to this edit in the process of changing specification templates - also note that the M105 engine had a 2-stage blower, which also may have affected performance.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a typo, fixed!--Petebutt (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thailand?

Way back in 2007, USer:Torb37 added mention that the Thai had captured M.S.406 planes abandoned by the Vichy forces. Others have since added on to this content, but it seems dubious at best. There is always the chance that the Thai did obtain a few airframes, but I can find absolutely no evidence of the plane having served in the Thai Air Force. Please refer to pages 91-92 of this Aeroplane article (pages 11 and 12 in the pdf, I had to alter the url as docdroid is on some sort of blacklist); it sounds like the Vichy forces gradually used up all of their M.S.406 in the area and retired them.

Also of note is that the user who originally added this content was blocked back in 2007 for Creating nonsense pages: contributions are utterly incoherent or patent nonsense; refuses to communicate with other editors. In light of this, and the fact that this text has had {{cn}} tags since 2017, I am removing mention of Thai captured planes and service with RTAF. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I would be very excited; I would love to see the livery if nothing else.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)