PDA

View Full Version : Let have an argument ok? I'll start!



Waldo.Pepper
02-11-2010, 10:57 PM
The 5 Most Widely Believed WWII Facts (That Are Bull****)

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/phpimages/article/4/4/3/18443.jpg?v=1

http://www.cracked.com/article...at-are-bull****.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_18389_the-5-most-widely-believed-wwii-facts-that-are-bull****.html)

Romanator21
02-11-2010, 11:03 PM
Well, I learned something new about Churchill that wasn't taught in my history class. Interesting article. Some points are exaggerated and almost silly, but at least some people will question what is rammed down their throats.

AndyJWest
02-11-2010, 11:10 PM
Shhhh, don't give the game away...

waffen-79
02-12-2010, 03:09 AM
comicly told, and exaggerated, but spot on! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hey is it nazi weekend at History Channel? again?

thefruitbat
02-12-2010, 03:42 AM
very amusing, and pretty much spot on.

FlatSpinMan
02-12-2010, 07:04 AM
That's a great site - really funny, ridiculous stuff there. Glad I read that.

R_Target
02-12-2010, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
hey is it nazi weekend at History Channel? again?

Indeed. Bigfoot Nazi lumberjacks will utilize Roswell Tech to teleport to the inside of the pyramids to fight the Illuminati Mummies. At least that's what Nostradamus says. If not this weekend, then definitely before 2012.

Choctaw111
02-12-2010, 11:14 AM
The way the article was written made it somewhat pleasurable to read.

triad773
02-12-2010, 12:06 PM
Enjoyable- thanks for sharing that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Triad

But I came here to have an argument . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

thefruitbat
02-12-2010, 01:17 PM
No you didn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

GBrutus
02-12-2010, 01:29 PM
Yes he did...

AndyJWest
02-12-2010, 01:38 PM
This isn't an argument, you're just contradicting him... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

thefruitbat
02-12-2010, 01:39 PM
no i'm not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

waffen-79
02-12-2010, 01:56 PM
Ahh MP FTW

VW-IceFire
02-12-2010, 04:31 PM
That was good. Actually it was fairly accurate based on the history I know and have researched and read about. They exaggerate for entertainment value but it may be a real blow to the head for some people.

MD_Titus
02-13-2010, 04:39 AM
Excellent, ta for sharing that. now if there are any .50cals are porked, p-51's could kill tigers etc threads i can just link them to that.

orville07
02-15-2010, 02:52 PM
LOL....Thanks Waldo good stuff. The "Mechno-Hitler" with robotic assault cannons for arms I found particularly amusing.

K_Freddie
02-15-2010, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
no i'm not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
YES ...YOU ARE !!!! (in a loud voice)

Owlsphone
02-16-2010, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by orville07:
LOL....Thanks Waldo good stuff. The "Mechno-Hitler" with robotic assault cannons for arms I found particularly amusing.

That was the final boss in the shooter Wolfenstein 3D.

As a young whipper, that game made me think Hitler was a BAMF with a robot suit.

Old_Canuck
02-17-2010, 10:25 AM
All Bull****. Canada won the war. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

M_Gunz
02-17-2010, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by MD_Titus:
Excellent, ta for sharing that. now if there are any .50cals are porked, p-51's could kill tigers etc threads i can just link them to that.

UBI should sticky the thread just to make it easy to find. It'll see enough use.

Jumoschwanz
02-18-2010, 10:07 PM
#6: The P-51 Mustang won the air-war in Europe.

Why it's BS:

By the time the Mustang came to Europe in numbers starting in December 1943, the P-47 had already shot the Luftwaffe out of the sky. In 1944 the Luftwaffe had a tenth of the aircraft, pilots, fuel and resources that the allies did. That is why they were putting WOOD propellers and tails on their aircraft.

If you want to know how easy Mustang pilots had it, set yourself up in the QMB in a P-51 Mustang with eleven wingmen vs. a lone BF109 and shoot it out of the air.

AndyJWest
02-18-2010, 10:12 PM
...in December 1943, the P-47 had already shot the Luftwaffe out of the sky

Nah, The Hurricane won WWII. If it hadn't defeated the Luftwaffe in the BoB, the P-47s wouldn't have had anywhere to fly from... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
02-19-2010, 03:04 AM
That is why they were putting WOOD propellers and tails on their aircraft.

