PDA

View Full Version : LOL!! Discovery channel!!



F0_Dark_P
03-09-2006, 05:59 AM
Yesterday night i saw the "worlds greatest fighters" on Discovery channel and i must say über lol on that show, they ranked the worlds best fighters and on top was the P-51 and the spit on second, on third they ranked the F-18 and on the fourth the BF 109, and the FW 190 was not even mentioned?!

and to finish they concluded that the Spitfire won BoB, HELLO!... Hurricane....someone?????....

this is not some atempt to start a flamewar or something i just had to ventilate my feelings about that show, which i think is utter BS from Discovery http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

willyvic
03-09-2006, 06:02 AM
Your absolutely right!!!! Everyone knows the P-38 should have been 3rd.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

WV

F6_Ace
03-09-2006, 06:04 AM
As said the other day, history/discovery channels leave a lot to be desired. They're, as you can see, for people who think the P51 won the war.

Don't get excited about it. Just remember that you take anything you see on them with a Cheshire plain sized pinch of salt.

BaldieJr
03-09-2006, 06:06 AM
Make a note: TV is for entertainment purposes only. Don't be fooled by PBS either (unless its that painting show cause those are very happy little trees make no mistake).

Breeze147
03-09-2006, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Make a note: TV is for entertainment purposes only. Don't be fooled by PBS either (unless its that painting show cause those are very happy little trees make no mistake).

Does that still come on. I used to love that show!

msalama
03-09-2006, 06:23 AM
h3y, t3H StürM0 W0n t3h w4R. B sœr3.

No but seriously, sounds like a joke that one. But hey, there're other biased ppl in the world besides us it seems -> nice to know we're not alone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

diabloblanco1
03-09-2006, 06:29 AM
Yeah, I remember seeing this Russian program that said the Mig 3 was the best fighter, and this German program that said the BF-109 was the best fighter, and a Japanese program that said the Zero was the best fighter, and this Italian program that said the MC205 was the best fighter, a there was this one Finnish show that said that Morko Morane job was the best so go figure.

Maybe the best was dependent on which side you flew for, naw that could not be it, its so simple. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Oh, BTW the sky is Blue. Now, go argue about that!

msalama
03-09-2006, 06:33 AM
Maybe the best was dependent on which side you flew for, naw that could not be it, its so simple. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Yeah, our side the best side, regardless of what we do / don't. One of the fundamental truths of life, unfortunately...

BaronUnderpants
03-09-2006, 06:41 AM
That perticular show was debated here a month or two back....still a bag of doodoo, like u said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If i remember correctly the P-51 is the greatest fighter because:

1. It can fly far http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
2. A lot of them was produced. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
3. It was credited with over 5000 kills, more
than ANY other fighter type http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Im allways intrested in knowing where they find all this stuff, always funny to listen to so called experts talking about stuff they know very little about ( in best case ) and absolutly nothing ( worst case ). A Pilot in his mid 30`s - 40`s who is in love with a perticular ac, P-51 in this case doesnt make him an for most expert on all WWII fighters.

luftluuver
03-09-2006, 06:48 AM
Best just to turn the audio off and watch the video for these types of shows.

Xiolablu3
03-09-2006, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
That perticular show was debated here a month or two back....still a bag of doodoo, like u said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If i remember correctly the P-51 is the greatest fighter because:

1. It can fly far http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
2. A lot of them was produced. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
3. It was credited with over 5000 kills, more
than ANY other fighter type http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

.

Shouldnt that last one be the BF109 by far?

Surely the Spitfire shot more planes down in the AIR than any other ALLIED fighter? It was fighting from 1939-1945 on all fronts.

Just reading the big show, even by D-Day 1944 British fighters accounted for 1764 of 2371 front line fighters on the West Front, and of 3483 fighter bomber 2172 of them were RAF.

Thats about 3/4 of the fighter bombers and well over 3/4 of the fighters.

You would think the majority of these fighters would be Spitfires too. FUnny that some people say the Spit played a 'minor role' in the war.

BaronUnderpants
03-09-2006, 07:11 AM
Exactly my thoughts....As far as i can remember they rambled on about the superiority of the P-51 and among other things said "5000 kills, more than any other", first thing i thought actually, was: "ya right, top 10 german Bf 109 aces almost comes up in thoose figures" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif...not quite, but almost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BaronUnderpants
03-09-2006, 07:27 AM
I have to be honest here, and hope someone can correct me. Maby u FO_Dark, since u just wached the show reasently.

The more i think about the show the more confused i get, either they said "5000 kills, more than any other ac" or they said "produced more aces than any other ac"...or something to that effect. Cant for the life of me remember wich, and i dont wanna quote something that havent been said.

Wich ever it was both sounds out right wrong.

P.S. I remember that there where 2 seperate shows airing just one after the other. Both differd on places 10-2 but both had P-51 at first place. Maby im confusing the 2?

Mr_CobraStyle
03-09-2006, 07:46 AM
Also watched this show, pretty funny... F-117 was in 10th place, pretty good for a plane without a2a capabilities...

Dash_C.
03-09-2006, 08:14 AM
I gotta wonder who makes these shows and what they were thinking when they made it.

"planes are 1337!"
"Yeah. 'specially teh P-51."
"NO WAI!"
"TEH SPITFIRE PWNS J00 ALL!!1!1"
"k well let's make a documentary to solve this once and for all."
"k"
"meeting adjouned."

Slickun
03-09-2006, 09:01 AM
Does anyone know how many victories the Spitfire has credited to it?

I've never been able to find a number.

NonWonderDog
03-09-2006, 09:16 AM
So... what exactly makes a P51 "better" than an F/A-18?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

eskimo-again
03-09-2006, 09:51 AM
dont you just love their made up rankings ...

its like that animal planet pet rating show.

i ll give it 5 bones for friendliness..

only funny part about the top ten fighters was the mention of the panthom being more aerodynamic going backwards :P

ps: obvious why the p-51 was top dog.. its an american plane in an american show http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jds1978
03-09-2006, 10:02 AM
It's gotten to the point that the only TV i watch is sports. Ball don't lie

gx-warspite
03-09-2006, 10:07 AM
Discovery/History Channel is the reason we have "omg 50s should kill tigers" threads. Not that I'm complaining. They've provided ample inspiration for art like this:

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/FB_USA.jpg

crazyivan1970
03-09-2006, 10:45 AM
I watching similar thing on Miltary channel. But about tanks. Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. M1 was #2 and Tiger #3 if i remember correctly. Then there was a bunch of other tank...hey even Sherman on the 10th place. What kind of surprized me...nobody mentioned Panther.

Waldo.Pepper
03-09-2006, 10:57 AM
Panther
Never killed a Tiger! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-09-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Best just to turn the audio off and watch the video for these types of shows.


What he said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

It's really a shame that blatant untruths and B$ are so easily taken as hardened fact. The responsibility obviously rests with the individual to educate himself.

I guess we should be thankful that we have the opportunity to learn the truth...it's too bad we have to work so hard for it sometimes.

TB

Kocur_
03-09-2006, 11:06 AM
What I love the most in DC shows on armament and warfare in general are the "experts" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif Oh boy what a BS can a proffesor say keeping his face serious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crazyivan1970
03-09-2006, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
What I love the most in DC shows on armament and warfare in general are the "experts" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif Oh boy what a BS can a proffesor say keeping his face serious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This is one of the first times i am 100% in agreement with you Kocur... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

LUFT11_Hoflich
03-09-2006, 11:08 AM
Those are Noob shows, like one of the guys said, just turn down the volume and take over.

H¶f...

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-09-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
This is one of the first times i am 100% in agreement with you Kocur... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif


I'm copy/pasting this so I never forget it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Rjel
03-09-2006, 11:45 AM
There are boatloads of inaccuracies in a lot of the Discovery/Military channel shows when it comes to aviation. It didn't used to be so. Discovery had the excellent series Wings back in the late 80s that was very good. Someone back then did their homework.

As far as the P-51 being best by "winning the war", I remember their critiria for the choice as the plane coming into service at the time it was needed to comtinue the airwar over occupied Europe and being a superior A/C. For all the knocks it takes on this forum, it did, at least last time I checked, help win the war. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Lots of rewritting history going on here nowadays.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

eskimo-again
03-09-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Discovery/History Channel is the reason we have "omg 50s should kill tigers" threads. Not that I'm complaining. They've provided ample inspiration for art like this:



face the cold hard facts ... you have to bounce the bullets of the road under the tank.. they did it all the time :P

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219&q=wwii

(not that that is a tiger in that vid or a p51)

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Discovery/History Channel is the reason we have "omg 50s should kill tigers" threads. Not that I'm complaining. They've provided ample inspiration for art like this:

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/FB_USA.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

bazzaah2
03-09-2006, 12:05 PM
doesn't that make the P-47 the best tank?

Da_Godfatha
03-09-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Exactly my thoughts....As far as i can remember they rambled on about the superiority of the P-51 and among other things said "5000 kills, more than any other", first thing i thought actually, was: "ya right, top 10 german Bf 109 aces almost comes up in thoose figures" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif...not quite, but almost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Are you sure about that? I would be wary of those scores. Remember, that most of this info comes from "Official Nazi Documents". How much was propoganda? Alot of the kills that H-J Marseille claimed in the desert does not jive with "Official" RAF losses. On his so-called 15 kills in one day, the RAF only confirms about seven.

Besides, I think alot of the people here see such a show and think, " my La-7 wonder-woman plane rulz, that can`t be true!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Do not forget, this game has NOTHING to do with R/L flying or history.

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 12:10 PM
P51 probably came in at #1 because it looks nice and there's a lot of them still flying

P47 had a better K/D ratio and more ground kills AFAIK

Cadet_Bobo
03-09-2006, 12:17 PM
Now the History Channel is going to teach us how William Shatner changed the world. Should be interesting if not entirely credible.

Bobo

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Cadet_Bobo:
Now the History Channel is going to teach us how William Shatner changed the world. Should be interesting if not entirely credible.

Bobo

I've heard HMS Hood described as a cruiser so really anything's possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CD_kp84yb
03-09-2006, 12:23 PM
LOL so according to the show (circus) a P51 must own an F18 ????????????????? Hell that f18 must be some **** plane if it gets owned by a P51. LOL why put in a lot of money and reasearch in modern fighters if a P51 can do the trick, So bye bye Joint Strike Fighter, F22 and all that ****, its all breakfast for the 51 according to DC.

Hmmmm when we are seeing BS on BC i can say some BS by stating that an obsulete F18, f22 whatever can own alot of P51's when engaged.

Or the pilot must be Steve Wonder.

arjisme
03-09-2006, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
LOL so according to the show (circus) a P51 must own an F18 ????????????????? Second comment along these lines that I've seen in this thread. I didn't see the show but I will bet they said their criteria factored in the impact the plane had in its time and wasn't intended to be an absolute comparison between aircraft on its list.

arjisme
03-09-2006, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I watching similar thing on Miltary channel. But about tanks. Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. M1 was #2 and Tiger #3 if i remember correctly. Then there was a bunch of other tank...hey even Sherman on the 10th place. What kind of surprized me...nobody mentioned Panther. I saw that show. I actually guessed that the T-34 would be their top tank and I think it is as valid a choice as any. I did think that putting the Sherman on the list, even at #10, was questionable. I also agree I was surprised they didn't include the Panther.

reverendkrv1972
03-09-2006, 12:43 PM
same as when this show was discussed before...

no mention of Hurricane is as wrong as the 'stang being in top of the list...

pinch of salt & all that.

