No, I meant P-47. Shortround has this theory long that big plane has better everything in guns and range... in practice it wasn't true. but this is for another thread.
Last edited:
The US doing things different from other nations?
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No, I meant P-47. Shortround has this theory long that big plane has better everything in guns and range... in practice it wasn't true. but this is for another thread.
- Thread starter
-
- #22
Shortround6
Major General
The point was that every other nation than the US except Germany was using tripod mounted MGs that dated from 1914 if not almost 1900 in WW II. Even the Germans used some old 1908 Maxim guns. There was a considerable difference in the ability of the 1917 and 1919 Brownings and the old Maxim, Hotchkiss and other WW I guns and even some of the inter war tripod mounted guns were none too good. It also turned out (not that the US guessed right on this one) that the advantages of the GPMG were somewhat over blown. It also took until the early/mid 50s for most other nations to get a GPMG that was not an MG 42. I suppose the world could have just bowed to German superiority and adopted the MG 42 in mass as soon as possible after WW II????
I have, perhaps you should reread it. P-47s carried what weight of armament (weight of guns and ammo)? around 520kg with 267rpg??
As for range: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47FOIC.gif
305 US gallons total, 830 mile range at 200 mph indicated at 12,000ft ( around 224 mph true?) using 250 US gallons. Sure doesn't look like the range of a 109E or early Spitfire to me.
try sticking 500kg worth of guns and ammo in any 1000-1200hp fighter and try flying 800 miles at any speed on internal fuel.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Boy, this threat is getting way too complicated...
How about this - toe brakes standard on all US aircraft...
How about this - toe brakes standard on all US aircraft...
Last edited:
starling
Airman 1st Class
Hey guys,I think most countries want to make their own weapons,Starling.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
In another thread, Might have been in Myths of WWII I mentioned seeing a recent show that depicted the Sherman as a terribly underrated weapon system, that's gotten a bad rap due to its unfavorable comparisons with german systems, against which it was frequently more successsful than I would have guessed.
Maybe someone more knowledgable on tanks and their operational history can jump in here, but your quote, which I thought represented traditional wisdom on the topic is evidently recently in question, and might explain their use in Korea, although I thought use was with the HV 76 mm upgrade. I've looked around a bit on the web and seen a lot of mixed reviews and opinion which suggests to me that the issue is more complex than can be described in a simple one line statement or brief paragraph would allow. The Sherman evidently improved through war experience and the tank in Korea seems to have benefited from its prior wartime service. Just saying.
starling
Airman 1st Class
Hi guys,we're any contempory ww2 British Tanks used in Korea too.? Starling.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Tomo, I don't have my references handy but I believe about half to 2/3rds of the weight gain in the F4F-4 was due to the manual wing fold mechanism. The rest IIRC was added misc. gear and the addition of the 2 HMGs which themselves only amounted to about 130 lbs. The thing is, the published BuAer justification I've read on this account states that the change was not made at the request of the fleet but rather at the request of the British for their export Martlet's. IRC, we are talking about decisions made in the Spring of 1941 and their war time experience was considered the deciding factor validating the change made to optimize Grumman's production efficiency. The thing is, the RN FAA had a different problem to address and those of the post December 7, 1941 USN were unanticipated. A 6-gun version with limited ammo supply made more sense for FAA than the 4-gun version for the USN. The USN never regarded the 4 HMG suite as insufficient. Upon completion of F4F-4 production, the FM-1 -2 reverted to the 4 HMG arrangement and the advent of the Grumman F8F saw its initial variant produced with 4 HMG guns.
While I think the 6 HMG arrangement was a mistake, I believe the F4F-4 proved to be an effective fighter that got the job done. As has been stated elsewhere in the forum: it may be the most under-rated fighter of WW2.
Last edited:
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
From wikipedia on the Centurian tank:
On 14 November 1950, the British Army's 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars, equipped with three squadrons of Centurion Mk 3 tanks, landed in Pusan.[11] Operating in sub-zero temperatures, the 8th Hussars learnt the rigours of winter warfare: their tanks had to be parked on straw to prevent the steel tracks from freezing to the ground, with engines having to be started every half hour, with each gear being engaged in turn, to prevent them from being frozen into place.[12] During the Battle of the Imjin River, Centurions won lasting fame when their tanks covered the withdrawal of the 29th Brigade, with the loss of five tanks, most later recovered and repaired.[13] In 1953, Centurions of the 3rd Royal Tank Regiment were also involved in the second Battle of the Hook where they played a significant role in repelling Chinese attacks.[13] In a tribute to the 8th Hussars, General John O'Daniel, commanding the US 1st Corps, stated: "...In their Centurions, the 8th Hussars have evolved a new type of tank warfare. They taught us that anywhere a tank can go, is tank country: even the tops of mountains."[14]
Indeed, I've admitted that already:
*The major weight increase was due to the introduction of folding wings, I won't blame the Ma Deuce for all of that.
Think it's a little too 'heavy' to say that Grumman's production efficiency would've dropped down with re-introduction of the 4 gun (but with much more RPG) version of the F4F, especially if the USN wants it that way.
Fair points.
F4F-4 gave a fair account. Despite the limited ammo supply and low RoC, things of importance for a fleet defender.
starling
Airman 1st Class
Hi guys,I would've thought a fleet defender needs a high RoC,unless there's already an adequate C.A.P.up,Starling.
The Bf 109 had foot operated brakes and probably other German types too,I haven't checked. It wouldn't be a case of the US doing things differently.
For some reason we Brits preferred the lever on the spade grip,no idea why!
Cheers
Steve
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
So did the Soviets
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)