The Germans had been doing that since the beginning of the war; the FW-190's top of the tail was always made of wood. Wood is an excellent material to build airplanes out of, Jumo. It just takes more work, more knowledge, and higher craftsmanship than metal.

As for propellers, wood has the best power transfer and vibrational properties of any material used in WWII.

The same basic process used in the German propellers is used today in your high end aerobatic propellers.

http://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/nat_prop.htm

They used a metal screen and fabric instead of carbon fiber though.

Erkki_M
02-19-2010, 03:10 AM
Kettenhunde said:

As for propellers, wood has the best power transfer and vibrational properties of any material used in WWII.

The same basic process used in the German propellers is used today in your high end aerobatic propellers

I do a lot of kayaking myself... My wooden paddle(which looks like a big stick, heh), is actually better than all the fancy 100% carbon fibre, glass fibre and plastic ones. And costs nearly double to full carbon fibre. Its lighter or about the same weight with the full carbon one, but is otherwise superior.

Kettenhunde
02-19-2010, 03:55 AM
Wood is a great material, I don't know why people knock it or think it is inferior.

Have you see the bicycle frames?

http://www.renovobikes.com/

I guess just the perception you cut it out of the forest must mean you can't afford anything else? Either that or they must be thinking of the properties of one wood and applying it to all species.

Bremspropeller
02-19-2010, 04:06 AM
Propably because wood is harder to maintain than metal.

I mean, is there any way of NDTing a wooden airframe?

Kettenhunde
02-19-2010, 04:43 AM
I mean, is there any way of NDTing a wooden airframe?


Not that I am aware of....

In fact, when you make laminates, you should make a test piece for the purposes of destructive testing the tolerances of the laminate batch.

na85
02-19-2010, 06:08 AM
Speaking of wooden contraptions...

http://www.cars-show.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/splinter-wooden-car-00.jpg

http://www.cars-show.org/cars/...oden-sports-car.html (http://www.cars-show.org/cars/the-splinter-wooden-sports-car.html)

M_Gunz
02-19-2010, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
#6: The P-51 Mustang won the air-war in Europe.

Why it's BS:

By the time the Mustang came to Europe in numbers starting in December 1943, the P-47 had already shot the Luftwaffe out of the sky. In 1944 the Luftwaffe had a tenth of the aircraft, pilots, fuel and resources that the allies did. That is why they were putting WOOD propellers and tails on their aircraft.

If you want to know how easy Mustang pilots had it, set yourself up in the QMB in a P-51 Mustang with eleven wingmen vs. a lone BF109 and shoot it out of the air.

It was the P-51 that allowed bombers to go deeper into enemy territory. The LW was forced to come up into the escorts
where before they waited until the escorts turned back. The bombers served as bait that could not be ignored, double
jeopardy since ignoring them only served more destruction on the homeland.

I don't think that won the war is true, that is BS IMO, but they did go a ways in helping to shorten it.

Jumoschwanz
02-19-2010, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Wood is an excellent material to build airplanes out of, Jumo. It just takes more work, more knowledge, and higher craftsmanship than metal. As for propellers, wood has the best power transfer and vibrational properties of any material used in WWII.


The tails of bf109s were made of metal and wood. The wood tails were heavier and ballast had to be added to the 109s with wood tails for them to fly right.

In an aerobatic aircraft looping around at slow speeds wood may be fine, but in a WWII fighter, traveling at a large fraction of the speed of sound, wood is not safe, nor in wartime does "craftsmanship" take precedence over production....

Bremspropeller
02-19-2010, 10:17 AM
In an aerobatic aircraft looping around at slow speeds wood may be fine, but in a WWII fighter, traveling at a large fraction of the speed of sound, wood is not safe,

ORLY?


#6: The P-51 Mustang won the air-war in Europe.

Why it's BS:

By the time the Mustang came to Europe in numbers starting in December 1943, the P-47 had already shot the Luftwaffe out of the sky. In 1944 the Luftwaffe had a tenth of the aircraft, pilots, fuel and resources that the allies did. That is why they were putting WOOD propellers and tails on their aircraft.