Kocur_
03-09-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:

I've heard HMS Hood described as a cruiser so really anything's possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Noooot the best example of DC incompetence as HMS Hood was a battle cruiser (size and armament of a battleship but lighter armour and greater speed) indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
03-09-2006, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
Yesterday night i saw the "worlds greatest fighters" on Discovery channel and i must say über lol on that show, they ranked the worlds best fighters and on top was the P-51 and the spit on second, on third they ranked the F-18 and on the fourth the BF 109, and the FW 190 was not even mentioned?!

and to finish they concluded that the Spitfire won BoB, HELLO!... Hurricane....someone?????....


So what your saying is, the Hurricane should replace the Bf-109 in fourth place since it kicked the 109's *** during BoB?

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:

I've heard HMS Hood described as a cruiser so really anything's possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Noooot the best example of DC incompetence as HMS Hood was a battle cruiser (size and armament of a battleship but lighter armour and greater speed) indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's easily debatable, many authorities consider Hood to have been the first example of the fast battleship - considering she was MUCH larger than (and at least as well protected as) comtemporary battleships (eg the RN Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign classes) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But she definitely was not a cruiser by any stretch of the imagination http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So what your saying is, the Hurricane should replace the Bf-109 in fourth place since it kicked the 109's *** during BoB?

No, it should be the P.11c since it shot down some 109 during the invasion of Poland http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Kocur_
03-09-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:

That's easily debatable, many authorities consider Hood to have been the first example of the fast battleship - considering she was MUCH larger than (and at least as well protected as) comtemporary battleships (eg the RN Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign classes) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But she definitely was not a cruiser by any stretch of the imagination http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Viper2005_
03-09-2006, 02:04 PM
The trouble is that if you turn the sound down then you miss out on the sound of the engines...

I'm not a big fan of "list" shows, since they generally seem to be based upon the premise that you can have a "best" fighter, without ever taking any time to define the context.

In fact, given that these shows often compare fighters from WWI or WWII with modern fast jets it seems to me that the only context is aesthetics.

The P-51 was a great fighter, but there's considerable emphasis on the "was" bit.

In fact, if memory serves one of the last operational tasks performed by the Spitfire for the RAF was dissimilar combat training with Lightnings in 1963 in order to formulate tactics for the Lightning force should they be required to fight against Mustangs in Indonesia.

A PR.XIX was used. Of course the PR.XIX has several advantages over the Mustang; it's not encumbered by the weight of guns and ammunition, and it's got a Griffon instead of a Merlin. So its got a superior power loading and a superior wing loading, as well as superior looks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It was generally concluded that the Spitfire didn't stand a chance.

As such, the P-51 would have been nothing other than a target.

Fast forward a few decades and put an F-18 into that picture and the results would be similar; F-18 doesn't perform (speed, rate of climb) as well as a Lightning, but it's got vastly superior avionics, is probably considerably easier to fly and has bags more combat persistance ( both with regards to fuel and weapons). I know which I'd put my money on...


<span class="ev_code_GREY">The Mustang obviously; think of those odds! Strap one of our online aces into it and watch the fur fly. It's a win win. If the Mustang wins I'm rich. If the Mustang loses, my life as a 190 driver just got easier! Did I just say that? Oops! </span>

dravisar
03-09-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by eskimo-again:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Discovery/History Channel is the reason we have "omg 50s should kill tigers" threads. Not that I'm complaining. They've provided ample inspiration for art like this:


face the cold hard facts ... you have to bounce the bullets of the road under the tank.. they did it all the time :P

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219&q=wwii

(not that that is a tiger in that vid or a p51) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FYI, some armchair aces on the forums have torn that video apart...and I tended to agree with them, the armor under a tiger would stop a .50 caliber round after it bounced off the ground. On top of that, you would have to get your rounds under the tank in the front or in the back to even get...ack what am I doing...I gotta stop buying into these trolls.

Bottom line, no, you couldnt kill the crew of a tiger by bouncing rounds under the tank, although you could disable it by firing the rounds into the tracks.

From what ive read, they disabled them, then called in heavier guns to destroy them. By then the crew was long gone.

My oppinion on the Discovery Channel and History Channel is about the same as the rest of you, its not always credibly information, so watching is more entertaining than listening.

I always love that no matter what veteran they interview, whatever plane they flew, IS the best fighter or bomber EVER produced http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OldMan____
03-09-2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:

I've heard HMS Hood described as a cruiser so really anything's possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Noooot the best example of DC incompetence as HMS Hood was a battle cruiser (size and armament of a battleship but lighter armour and greater speed) indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's easily debatable, many authorities consider Hood to have been the first example of the fast battleship - considering she was MUCH larger than (and at least as well protected as) comtemporary battleships (eg the RN Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign classes) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But she definitely was not a cruiser by any stretch of the imagination http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hood was technicaly and officialy a battecruiser and Not a Line ship (battleship). It was not capable of withstand shots from same class of caliebr it carried. Its protection was good only at specific places. It was made to fight as a cruser. battleships are lines hsipa, made to fight in line formation delivering adn recieving shots, not evading them.

HayateAce
03-09-2006, 02:52 PM
The most enjoyable part of these P51 "discussions" is seeing all the sour grapes fly around. The loveli Mustang swept the Luft Tards from the skies in 43-44.

Choke it down.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

http://www.airshowphotography.com/airshows/chino04/p51d.jpg

HuninMunin
03-09-2006, 02:57 PM
Hayate, the fun thing about you is that you ectually believe that you could upset folks with your bias.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

fordfan25
03-09-2006, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
Yesterday night i saw the "worlds greatest fighters" on Discovery channel and i must say über lol on that show, they ranked the worlds best fighters and on top was the P-51 and the spit on second, on third they ranked the F-18 and on the fourth the BF 109, and the FW 190 was not even mentioned?!

and to finish they concluded that the Spitfire won BoB, HELLO!... Hurricane....someone?????....

this is not some atempt to start a flamewar or something i just had to ventilate my feelings about that show, which i think is utter BS from Discovery http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif OMG a USA plane was ranked #1 OOoooooo the horror well i supose all those experts and actaul piolets should play 1C's GAME so thay can see how it really was http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

fordfan25
03-09-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
The most enjoyable part of these P51 "discussions" is seeing all the sour grapes fly around. The loveli Mustang swept the Luft Tards from the skies in 43-44.

Choke it down.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

http://www.airshowphotography.com/airshows/chino04/p51d.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:

Hood was technicaly and officialy a battecruiser and Not a Line ship (battleship). It was not capable of withstand shots from same class of caliebr it carried.

Few, if any, ships of her vintage were.

Don't forget she was a pre-AoN design, the concept of an immunity zone didn't come into it

fordfan25
03-09-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:

I've heard HMS Hood described as a cruiser so really anything's possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Noooot the best example of DC incompetence as HMS Hood was a battle cruiser (size and armament of a battleship but lighter armour and greater speed) indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's easily debatable, many authorities consider Hood to have been the first example of the fast battleship - considering she was MUCH larger than (and at least as well protected as) comtemporary battleships (eg the RN Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign classes) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But she definitely was not a cruiser by any stretch of the imagination http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hood was technicaly and officialy a battecruiser and Not a Line ship (battleship). It was not capable of withstand shots from same class of caliebr it carried. Its protection was good only at specific places. It was made to fight as a cruser. battleships are lines hsipa, made to fight in line formation delivering adn recieving shots, not evading them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yes the hood was not a BB. its armor belt if i recall was thickend befor WW2 but its deck armor was thin. wich is what killed it. a shell from the Bissmark hit that top thin deck and if i remember hit a powder storage.

HayateAce
03-09-2006, 03:17 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://www.perfessorbill.com/covers/sgrapes.jpg

fordfan25
03-09-2006, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
LOL so according to the show (circus) a P51 must own an F18 ????????????????? Hell that f18 must be some **** plane if it gets owned by a P51. LOL why put in a lot of money and reasearch in modern fighters if a P51 can do the trick, So bye bye Joint Strike Fighter, F22 and all that ****, its all breakfast for the 51 according to DC.

Hmmmm when we are seeing BS on BC i can say some BS by stating that an obsulete F18, f22 whatever can own alot of P51's when engaged.

Or the pilot must be Steve Wonder. it was comparing many factores of planes OF THERE TIME http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif . like while a spit might have a better chance aginst a stang at lower alt in a turn fight does not mean its a better fighter overall. IMHO the F4U-4 was the "best" fighter of WW@ over all. not the best dog fighter.

fordfan25
03-09-2006, 03:21 PM
HayateAce
HayateAce http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

HuninMunin
03-09-2006, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HayateAce
HayateAce http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nomen est Omen

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:

I've heard HMS Hood described as a cruiser so really anything's possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Noooot the best example of DC incompetence as HMS Hood was a battle cruiser (size and armament of a battleship but lighter armour and greater speed) indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's easily debatable, many authorities consider Hood to have been the first example of the fast battleship - considering she was MUCH larger than (and at least as well protected as) comtemporary battleships (eg the RN Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign classes) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But she definitely was not a cruiser by any stretch of the imagination http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hood was technicaly and officialy a battecruiser and Not a Line ship (battleship). It was not capable of withstand shots from same class of caliebr it carried. Its protection was good only at specific places. It was made to fight as a cruser. battleships are lines hsipa, made to fight in line formation delivering adn recieving shots, not evading them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yes the hood was not a BB. its armor belt if i recall was thickend befor WW2 but its deck armor was thin. wich is what killed it. a shell from the Bissmark hit that top thin deck and if i remember hit a powder storage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The deck armour of EVERY ship her age was thin, simply because at what were considered to be likely battle ranges at the time, shells would not have THAT much penetration vs deck armour.

It's not been conclusively proven what sank the Hood, although the theory you stated is one of the more probable

Kocur_
03-09-2006, 03:30 PM
yes the hood was not a BB. its armor belt if i recall was thickend befor WW2 but its deck armor was thin. wich is what killed it. a shell from the Bissmark hit that top thin deck and if i remember hit a powder storage.

Or... from Prinz Eugen, as her shells' trajectories were more arched.

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yes the hood was not a BB. its armor belt if i recall was thickend befor WW2 but its deck armor was thin. wich is what killed it. a shell from the Bissmark hit that top thin deck and if i remember hit a powder storage.

Or... from Prinz Eugen, as her shells' trajectories were more arched. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The PEs shells would NOT have penetrated Hood's decks at that range

You'd have a better chance at knocking a Tiger out with a 0.50" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
03-09-2006, 03:52 PM
Checked and stand corrected: 20,3 cannons couldnt penetrate vertical, and most probably also not horizontal armour of Hood's ammo chambers. Not that it matters anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif As I just checked Prinz Eugen was firing at Prince of Wales when Hood went boom.


