PDA

View Full Version : @Oleg: again, about .50 and cannon.



269GA-Veltro
07-24-2004, 02:40 AM
"the preferred US armament fit [of six or eight .50 HMGs] was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon". It is worth pointing out that for as long as the battery of .50s proved adequate against the targets usually encountered, there were strong arguments in favour of retaining the weapon, as the standardisation of production, supply, maintenance and training provided great logistic benefits by comparison with the plethora of different weapons fielded by the Germans and Japanese in particular".

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

[This message was edited by Veltro on Sat July 24 2004 at 02:01 AM.]

269GA-Veltro
07-24-2004, 02:40 AM
"the preferred US armament fit [of six or eight .50 HMGs] was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon". It is worth pointing out that for as long as the battery of .50s proved adequate against the targets usually encountered, there were strong arguments in favour of retaining the weapon, as the standardisation of production, supply, maintenance and training provided great logistic benefits by comparison with the plethora of different weapons fielded by the Germans and Japanese in particular".

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

[This message was edited by Veltro on Sat July 24 2004 at 02:01 AM.]

269GA-Veltro
07-24-2004, 02:58 AM
"Six .50 guns was the armament of most US fighters. Most pilots liked the .50 gun, but it lacked the power to do structural damage to enemy aircraft. Postwar research demonstrated that only armour-piercing incendiary rounds were really effective, by setting fire to ammunition or fuel. This armament was sufficient for the Mustang, because it was an escort fighter, that had to fight mostly against enemy fighters. The guns were usually set to converge at 300 yards, and 2 degrees above the normal flight attitude. The ammunition supply was relatively large, and that was also beneficial for an escort fighter. Last but not least, the Browning was very reliable and had good ballistics".

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-fi.html

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

PlaneEater
07-24-2004, 03:02 AM
Veltro... really no need to post this stuff. There is *nothing* here Oleg doesn't already know.

They got fixed, things are the way they should be now, and we can move on now...

269GA-Veltro
07-24-2004, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
They got fixed, things are the way they should be now<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They got fixed? Things are the way they should be now?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Ok, now why Gibbage's friends don't cry also for the P51 fuel-tank's problem? Do you know that with 100% of fuel P51 was unflyable?

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

Franzen
07-24-2004, 05:45 AM
Unflyable? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

It wasn't unflyable but rather unstable in certain manuevers depending on fuel quantity. The fuselage tank, when full, used to offset the center of gravity. The pilots used to burn off there fuselage tank first, right from takeoff, thus correcting the center of gravity issue.

With this in mind we can also assume the fuselage tanks were empty or near empty by the time the P-51 engaged it's enemy.

Conclusion; no problem

Fritz Franzen

Tetrapharmakoi
07-24-2004, 05:50 AM
50's are more close than Star Wars X-Rays than something else now , i 'm devastated and really don't play anymore versus US planes , it's just uninteresting , 12.7 are more deadly than 20 mm , what a waste .

Tetrapharmakoi
07-24-2004, 05:55 AM
I just wonder if historical accuracy has a meaning when a +- 4000 KG P-47 challenge any plane in turn rate now , i just play the 1.21 version , cause it seems that all the changes made by Oleg were more under pressure of some partial kids , than from real engineers and historians of aviation .

sapre
07-24-2004, 06:18 AM
whinners first whined about .50 cal dispersion is too big.
and now theres another bunch of whinners whining about .50 cal disperison is too small http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

FZG_Mined
07-24-2004, 06:41 AM
its not dispersion being too small, its the bullets being too powerfull!!

but hey, everybody predicted that long time ago when oleg stated that p51 would be in the game ;-)

i never whined on this forum and i won't begin now, i only point out that what was feared is now reality

Davide

http://mined86.free.fr/banniere.jpg

sapre
07-24-2004, 06:59 AM
sorry for calling you a whiner.
and about the .50 cal.
is it too pewerful?
i think the power has gotten less a bit in 2.04

John_Stag
07-24-2004, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tetrapharmakoi:
50's are more close than Star Wars X-Rays than something else now , i 'm devastated and really don't play anymore versus US planes , it's just uninteresting , 12.7 are more deadly than 20 mm , what a waste .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take a P47.

Eight .50 cal MGs, at a higher rate of fire than say a Hurricane Mk.IIc with 4 20mm cannon; That will hurt.

Now try a Hurricane Mk.IIb with 12 .303 MGs.

That hurts too.

Try a B230 with 2 .50 cal Mgs.

I'd be interested to hear what your conclusions are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:Corporal! Where are you taking those vultures?

Corporal: Officers to the mess, NCO's to the Guardroom, Sir!

:Like hell you are, they're responsible for all this, get them to clean it up!

Corporal: But what about the officers, Sir?