If you want to know how easy Mustang pilots had it, set yourself up in the QMB in a P-51 Mustang with eleven wingmen vs. a lone BF109 and shoot it out of the air.

Why it's BS:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/yak9d.jpg

Half "the LW" was away fightin ole Joe.

Erkki_M
02-19-2010, 11:29 AM
If I dont remember all wrong, a rookie greentag pilot named Hans Wind mentioned something like this about the Spitfire and Hurricane:

"The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames."

"The Hurricane and Spitfire are slow and clumsy fighters at low altitudes. They seek dogfights at high altitudes (over 5,000 m.) where their characteristics are extremely good. Used these days as night-fighters by the enemy. The Spitfire is faster than the Hurricane."

The Jak-9 had a nickname too... "The Monster-Jak". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Frequent_Flyer
02-19-2010, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In an aerobatic aircraft looping around at slow speeds wood may be fine, but in a WWII fighter, traveling at a large fraction of the speed of sound, wood is not safe,

ORLY?


#6: The P-51 Mustang won the air-war in Europe.

Why it's BS:

By the time the Mustang came to Europe in numbers starting in December 1943, the P-47 had already shot the Luftwaffe out of the sky. In 1944 the Luftwaffe had a tenth of the aircraft, pilots, fuel and resources that the allies did. That is why they were putting WOOD propellers and tails on their aircraft.

If you want to know how easy Mustang pilots had it, set yourself up in the QMB in a P-51 Mustang with eleven wingmen vs. a lone BF109 and shoot it out of the air.

Why it's BS:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/yak9d.jpg

Half "the LW" was away fightin ole Joe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe was shooting down "old Joe" and being shot down in the West. The greater percentage of the Luftwaffe's losses were in the West.

Frequent_Flyer
02-19-2010, 10:56 PM
An alcoholic, child molesteing, criminal comes to power in Russia. In much the same way the Bi-polar, vegetarian, drug addict did in Germany. Neither knew how to prosecute a war.Neither possessed any relavant knowledge regarding stratedgy, logistics or weapons engineering, yet they empowered themselves as the ultimate authority in all such matters. Neither one was capable of winning the war. Russia was more sucessful because it had an infinitely larger margin for error vs. Germany.

AndyJWest
02-20-2010, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
An alcoholic, child molesteing, criminal comes to power in Russia. In much the same way the Bi-polar, vegetarian, drug addict did in Germany. Neither knew how to prosecute a war.Neither possessed any relavant knowledge regarding stratedgy, logistics or weapons engineering, yet they empowered themselves as the ultimate authority in all such matters. Neither one was capable of winning the war. Russia was more sucessful because it had an infinitely larger margin for error vs. Germany.

Apart form the 'vegetarian' bit (I am, and there seems to be some evidence that Hitler wasn't), there is a lot of sense in this. As for the question as to where the majority of Luftwaffe losses occurred, I'd suggest that a little more evidence, and a little less bravado might be more convincing.

M_Gunz
02-20-2010, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
If I dont remember all wrong, a rookie greentag pilot named Hans Wind mentioned something like this about the Spitfire and Hurricane:

"The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames."

"The Hurricane and Spitfire are slow and clumsy fighters at low altitudes. They seek dogfights at high altitudes (over 5,000 m.) where their characteristics are extremely good. Used these days as night-fighters by the enemy. The Spitfire is faster than the Hurricane."

The Jak-9 had a nickname too... "The Monster-Jak". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yet I have a direct account from a Pole who flew Hurricanes in the BoB saying just the opposite wrt altitude.
He could not turn with 109's above 8,000 ft but could out-turn 109's below 4,000 ft and used that by spiraling
down when caught at bomber altitude and in the final parts low down closed the circle on his former attacker
all the time wondering why the 109 pilot did not break off and use superior speed to get away. Instead the 109
pilot kept to the hard turning fight and died, his plane crashed after being shot up.

Sure if you have greater speed down low in the 109 then you have more energy to turn to angle and you win if
you can end it before you slow down. But at co-speed the 109 loses to the Hurricane down low and wins up high
where the Hurricane engine is not at its best -compared to the 109's- like it is down lower.