So what was the original topic of this discussion? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MLudner
03-09-2006, 04:27 PM
Frankly, I think the Bf-109 was the greatest Propfighter ever designed, because even though it entered service in 1935 it was still fully combat effective and a match for any other propfighter 10 years later. All the other aircraft entering service at that time were junk by 1940 and were either retired, or relegated to attack aircraft. Willi Messerschmitt's design was brilliant.

However, the P-51, after the Merlin engine was installed, was a first rate fighter. In fact, it did play a vital role in the airwar because it had the range to take the war to the Luftwaffe and could escort the bombers all the way. Until the arrival of the P-51 the USAAF was almost forced to halt its campaign against Germany due to the losses being suffered by the unescorted bombers. There is actually a reasonable basis for the OPINION of the program in question and the petulance in your derision of the episode says more against you than it does against either the program or the History Channel.

In order, my favorite US Fighters of WWII/VI are:

1: F4U Corsair
2: P-47 Thunderbolt
3: (Surprise!) P-39 Aircobra
4: P-51 Mustang
5: F2A Buffalo

I often object to things said on programs on the HC, but they are OPINIONs of the people who made the show. BFD http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LUFT11_Hoflich
03-09-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yes the hood was not a BB. its armor belt if i recall was thickend befor WW2 but its deck armor was thin. wich is what killed it. a shell from the Bissmark hit that top thin deck and if i remember hit a powder storage.

Or... from Prinz Eugen, as her shells' trajectories were more arched. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The PEs shells would NOT have penetrated Hood's decks at that range

You'd have a better chance at knocking a Tiger out with a 0.50" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol... love the bashing of the .50 cal tankbuster guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW, anyone has a link where i can find out what the hell are the differences betwee, cruisers, battleships, destroyers and all the naval vessel types etc? Cuz I have no idea what yer talking about.

H¶f...

MLudner
03-09-2006, 04:33 PM
The Hood was classified as a Battlecruiser, despite Snapped's disagreement. Just do a googlesearch for each type.

Hey, Snap; maybe you should take it up with the Admiralty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Mence
03-09-2006, 04:40 PM
I can see it now. Sir, we knocked out some tigers with our guns on strafing runs. Well not exactly, we hit the gas trucks and ignited them and then the tigers were disabled in the explosion.

I don't care how you knocked them out, the point is they are no longer a threat. Well done pilot.

There is a moral to the story, you nice?

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
The Hood was classified as a Battlecruiser, despite Snapped's disagreement. Just do a googlesearch for each type.

Hey, Snap; maybe you should take it up with the Admiralty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Uhh....OK!

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server.php?show=nav.3921

"Although classified as a battlecruiser, Hood was a fast battleship, an improved version of the Queen Elizabeths. With the same main armament of eight 381mm guns, a higher position for the secondary armament, sloped armour belt and improved torpedo protection, she included the latest ideas of naval construction in 1915.

Well waddya know - looks like the RN agrees with me!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Treetop64
03-09-2006, 05:39 PM
The discovery channel has devolved into some cheap, spinoff imitation of Disney for Kids or something... I used to love the discovery channel years ago when it first came out, but now it has descended to catering to the lowest common denominator.

The History channel seems to be the last bastion of legitimate historical and technical TV veiwing now. Personally, I love watching my vast collection of WWII DVD documentaries, and even more so - reading my library of books on the same subject. Also, I continue to add to the collection of both.

After absorbing as much as I can from those media, going to the television and watching Discovery is akin to going to the children's section at the local Border's book store.

Hence, I don't even watch Discovery any more. It has been many months since...

MLudner
03-09-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
The Hood was classified as a Battlecruiser, despite Snapped's disagreement. Just do a googlesearch for each type.

Hey, Snap; maybe you should take it up with the Admiralty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Uhh....OK!

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server.php?show=nav.3921

"Although classified as a battlecruiser, Hood was a fast battleship, an improved version of the Queen Elizabeths. With the same main armament of eight 381mm guns, a higher position for the secondary armament, sloped armour belt and improved torpedo protection, she included the latest ideas of naval construction in 1915.

Well waddya know - looks like the RN agrees with me!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naw, that's just the RN disagreeing with the Admiralty again ....... they never got on.

MLudner
03-09-2006, 05:59 PM
More seriously; even the RN says it was classified as a heavy cruiser, they just then go on to say it was really a fast battleship despite its classification.

zombiewolf92553
03-09-2006, 06:27 PM
Yeah that, Chuck Yeager, what the heck does he know anyhow.

Rjel
03-09-2006, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by zombiewolf92553:
Yeah that, Chuck Yeager, what the heck does he know anyhow.

As has been said many times here in many different threads by many different posters who think they know more - they're just old men with memory loss.
I'll never be convinced that these men who did things I can only dream about are anything but correct in their memoirs. If you've watched any aviation show about WWII in the last twenty years, you've seen the same old pilots telling the same stories several different times, in different shows. For the most part, their re-telling of that same story stays the same time after time.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-09-2006, 07:43 PM
F-15 hands down is the best fighter. 104 to 0 in air to air engagements. No plane matches that record.

fordfan25
03-09-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yes the hood was not a BB. its armor belt if i recall was thickend befor WW2 but its deck armor was thin. wich is what killed it. a shell from the Bissmark hit that top thin deck and if i remember hit a powder storage.

Or... from Prinz Eugen, as her shells' trajectories were more arched. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The PEs shells would NOT have penetrated Hood's decks at that range

You'd have a better chance at knocking a Tiger out with a 0.50" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> HAY dont joke, that happend to a friend of mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Gibbage1
03-09-2006, 08:37 PM
I do 3D models and animation for both the Discovery Channel and History Channel. Some producers do know there stuff, and some make you wonder. But one thing people seem to forget is that both channels are there to entertain you. Nothing more. If your wanting a history lesson from TV, your already lost. Just keep watching.

HOOTCHIE_MAMA
03-09-2006, 09:07 PM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/METH_INTRO.gif

Kocur_
03-09-2006, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I do 3D models and animation for both the Discovery Channel and History Channel. Some producers do know there stuff, and some make you wonder. But one thing people seem to forget is that both channels are there to entertain you. Nothing more. If your wanting a history lesson from TV, your already lost. Just keep watching.

I wouldnt think those animations where they tell dimentsions and other parameters of tanks are yours - proportions so f..cked up, one can say those amimations look a BIT similarly to the real thing. I woulndt also think, say firing Wespe is yours, as I could clearly see recoil brakes recoiling into that fixed turret WITH barrel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
03-09-2006, 10:37 PM
Most of the stuff on th Discovery channel and History channel is correct.

Its just when they 'add their own opinion' where things get screwed up.

YOu can usually rely on facts from the channel, but dont take it as gospel.

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yes the hood was not a BB. its armor belt if i recall was thickend befor WW2 but its deck armor was thin. wich is what killed it. a shell from the Bissmark hit that top thin deck and if i remember hit a powder storage.

Or... from Prinz Eugen, as her shells' trajectories were more arched. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The PEs shells would NOT have penetrated Hood's decks at that range

You'd have a better chance at knocking a Tiger out with a 0.50" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol... love the bashing of the .50 cal tankbuster guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW, anyone has a link where i can find out what the hell are the differences betwee, cruisers, battleships, destroyers and all the naval vessel types etc? Cuz I have no idea what yer talking about.

H¶f... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are more than one definition and it changes with time period. But overall Battleships were made to fight in Battle Line Formation. 4 ships in a line to face another line of battleships. This ships were not made to evade attacks they were made to receive the attacks and survive all of them


Cruisers do not target invulnerability. But they are to be fast ships, capable of avoiding BB combat and powerfull enough to sink any smaller ship (destroyers, scouts, merchants) at distance with rifle guns (mainly). They usually keep torpedo boats and torpedo destroyers away from BB carriers etc... and have a moderate fire support capability. A Cruser will NOT fight in a battle line taking hits of other cruiser, because they will sink in a very short time. They will avoid being hit.

Heavy cruisers are classifications derived from washington treaty, to separate the size of cruisers etc... not very relevant classification.


battlecruiser was a concept (on witch Hood is included) of an more armored heavy cruiser with weapon class of a BB. Theoretically they can hurt a BB as badly as a BB can hurt another BB. Bu when a BB hits a battle Cruiser, the battle ends pretty fast.

But these were on overall view a failure. They were not capable of withstant any reasonable fight time with a BB. And while faster than BB, they were slower than most normal cruisers, making them completely innefective to fight smaller ships.


BB are supposed to have at least a range band where they are completely impervious (impervious means cannot be critically wounded, even tough damage may be taken) to weapons of same class it carries (usualy 15 inch up).

LT.INSTG8R
03-10-2006, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I watching similar thing on Miltary channel. But about tanks. Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. M1 was #2 and Tiger #3 if i remember correctly. Then there was a bunch of other tank...hey even Sherman on the 10th place. What kind of surprized me...nobody mentioned Panther.

You know thats odd I watched a show on tanks the other night and the Panther 2 was #1 I believe the M1 was #2 and T-34 rated #3(but Im pretty sure I also saw the show you saw where the T-34 rated #1)
Was rather amusing wathing Bruce Dickinson puttering around in a T-34 tho...

panther3485
03-10-2006, 06:04 AM
Hi there, dravisar

Quote:
"Bottom line, no, you couldnt kill the crew of a tiger by bouncing rounds under the tank, although you could disable it by firing the rounds into the tracks."

You seem like a decent sort of person to me, but I hope you don't actually believe that about the tracks.
If you are referring specifically to the WW2 German Tiger tanks (either Tiger or King Tiger) and any machine gun fire (including .50 cal), sorry - NO.
These tracks are far too strong, thick and heavy to have any real likelihood of being damaged by MG fire in battle, whether from the ground or from the air.

Provided the Tiger is 'buttoned up' (all hatches closed and locked), the only significant chance of doing disabling damage with MG fire would be through the openings in the engine deck grilles, where there is a small chance of damaging a radiator and an even smaller chance of starting a fire.

The emphasis here is on the expression 'small chance' , because for a Tiger to be disabled this way would vary between 'quite unlucky' and 'exceptionally unlucky'.

And any other way, with MG fire, forget it!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-10-2006, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:

And any other way, with MG fire, forget it!



You'd have a better chance of sinking an Admiral class battleship/battlecruiser with 203mm shells http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sorry I'm going round in circles here aren't i? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

bazzaah2
03-10-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by LT.INSTG8R:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I watching similar thing on Miltary channel. But about tanks. Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. M1 was #2 and Tiger #3 if i remember correctly. Then there was a bunch of other tank...hey even Sherman on the 10th place. What kind of surprized me...nobody mentioned Panther.

You know thats odd I watched a show on tanks the other night and the Panther 2 was #1 I believe the M1 was #2 and T-34 rated #3(but Im pretty sure I also saw the show you saw where the T-34 rated #1)
Was rather amusing wathing Bruce Dickinson puttering around in a T-34 tho... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Iron Maiden singer? run to the hills....

bazzaah2
03-10-2006, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
All the other aircraft entering service at that time were junk by 1940 and were either retired, or relegated to attack aircraft. Willi Messerschmitt's design was brilliant.