:Give 'em a bloody shovel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bazzaah2
07-24-2004, 07:20 AM
don't have access to game at mo, but wd expect 8 .50s to be a big hit.

cannon already pretty good (the Germans ones i find are very good) and Hispano-Suizas are deadly.

iirc, Oleg has tightened dispersion and reduced damage of individual rounds for the .5s. This x-wing stuff is just pants.

Can we talk about something else now?

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

WWMaxGunz
07-24-2004, 08:09 AM
So this machinegun that can take planes down when used as AA is not good when used
in groups on planes?

And while it can pierce light armor, halftracks and APC's, and the damage caused at
ranges farther than 1000m are well documented it still can't do structural damage
on and airplane?

Of course your source there is impeccable. All websites with opinions are. Really.

I am amazed that British fighters armed with 303's in the BoB were able to not only
shoot down 109E's but also 110's, 111'a, Dorniers, etc. The 303 is weak compared to
the .50/12.5/12.7's, about 1/3rd the power. Check Oleg's tables, the M2 has a very
heavy API (armor piercing, btw) bullet for the caliber and muzzle velocity 870m/s.

303 is nothing to sneeze at either. It just won't pierce 109 seat armor at range,
while the .50 will a good ways out.

You have a good one!


Neal

269GA-Veltro
07-24-2004, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
Unflyable? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

It wasn't unflyable but rather unstable in certain manuevers depending on fuel quantity. The fuselage tank, when full, used to offset the center of gravity. The pilots used to burn off there fuselage tank first, right from takeoff, thus correcting the center of gravity issue.

With this in mind we can also assume the fuselage tanks were empty or near empty by the time the P-51 engaged it's enemy.

Conclusion; no problem

Fritz Franzen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes is right, they engaged enemy with 50% of fuel; they must trim with more than 50% of fuel. Was not possible engage an enemy in dogfight with 100% of fuel.

Have you asked Oleg to model also this future? I don't believe.

A realistic P51 in FB-AEP with 100% of fuel, had to fly worst than the our FW 190. So is a problem.

P51 in FB is arcadish; conclusion: problem.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

Franzen
07-24-2004, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
Unflyable? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

It wasn't unflyable but rather unstable in certain manuevers depending on fuel quantity. The fuselage tank, when full, used to offset the center of gravity. The pilots used to burn off there fuselage tank first, right from takeoff, thus correcting the center of gravity issue.

With this in mind we can also assume the fuselage tanks were empty or near empty by the time the P-51 engaged it's enemy.

Conclusion; no problem

Fritz Franzen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes is right, they engaged enemy with 50% of fuel; they must trim with more than 50% of fuel. Was not possible engage an enemy in dogfight with 100% of fuel.

Have you asked Oleg to model also this future? I don't believe.

A realistic P51 in FB-AEP with 100% of fuel, had to fly worst than the our FW 190. So is a problem.

P51 in FB is arcadish; conclusion: problem.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
http://www.269ga.it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never asked Oleg since I never expected an answer, he's a busy guy. I did start a thread in the past asking if the fuel thing had been modelled. I got a lot of replies that all said yes.
I just went on that info since I refuse to fly it. I loved the plane until it entered this game. I've mentioned this in a few threads.
As for the .50 cals I posted more than once that norrowing the dispersion would be deadly. The previous .50 model had two problems. One was the dispersion rate while the other was the effectiveness of the bullets.
I haven't tried the 2.04 yet but I imagine the P-51 to be a bigger problem than before. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of guyz who fly the P-51 can aim.
The other beef I have with the P-51 is that it is a bullet sponge. It soaks up all of my ammo. According to things I've read it was supposed to have a glass jaw.

Fritz Franzen

Maple_Tiger
07-24-2004, 09:42 AM
I agree Veltro.

I think the wings should ripp off after you take off. Mayby even reduce the maximum dive to lets say... 600km/h. Also, it should be given a 30 second turn rate.

We could have all German planes made invinsible and have the FWs turn rate increased so that it can out turn the Zero.

Better yet, it should be removed from the game.

I think they should give the D27 its 2300HP that it had before. So what if it historicaly had 2600HP. Now when i fly the BF109 or FW, it takes me an extra minute to catch up to it. Thats just not right and i think something should be done. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
07-24-2004, 10:38 AM
STUFU u idiots

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/pics/ajatus.jpg

269GA-Veltro
07-24-2004, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
Unflyable? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

It wasn't unflyable but rather unstable in certain manuevers depending on fuel quantity. The fuselage tank, when full, used to offset the center of gravity. The pilots used to burn off there fuselage tank first, right from takeoff, thus correcting the center of gravity issue.

With this in mind we can also assume the fuselage tanks were empty or near empty by the time the P-51 engaged it's enemy.

Conclusion; no problem

Fritz Franzen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes is right, they engaged enemy with 50% of fuel; they must trim with more than 50% of fuel. Was not possible engage an enemy in dogfight with 100% of fuel.