Apparently the 109 pilot that the Polish Ace was fighting "knew" the Hurricane was the lesser down low and
refused to believe what was happening as the Hurricane went from target to attacker.

If you want, I dig it up and post it again. Not just opinion but opinion put to the test by the survivor.
NP, it adds to my post count and irritates some very touchy egos. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

M_Gunz
02-20-2010, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
An alcoholic, child molesteing, criminal comes to power in Russia. In much the same way the Bi-polar, vegetarian, drug addict did in Germany. Neither knew how to prosecute a war.Neither possessed any relavant knowledge regarding stratedgy, logistics or weapons engineering, yet they empowered themselves as the ultimate authority in all such matters. Neither one was capable of winning the war. Russia was more sucessful because it had an infinitely larger margin for error vs. Germany.

You are right on that yet Hitler made some surprisingly good calls in the start, except for the insanely stupid one
to take on the world! Example; how they took that fortress Eben Emael was supposed to be one of his but then he could
merely have been well advised, actually listened and took the credit.

I look at history including what Russia was doing then and it appears to me that if not for Hitler forcing the fight
when he did that Russia would have been in position to roll over Western Europe by the Stalin-planned year of 1950.
The T-34 was not a response to Barbarossa for example, it was started in 1937. What they would have had by 1950 would
have been better and if the rest of the world had not went through the development cycle of WWII it would surprise
me if anyone else had the equal to the T-34 by then.

I don't say thank you to Hitler but I do see some inevitability of a huge war in those times and the later it would
start, the worse it would have been. But that is only my partly-informed opinion.

arthursmedley
02-20-2010, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
Well, I learned something new about Churchill that wasn't taught in my history class.

A funny article in some ways but I wouldn't draw any reliable conclusions from the Churchill section.

He had an unusual power for a politician of being able peer into the future but didn't always draw the correct conclusions from these insights.

So he had the general staff draw up plans to repel the Russkies from central and eastern Europe!!? Shock, horror! Thats what military staffs are for. By the summer of 1945, with Soviet attitudes hardening and Uncle Joe feeling his oats in Poland it would seem a reasonable exercise. And using German troops? Lordy!
I seem to recall that both American and British forces in Indo-China and the Korean peninsular quickly utilised the existing Japanese forces, well into 1946. I have a feeling the Russkies did the same in Manchuria.

Churchill didn't lose the British general election in 1945 but his Conservative party certainly did. This had much more to do with kicking out those perceived as responsible for events in the nineteen-thirties such as the depression and their failure to prevent world war two.

I note the article fails to mention he was re-elected prime minister in 1951!

And the Raj? Well, always embarrassing to mention the British empire in connection with fighting for freedom and survival, etc. but Churchill was a product of the late Victorian age and his views on the empire and India in particular were very far from unique. Rest assured, we Brits had been locking up Ghandi and other Indian leaders for decades without needing the urging of Churchill to do it.

Indian independance came about certainly from a moral conviction by the new Labour government that it was the right thing to do but also because by 1947 Great Britain was absolutely, stony broke and couldn't afford the luxury of suppressing this part of our empire any longer.

Isn't it one of the irony's of history that to fight a great war you need to be a great power but once you have fought a great war you find yourself no longer a great power?

GH_Klingstroem
02-20-2010, 04:56 AM
I agree.
HEIL SCHIKELGRUBER!!! just wouldnt have had the same effect... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
02-20-2010, 05:17 AM
BTW, just what does SCHIKELGRUBER mean? Is it paper-hanger?

Flight_boy1990
02-20-2010, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Yet I have a direct account from a Pole who flew Hurricanes in the BoB saying just the opposite wrt altitude.
He could not turn with 109's above 8,000 ft but could out-turn 109's below 4,000 ft and used that by spiraling
down when caught at bomber altitude and in the final parts low down closed the circle on his former attacker
all the time wondering why the 109 pilot did not break off and use superior speed to get away.

Well M_Guns,I'll tell you something.
Here in Bulgaria during the conflict,one of our aces Stoyan Stoyanov once took off in a Bf-109 Gustav-2 on training sortie against another avarage/rookie pilot from his royak (staffel) who was too in Gustav-2.While fighting they got to the point where they started to "turn-fight".
Stoyanov started deploying elevator trim and he began to gain more and more while the other pilot had grabed the stick like a drowning man a straw and was doing nothing...Hense they didn't had hidraylic back then.