Apart from the Spitfire.

Pirschjaeger
03-10-2006, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by diabloblanco1:
Oh, BTW the sky is Blue. Now, go argue about that!

Ever been to Beijing? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"milk coffee" is the color of the sky.

skabbe
03-10-2006, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
That perticular show was debated here a month or two back....still a bag of doodoo, like u said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If i remember correctly the P-51 is the greatest fighter because:

1. It can fly far http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
2. A lot of them was produced. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
3. It was credited with over 5000 kills, more
than ANY other fighter type http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Im allways intrested in knowing where they find all this stuff, always funny to listen to so called experts talking about stuff they know very little about ( in best case ) and absolutly nothing ( worst case ). A Pilot in his mid 30`s - 40`s who is in love with a perticular ac, P-51 in this case doesnt make him an for most expert on all WWII fighters.


dont forgett that when the world stop fighting after the war, US and USSR continued. I have a feeling that Discovery use kills from post-wars.

this is my list.

1, bf-109 pre-war design, still competible with p51 and what ever, and the aces of those planes were aces, not 11 kills or so, like US aces. Though it was a nazibastard plane too, it can never be my favorite.
2, Hurricane. won BoB. no britain, then no russia. And no future?
3, Spitfire. same killingrate as Hurricane in BoB, though Hurricane got better logistics, and thats alot more important then performance.
4, And here comes the plane that slides on a shrimp-sandwish through every war. P51

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-10-2006, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by diabloblanco1:
Oh, BTW the sky is Blue. Now, go argue about that!

Ever been to Beijing? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"milk coffee" is the color of the sky. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forget Beijing...just go to Los Angeles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

msalama
03-10-2006, 08:58 AM
Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Hey, T-34 was THE best tank in the world when it was introduced... the thing is it didn't hold that place for long http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
03-10-2006, 09:09 AM
Hi there, bazzaah2

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Quote:

Originally posted by MLudner:
"All the other aircraft entering service at that time were junk by 1940 and were either retired, or relegated to attack aircraft. Willi Messerschmitt's design was brilliant."

Your answer:

"Apart from the Spitfire."

Depends on what MLudner meant by "entering service at that time".

Flight of first prototype:
Bf 109 - September 1935
Spitfire - March 1936

First squadron delivery of production model:
Bf 109 - February 1937
Spitfire - August 1938

A few pre-production 109's were given some combat trial in Spain, prior to official service entry. Otherwise, the two types began their service life about 18 months apart.

Of the 109, Stewart Wilson's 'Aircraft of WWII' states, "It was regarded as superior to any other fighter in 1938-40, with the exception of the Supermarine Spitfire."

Personally, I would argue that the 109 still enjoyed a slight edge over the Spitfire in 1940 - but it was close. That edge was lost later in the War, IMHO.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

msalama
03-10-2006, 09:13 AM
...but hey c'mon guys, seriously, _every_ combat AC type that made it into 1945 was the best in the world in its own right, wasn't it? Their individual strengths might've differed, sure, but still! Evolution at work, y'see...

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Hey, T-34 was THE best tank in the world when it was introduced... the thing is it didn't hold that place for long http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and it wa sprobably one of the tanks that killed more people in history. And that is main function of a tank.. kill people...

eskimo-again
03-10-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I do 3D models and animation for both the Discovery Channel and History Channel. Some producers do know there stuff, and some make you wonder. But one thing people seem to forget is that both channels are there to entertain you. Nothing more. If your wanting a history lesson from TV, your already lost. Just keep watching.

and entertaining they certainly are. both of them.
sometimes though it is almost like watching fox news. you can only stand it if you pretend it is all satire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nubarus
03-10-2006, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by LT.INSTG8R:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I watching similar thing on Miltary channel. But about tanks. Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. M1 was #2 and Tiger #3 if i remember correctly. Then there was a bunch of other tank...hey even Sherman on the 10th place. What kind of surprized me...nobody mentioned Panther.

You know thats odd I watched a show on tanks the other night and the Panther 2 was #1 I believe the M1 was #2 and T-34 rated #3(but Im pretty sure I also saw the show you saw where the T-34 rated #1)
Was rather amusing wathing Bruce Dickinson puttering around in a T-34 tho... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen that show with Bruce and it was the German Leopard 2 tank that came as first place for best tank ever.

eskimo-again
03-10-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LT.INSTG8R:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I watching similar thing on Miltary channel. But about tanks. Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. M1 was #2 and Tiger #3 if i remember correctly. Then there was a bunch of other tank...hey even Sherman on the 10th place. What kind of surprized me...nobody mentioned Panther.

You know thats odd I watched a show on tanks the other night and the Panther 2 was #1 I believe the M1 was #2 and T-34 rated #3(but Im pretty sure I also saw the show you saw where the T-34 rated #1)
Was rather amusing wathing Bruce Dickinson puttering around in a T-34 tho... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen that show with Bruce and it was the German Leopard 2 tank that came as first place for best tank ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wow i m impressed. the leopard 2 is a very very awesome tank imho. never thought it could take top spot though (for american patriotic reasons). i think i need to reevaluate my opinion of the channel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by eskimo-again:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LT.INSTG8R:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I watching similar thing on Miltary channel. But about tanks. Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. M1 was #2 and Tiger #3 if i remember correctly. Then there was a bunch of other tank...hey even Sherman on the 10th place. What kind of surprized me...nobody mentioned Panther.

You know thats odd I watched a show on tanks the other night and the Panther 2 was #1 I believe the M1 was #2 and T-34 rated #3(but Im pretty sure I also saw the show you saw where the T-34 rated #1)
Was rather amusing wathing Bruce Dickinson puttering around in a T-34 tho... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen that show with Bruce and it was the German Leopard 2 tank that came as first place for best tank ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wow i m impressed. the leopard 2 is a very very awesome tank imho. never thought it could take top spot though (for american patriotic reasons). i think i need to reevaluate my opinion of the channel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

should not be impressed. Leopard 2 is a close match to Abrams (same weapon (in fact slighty more modern on recent versions), same mobility and overall same defense, weaker to some types of ammon stronger against others).

eskimo-again
03-10-2006, 10:38 AM
no , just impressed that they got it right for once. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

dravisar
03-10-2006, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, dravisar

Quote:
"Bottom line, no, you couldnt kill the crew of a tiger by bouncing rounds under the tank, although you could disable it by firing the rounds into the tracks."

You seem like a decent sort of person to me, but I hope you don't actually believe that about the tracks.
If you are referring specifically to the WW2 German Tiger tanks (either Tiger or King Tiger) and any machine gun fire (including .50 cal), sorry - NO.
These tracks are far too strong, thick and heavy to have any real likelihood of being damaged by MG fire in battle, whether from the ground or from the air.

Provided the Tiger is 'buttoned up' (all hatches closed and locked), the only significant chance of doing disabling damage with MG fire would be through the openings in the engine deck grilles, where there is a small chance of damaging a radiator and an even smaller chance of starting a fire.

The emphasis here is on the expression 'small chance' , because for a Tiger to be disabled this way would vary between 'quite unlucky' and 'exceptionally unlucky'.

And any other way, with MG fire, forget it!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

I'm curious why you think this. Considering ive seen videos of .50 caliber tearing the **** out of train locomotives et al...im wondering how a few hundred rounds of high explosive AP rounds fired at a tank, with a chance of 100 or so hitting the track area, wouldn't disable it.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but knowing quite a few people who are in tank platoons (M1A1 and M1A2s) and how often they manage to throw tracks due to random encounters, im curious. I always end up hearing their stories about the fu***ng tracks pissing them off, over a few beers, so it was an educated assumption http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll do some research and see what I can find.

Thanks,

Alex

Kocur_
03-10-2006, 03:55 PM
(...).50 caliber (...)im wondering how a few hundred rounds of high explosive AP rounds fired at a tank

In case of that weapon there is a contradiction between "high explosive" and "AP rounds". I suggest just believing what panther3485 says...

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by dravisar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, dravisar

Quote:
"Bottom line, no, you couldnt kill the crew of a tiger by bouncing rounds under the tank, although you could disable it by firing the rounds into the tracks."

You seem like a decent sort of person to me, but I hope you don't actually believe that about the tracks.
If you are referring specifically to the WW2 German Tiger tanks (either Tiger or King Tiger) and any machine gun fire (including .50 cal), sorry - NO.
These tracks are far too strong, thick and heavy to have any real likelihood of being damaged by MG fire in battle, whether from the ground or from the air.

Provided the Tiger is 'buttoned up' (all hatches closed and locked), the only significant chance of doing disabling damage with MG fire would be through the openings in the engine deck grilles, where there is a small chance of damaging a radiator and an even smaller chance of starting a fire.

The emphasis here is on the expression 'small chance' , because for a Tiger to be disabled this way would vary between 'quite unlucky' and 'exceptionally unlucky'.

And any other way, with MG fire, forget it!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

I'm curious why you think this. Considering ive seen videos of .50 caliber tearing the **** out of train locomotives et al...im wondering how a few hundred rounds of high explosive AP rounds fired at a tank, with a chance of 100 or so hitting the track area, wouldn't disable it.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but knowing quite a few people who are in tank platoons (M1A1 and M1A2s) and how often they manage to throw tracks due to random encounters, im curious. I always end up hearing their stories about the fu***ng tracks pissing them off, over a few beers, so it was an educated assumption http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll do some research and see what I can find.

Thanks,

Alex </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are small chanes that od angle impact disable tracks. But the forces involved whenan M1Abrams topple in a rock while at 5 km/h is thousands of times bigger than when a .50 hit something.

Does anyne have data on tickness of a tiger track ? A train locomotive is a completely different material , construction and toughness. You are comparing oranges to apples.


If tanks coudl be easily disabled by .50 guns, we would see LOTS of small fast armored cars armed with them hunting tanks.


More important.. russians would not have added giant cannons to yak9 tank hunters if simple .50 class weapons were capaple of disabling them (disabling may be as good as kill since if would be a pretty target for a tank of an Il2)

MLudner
03-10-2006, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
All the other aircraft entering service at that time were junk by 1940 and were either retired, or relegated to attack aircraft. Willi Messerschmitt's design was brilliant.



Apart from the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit was a 1938 - 39 time frame aircraft. The 109 was amongst the very first - the cutting edge of - all-metal, low-wing, fully-enclosed cockpit, monoplane propfighters. That's why I don't include the Spit even though it entered service only a few years later, as there was some experience with the type by the time it came around to build on.

MLudner
03-10-2006, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by eskimo-again:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LT.INSTG8R:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I watching similar thing on Miltary channel. But about tanks. Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. M1 was #2 and Tiger #3 if i remember correctly. Then there was a bunch of other tank...hey even Sherman on the 10th place. What kind of surprized me...nobody mentioned Panther.

