Schwarzpanzer, please lay off the crack.
Why Allied Soviet equipment was superior
- Thread starter schwarzpanzer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I wouldn't think the Corsair was more complicated than the Me109?
- but then again the way I think familiarizes me more with the Me109.
Oh yea. The 109 was a simple machine compared to the Corsair. Read either Blackburn's or some of the Blacksheep's comments. But on the other hand I think that was a major complaint that the Luftwaffe boys had about US aircraft, they were complex.
:{)
- but then again the way I think familiarizes me more with the Me109.
Oh yea. The 109 was a simple machine compared to the Corsair. Read either Blackburn's or some of the Blacksheep's comments. But on the other hand I think that was a major complaint that the Luftwaffe boys had about US aircraft, they were complex.
:{)
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
3 109s could be built at 1 G55, look at the production nos of the 109! its almost as much as the IL-2! and ese of production was one of the reqs of the RLM
GregP
Major
hard to use, then you are a Hey, if you find a K98 hard to use, then you are a klutz. It is one of the easiest to use rifles in the world.
Ive shot the K98 and found it a pleasure to shoot.
- Thread starter
- #47
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
PlanD:
Range?...
Going by you're values, then no it does not, you've contradicted yourself.
The Garand was maybe more reliable. The StG was not bad though.
The StG was not sturdy, butts were useless for CQB.
No, it does not. The StG could not be used successfully as a sniper. Do you know anything at all about the 7.92 Patrone Kurz? - Evidently not!
About the only thing you got right.
The incident I mention was a fluke, the T34 was concealed in a barn IIRC.
What I meant by trench warfare was a static defence line.
The Me109 broke it's 'legs' rather than tipping over on landing (something the FW did).
The owner (forgot her name) of the 2-seater Spit on 'Spitfire Ace' (UK Terrestrial) mentioned it.
My grandad's.
I have evidence on the IS-2's armour, but you'd likely call the source biased (I admit with good reason).
I'm not saying the Kar98k is crap, just not as ergonomic (or good in some other ways) as a Lee-Enfield. It has advantages though, like a proper pistol grip - though I don't notice myself.
Would you rather have a Kar98k, or an Enfield/Garand as standard-issue? - I'd choose the latter, definately. This is where the StG44 is good.
Range?...
Going by you're values, then no it does not, you've contradicted yourself.
The Garand was maybe more reliable. The StG was not bad though.
The StG was not sturdy, butts were useless for CQB.
No, it does not. The StG could not be used successfully as a sniper. Do you know anything at all about the 7.92 Patrone Kurz? - Evidently not!
About the only thing you got right.
The incident I mention was a fluke, the T34 was concealed in a barn IIRC.
What I meant by trench warfare was a static defence line.
The Me109 broke it's 'legs' rather than tipping over on landing (something the FW did).
The owner (forgot her name) of the 2-seater Spit on 'Spitfire Ace' (UK Terrestrial) mentioned it.
My grandad's.
I have evidence on the IS-2's armour, but you'd likely call the source biased (I admit with good reason).
I'm not saying the Kar98k is crap, just not as ergonomic (or good in some other ways) as a Lee-Enfield. It has advantages though, like a proper pistol grip - though I don't notice myself.
Would you rather have a Kar98k, or an Enfield/Garand as standard-issue? - I'd choose the latter, definately. This is where the StG44 is good.
How was that, in any way, a contradiction? The SLR holds superior firepower because of the 7.62mm rounds it uses. The M-16s 5.56mm is well known to be under-powered.
So? The SLR is still more reliable than the M-16. I love the way you state that I only got one thing right, when there's already two here. But you avoided the SLR reliability statement by bringing it back to Garand/StG.44...
The StG.44 was sturdy, I'd like to see your jaw withstand being smacked with one. And that's the basis of a sturdy frame. Drop a StG.44, and rarely will it break apart. But once again, I was refering to the SLR being more sturdy than the M-16 which it so obviously is.
Firepower and range are two different things. Do you know anything about the English language? Evidently not! Stand 300 metres away, and I'll shot you once with both weapons ... you're going to die either way.