Have you asked Oleg to model also this future? I don't believe.

A realistic P51 in FB-AEP with 100% of fuel, had to fly worst than the our FW 190. So is a problem.

P51 in FB is arcadish; conclusion: problem.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
http://www.269ga.it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never asked Oleg since I never expected an answer, he's a busy guy. I did start a thread in the past asking if the fuel thing had been modelled. I got a lot of replies that all said yes.
I just went on that info since I refuse to fly it. I loved the plane until it entered this game. I've mentioned this in a few threads.
As for the .50 cals I posted more than once that norrowing the dispersion would be deadly. The previous .50 model had two problems. One was the dispersion rate while the other was the effectiveness of the bullets.
I haven't tried the 2.04 yet but I imagine the P-51 to be a bigger problem than before. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of guyz who fly the P-51 can aim.
The other beef I have with the P-51 is that it is a bullet sponge. It soaks up all of my ammo. According to things I've read it was supposed to have a glass jaw.

Fritz Franzen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Franzen the problem is not the .50 dispersion or other.......simple this forum now is a P51 supermarket, in wich all stress Oleg asking for this or for that.

P51 was the best WW2 long-range, hight altitude escort-interceptor fighter, and this for sure. Was not a dogfighter. Now P51 is all....very realistic. P51 pilots had in media a very hight skill, as all american pilots; good machines off course, but first of all good pilots.

I can't wait for the pacific addon, but i'm afraid somebody could say in the future that my baby (F6F Hellcat) was able to turn better than a Zero.
P51 was a FANTASTIC B&Z, but "somebody" here some time ago said that he totally dislike B&Z. Now...P51 is also a very good dogfighter, but it wasn't it.

Don't kill this sim please......"you" are on the border line. If you want a P51-X-Wing sim, please ask it to Microsoft...not to Oleg...or if you prefer, to Lucas Arts. WW2 air war was quite different.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

Aaron_GT
07-24-2004, 11:01 AM
"Eight .50 cal MGs, at a higher rate of fire than say a Hurricane Mk.IIc with 4 20mm cannon; That will hurt."

Less rate of fire, much more destructive rounds. The Hurricane IIC should have the destructive power of something like 10 to 12 .50s in its cannon firing HE rounds, or a sensible HE/AP mix.

ASH at S-MART
07-24-2004, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Veltro:
It is worth pointing out that for as long as the battery of .50s proved adequate against the targets usually encountered<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Veltro:
This armament was sufficient for the Mustang, because it was an escort fighter, that had to fight mostly against enemy fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Veltro:
The ammunition supply was relatively large, and that was also beneficial for an escort fighter. Last but not least, the Browning was very reliable and had good ballistics".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem that guys like Veltro are having understanding purpose.. The .50cals were.. As these qutoes indicate MORE THAN ENOUGH to deal with Fighter on Fighter situations ie the RULE.. Granted there were EXCEPTIONS to the RULE where a P51 might have encounterd a enmy bomber.. At which point a cannon would be beter.. But the RULE was escort duty where they were only going to incounter enmy fighters.. And you dont have to blow a fighter into a million bits with a cannon.. All you have to do is damge it enough to get the attention of the enmy to break off thier attack of the bombers and then bail out.. GRAVITY will take care of the millions parts bit. Therefore in light of the FACT that .50 were enough to deal with enmy fighters.. And the FACT that logistics plays into all this it is very understandable why the USA didnt need cannons.. Espically in light of the fact that the mainland was not under threat from any enemy bombers! In the pacific the NAVY was more concerned with bombers attacking them.. And the NAVY TOYED with the idea of putting 20mm cannons on the F4u... But in light of the fact that none of he JAP bombers were as hard to knock down as a B17 the NAVY actually abandoned the idea and went back to .50s. It was not until KOREA that the NAVY put 20mm back on the F4u.. Because at that time it's role was more of a ground attack.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Tetrapharmakoi
07-24-2004, 11:28 AM
So what ?

then you have no problem making kills like Luke Skywalker with a P-51 ?

nah , enough posting here , this game is screwed up now , Mauser is **** , Focke Wulf underated , La-7 ubber , K4 bugged in turn rate over 6000 m , P-47 turns like light fighter , energy keeping of heavy fighters and twin engines is wrong, , 50's US lasers , P-51 low speed turning bugged etc ... etc...
And now the game is clearly arcadish , it's pathetic , i had more expectations , i'll get on with it .

crazyivan1970
07-24-2004, 12:14 PM
And there it starts....