You know thats odd I watched a show on tanks the other night and the Panther 2 was #1 I believe the M1 was #2 and T-34 rated #3(but Im pretty sure I also saw the show you saw where the T-34 rated #1)
Was rather amusing wathing Bruce Dickinson puttering around in a T-34 tho... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen that show with Bruce and it was the German Leopard 2 tank that came as first place for best tank ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wow i m impressed. the leopard 2 is a very very awesome tank imho. never thought it could take top spot though (for american patriotic reasons). i think i need to reevaluate my opinion of the channel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merkava is the best tank in the world today.

msalama
03-10-2006, 04:36 PM
Willi Messerschmitt's design was brilliant.

Hey, when you're right you're right.

The 109 had the longest run of them all. First flight in 1935, still in service when the war ended...

And a dedicated & fanatical Sturmo driver here saying this too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
03-10-2006, 05:35 PM
Hi, MLudner

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Quote:
"The Spit was a 1938 - 39 time frame aircraft. The 109 was amongst the very first - the cutting edge of - all-metal, low-wing, fully-enclosed cockpit, monoplane propfighters. That's why I don't include the Spit even though it entered service only a few years later, as there was some experience with the type by the time it came around to build on."

Erm,.... exclude the Spitfire by all means if you wish and that is fair intent, but as for the 'time frame'.....again:


Flight of first prototype:
Bf 109 - September 1935
Spitfire - March 1936
(6 months apart)

First squadron delivery of production model:
Bf 109 - February 1937
Spitfire - August 1938
(18 months apart)


Note: Entry into Squadron service was about 18 months apart. No argument that the 109 was first, though!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
03-10-2006, 05:52 PM
Hi again, dravisar

Quote:

"I'm curious why you think this. Considering ive seen videos of .50 caliber tearing the **** out of train locomotives et al...im wondering how a few hundred rounds of high explosive AP rounds fired at a tank, with a chance of 100 or so hitting the track area, wouldn't disable it.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but knowing quite a few people who are in tank platoons (M1A1 and M1A2s) and how often they manage to throw tracks due to random encounters, im curious. I always end up hearing their stories about the fu***ng tracks pissing them off, over a few beers, so it was an educated assumption

I'll do some research and see what I can find."



(a) I don't 'think' this. I would've said "I think...." if I was only guessing.
(b) There is no correlation between railway locomotives and the tracks of a Tiger Tank. Those tracks are many times stronger and tougher against bullets. They were designed and built that way.
(c) As far as I recall from my reading, .50 cal rounds in WW2 were either HE or AP (or something else) - not both.
(d) .50 cal rounds can hit Tiger tracks all they want at random, but the chance of a disabling hit (say, on the tip of a track pin, for example), would be very small. The links themselves are way too tough to be affected.
(e) Forces involved in 'throwing a track' are nothing like hits with MG ammo. No correlation there, either.

I've been researching WW2 tanks for about 40 years, but please feel free to do research of your own. It can only help!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

BaronUnderpants
03-10-2006, 06:14 PM
Im just curious as to how many of theese "best of" have been produced?

I know there is at least 2 versions of "best fighter ever"...with differant results.

There is at least 2 "best tank ever" that iv seen, apparently there is a 3:rd one where Leopard 2 came in 1:st. Funny since in one of the other shows the Leopard didnt even qualify because it never seen combat.

In one show the british modern main battle tank ( sry, forgot its name ) lost to Abrahams M1 simply because they haven been produced in enough numbers, ( The fact the there wasnt a single British tank lost in the first Iraque war compared to a dozen or so Abrahams didnt seem to matter a bit...go figure )

I do remember that the Mherkva ( Israeli tank )was nominated as the best tank ever in one show.

And the swedish S-tank came in something like 7:th place in one show http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My point is, wich is the right one...if u like many dont know squat about the subject??? Well chances are that if u aint intrested in aircrafts or tanks u propably wouldnt wach the show...right?? Even more reason to drop the bs personal opinions of so called experts, use "fearfactor" as an argument to choose the winner and so on. The chances of people waching the said show knowing a bit about the subject is kind of big, isnt it?...so why blabb on and in some cases even make stuff up?

More often than not it almost sounds like they are reading the school book version of history...u know, the version where they use small words in big black letters so we the uneducated toddlers will understand and most importantly belive whats beeing said.

is hard to face up to the fact that proppably half of everything i think i know is as untrue as half of the stuff i dissmised as propaganda. I mean, how the he** is Joe Shmo supose to know what is true when apparently anybody can get on tv, radio and pass of his oppinion as the truth. Nowdays we cant even belive "real" pictures concidering how easy it is to manipulate evrything. Even today people go to war with facts based on out right lies...dangerous stuff, that will get even worse.

Way OT...ill go to bed now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

wayno7777
03-10-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:



Are you sure about that? I would be wary of those scores. Remember, that most of this info comes from "Official Nazi Documents". How much was propoganda? Alot of the kills that H-J Marseille claimed in the desert does not jive with "Official" RAF losses. On his so-called 15 kills in one day, the RAF only confirms about seven.

.

Actually, according to British records, a total of 19 British A/C were brought down that day. A few made it back to their bases where they either crash landed or were written off.


As far those lists they do, even by their 'formula' they are laughable....

mortoma
03-10-2006, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by diabloblanco1:
Yeah, I remember seeing this Russian program that said the Mig 3 was the best fighter, and this German program that said the BF-109 was the best fighter, and a Japanese program that said the Zero was the best fighter, and this Italian program that said the MC205 was the best fighter, a there was this one Finnish show that said that Morko Morane job was the best so go figure.

Maybe the best was dependent on which side you flew for, naw that could not be it, its so simple. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Oh, BTW the sky is Blue. Now, go argue about that! Ahem.....The Morane was actually a french fighter sold or leased to the Finns before the Germans invaded France. If I'm not mistaken. They might have gotten them from someone besides the French but they were French built fighters nonetheless. The Finns did not make their own fighters, period. At least not in those days.

hsj38
03-10-2006, 10:30 PM
p-51 was the greatest plane in ww2

dravisar
03-11-2006, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi again, dravisar

Quote:

"I'm curious why you think this. Considering ive seen videos of .50 caliber tearing the **** out of train locomotives et al...im wondering how a few hundred rounds of high explosive AP rounds fired at a tank, with a chance of 100 or so hitting the track area, wouldn't disable it.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but knowing quite a few people who are in tank platoons (M1A1 and M1A2s) and how often they manage to throw tracks due to random encounters, im curious. I always end up hearing their stories about the fu***ng tracks pissing them off, over a few beers, so it was an educated assumption

I'll do some research and see what I can find."



(a) I don't 'think' this. I would've said "I think...." if I was only guessing.
(b) There is no correlation between railway locomotives and the tracks of a Tiger Tank. Those tracks are many times stronger and tougher against bullets. They were designed and built that way.
(c) As far as I recall from my reading, .50 cal rounds in WW2 were either HE or AP (or something else) - not both.
(d) .50 cal rounds can hit Tiger tracks all they want at random, but the chance of a disabling hit (say, on the tip of a track pin, for example), would be very small. The links themselves are way too tough to be affected.
(e) Forces involved in 'throwing a track' are nothing like hits with MG ammo. No correlation there, either.

I've been researching WW2 tanks for about 40 years, but please feel free to do research of your own. It can only help!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

Your right, it was an assumption meant to be posed as a question. As far as I know, P51s and P47s carried API ammuntition, or Armor Piercing Incendiary, which looks to only be able to pierce around 15-21mm of armor plate...at 500m, which aint much. I guess it would be lucky indeed if that caused damage. Anything on the tracks thinner than that? If not, my mistake.

panther3485
03-11-2006, 12:30 AM
Hi again, dravisar

Thanks for that.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Quote:
"As far as I know, P51s and P47s carried API ammuntition, or Armor Piercing Incendiary, which looks to only be able to pierce around 15-21mm of armor plate...at 500m, which aint much. I guess it would be lucky indeed if that caused damage. Anything on the tracks thinner than that?

The track links were castings of toughened Manganese Steel and they were not entirely a simple shape. The flatter parts would have been mostly within the range of thickness you have indicated but a lot of each link was much, much thicker than that.

Even the track pins, that joined the links together, were approaching the thickness of two fingers and only the ends of those pins were exposed.

I guess perhaps the best thing is to study photos and drawings but in the meantime, the track links are perhaps adequately described as being of 'ridged or corrugated' shapes.
If you are interested, I'll see if I can find suitable pics to post here (unless someone else posts them in the meantime). This involves 'borrowing' my wife's scanner again, but I'm sure she won't mind!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thanks again and best regards,
panther3485

dravisar
03-11-2006, 12:38 AM
I'd love to see the pictures...my interest has been turning towards the German armor lately...and im sure my buddies who have time in the M1A's would enjoy the comparison too!

BTW...do you have any idea what the price difference was for the germans on say, a panther or tiger tank VS a BF109 or similar per unit? Id assume the tank would cost quite a bit more (maybe 2 or 3 times more?) to produce and arm VS the aircraft. I have a bunch of questions about their armor, with a pretty good understanding of todays military under my belt.

Thanks again for the info,

Alex

Kocur_
03-11-2006, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by dravisar:

As far as I know, P51s and P47s carried API ammuntition, or Armor Piercing Incendiary, which looks to only be able to pierce around 15-21mm of armor plate...at 500m, which aint much. I guess it would be lucky indeed if that caused damage. Anything on the tracks thinner than that? If not, my mistake.

Well, the actual data on penetrstion of .50 ammo is less optimistic. Official requirement was 22mm at 183m for AP M2 and the same thickness at 92m for M8 API. According to USN data M2 AP round penetration was 21mm at 90 deg at 300m, 13mm at the same range but 60deg. But we must remember that in US methodology of testing, 'penetration' is 'penetration by 50% of hits'. Brtitish tested that ammo too and their result was: M2 AP - 21mm at 183m. Result of German tests was 25mm at 100m. APIs, i.e. M8 and M20 penetration was less as their hard core was shorter to make room for incendiary material.

CD_kp84yb
03-11-2006, 01:35 AM
If i remeber correctly, the pirce to build one Tiger (not the konigstiger ) was around 250.000 Reichsmark (i dont know the exchange market for a reichsmark for a dollar or euro, i cant find it in the newspapers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif), the Panther costet much less and was to build faster.

For that reason and the reason the tiger was a kind of prewar desing ( look at the boxshape (no slope armour)) they didnt build much tigers.
The Tiger was a sophisticated vehicle for the driver (for that time) but expensive.
To lower the price they got rid of all kind of features that werent used much, like the schnorkel.

The Panhter and its family was cheaper and faster to build, because it was a later design and they standard the parts (or they were planning to standard) for the Panther (and family), tiger b (and family), like the torsionbars, roadwheels,engines, gearboxes etc etc.

to lower the cost for the war they even removed the turret, so they got jagdpanthers ,jagdtigers,jagpanzers ,stug3,4 hetzers you name it, the russians did the same, now you have tankdestroyer first class and for way lower costs

I think the cheapest weaopn is a plane, the part of a plane that costet the most (even today) is the pilot.

regards

edit: dam typo's

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-11-2006, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by dravisar:
BTW...do you have any idea what the price difference was for the germans on say, a panther or tiger tank VS a BF109 or similar per unit? Id assume the tank would cost quite a bit more (maybe 2 or 3 times more?) to produce and arm VS the aircraft. I have a bunch of questions about their armor, with a pretty good understanding of todays military under my belt.