The only thing I got right ? No, the SLR vs. M-16 accounts were all right on my part. Which you avoided. And the StG.44 still holds a higher account of itself than the Garand. The only thing you got right, in correcting me, was range.
I don't care if it was a fluke, because until you show some source for it happening. It didn't happen.
Static line defence !? On what scale, schwarz? Are you refering to the lines? Such as the Winter, Gustav, Siegfried line ?! They were static lines of defence, correct, but in no way were they trench warfare. Just pay attention to how they were used. In some circumstances static lines are the best forms , take each situation as it comes.
Typical, you forgot her name. And you can't think of any other source ... ? But it is true, honest ! - Right? Ask Jabberwocky, he knows a lot more about the Spitfire than most people.
Your grandads ... alright. And nothing to back that up ?
Provide this evidence for the IS-2. At least I provide my evidence in full , even if you do instantly call it bias. With no reason , I might add.
So? The SLR is still more reliable than the M-16. I love the way you state that I only got one thing right, when there's already two here. But you avoided the SLR reliability statement by bringing it back to Garand/StG.44...
The StG.44 was sturdy, I'd like to see your jaw withstand being smacked with one. And that's the basis of a sturdy frame. Drop a StG.44, and rarely will it break apart. But once again, I was refering to the SLR being more sturdy than the M-16 which it so obviously is.
Firepower and range are two different things. Do you know anything about the English language? Evidently not! Stand 300 metres away, and I'll shot you once with both weapons ... you're going to die either way.
The only thing I got right ? No, the SLR vs. M-16 accounts were all right on my part. Which you avoided. And the StG.44 still holds a higher account of itself than the Garand. The only thing you got right, in correcting me, was range.
I don't care if it was a fluke, because until you show some source for it happening. It didn't happen.
Static line defence !? On what scale, schwarz? Are you refering to the lines? Such as the Winter, Gustav, Siegfried line ?! They were static lines of defence, correct, but in no way were they trench warfare. Just pay attention to how they were used. In some circumstances static lines are the best forms , take each situation as it comes.
Typical, you forgot her name. And you can't think of any other source ... ? But it is true, honest ! - Right? Ask Jabberwocky, he knows a lot more about the Spitfire than most people.
Your grandads ... alright. And nothing to back that up ?
Provide this evidence for the IS-2. At least I provide my evidence in full , even if you do instantly call it bias. With no reason , I might add.
- Thread starter
- #49
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Kinda like this is:
Then going on to say:
- That is a contradiction.
You are right, the Garand is also more reliable than the StG. None of these rifles are inherently unreliable ('cept AR-15), but the M16 and StG are more prone to damage.
Well, I'm not going to test that out
, but this is what happened in combat.I suppose that's true to a point, but the Garand is still comparatively unbreakable.
Agreed.
Because I brought up the bloody comparison!!
You yourself mentoioned this incident once, surely you remember?
Agreed on the point of the lines, it was a good idea, but with the exception of the bulge, most fights weren't 'fluid' IMHO.
I could get where, when and who, but it was Chinese pilots.
I think that, despite the comments you sometimes get, that you are not completely biased IMHO.
I just think your source was biased. To the point, not only of exaggeration (as usually happens) but outright lying. Even though there was truth in the matter, so it may just be a misenterpretation.
It's still no contradiction. How can you state that when you're bringing up both the 5.56, 7.62 and 7.92mm rounds? The SLR has so much more power than the M-16, because the 5.56 is largely under-powered. The Garand holds no firepower advantage because it's 7.62 is no more deadly than the 7.92mm in the StG.44, because the 7.92 isn't underpowered.
How is it only true to a point? The StG.44 will not break more often than the Garand , making it a sturdy weapon, as was the Garand. There's no "to a point" about it.
Yes, for some odd reason you did bring up the SLR vs. M-16 comparison. Which is completely different match up of weapons from the StG.44 vs. M1 Garand.