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

sapre
07-24-2004, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tetrapharmakoi:
So what ?

then you have no problem making kills like Luke Skywalker with a P-51 ?

nah , enough posting here , this game is screwed up now , Mauser is **** , Focke Wulf underated , La-7 ubber , K4 bugged in turn rate over 6000 m , P-47 turns like light fighter , energy keeping of heavy fighters and twin engines is wrong, , 50's US lasers , P-51 low speed turning bugged etc ... etc...
And now the game is clearly arcadish , it's pathetic , i had more expectations , i'll get on with it .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This bait is so old and untasty, no one is going to catch it.

Maple_Tiger
07-24-2004, 02:20 PM
Lmao,

I think most of us know that the P-47 cannot turn with most fighter aircraft.

The Jug can't turn fight with a BF109 at low speeds and expect to win. That was historical and it is the same way in the game.

If you can't out turn fight a P-47 at low to medium speeds with your BF109, then you might want to buy a new joystick. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I fly the P-47 most of the time and the only plane it can turn fight with is the late FWs.

The only change to the P-47D-27 was 300 extra HP.

Then you have guys like yourself, who come here and say BS about it being more uber.

Learn to fly lol.



I'm sorry sapre, he caught me, i strugled, and could not escape. Me is bad, be sure.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Aaron_GT
07-24-2004, 02:49 PM
AshSmart, the USN switched to 4 20mm cannon at the end of WW2 - F7F, F8F, A1D. Post war the F9F was similarly armed. So some slight wobble on the F4U should be seen in the light of solid USN backing for the 4 20mm armament for all shades of fighter and attack aircraft in the 1945-9 period.

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-24-2004, 02:54 PM
Ivan I thought you locking all threads like this. Didnt you say to send gripes like this to Olegs email?

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

SkyChimp
07-24-2004, 07:38 PM
The F4U-1C was armed with 4 20mms and saw action during the Okinawa campaign.

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/aircraft/showimage.php?id=2355

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

Obi_Kwiet
07-24-2004, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Veltro:
Last but not least, the Browning was very reliable and had good ballistics"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you not read what you post? Still I do think Oleg got mad and tightened them up too much. I think people whine loudly, then Oleg gives in and gives them more than they want, but they don't follows it up whith asking him too make it more accurate.

LeadSpitter_
07-24-2004, 10:54 PM
they call that proof show them the gun tables ballistics and trajectory charts.

why are they not whining about the range and accuracy of the 108 cannon, 103cannon, yak9t cannon, lagg3 cannon, its a lazer beam waahhh and it kills with one hit up to 3.00 range.

this is a 1 hit kill at 2.30m with 108 cannon 1 round hit the wing.

It shows 2.40 but it is zoomed out .10 to get the group of p51ds.

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v97/acespace/bs.jpg

Ever hear about the dog with a bone in his mouth who got greedy seeing his reflection in the lake, dropping the bone to get the reflections looseing all that he had.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Hoarmurath
07-25-2004, 02:07 AM
Your new argument, "it's normal that i can do that with a .50, because a mk108 can do it" is laughable at best... Nice shooting, i have never hit something at more than 1.0 with a MK108... So, what we can see here is quite a miracle, and should not be taken as rule for three reasons :

you hit at distance at wich most people can't, even with the so called lazer UBS.

you kill a mustang with one MK108 shell, but everybody around here tell it take usually 3 to 5 to obtain such a result

you obtained that a single shell go to its target at this distance, i'm impressed, two days ago i was in a cooperative game with a MK108 in the nose, and fired on a Lagg right in front of me, 100m, no deflection, and missed.... after seeing the track, i saw that my first shell was simply not following my flight path, and passed left of my target (uh?), and of course, of my 6 shells burst, all of them just kept being just out of my flight path, and of my target.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Korolov
07-25-2004, 02:26 AM
All your .50 cal and cannon are belong to us.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
07-25-2004, 02:30 AM
u guys may check this link, don't know if already posted, but READ it completly!

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/pics/ajatus.jpg

269GA-Veltro
07-25-2004, 03:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
u guys may check this link, don't know if already posted, but READ it completly!

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/pics/ajatus.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've opened my post with that link...

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

269GA-Veltro
07-25-2004, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The F4U-1C was armed with 4 20mms and saw action during the Okinawa campaign.

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/aircraft/showimage.php?id=2355

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never understood why we don't have A36 in FB, a very interesting american bird....with cannons.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

LeadSpitter_
07-25-2004, 04:51 AM
sure houramuth, want to give me your email address here? Or if i see you on ubi i will give you a pm and you can give me your email there

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Hoarmurath
07-25-2004, 05:36 AM
you can email me at feadin@free.fr

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
07-25-2004, 05:39 AM
Although is almost impossible to hit anything farther 500 m with Mk108.. .. IF hit.. it should kill at aANY distance.. even if the BULLET STOPS!!! .50 gives damage by speed.. MK108 by explosive.

Wanna test? Take your car.. put up to the same amount of TNT (german explosive were better in fact) glued to the side of your carÔ┬┤s door. Than detonate it. Come and say what happens.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!