Don't have prices for German hardware at the moment

I can tell you that an M4 cost from about $44000 - 65000 depending upon variant

a P51D cost $54000, a P47 $94000

CD_kp84yb
03-11-2006, 03:17 AM
Ok here is the track of a simple Panther, its nothing compared to tiger 1 and 2 tracks.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/panthertracks.jpg

now if you wanna maked the yourself

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/drawingpanther.jpg

i will search like panther3485 for drawings of the tiger 1 and 2 tracks, they must be laying around here somewhere, geez what a mess here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

OldMan____
03-11-2006, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eskimo-again:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LT.INSTG8R:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I watching similar thing on Miltary channel. But about tanks. Apparently russian T-34 was named #1 tank of all times - i was shocked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. M1 was #2 and Tiger #3 if i remember correctly. Then there was a bunch of other tank...hey even Sherman on the 10th place. What kind of surprized me...nobody mentioned Panther.

You know thats odd I watched a show on tanks the other night and the Panther 2 was #1 I believe the M1 was #2 and T-34 rated #3(but Im pretty sure I also saw the show you saw where the T-34 rated #1)
Was rather amusing wathing Bruce Dickinson puttering around in a T-34 tho... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen that show with Bruce and it was the German Leopard 2 tank that came as first place for best tank ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wow i m impressed. the leopard 2 is a very very awesome tank imho. never thought it could take top spot though (for american patriotic reasons). i think i need to reevaluate my opinion of the channel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merkava is the best tank in the world today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are all in the same class of tanks (weight, firepower, sensors, mobility), probably best tatics would make the edge on any of them.

panther3485
03-11-2006, 05:41 AM
Hello dravisar,

Will dig up drawings of Tiger track later.... in the meantime, here are a few pics that help convey the massive size of these tracks:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/panther3485/t1.jpg


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/panther3485/t2.jpg


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/panther3485/t3.jpg


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/panther3485/t4.jpg


Will add comments in edit later, if required.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

UberPickle
03-11-2006, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So what your saying is, the Hurricane should replace the Bf-109 in fourth place since it kicked the 109's *** during BoB?

No, it should be the P.11c since it shot down some 109 during the invasion of Poland http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL @ Axis noob.

hsj38
03-11-2006, 07:21 PM
hurricans didnt kick the 109s asses the spit did hurricans kicked bombers asses hurricans too slow plus p-51 is the greatest plane in ww2

panther3485
03-11-2006, 09:09 PM
Hi everyone,

The subject of Hurricane or Spitfire vs. Bf 109 (with the suggestion of either type having "kicked the 109's *** during BoB" - neither really did, as such) may need clarifying for some. Plane for plane, kill/loss ratios against both the Hurricane and the Spitfire favoured the Bf 109 , albeit not by a lot in the Spitfire's case, but there are some caveats as shown below:


During the course of BoB, Hurricanes and Spitfires achieved the following loss/kill ratios against the Bf 109*:

{*Note: these are losses reckoned to have been confirmed as sustained in direct combat against Bf 109's only. Total BoB Hurricane & Spitfire losses, against all German aircraft types and from all causes, were more than double this amount.}

Hurricane losses - 272 for 153 109's shot down.
(1.78 lost for each 109 destroyed)

Spitfire losses - 219 for 180 109's shot down.
(1.22 lost for each 109 destroyed)

[Source - 'Spitfire Special' by Ted Hooton]

Notice that although these ratios seem to have favoured the Germans in both cases, it was closer to parity for the Spitfire. Though they made up barely 1/3rd of the main British fighter force, when it came to combat against the 109's, the presence of the Spitfire in useful numbers did make a worthwhile difference. But there is a larger issue here.

Another way to look at this is to combine the two figures and average them out. The Jagdwaffe were shooting down British fighters at the rate of 1.5 : 1 (or, in other words, three British fighters going down for every two German fighters that were lost).

They would in fact have needed to greatly improve on that ratio if there was to be any hope of victory for the Luftwaffe. Why?

Interpretation of these figures needs to be done carefully. Overall, the showing for the British fighters was not as bad as one might at first think. The effective attrition rate ended up being worse for the Jagdwaffe.

To start with, the German fighter losses were more often effectively 'total' as they were fighting mostly over enemy controlled territory; i.e. resulting in (a) plane lost and (b) pilot if not killed would usually become POW.

A relatively smaller portion of the British fighter losses were 'total', with most surviving pilots coming down over their own territory and many of these back in action very quickly. Generally, lost aircraft were fairly easily replaced.

The Jagdwaffe was suffereing more than Fighter Command from the attrition. Although they were able to inflict significant losses, these were not enough to break the British fighter force and nowhere near enough to stop the bombers from being intercepted and shot down at unsustainable rates.

[Hurricanes made up 2/3rd or so of the main British fighter force, but accounted for about 3/4 of the German bombers shot down. This was only in small part because some effort was made to get the Hurricanes to concentrate on the Bombers and let the Spitfires tackle the 109's, because all too often it just didn't work out that way and much of the time both types did both jobs! However, with each having 8 x .303 MGs, the Hurricane was a bit better as a 'Bomber Killer', being a somewhat steadier platform, having a better gun arrangement and being able to absorb more punishment from defensive fire.]

This then places the British fighter losses in an even less unfavourable light, since their primary task was to destroy German bombers. All too frequently, they were 'bounced' during the course of doing just that. They also generally used outdated fighter tactics (compared to the Germans).


By way of conclusion, I might add that although the Hurricane pilots more often came off second against the 109, they nevertheless performed very well indeed, all things considered. They certainly performed well enough to get the vital job done!


Hope that helps - very interesting subject, I think?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Xiolablu3
03-12-2006, 12:45 AM
Obviously you must add the bombers and 110's lost to the 109E's to get a realistic total.

Not just 109E's that the Spits and Hurris were fighting.

JG5_UnKle
03-12-2006, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Obviously you must add the bombers and 110's lost to the 109E's to get a realistic total.

Not just 109E's that the Spits and Hurris were fighting.

July:
Messerschmitt Bf 109 48 destroyed, 14 damaged
17 killed, 14 missing, 13 wounded

Messerschmitt Bf 110 18 destroyed, 4 damaged
13 killed, 17 missing, 2 wounded

August:
Messerschmitt Bf 109 217 destroyed, 45 damaged
54 killed, 91 missing, 39 wounded

Messerschmitt Bf 110 119 destroyed, 40 damaged
80 killed, 113 missing, 22 wounded

September/October:
Messerschmitt Bf 109 326 destroyed, 96 damaged
77 killed, 159 missing, 36 wounded

Messerschmitt Bf 110 124 destroyed, 26 damaged
91 killed, 109 missing, 17 wounded

Total 463 Bf110 Losses - However I don't know how many of these are pure fighter losses vs AAA.


The Battle of Britain" by Peter G. Cooksley (Ian Allan Ltd., 1990)

Cworth
03-12-2006, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
always funny to listen to so called experts talking about stuff they know very little about ( in best case ) and absolutly nothing ( worst case ).

Whats even funnier is you just described about 90% of the people on this board with this one comment.

panther3485
03-12-2006, 02:07 AM
Hi, Xiolablu3

Quote:
"Obviously you must add the bombers and 110's lost to the 109E's to get a realistic total.
Not just 109E's that the Spits and Hurris were fighting."

Yes Xiolablu, obviously! I believe I alluded to that in my post. That post was in answer to another member, who wanted specific info on Hurricane & Spitfire vs. 109 kill/loss figures. I did make an effort to put this into context and mentioned about bombers being shot down and 'all German aircraft types', vis-a-vis total Hurricane and Spitfire losses. I think most members here are smart enough to figure out the rest of the picture!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Xiolablu3
03-12-2006, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by hsj38:
hurricans didnt kick the 109s asses the spit did hurricans kicked bombers asses hurricans too slow plus p-51 is the greatest plane in ww2


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
03-12-2006, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi, Xiolablu3

Quote:
"Obviously you must add the bombers and 110's lost to the 109E's to get a realistic total.
Not just 109E's that the Spits and Hurris were fighting."

Yes Xiolablu, obviously! I believe I alluded to that in my post. That post was in answer to another member, who wanted specific info on Hurricane & Spitfire vs. 109 kill/loss figures. I did make an effort to put this into context and mentioned about bombers being shot down and 'all German aircraft types', vis-a-vis total Hurricane and Spitfire losses. I think most members here are smart enough to figure out the rest of the picture!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Yeah, that was a little obvious, sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ALso I guess oyu have to add the Defiants and Blenhiems to teh British losses if you add the He111's and Me110's to teh Germans.

panther3485
03-12-2006, 03:18 AM
No wuckers, Xiolablu!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
03-12-2006, 03:24 AM
Hey there, dravisar!

If you go to the thread entitled, Pictures of war , then look at page 8 , you will see I have posted 13 pics showing maintenance on King Tiger/Jagdtiger tracks. From these, the massive size and bulk of the tracks is readily apparent.

Your track-bashing M1 mates will probably also be interested to see these.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Enjoy!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

luftluuver
03-12-2006, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Obviously you must add the bombers and 110's lost to the 109E's to get a realistic total.

Not just 109E's that the Spits and Hurris were fighting. Not only but one must also remember that the LW bombers were the main targets of the British fighters. The British fighters fought a defensive fight with the offensive 109.

panther3485
03-12-2006, 07:04 AM
Hi, luftluuver

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

This was already covered on page 6. But thanks anyway!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

dravisar
03-12-2006, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hey there, dravisar!

If you go to the thread entitled, Pictures of war , then look at page 8 , you will see I have posted 13 pics showing maintenance on King Tiger/Jagdtiger tracks. From these, the massive size and bulk of the tracks is readily apparent.

Your track-bashing M1 mates will probably also be interested to see these.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Enjoy!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Those were kick***! Thanks!

SnailRunner
03-13-2006, 06:33 AM
geez....firstly....im a former leo 2 crew member and i have had the plesure to drive a few tanks. The abrams is a great tank as long as the electronics doent fail. The Leo 2 is getting old, but still going strong. The Merkava well its an ok tank, but not the best.

One thing that is improtant with a tank is not its firepower or its 50000 km radar vision, it is the transmission and just after that the engine and so far the only country that have made tanks that doent brake these two parts to often is Russia. The Germans made up for it with the Leo 1 by making and engine change posible in field in 30 mins Leo 2 is abit more complicatet

there is two tanks right now that stands out as the best, both mechanical and durability and the two winners is

Challenger 2 (Brittish)

T-90/95 (Black eagle)(Russian)

The rest is a mix of to mutch electronics and getting to old. But the Iranians have made a tank that looks werry simulare to the abrams, and im looking forward to se the "true" data on it, looks werry interesting

im oof have a nice day

BTW

Panther was the best ww2 tank http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SnailRunner
03-13-2006, 06:38 AM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zol***har3-pic1.jpg

OldMan____
03-13-2006, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by SnailRunner:
geez....firstly....im a former leo 2 crew member and i have had the plesure to drive a few tanks. The abrams is a great tank as long as the electronics doent fail. The Leo 2 is getting old, but still going strong. The Merkava well its an ok tank, but not the best.