No, I never mentioned this incident. The closest incident that I can think of consisted of several T-34/85s forcing a group of King Tigers to retreat. And all the T-34s were hidden in hay stacks, not barns.
Unless you're refering to the Panther G at Konigsberg that knocked out three IS-2s in five minutes, using a barn as cover!
With that comment on lines, I assume you don't know how the German "static" lines worked. A defensive line is not supposed to flow, it's supposed to halt the enemy in their tracks. It was all far from trench warfare , just read up on the Gustav line.
But it was Chinese pilots ? What have Chinese pilots got to do with your Grandad saying that Spitfires didn't land slowly?! You're a joke !!!
Do you even know what my sources are schwarz? Do you want to tell the authors they are lying? Or maybe you could provide information contrary to the information I provide. I'm sure everyone reading this will much quicker believe me than you , since at least I can provide sources.
You state "facts" with no sources. You state there's pictures, but they never get shown. There's stories, that aren't brought forward. Get serious, or stop trying.
How is it only true to a point? The StG.44 will not break more often than the Garand , making it a sturdy weapon, as was the Garand. There's no "to a point" about it.
Yes, for some odd reason you did bring up the SLR vs. M-16 comparison. Which is completely different match up of weapons from the StG.44 vs. M1 Garand.
No, I never mentioned this incident. The closest incident that I can think of consisted of several T-34/85s forcing a group of King Tigers to retreat. And all the T-34s were hidden in hay stacks, not barns.
Unless you're refering to the Panther G at Konigsberg that knocked out three IS-2s in five minutes, using a barn as cover!
With that comment on lines, I assume you don't know how the German "static" lines worked. A defensive line is not supposed to flow, it's supposed to halt the enemy in their tracks. It was all far from trench warfare , just read up on the Gustav line.
But it was Chinese pilots ? What have Chinese pilots got to do with your Grandad saying that Spitfires didn't land slowly?! You're a joke !!!
Do you even know what my sources are schwarz? Do you want to tell the authors they are lying? Or maybe you could provide information contrary to the information I provide. I'm sure everyone reading this will much quicker believe me than you , since at least I can provide sources.
You state "facts" with no sources. You state there's pictures, but they never get shown. There's stories, that aren't brought forward. Get serious, or stop trying.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Depends on the range you hit someone with your 'underpowered' 5.56mm at.
The thing about SS-109/M855/M193 FMJ ammo is that it fragments, deforms and undergoes a fairly radical trajectory adjustment when it hits a target at anything over about 2700 fps, creating a much larger internal wound than the 7.62mm, which tends to punch a long narrow hole and maintains its structural integrity and trajectory, although it does tumble. The Fackler tests in ballistic gelatin are really scary; a 5-10cm high, 15 cm long permanent cavity with all sorts of fragments and chunks of bullet sprayed all around the wound.
Now depending on your ammunition and barrel length, fragmentation can occur anywhere from 15m (short barrel carbine) to 215m (full 20" 1:7 or 1:9 barrel.) So, while the 7.62 is indeed a more powerful round, at short to medium ranges, the 5.56mm may actually be a more effective round because of its nasty wound profile.
Part of the problem though is that lots of 5.56mm FMJ rounds are over engineered which stops them fragmenting, thus rendering the primary wounding mechainism of the 5.56 useless. Fire a 5.56 AP round at a bad guy and it will just punch a 5.56mm hole in him. Fire a 7.62mm AP round at a bad guy and you get the same result, only with a larger hole, better tumble profile and much more bullet energy transitioned ot the target.
So, the guy with a 20" barrel M16 may not find the 5.56mm underpowered at 150m compared to a M14 firing 7.62 at the same range. However, the guy with 14.5" barrel M4 carbine, may not agree and would prefer something heavier for cambat over 50m. Similarly, if either of them were engaging tatgets past 200m, then the heavier 7.62 is the superior round.
If it was me, I'd want 7.62, because it is probably more useful in all situation, long and short range. Better yet would be going to a 6.5-7mm hybrid round with a similar fragmentation profile to existing 5.56 NATO FMJs. More range and muzzle energy (but more kick) and a bigger ound profile than the 7.62 out to about 250m.
