How Could The US Have Been More Prepared to Fight WW2?

[tyrodtom]

I know you probably don't keep track of incidents like this.

But didn't Dook just set a record for getting banned the quickest ?

If so, at least he'll be know for something .

 

[Airframes]

It still amazes me that (some) people, who have enough intelligence to be able to "work" the internet and post stuff on forums, have some sort of mental aberration that wills them to **** about in an arrogant "know it all" fashion posting total b*llocks, presumably in order to find enjoyment in annoying more "stable" people.
I wonder if this type of sad person actually realizes that they are total d*ckheads, and a waste of rations ?!!

 

[GrauGeist]

Dunno Terry, they came across as one of those people who may have been a bit of a "knowledge-god" in their social circle and decided to take their all-knowing to a different forum.
It was clear they did not like having their "theory" challenged.

 

[RW Mk. III]

Everybody's an expert until they meet one.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Missed the fun! What a dumb-ass!

 

[davparlr]

I guess he was gone but I did want to correct one of the many his misunderstanding and that was that the P-51, 51A, and early P-51B had much better range than the F4U and F4U-1 (not the 1D). The internal fuel of the noted F4Us was 350 gallons while the noted P-51s only had 180 gallons. F4U-1D and on had 237 gallons internally and the later P-51B had 270 gallons internally. So early in the war the F4U would have had a better range than the early P-51s, later in the war the P-51s would have a significant range capability.

 

[pbehn]

I guess he was gone but I did want to correct one of the many his misunderstanding and that was that the P-51, 51A, and early P-51B had much better range than the F4U and F4U-1 (not the 1D). The internal fuel of the noted F4Us was 350 gallons while the noted P-51s only had 180 gallons. F4U-1D and on had 237 gallons internally and the later P-51B had 270 gallons internally. So early in the war the F4U would have had a better range than the early P-51s, later in the war the P-51s would have a significant range capability.

Well the argument would be it uses more fuel, if you want to take off from a carrier with a fully loaded P-51 including the rear tank. But we aren't making F4Us we are making P-51s in 1940 painting them and putting a hook on. We aren't building B-17s or B-24s or anything else with a "B" either, we are stopping golf and working weekends so we can have 30,000 B-29s starting in Jan 1941. I will tackle world peace and CV-19 tomorrow (shouldn't take long).

 

[swampyankee]

Perhaps we should ask the mods to close this. With the OP banned, there's not much point in going on.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed.