Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
From what little information there is available that aircraft (with only two hmgs) seems to be about as fast as a Bf 109 G-6 with the MG151 gondolas... doesn't seem like a good trade.Just adding this
VL Pyorremyrsky
Kris
There's an interview with a Russian pilot who said that after dropping their bombs the fighter-bomber FW 190s were just as dangerous as any FW 190. I don't quite remember all of it but the interviewer seems to have been referring to the FW 190F but to me it was unclear if the interviewee was aware of that or if he thought of FW 190As with bomb racks. In any case it will be hard to impossible for any attacker to discern between the two, a definitive advantage for the FW 190F. And at low level, the performance difference is not that great.I think one has to be careful with the Fw190 on the Eastern Front. Many of those Fw190s were the 'F' model with SG units and these definitely would be under performers, tho there were several aces in the Fw190F.
The wood also made it heavier. It would have gotten the same armament as the Bf 109G, so also with the MG 151. The MG 151 wing gondolas did not detract much from top speed, around 12 kmh IIRC. But handling must have been better, as well as climb and turn rate. Plus, it had a wide landing gear, which made it safer for TO/L.From what little information there is available that aircraft (with only two hmgs) seems to be about as fast as a Bf 109 G-6 with the MG151 gondolas... doesn't seem like a good trade.
Always surprised me since it looks rather clean. Then again, it has about 15% more wing area...
You don't encounter Fw-190Fs @ 25,000 feet. They will normally be below 4,000 meters. Low altitude experience in Hs.129s or Ju-87s should be a plus. Certainly more pertinent to Fw-190F pilot survival then previous experience flying Me-109G at high altitude.problem of the F's being flown by pilots from previous strike planes, and hence they had less skill than the fighter pilots.
Source for this claim?The plane tested by the Germans was worn out. The La-5FN was superior to Antons (perhaps with exception of the A-9). If the La had enough speed and altitude, it could force the 190 to vertical maneuvers, where it would lose.
70 years underwater, changed the fluids and it ran. I call extreme BS on that one. The engine would be locked tighter then a Nuns a-hole.
I guess I let my memory run away from me on that one.
But if you'll just google T34 in swamp, you'll be surprized.
Rust is a chemical reaction, Latvia, submerged in a swamp, covered with thick muck, cut off from oxygen, and low temperatures, rust sleeps.
this is simply not true. Soviet tanks suffered from horrible reliability. I cannot even begin to count how many accounts I have read of Russian (and German) tankers. What is more, there are a lot of Soviet technical reports, from factories and test centres, which show that the quality of these machines was the bare minimum as they were not expected to have a long lifespan. You can check some of these reports out on the 'russian battlefield' website. Also, you will find accounts of Soviet tankers praising those British and American tanks for their superior quality (in operation).I doubt that is true. Sure, there were QA issues in Soviet armament, but saying the average service life of T-34/76 engines was "about 100 hours" across the board is not supported by the observable facts. It might be more accurate to say "some (ie a few) examples of T-34s, under certain conditions, or from certain sources were of indifferent quality".
T-34s, properly serviced put together and run correctly were extremely reliable. Tanks built at the end of the war were still operatiing 35 years later.