The thing about SS-109/M855/M193 FMJ ammo is that it fragments, deforms and undergoes a fairly radical trajectory adjustment when it hits a target at anything over about 2700 fps, creating a much larger internal wound than the 7.62mm, which tends to punch a long narrow hole and maintains its structural integrity and trajectory, although it does tumble. The Fackler tests in ballistic gelatin are really scary; a 5-10cm high, 15 cm long permanent cavity with all sorts of fragments and chunks of bullet sprayed all around the wound.
Now depending on your ammunition and barrel length, fragmentation can occur anywhere from 15m (short barrel carbine) to 215m (full 20" 1:7 or 1:9 barrel.) So, while the 7.62 is indeed a more powerful round, at short to medium ranges, the 5.56mm may actually be a more effective round because of its nasty wound profile.
Part of the problem though is that lots of 5.56mm FMJ rounds are over engineered which stops them fragmenting, thus rendering the primary wounding mechainism of the 5.56 useless. Fire a 5.56 AP round at a bad guy and it will just punch a 5.56mm hole in him. Fire a 7.62mm AP round at a bad guy and you get the same result, only with a larger hole, better tumble profile and much more bullet energy transitioned ot the target.
So, the guy with a 20" barrel M16 may not find the 5.56mm underpowered at 150m compared to a M14 firing 7.62 at the same range. However, the guy with 14.5" barrel M4 carbine, may not agree and would prefer something heavier for cambat over 50m. Similarly, if either of them were engaging tatgets past 200m, then the heavier 7.62 is the superior round.
If it was me, I'd want 7.62, because it is probably more useful in all situation, long and short range. Better yet would be going to a 6.5-7mm hybrid round with a similar fragmentation profile to existing 5.56 NATO FMJs. More range and muzzle energy (but more kick) and a bigger ound profile than the 7.62 out to about 250m.
Well, I did say 300m. So the 7.62mm is going to be desired by all. I know of the reports from Mogadishu from the Delta-Force; their CAR-15s were not dropping the enemy because the 5.56mm was titanium tipped. Certainly a case of over-engineering , when the need certainly was not there. But really, the M-16 vs. SLR comparison is out of place here.
Jabberwocky, could you inform us of the Spitfire landing speed? Mk.I, Mk.V, Mk.IX and Mk.XIV if, at all, possible?
And have you heard of this "classic Spitfire bounce" that schwarz so fondly mentions. I would like to hear more, if it does exist.
Jabberwocky, could you inform us of the Spitfire landing speed? Mk.I, Mk.V, Mk.IX and Mk.XIV if, at all, possible?
And have you heard of this "classic Spitfire bounce" that schwarz so fondly mentions. I would like to hear more, if it does exist.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
probably the "classic spitfire bounce" is when they get bounced by Fw190s and Bf109s
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Haven't really heard anything on a specific bouncing problem with the Spitfire.
Off the top of my head the only plane that had any real problem with bounce on landing was the early F4Us, which had suspension that used to attempt to catapult the aircraft back up in the air.
It's something i'll look further into. Maybe some of the RA&AEE or NACA documents have something specific.
From the Mk II manual:
41 General remarks.- The landing must always be made with flaps DOWN. This aeroplane, in spite of its high speed, is very easy to land. The following features are mentioned:_
(i) Rather bad view straight ahead; the pilots head is lower than in the Hurricane relative to the engine
(ii) Steep angle of descent. When glisding speed is low the aeroplane may appear to have insufficient speed to flatten out, but when it comes near the ground, cushioning effect causes considerable "float" unless speed is the minimum.