One thing that is improtant with a tank is not its firepower or its 50000 km radar vision, it is the transmission and just after that the engine and so far the only country that have made tanks that doent brake these two parts to often is Russia. The Germans made up for it with the Leo 1 by making and engine change posible in field in 30 mins Leo 2 is abit more complicatet

there is two tanks right now that stands out as the best, both mechanical and durability and the two winners is

Challenger 2 (Brittish)

T-90/95 (Black eagle)(Russian)

The rest is a mix of to mutch electronics and getting to old. But the Iranians have made a tank that looks werry simulare to the abrams, and im looking forward to se the "true" data on it, looks werry interesting

im oof have a nice day

BTW

Panther was the best ww2 tank http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It also depends on the usage of the tank (i think). US and Germans tanks were tought to be used in a defensive role against a massive invasion from Soviet Union. Soviet tanks were made to roll over, really travel into enemy territory. So this issues you talked about are really very important to them.

panther3485
03-13-2006, 07:10 AM
Hi there, SnailRunner

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Great to hear from you!

I'm very interested in your view of the various modern MBT's, as you have had personal experience with at least one of them! The British Challengers (both 1 and 2) have always been among my favourites.

For WW2, the Panther is my favourite German tank.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

ImpStarDuece
03-13-2006, 07:19 AM
Not all the Spitfire and Hurricane losses were accounted for by fighters. Many were shot down by defensive fire from the bomber formations. There are certainly plenty of pilot accounts of being forced to take to the silk after unsucessful fighting area attacks.

The balanced score sheet for the Battle of Britain period stands at between 1500-1600 front line aircraft of all kind lost to all causes, operational and non-operational, by the RAF and 1750-1850 front line aircraft of all kind lost by the LuftWaffe. German costal and reconnisance unit losses are somewhat harder to pin down, as they don't appear in the German Quatermaster General's reports of the period. These probably account for between 75 and 100 additional losses.

Part of the problem with BoB loss rates is that sources vary considerably about the losses on each side. Loss figures for Fighter Command range from 925 at the low end of the scale, all the way up to 1,104. The discrepancy occurs because unit by unit losses don't match up with Category E losses at Fighter Command HQ, suggesting that aircraft written off as destroyed by squadrons may of actually been repaired and sent to different formations. For the Battle period, Fighter Command claimed some 2700 kills.

Official German losses for the Battle period were released to the public as 896 aircraft, while fighter claims were for 3,100 and the only sources I have seen for LW bomber claims have only vauge references to 'several hundred' claims. The German Quartermaster General's Report from 1940 tells different story to the official loss sheets, listing 1,733 aircraft written off after July 1940. This figure doesn't include aircraft sent back to Germany for repair that were then written off or losses from special units such as recon, costal and electronic warfare. LuftWaffe records are incomplete, but a realistic figure is probably pushing 1900.

I currently have 4 very detailed books on the BoB and NONE of them agree on either the cliams or loss sheets from either side. It's quite maddening.

1940 still goes down as a German victory in the air in the overall shape of things. The RAF shot down around 250 German aircraft over France and 170 or so over Dunkirk and the Channel, but wrote off close to 800 aircraft doing so, including over 100 abandoned or purposely destroyed in France. Over Norway they got a bit of a drubbing and couldn't deal effectively with the Blitz until the new year began and night fighter techniques improved.

1.JaVA_Hornet
03-13-2006, 07:21 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
Yesterday night i saw the "worlds greatest fighters" on Discovery channel and i must say über lol on that show, they ranked the worlds best fighters and on top was the P-51 and the spit on second, on third they ranked the F-18 and on the fourth the BF 109, and the FW 190 was not even mentioned?!


The YAK3 was the best fighter of WWII.
And of all times it is the F15 EAGLE.
]

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by SnailRunner:
the transmission and just after that the engine and so far the only country that have made tanks that doent brake these two parts to often is Russia.

Belive me - NOT. I know guys from Polish 10 Brygada Kawalerii Pancernej (10th Armoured Cavalary Brigade), who changed over from T-72 to Leopards 2 A4 a while ago. Both 'riders' and mechanics LOVE Leos and hate T-72s.

Despite popular idea, popularised by DC too btw, T-34 was terribly unreliable tank. Hours of maintenance daily, crew standing in oil leaking from engine compartment, copletely useless air filter etc. During WW2 SU allies exchanged stuff for familiarization. Despite best efforts by specialsts of Aberdeen Proving Ground T-34 was cold dead after couple of hundrets of kilometers, while Sherman in Kubinka made soviets stop trying to kill it after 3.000km...


Originally posted by SnailRunner:

T-90/95 (Black eagle)(Russian)

T-90 is just T-72 with better vectronics, "Black Eagle" was little more, if it existed at all (yeah, I saw pics of a tank with net covering rear of turret too).

panther3485
03-13-2006, 09:38 AM
Hi there, ImpStarDuece

Excellent post!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Yes, I too have sifted through many, many books on the subject of BoB and in recent years, the Internet also, only to be just as frustrated as you were by the inconsistencies.

I don't think it will ever be possible to balance the figures perfectly, but we can get a fairly good general idea if we do our research carefully (which I'm sure you have).

Many of the other battles of WW2 have equally variable figures and not just air battles! [I have made a particular study of armoured engagements, for example and have found much the same problem with some of those, as well.]

In the end, all you can do is make the best possible assessment you can reasonably and intelligently come to, from whatever information is available. Sometimes, if you sift through enough of it, a number of discrepancies can be solved but I don't think you'll ever get them all!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Some people I've met are nowhere near as critical as you or I, and are not inclined to look much further than the first book (or even,... shudder..... the first TV documentary they watch!). I have arrived at what I believe are 'Three Basic Rules of Research', which I try my best to live up to:

(1) Cross-reference as much as possible
(2) Make every effort to be balanced and objective - don't just select the data you 'prefer'
(3) Never 'close the book' on any subject - always be open to new information and fresh perspectives and keep researching

Looks as if you have similar ideas!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

SnailRunner
03-13-2006, 11:46 PM
when´i get home ill make a poste about stuff lol...oooh and the black eagle do exists http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Matz0r
03-14-2006, 05:02 AM
I saw another "best fighter" programme on Discovery channel, this one was a comparsion between Bf109E4 and the Spitfire I. This test was pretty well made comparing speed, maneouverability, fire power, reliability, range, cockpit. In the end they found the two aircrafts equal.

F0_Dark_P
03-14-2006, 05:15 AM
yeah Matz i saw that show to and i can agree on that one, but i get really angry when supposed experts turns to fanboys and start to mislead people, that is what the "worlds greatest" is doing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Pirschjaeger
03-14-2006, 07:58 AM
Who do you guyz think is the best for making honest and objective documentaries?

I think it just might be the BBC.

panther3485
03-14-2006, 08:04 AM
Quote:
"I think it just might be the BBC."

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In general, Pirsch, I might be inclined to agree, I think. (ABC here in Oz shows a lot of the BBC stuff.)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

But now and again, the BBC pump out some rubbish as well, IMHO. I guess nobody's immune!


Best regards,
panther3485

SnailRunner
03-14-2006, 09:35 AM
Im sorry can figure out to set up pics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Here is the T-90 from indian trials, that one is "just a modefied T-72

http://www.softdom.com/abo/pmg/armruss/photos/B_T90e.JPG

Here is the pic i could find of the "NON existing T-95
http://www.softdom.com/abo/pmg/armruss/photos/B_Black-eagle.JPG

But us who have been around the Russian parts have seen these tanks ( i will try to find the few pictures i was able to take)

I have to agree that some versions of Russian tanks are pooh. But most of them you se brake down have 20-40 years hard service on there shoulders and is maintained with leftover spare parts. Russian tanks do breake apart, just not so often as the "western tanks"

SnailRunner
03-14-2006, 09:47 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SnailRunner:
Im sorry can figure out to set up pics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Here is the T-90 from indian trials, that one is "just a modefied T-72

http://www.softdom.com/abo/pmg/armruss/photos/B_T90e.JPG

Here is the pic i could find of the "NON existing T-95
http://www.softdom.com/abo/pmg/armruss/photos/B_Black-eagle.JPG

But us who have been around the Russian parts have seen these tanks ( i will try to find the few pictures i was able to take)

I have to agree that some versions of Russian tanks are pooh. But most of them you se brake down have 20-40 years hard service on there shoulders and is maintained with leftover spare parts. Russian tanks do breake apart, just not so often as the "western tanks"

There is alot of sites with the info that is avalible here is one

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html

This is not a "fiction MBT" it is on trials in Russia.....

Kocur_
03-14-2006, 10:06 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Still T-90 is just a new version of T-72 with latest of T-80U equippment (or newer) and the site you posted http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html says nothing more, that the only seen "Black Eagle" was turret mock-up on regular T-80 chassis and anything else in just posters, (computer) models and announcement of what they would like to do.

Polish T-72 that got replaced by Leos werent "20 - 40 years old" but were of late 1980s local production.

MLudner
03-14-2006, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi, Xiolablu3

Quote:
"Obviously you must add the bombers and 110's lost to the 109E's to get a realistic total.
Not just 109E's that the Spits and Hurris were fighting."

Yes Xiolablu, obviously! I believe I alluded to that in my post. That post was in answer to another member, who wanted specific info on Hurricane & Spitfire vs. 109 kill/loss figures. I did make an effort to put this into context and mentioned about bombers being shot down and 'all German aircraft types', vis-a-vis total Hurricane and Spitfire losses. I think most members here are smart enough to figure out the rest of the picture!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

I can get more specific numbers later that break down Hurricane's vs. 109's and Spits vs 109's, but for now:

333 Bf-109's were shot down by Spitfires and Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. The remaining losses were due to FLAK fire, engine failure, fuel shortage and pilot error.

495 (0r 499) Spitfires and Hurricanes were shot down by Bf-109's during the Battle of Britain. The Spitfires have a better ratio than the Hurricanes, but the 109's still shot down more Spits than the Spits shot down 109's.

MLudner
03-14-2006, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi, MLudner

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Quote:
"The Spit was a 1938 - 39 time frame aircraft. The 109 was amongst the very first - the cutting edge of - all-metal, low-wing, fully-enclosed cockpit, monoplane propfighters. That's why I don't include the Spit even though it entered service only a few years later, as there was some experience with the type by the time it came around to build on."

Erm,.... exclude the Spitfire by all means if you wish and that is fair intent, but as for the 'time frame'.....again:


Flight of first prototype:
Bf 109 - September 1935
Spitfire - March 1936
(6 months apart)

First squadron delivery of production model:
Bf 109 - February 1937
Spitfire - August 1938
(18 months apart)


Note: Entry into Squadron service was about 18 months apart. No argument that the 109 was first, though!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Regards, Panther! SALVE.

