The Wildcat was also able to out-dive the Zero since it was a lot heavier than the Zero.The_Mac wrote:
I'm going to discount the P-51 statement, because the P-51 came out in '44, and it's not comparable to the A6m2(standard zero) maybe the Shiden Kai, but not the AM62.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
P-51Mustang>A6m Zero>F4F-3 WildcatacEofspadEs6313 wrote:
A6m Zero>F4F-3 Wildcat, sadly enough.
In terms of Speed and agility, the Zero wins. Its top speed of 553(speed could be higher, but rarely exceeded that) vs the Wildcat's 320mph as well as climbing and agility was good for one v ones. However, the Wildcat was better able to dive, because the flaps didn't lock up when going straight down like the Zero's did. The Wildcat had excellent armor, and even when the bullets did penetrate, the Wildcat had self sealing tanks, rubber devices that when oil leaked out of the aircraft, the rubber would get expanded by leaking oil, and because of its expansion, the bullet pierced oil tank would be covered up for the moment. It prevented Japanese tracers from blowing the thing up.
The Americans were also able to use their aircrafts armament to devastating the Japanese aircraft. That and the teamwork like the Thach Weave employed by the Americans were able to defeat the Japanese.
Sorry, I meant 1.2:1 on the ground.The_Mac wrote:
True, and in this case, we had bombers, good bombers. Despite our heavy losses, they would have been much worse if we'd used German type bombers.RAIMIUS wrote:
Well, the Wehrmacht did manage a 1.2:1 ratio of combat effectiveness per man...but we still had quantity!
Our bombers did take very heavy losses, until the P-51 showed up. Germany never fielded long-range bombers, as the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force (often outdated, at that!). Unfortunately, Allied bombing had little effect besides killing civilians and destroying cities. The only exception may have been with ball bearings, but even that was a limited success.
They almost destroyed the main turbine powering the main Daimler-Benz factory, but the bomb that fell between the two generators was a dud.RAIMIUS wrote:
Sorry, I meant 1.2:1 on the ground.The_Mac wrote:
True, and in this case, we had bombers, good bombers. Despite our heavy losses, they would have been much worse if we'd used German type bombers.RAIMIUS wrote:
Well, the Wehrmacht did manage a 1.2:1 ratio of combat effectiveness per man...but we still had quantity!
Our bombers did take very heavy losses, until the P-51 showed up. Germany never fielded long-range bombers, as the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force (often outdated, at that!). Unfortunately, Allied bombing had little effect besides killing civilians and destroying cities. The only exception may have been with ball bearings, but even that was a limited success.
They did more than that though. The bombers knocked out huge scathes of industrial construction. With the help of the bombers, Germany was forced out of the war sooner, faster, than if Allied forces perused the same strategy they had in WWI.RAIMIUS wrote:
Our bombers did take very heavy losses, until the P-51 showed up. Germany never fielded long-range bombers, as the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force (often outdated, at that!). Unfortunately, Allied bombing had little effect besides killing civilians and destroying cities. The only exception may have been with ball bearings, but even that was a limited success.
Well, the Bf 109 was flown in the late 1930s, but that doesn't mean it was outdated. It just meant that the competing British and Allied designs were inferior. The BF109 was a well rounded aircraft, matched only by later models of the Hurricane, and on par with the newer Spitfire.RAIMIUS wrote:
Our bombers did take very heavy losses, until the P-51 showed up. Germany never fielded long-range bombers, as the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force (often outdated, at that!).
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-31 17:18:56)
There's the M16A1 used in Vietnam. The A1 had chrome plating in the gas chamber to prevent wearing away and the eventual jamming.
The M16A4 used now by Marines and a few army units. SOCOM forces use an automatic variant, where it was factory tailored for automatic fire instead of the 3 round burst the Marine version will get now. Army has switched to the M4.
I should say that German production was kept near its previous levels by bombing (according to the US strategic bombing survey, production levels did not decrease until 1944).
Unfortunately, we did not stop production as we intended to.
Unfortunately, we did not stop production as we intended to.
close, but not quiteM.O.A.B wrote:
The German Schwerer Gustav railgun was the largest railgun ever built and remains the largest gun ever created.