Landing speeds from the various manuals:
Mk II:
80-90 mph A.S.I
Mk V:
85 mph powered, 95 mph powered flaps up,
95 mph no power, 105 mph no power flaps up
Mk IX/XVI:
95 mph powered, 105 powered, flaps up
105 mph no power, 110 no power, flaps up
Mk IX/XVI with bubble canopy:
100-105 mph powered, 115 mph powered, no flaps
115-120 mph no power, 120-125 mph no power, no flaps
Mk XII:
95 mph powered, 105 powered, flaps up
105 mph no power, 110 no power, flaps up
MK XIV:
100 mph powered, 110 powered, flaps up
110 mph no power, 115 no power, flaps up
Seafire 45,46
95 mph powered, 105 powered, flaps up
115 mph no power, 115 no power, flaps up
The Seafire manual notes that all landing speeds should be lowered by 5 knots (roughly 6 mph) when ammunition or considerable fuel has been expended.
Off the top of my head the only plane that had any real problem with bounce on landing was the early F4Us, which had suspension that used to attempt to catapult the aircraft back up in the air.
It's something i'll look further into. Maybe some of the RA&AEE or NACA documents have something specific.
From the Mk II manual:
41 General remarks.- The landing must always be made with flaps DOWN. This aeroplane, in spite of its high speed, is very easy to land. The following features are mentioned:_
(i) Rather bad view straight ahead; the pilots head is lower than in the Hurricane relative to the engine
(ii) Steep angle of descent. When glisding speed is low the aeroplane may appear to have insufficient speed to flatten out, but when it comes near the ground, cushioning effect causes considerable "float" unless speed is the minimum.
Landing speeds from the various manuals:
Mk II:
80-90 mph A.S.I
Mk V:
85 mph powered, 95 mph powered flaps up,
95 mph no power, 105 mph no power flaps up
Mk IX/XVI:
95 mph powered, 105 powered, flaps up
105 mph no power, 110 no power, flaps up
Mk IX/XVI with bubble canopy:
100-105 mph powered, 115 mph powered, no flaps
115-120 mph no power, 120-125 mph no power, no flaps
Mk XII:
95 mph powered, 105 powered, flaps up
105 mph no power, 110 no power, flaps up
MK XIV:
100 mph powered, 110 powered, flaps up
110 mph no power, 115 no power, flaps up
Seafire 45,46
95 mph powered, 105 powered, flaps up
115 mph no power, 115 no power, flaps up
The Seafire manual notes that all landing speeds should be lowered by 5 knots (roughly 6 mph) when ammunition or considerable fuel has been expended.
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
About the K98, the bolt action was made in 1898. If the army didn't like the rifle, then a new rifle would have been made to replace it. Since the rifle was still the main rifle towards the end of the war, i don't think it was a bad rifle, i think it is a good rifle.
I agree with you.
Thank you, Jab. I didn't know the Spitfire landed at such a high speed. As was said though, it was still easy to land. Some good information.
I still want to know what Chinese people have to do with schwarz' grandad's account of the Spitfire landing quickly ... did anyone else notice that !?
I still want to know what Chinese people have to do with schwarz' grandad's account of the Spitfire landing quickly ... did anyone else notice that !?
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Landings speeds of other WW2 fighters, all data from manuals unless otherwise stated, all speeds mph A.S.I:
Mustang III (P-51B/C):
105 mph power on, flaps down, 120 mph power on, flaps up
120 mph no power, flaps down, 130 mph power on, flaps up
P-51D
115-120 mph, power on flaps down
P-47N
130-140 mph, power on, flaps down
P-38J/L
"not less than 120 mph" power on, flaps dpwn
P-39D
95-100 mph power on, flaps down
Brewster Buffalo Mk I (RAF)
90-95 mph "with out without the engine
Typhoon Ib
105 mph power on, flaps down, 120 mph power on, flaps up
120 mph no power, flaps down, 130 mph power on, flaps up
Tempest Mk V
100 mph power on, flaps down, 120 mph power on, flaps up
120 mph no power, flaps down, 130 mph power on, flaps up
Hurricane II/IV
95ph power on, flaps down, 105 mph power on, flaps up
105 mph no power, flaps down, 115 mph power on, flaps up
FW-190A5 (RAF flight tests flight August 1943, subjective evaluation)
120-130 mph, power on, flaps down.
