This thread is rather valuable for the to and fro commentary.
If I may add some additional thoughts ..
(a) If not, well, its not going to worry the pilot.
If the pilot/others are dead, then the crash was unsurvivable for whatever reasons. Sad for those left behind but, as you observe, not a problem thereafter for the pilot.
If the pilot/others experience no injuries (for instance, my only prang, years ago in a Bocian .. also my first glider ride ... left the unit in tatters and small bits of structure after we collected a fence post during an outlanding out at Penrith .. that was another story ... but, after both of us shook the remains from around us, we found ourselves without a scratch, bruise or other injury ... very embarrassing back at RIC that night, though as the glider had only just come out of overhaul) ... then, no problems.
HOWEVER, if the occupants suffer significant but non-lethal injuries, it is a whole different ball game. Every bit of advantage the pilot can build in to the outcome may just keep you out of a wheelchair or worse.
(b) Going A over T is a real risk if you don't have a great knowledge of the surface in question
Absolutely valid consideration. But only one aspect of the risk decision process. The aim ought not only to be avoiding ending up on your back but minimising the overall risk of injury .. horses for courses with the Type and circumstances on the day.
(c) Both the P-51 and Spitfire manuals dictate gear up.
As with all matters one would be factoring in the OEM's guidance.
A superstructure cockpit without surrounding crushable structure to help out in the case of a rollover together with a reasonable lower keel structure would be a good reason to favour gear up. Again, horses for courses. (Could be a good after dinner topic for discussion, Brian ?)
(d) Yeah, but the gear bent after initial impact.
The initial sequence doesn't matter all that much. The start of the prang is whatever the pilot makes of the final approach and touchdown. From there on, the basics of Crashes 101 are all that is important. Whether it's the wheels which bend and break .. or the wings ... or anything other than the occupants ... is good. Same philosophy applies with a paddock full of trees ... hit them with the wings, not the nose ...
(e) Aeroplanes are frankly not very crashworthy structures
As with most things ... it depends on what you might be expecting ...
The basic Certification strategy is that aircraft survivability is to do with an off-airport landing on a smooth, firm and generally suitable surface to permit a relatively gentle deceleration to a stop. If you run into something substantial, all bets are off.
Indeed, the most graphic picture I can recall is of the cliff face into which a B1B impacted at low level high speed flight conditions ... a black smudge and nothing much else that I can recall distinguishing.
As a consequence of the basic requirements, the early design standards envisaged maximum decelerations in the order of 6G. This was later upped to 9G. Later still, when the use of dynamic sled tests in the motor vehicle industry demonstrated that the very much higher peak loadings could be tolerated without horrendous design and manufacturing cost, the aircraft Standards adopted the motor vehicle Standards albeit with a few odds and ends added on.
Your motor car looks to full on impacts and the present Standards should serve you well up to, say, 50 to 60 kph. The aircraft can't quite aim for that sort of impact but, with the present dynamic standard seats, you are served well in most reasonable off airport prangs ... PROVIDING that you don't hit big and/or hard things.
Crashes 101 still reigns supreme.
(f) This bolt typically attaches to CrMo sheet brackets that are often cherry riveted to a non-structural aluminium panel.
Designs may vary but, if they are well thought out, things are a lot better than you might infer from the above comment.
I recall a cargo MU2 prang many years ago at Bargo or somewhere nearby. The cargo restraint system was of my approved design.
Barry S, the lead investigator, rang me at home to let me know that the aircraft had disintegrated around my cargo restraint provisions .. a bit of exaggeration on his part, no doubt, but the point remains, it is not very difficult to engineer an effective and progressively deforming restraint anchorage in an aircraft structure ...
Crashes 101 still remains supreme.
Only the detail on the day varies ...