Weight of gun and mounting: 1,350 t
Length of gun: 47.3 m
Height of gun: 11.6 m
Width of gun: 7.1 m
Barrel diameter: 0.8 m
Barrel length: 32.48 m (L/40.6)
Barrel weight: 400 t
Barrel service life: 100 shells
Propulsion 2 x Oil Electric D311 691 kW (926 hp) locomotives (DRG class V188)
Maximum elevation: 48° (or 65°; sources differ, may refer to different mountings)
Weight of propellant charge: 2,500 lb (1134 kg) in 3 increments
Rate of fire: 1 round every 30 to 45 minutes or typically 14 rounds a day
Accuracy: 20% (10 out of 48) of shells fell within 60 m of target point. Worst error was 1 shell landing 740 m from the target point. Assuming normal distribution, this gives a CEP of 190 m.
Crew: 250 to assemble the gun in 3 days (54 hours), 2,500 to lay track and dig embankments, which would take 3 - 6 weeks depending on the geography of the land. 2 Flak battalions to protect the gun from air attack.
High Explosive
Weight of projectile: 4.8 t (4,800 kg)
Muzzle velocity: 820 m/s
Maximum range: 48 km
Explosive mass: 700 kg
Crater size: 30 ft (10 m) wide 30 ft (10 m) deep.
[edit] AP Shell
The main body was made of chrome-nickel steel, fitted with an aluminium alloy ballistic nose cone.
Length of shell: 3.6 m
Weight of projectile: 7.1 t (7,100 kg)
Muzzle velocity: 720 m/s
Maximum range: 38 km
Explosive mass: 250 kg
Penetration: 264 ft (80 m) of reinforced concrete was claimed, but this seems extremely unlikely. In testing it was demonstrated to penetrate 7 metres of concrete at maximum elevation (beyond that available during combat) with a special charge
http://html2.free.fr/canons/dora/dora2.jpg
Info courtesy of wiki
Last edited by Vernedead (2007-06-01 02:35:17)
production levels did not decrease until 1944 because that's when we started bombing their industry.RAIMIUS wrote:
I should say that German production was kept near its previous levels by bombing (according to the US strategic bombing survey, production levels did not decrease until 1944).
Unfortunately, we did not stop production as we intended to.
Before we were bombing cities...everything.
Woo Romanian oil fields!The_Mac wrote:
production levels did not decrease until 1944 because that's when we started bombing their industry.RAIMIUS wrote:
I should say that German production was kept near its previous levels by bombing (according to the US strategic bombing survey, production levels did not decrease until 1944).
Unfortunately, we did not stop production as we intended to.
Before we were bombing cities...everything.
The guy who runs the pub I work at actually made and sold the shells that that huge iraqi super-gun fired.
Though they were actually contracted by the British government!
Though they were actually contracted by the British government!
Well France gave Saddam F-1 Mirages so, whatevs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood
A great battle that occured this week almost 90 years ago.
A great battle that occured this week almost 90 years ago.
Yup.
Bolt action rifle, one of the best.
And this is why the Marines are so kickass:
usmarine2005 knows alot about that. They make you study marine martial history in boot camp, don't they?
The Marines and Army used the Springfield 1903The battle was characterized by the different fire superiority tactics. The Americans used sharpshooters and snipers, while the Germans attempted to rake the battlefield with machine guns.
Bolt action rifle, one of the best.
And this is why the Marines are so kickass:
That's USMC martial history for you.Marine Captain Lloyd Williams of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines uttered the now-famous retort "Retreat? Hell, we just got here."
usmarine2005 knows alot about that. They make you study marine martial history in boot camp, don't they?
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-06-04 16:54:01)
They sure do. But one of my favorite quotes...The_Mac wrote:
usmarine2005 knows alot about that. They make you study marine martial history in boot camp, don't they?
"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time. "
-Chesty Puller
and...
"Take me to the Brig. I want to see the real Marines."
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-06-04 16:57:40)
LOL, that's awesome.usmarine2005 wrote:
They sure do. But one of my favorite quotes...
"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time. "
-Chesty Puller
and...
"Take me to the Brig. I want to see the real Marines."
Oh, and thanks for serving this country.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-06-04 17:20:51)
These are all pictures of the AH-1G. Note the hard points carrying mini guns. The AH-1G had the ability to mount 7.62 miniguns on the wings, while also mounting 7.62 mini guns on the turret. 40mm grenade launchers could also be mounted. Usually, a combo were mounted in the turret. The USMC Cobras used three barreled gatling guns for their AH-1Gs they borrowed from the Army, and did not mount any more miniguns on the hard points of stub wings.
Marine AH-1Js were used in the Vietnam war in 1969 and were really widespread in the early 1970s.
Speaking of turrets, many people pass off the Huey as just a gunship with side mounted rockets and m60 machine guns or minis.