Bf-109F (109F serise Kenblatt dated )
140 kph/ 87mph power on, flaps down
Bf-109G2 (Finnish Airforce Manual)
180 kph/ 112 mph, power on, flaps down
Bf-109G6 (Finnish Airforce Manual)
180 kph/ 112 mph, power on, flaps down
Ki-84 'Frank' (Japanese wartime performance assesment)
138-142 kph/ 86-88 mph power on, flaps down
The Spitfire seems to fall in the first 1/2 of the pack as far as landing speeds go. The Mk I/II and V have actually very low landing speeds (lower even than the Hurricane!), but as weight crept from 4800 lbs empty up to 6600 lbs empty, so did landing speeds. By the time of the Mk XIV, landing speed was up to around 105 mph, which is slightly lower than average for the 1944-1945 period.
Mustang III (P-51B/C):
105 mph power on, flaps down, 120 mph power on, flaps up
120 mph no power, flaps down, 130 mph power on, flaps up
P-51D
115-120 mph, power on flaps down
P-47N
130-140 mph, power on, flaps down
P-38J/L
"not less than 120 mph" power on, flaps dpwn
P-39D
95-100 mph power on, flaps down
Brewster Buffalo Mk I (RAF)
90-95 mph "with out without the engine
Typhoon Ib
105 mph power on, flaps down, 120 mph power on, flaps up
120 mph no power, flaps down, 130 mph power on, flaps up
Tempest Mk V
100 mph power on, flaps down, 120 mph power on, flaps up
120 mph no power, flaps down, 130 mph power on, flaps up
Hurricane II/IV
95ph power on, flaps down, 105 mph power on, flaps up
105 mph no power, flaps down, 115 mph power on, flaps up
FW-190A5 (RAF flight tests flight August 1943, subjective evaluation)
120-130 mph, power on, flaps down.
Bf-109F (109F serise Kenblatt dated )
140 kph/ 87mph power on, flaps down
Bf-109G2 (Finnish Airforce Manual)
180 kph/ 112 mph, power on, flaps down
Bf-109G6 (Finnish Airforce Manual)
180 kph/ 112 mph, power on, flaps down
Ki-84 'Frank' (Japanese wartime performance assesment)
138-142 kph/ 86-88 mph power on, flaps down
The Spitfire seems to fall in the first 1/2 of the pack as far as landing speeds go. The Mk I/II and V have actually very low landing speeds (lower even than the Hurricane!), but as weight crept from 4800 lbs empty up to 6600 lbs empty, so did landing speeds. By the time of the Mk XIV, landing speed was up to around 105 mph, which is slightly lower than average for the 1944-1945 period.
In comparison with the other World War II fighters, it certainly doesn't have a high landing speed. Naturally with a weight and power increase it was going to get faster. It seems it holds true though that the Spitfire was an easy aircraft to take-off, fly and land.
The landing speeds from the Finnish manuals are no good, as they are assumptions and therefore purposely set high, and btw they state 160 kph (100mph), not 180 kph (112mph).
The true landing speed of the Bf-109G-6 is 150 kph (93 mph), the same as the Bf-109K-4.
The Fw-190D-9 has a landing speed of 155-160 kph (96-100mph). The Ta-152H has a landing speed of 155 kph (96 mph).
All the other figures you have provided seem very correct Jabberwocky.
And about Schwarzpanzer's claim that the 109 was easier to land than the Spitfire; Absolutely untrue ! The 109 was actually one of the worst planes to land because of its narrow toe-out landing gear, the cause of many landing accidents in the 109.
The true landing speed of the Bf-109G-6 is 150 kph (93 mph), the same as the Bf-109K-4.
The Fw-190D-9 has a landing speed of 155-160 kph (96-100mph). The Ta-152H has a landing speed of 155 kph (96 mph).
All the other figures you have provided seem very correct Jabberwocky.
And about Schwarzpanzer's claim that the 109 was easier to land than the Spitfire; Absolutely untrue ! The 109 was actually one of the worst planes to land because of its narrow toe-out landing gear, the cause of many landing accidents in the 109.