Hans-Joachim Marseille while stationed in Africa,he too was able to out turn his rivals (Spitfire;Hurricane and Kittyhawks) by using trim and flaps.

Most pilots in the Luftwaffe,who flew the Bf-109 didn't bothered deploying flaps or elevator trim,since this required them to shift their left hand from the throttle to the elevator trim or flap wheels,and on top of that they had to crank them numeral times in order deploy/retract them.You know that this ain't easy while you're in intense fight and big speed.But maybe noone told them this tactic...We'llnever know.
So,this is why when some Bf-109 pilots shifted to the FW-190,it was what the Maybach 62 is for an ex BMW M3 1980 series driver.

Anyway,it's always up to the man in the cockpit.
Thie is why we'll never know how one plane can really perform,because one plane performs differently when in hands of different pilots.But I guess you already know that... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FlatSpinMan
02-20-2010, 06:20 AM
I can't believe this thread actually achieved its stated intention.

Erkki_M
02-20-2010, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
If I dont remember all wrong, a rookie greentag pilot named Hans Wind mentioned something like this about the Spitfire and Hurricane:

"The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames."

"The Hurricane and Spitfire are slow and clumsy fighters at low altitudes. They seek dogfights at high altitudes (over 5,000 m.) where their characteristics are extremely good. Used these days as night-fighters by the enemy. The Spitfire is faster than the Hurricane."

The Jak-9 had a nickname too... "The Monster-Jak". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yet I have a direct account from a Pole who flew Hurricanes in the BoB saying just the opposite wrt altitude.
He could not turn with 109's above 8,000 ft but could out-turn 109's below 4,000 ft and used that by spiraling
down when caught at bomber altitude and in the final parts low down closed the circle on his former attacker
all the time wondering why the 109 pilot did not break off and use superior speed to get away. Instead the 109
pilot kept to the hard turning fight and died, his plane crashed after being shot up.

Sure if you have greater speed down low in the 109 then you have more energy to turn to angle and you win if
you can end it before you slow down. But at co-speed the 109 loses to the Hurricane down low and wins up high
where the Hurricane engine is not at its best -compared to the 109's- like it is down lower.

Apparently the 109 pilot that the Polish Ace was fighting "knew" the Hurricane was the lesser down low and
refused to believe what was happening as the Hurricane went from target to attacker.

If you want, I dig it up and post it again. Not just opinion but opinion put to the test by the survivor.
NP, it adds to my post count and irritates some very touchy egos. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The thing is, that Wind was a B-239 pilot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Wind

thefruitbat
02-20-2010, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
I can't believe this thread actually achieved its stated intention.

Did you expect anything else, this is the Ubizoo after all!!!

JtD
02-20-2010, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
I can't believe this thread actually achieved its stated intention.

Hehe. I just had a laugh, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Frequent_Flyer
02-20-2010, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
An alcoholic, child molesteing, criminal comes to power in Russia. In much the same way the Bi-polar, vegetarian, drug addict did in Germany. Neither knew how to prosecute a war.Neither possessed any relavant knowledge regarding stratedgy, logistics or weapons engineering, yet they empowered themselves as the ultimate authority in all such matters. Neither one was capable of winning the war. Russia was more sucessful because it had an infinitely larger margin for error vs. Germany.

Apart form the 'vegetarian' bit (I am, and there seems to be some evidence that Hitler wasn't), there is a lot of sense in this. As for the question as to where the majority of Luftwaffe losses occurred, I'd suggest that a little more evidence, and a little less bravado might be more convincing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Define vegatarian? Hitler suffered either pathologically or drug induced Bi-Polar episodes in conjunction with a significant thought disorder, He beleived his own people were trying to poison him. It was, in his mind more difficult do accomplish this if he ate primarily vegatbles.This of course was not the only reason he prefered vegatables

Regarding, Luftwaffe losses ,I will not post my sources on this site. However,If truly interested you can certainly do a small amount of research yourself. The facts are as I stated, the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft to the western allies vs. Russia.