Well think again!
USMC UH-1Es used the TAT-101, 2 m60Cs that could do some pretty good damage. The pod cap was taken off usually, as you can see in this picture. The Army used 40mm nade launchers, whose grenades were really explosive bullets. The m5 nade launcher fired off grenades around 220RPM.
^What the marines used.
So as you can tell, I'm pretty interested in USMC and US Army gunships in Vietnam, and that sorta thing, so if you have anything you'd like to contribute about it, feel free.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-06-09 06:10:34)
The ROKMC (Republic of Korea Marine Corps) is the second largest Marine Corps in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_o … rine_Corps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_o … rine_Corps
The South Korean forces were the Second largest present in Vietnam, second to the US, and followed by the Australians.M.O.A.B wrote:
The ROKMC (Republic of Korea Marine Corps) is the second largest Marine Corps in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_o … rine_Corps
You guys have toomuch time.
Actually, the M-16A1 did not make an appearance until the 80's, with the addition of a chrome-lined barrell and the forward assist. The original M-16 was in place until then.The_Mac wrote:
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7526/m16a1oq9.jpg
There's the M16A1 used in Vietnam. The A1 had chrome plating in the gas chamber to prevent wearing away and the eventual jamming.
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5811/m16wattxv5.jpg
The M16A4 used now by Marines and a few army units. SOCOM forces use an automatic variant, where it was factory tailored for automatic fire instead of the 3 round burst the Marine version will get now. Army has switched to the M4.
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/5913/m4watthy7.jpg
No, we were still trying to bomb factories and such. They just tended to be IN cities, and WW2 bomber accuracy was no great shakes. It is just as 1944 hit that we got much better at hitting targets due to changes in bombing tactics, fighters being able to escort the bombers further, more bombers reaching targets, etc.The_Mac wrote:
production levels did not decrease until 1944 because that's when we started bombing their industry.RAIMIUS wrote:
I should say that German production was kept near its previous levels by bombing (according to the US strategic bombing survey, production levels did not decrease until 1944).
Unfortunately, we did not stop production as we intended to.
Before we were bombing cities...everything.
Ah, then the M16 had a minimal upgrade of a chrome plated gas chamber. I know they had this before the end of the Vietnam war.imortal wrote:
Actually, the M-16A1 did not make an appearance until the 80's, with the addition of a chrome-lined barrell and the forward assist. The original M-16 was in place until then.The_Mac wrote:
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7526/m16a1oq9.jpg
There's the M16A1 used in Vietnam. The A1 had chrome plating in the gas chamber to prevent wearing away and the eventual jamming.
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5811/m16wattxv5.jpg
The M16A4 used now by Marines and a few army units. SOCOM forces use an automatic variant, where it was factory tailored for automatic fire instead of the 3 round burst the Marine version will get now. Army has switched to the M4.
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/5913/m4watthy7.jpg
Actually, I don't. We're just interested people, if you have anything interesting to contribute please do. If you don't, please don't let the door smack you on your way out.Ersguterjunge wrote:
You guys have toomuch time.
Yes, which is really what I said, although you elaborated on it.imortal wrote:
No, we were still trying to bomb factories and such. They just tended to be IN cities, and WW2 bomber accuracy was no great shakes. It is just as 1944 hit that we got much better at hitting targets due to changes in bombing tactics, fighters being able to escort the bombers further, more bombers reaching targets, etc.The_Mac wrote:
production levels did not decrease until 1944 because that's when we started bombing their industry.RAIMIUS wrote:
I should say that German production was kept near its previous levels by bombing (according to the US strategic bombing survey, production levels did not decrease until 1944).
Unfortunately, we did not stop production as we intended to.
Before we were bombing cities...everything.
Researching that some more, I think you're thinking of the M16A2. The M16A1 was introduced before the '80's, if not in Vietnam.imortal wrote:
Actually, the M-16A1 did not make an appearance until the 80's, with the addition of a chrome-lined barrell and the forward assist. The original M-16 was in place until then.The_Mac wrote:
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7526/m16a1oq9.jpg
There's the M16A1 used in Vietnam. The A1 had chrome plating in the gas chamber to prevent wearing away and the eventual jamming.
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5811/m16wattxv5.jpg
The M16A4 used now by Marines and a few army units. SOCOM forces use an automatic variant, where it was factory tailored for automatic fire instead of the 3 round burst the Marine version will get now. Army has switched to the M4.
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/5913/m4watthy7.jpg