Airmail109
02-20-2010, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by na85:
Speaking of wooden contraptions...

http://www.cars-show.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/splinter-wooden-car-00.jpg

http://www.cars-show.org/cars/...oden-sports-car.html (http://www.cars-show.org/cars/the-splinter-wooden-sports-car.html)

High performance car made out of wood....so you can burn that much faster when you crash at Spa

Frequent_Flyer
02-20-2010, 11:26 AM
What interests me regarding the various "versions" of WW II history. Is when you read a Russian version, Stalin is a " Hero ". Yet the facts are he was every bit as sick and twisted as his partner in crime Hitler.

Stalin murdered millions of his own countrymen, was easily as racist and genocidial as Hitler. The ommission of these facts in most Russian lititure regarding " The Great Patriotic War ", convinces me they are the equal to any perceived Western history "revisionists".

Most Russian people hated,distrusted and understood Stalin for what he was. If Hitler had the insight and political intelligence to use this to his advantage,instead of his attitude of racial superority. The invasion of Russia may have been aproached in a different manner. With a substantially different outcome.

Flight_boy1990
02-20-2010, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
I can't believe this thread actually achieved its stated intention.

Did you expect anything else, this is the Ubizoo after all!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

EDIT:


Originally posted by Aimail101:
High performance car made out of wood....so you can burn that much faster when you crash at Spa

You're wrong.This car is pretty well rebared inside.It's not plain wood like you think,it has skeleton for safety.It's like the microfiber hot-rods that are well known in the US now,but only the body is made of wood and not the microfiber.

M_Gunz
02-20-2010, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Well M_Guns,I'll tell you something.
Here in Bulgaria during the conflict,one of our aces Stoyan Stoyanov once took off in a Bf-109 Gustav-2 on training sortie against another avarage/rookie pilot from his royak (staffel) who was too in Gustav-2.While fighting they got to the point where they started to "turn-fight".
Stoyanov started deploying elevator trim and he began to gain more and more while the other pilot had grabed the stick like a drowning man a straw and was doing nothing...Hense they didn't had hidraylic back then.

It doesn't matter about the lack of hydraulics when speed is down due to turning so much. The back force on the stick
is no longer high.
Once you have reached your critical AOA you can't get any more turn without either speeding up or deploying flaps. All
that he was doing was pulling his plane into the stall region and making his turn worse. Knowing that, the account
itself should be telling you that Stoyan being the better pilot knew what to do to stay behind the rookie who only
thought "pull harder" when he should have done something else.

In any turn you can only pull so much without bleeding speed due to stalling. That is no fault of the plane, it is
fault of the pilot to keep pulling more stick. He should have noticed his nose coming around slower and slower.
All he maybe saw was Stoyan on his tail and then forgot his training, but there I guess based on what I read he did.

M_Gunz
02-20-2010, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
The thing is, that Wind was a B-239 pilot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Wind

Oh. This is the Buffalo I we have in IL2? I'm not used to it at all! Great turner, takeoff speed 140kph says so much!

Waldo.Pepper
02-20-2010, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
You're wrong.This car is pretty well rebared inside.It's not plain wood like you think,it has skeleton for safety.It's like the microfiber hot-rods that are well known in the US now,but only the body is made of wood and not the microfiber.

Really I'm sorry but I think it is you that is wrong about the Splinter Flight_boy.

Check out this link.

http://www.joeharmondesign.com/

Kettenhunde
02-21-2010, 09:38 AM
In an aerobatic aircraft looping around at slow speeds wood may be fine, but in a WWII fighter, traveling at a large fraction of the speed of sound, wood is not safe,


MMMM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet


The tails of bf109s were made of metal and wood. The wood tails were heavier and ballast had to be added to the 109s with wood tails for them to fly right.

Where was the ballast placed?

Wooden structures are often lighter for equal strength. Wood is simply a great material for making airplanes. It is an even better material for making propellers.

http://www.sportair.com/articl...0-%20Part%20One.html (http://www.sportair.com/articles/2Aircraft%20Wood%20-%20Part%20One.html)


nor in wartime does "craftsmanship" take precedence over production....

I agree on this one.