18 months, then. The Spit was also a brilliant design. Still, there was still more experience with the type when the Spit came around, the 109 was on the cutting edge.

The Spit is a close 2nd on the greatest prop fighter list.

LilHorse
03-14-2006, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
LOL so according to the show (circus) a P51 must own an F18 ????????????????? Hell that f18 must be some **** plane if it gets owned by a P51. LOL why put in a lot of money and reasearch in modern fighters if a P51 can do the trick, So bye bye Joint Strike Fighter, F22 and all that ****, its all breakfast for the 51 according to DC.

Hmmmm when we are seeing BS on BC i can say some BS by stating that an obsulete F18, f22 whatever can own alot of P51's when engaged.

Or the pilot must be Steve Wonder.

While I agree that these programs often spew a lot of misinformation or bias in their viewpoints I think the above misses the point in including a/c from the past in any ranking, legit and well researched or otherwise.

The point is not "Teh F-18 would totally pwnerize teh P-51 in a dogfight! Shyah! What were those noobs thinking?" The point is that the F-18 or even the undefeated F-15 never fought in anything in today's equivelent like WWII. Thus, what these people are trying to do (albeit poorly), is to put these planes in the context of history (you've heard of that word, haven't you?).

In that context, just about any fighter's overall performance/record from WWII is better than any fighter flying today.

luftluuver
03-14-2006, 10:51 AM
How can anyone compare the underpowered 109 B/C/Ds to the Spit Mk I?

MLudner
03-14-2006, 11:24 AM
The underpowered early 109's set all new speed records. Not so underpowered after all.

Besides, I never said the 109 was the BEST propfighter ever; I said it was the greatest.

109 B's/C's and D's were not opposing the Spit I during the BoB, anyway. But, they do have a significant advantage that is commonly ignored:

Fuel injection. Try flying a Spit I upside down. Try doing a sudden dive.....or climb.

If a Bf-109C pilot sees you coming in your Spit I you'll probably never get a round into him because there are maneuvers he can do that you cannot without stalling your engine. You either catch him by surprise or you'll lose him.

LUFT11_Hoflich
03-14-2006, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
The underpowered early 109's set all new speed records. Not so underpowered after all.

Besides, I never said the 109 was the BEST propfighter ever; I said it was the greatest.

109 B's/C's and D's were not opposing the Spit I during the BoB, anyway. But, they do have a significant advantage that is commonly ignored:

Fuel injection. Try flying a Spit I upside down. Try doing a sudden dive.....or climb.

If a Bf-109C pilot sees you coming in your Spit I you'll probably never get a round into him because there are maneuvers he can do that you cannot without stalling your engine. You either catch him by surprise or you'll lose him.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif BINGO!! I hope that in TBoB they model that right, Spit Mki had a carburetor engine, not Fuel Injection like it's opponents, but I think Eventually, allied whines and tears will rewrite history and make the developers "install" Fuel Injection in the Spits Mki.

The only field that the spitfire was better thatn the 109 is TURN, 109 could outclimb, and out dive spits, speed about the same for both?

H¶f... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-14-2006, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by SnailRunner:


there is two tanks right now that stands out as the best, both mechanical and durability and the two winners is

Challenger 2 (Brittish)

T-90/95 (Black eagle)(Russian)



T-64/80/84 line is best-looking though, IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-14-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:
BINGO!! I hope that in TBoB they model that right, Spit Mki had a carburetor engine, not Fuel Injection like it's opponents, but I think Eventually, allied whines and tears will rewrite history and make the developers "install" Fuel Injection in the Spits Mki.

Maybe they'll model gusts of wind to blow that chip off your shoulder

Lucius_Esox
03-14-2006, 01:05 PM
What was the name of the woman responsible for the idea that solved the problem with negative g's in the early Merlins? She came up with a simple idea (so simple I can't remember it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) to modify the float chambers in the carbs so they didn't cut out.. anyone?

luftluuver
03-14-2006, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
The underpowered early 109's set all new speed records. Not so underpowered after all.

Besides, I never said the 109 was the BEST propfighter ever; I said it was the greatest.

109 B's/C's and D's were not opposing the Spit I during the BoB, anyway. But, they do have a significant advantage that is commonly ignored:

Fuel injection. Try flying a Spit I upside down. Try doing a sudden dive.....or climb.

If a Bf-109C pilot sees you coming in your Spit I you'll probably never get a round into him because there are maneuvers he can do that you cannot without stalling your engine. You either catch him by surprise or you'll lose him. What kind of power did the Jumos put out? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif They didn't set any speed records with Jumos. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Only with over boosted DBs on special fuel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Btw, the Jumo 210D used, in the 109C, used a carb. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif What to fly inverted or do a sudden dive?

ImpStarDuece
03-14-2006, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif BINGO!! I hope that in TBoB they model that right, Spit Mki had a carburetor engine, not Fuel Injection like it's opponents, but I think Eventually, allied whines and tears will rewrite history and make the developers "install" Fuel Injection in the Spits Mki.

The only field that the spitfire was better thatn the 109 is TURN, 109 could outclimb, and out dive spits, speed about the same for both?

H¶f... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Depends on the model and the boost rating of the engine. Early Spitfires were around 15 mph faster than the 109E1 but much slower in the climb. After the Spits got new props, armour and assorted other goodies in mid 1940, they were around 10 mph slower than before, but climbed much better. 109E-3s got the uprated DB 601A-1 and were about 3-5mph faster below 5000m, the Spitfire better at high altitude and the 109 better below about 10,000 feet. Climb was about 10% better in the 109E3/E4.

Oh, and here is a little history of the various mods for Spitfire carburettors:

The first "negative-G" modifications appeared in March 1941, when Miss Tilly Shilling developed a diaphragm with a calibrated hole that allowed negative G manouvers. It was standard on the Merlin 24 and later. It was also retrofitted to existing in service Spitfires. Most Spitfires were fitted with the modification by June, 1941. It alleviated the problems with negative G manouvers, but did not completely eliminate engine starvation in prolonged manouvers.

Later in 1941 the RAE developed a refined version of 'Miss Shilling's Orifice' allowing longer periods of inverted or negative G flight. By 1942 a 'zero G' version of the Rolls Royce SU carburetor was developed and fitted, first apperaring in the Merlin 46 in April 1942. The new unit allowed sustained negative G flight.

The Merlin 66 and later engines recieved the US developed Bendix-Stromberg direct injection carburettor, which was fitted to more than 11,000 Spitfires. The Merlin 66 first appeared on Spitfires in April 1943.

luftluuver
03-14-2006, 03:19 PM
Btw, the Merlin cut-out because of flooding, not for lack of fuel.

Pirschjaeger
03-15-2006, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Quote:
"I think it just might be the BBC."

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In general, Pirsch, I might be inclined to agree, I think. (ABC here in Oz shows a lot of the BBC stuff.)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

But now and again, the BBC pump out some rubbish as well, IMHO. I guess nobody's immune!


Best regards,
panther3485

I´ve been collecting documentaries for years now. I have hundreds. When it comes to WW2 stuff, I find the BBC is far and beyond Discovery and the likes.

The BBC docs remind me of "Band of Brothers". What set "BoB" apart from other Hollywood movies was the objectivity and honesty. Compare it to "Saving Private Ryan".

I find similar objectivity and honesty from the BBC docs. Just last weekend I was watching one that condemned the British and French for supplying the Nazis with Jewish victims. It also pointed out nazis that helped the Jews, RE: Denmark, among many other situations.

This is something that is still basically impossible from Discovery and PBS.

BTW Panther, I am sorry I didn´t think of inviting you to a PT I got going on now. Your logic and objectivity would have been a nice addition.

panther3485
03-15-2006, 07:28 AM
Hi MLudner,

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Quote:
"I can get more specific numbers later that break down Hurricane's vs. 109's and Spits vs 109's, but for now:
333 Bf-109's were shot down by Spitfires and Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. The remaining losses were due to FLAK fire, engine failure, fuel shortage and pilot error.
495 (0r 499) Spitfires and Hurricanes were shot down by Bf-109's during the Battle of Britain. The Spitfires have a better ratio than the Hurricanes, but the 109's still shot down more Spits than the Spits shot down 109's.


Thanks, mate!

We seem to be doubling up on our info here! I did actually include more specific figures in one of my previous posts, which you may not have read, but what you have posted here is very consistent with my own findings on this subject:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

My Quote (in part):
"The subject of Hurricane or Spitfire vs. Bf 109 (with the suggestion of either type having "kicked the 109's *** during BoB" - neither really did, as such) may need clarifying for some. Plane for plane, kill/loss ratios against both the Hurricane and the Spitfire favoured the Bf 109....(etc, etc)

During the course of BoB, Hurricanes and Spitfires achieved the following loss/kill ratios against the Bf 109*:

{*Note: these are losses reckoned to have been confirmed as sustained in direct combat against Bf 109's only. Total BoB Hurricane & Spitfire losses, against all German aircraft types and from all causes, were more than double this amount.}

Hurricane losses - 272 for 153 109's shot down.
(1.78 lost for each 109 destroyed)

Spitfire losses - 219 for 180 109's shot down.
(1.22 lost for each 109 destroyed)

[Source - 'Spitfire Special' by Ted Hooton]


These figures are not much different from the ones you posted (exact same overall for the 109's, very nearly the same - 491 total - for Hurris/Spits).

In case you missed that post, it's on page 6 of this thread (after the Tiger pics I posted). I posted it as a re-run from another thread, where somebody requested figures and I supplied them quickly (without spending too much of my precious time, checking and double-checking between sources etc.)

Looks like we are on to much the same line of thinking and conclusions here.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
03-15-2006, 07:57 AM
Hi, Pirschjaeger

Quote:
"I´ve been collecting documentaries for years now. I have hundreds. When it comes to WW2 stuff, I find the BBC is far and beyond Discovery and the likes."

Ditto me with the documentaries (have many shelves full of VHS - faced with the daunting task of conversion!).

Yes, I am inclined to agree about the BBC in general . However, they have turned out the occasional stinker, IMHO. [One of them was the subject of a several pages long submission I made about 4 or 5 years ago, I was so disappointed with its blatant 'axe-grinding' and lack of objectivity that it was way below the standards I had come to expect. But that's another story I shall not go into now.]

Our Aussie equivalent of the BBC is the ABC, which screens many of the BBC's documentaries (in a sense, they are almost like 'mother and daughter' broadcasting services).

The nickname for our ABC is 'Aunty'. Sedate and staid, but with a reputation for being generally straight and trustworthy. Considered somewhat stuffy and boring by the masses (most of whom prefer a diet of soaps, sitcoms, constantly interrupted hollywood movies, trashy commercial drivel and News that is overloaded with local content + only token coverage of the rest of the World.)

We also have a channel called SBS, covering movies and culture from around the World and also runs some very good documentaries from time to time. Again, not generally popular with the masses!

These days, however, I seem to watch very little TV any more.

Quote:
"BTW Panther, I am sorry I didn´t think of inviting you to a PT I got going on now. Your logic and objectivity would have been a nice addition."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thanks for the compliment, mate. She's cool, no wuckers. I'm not offended at being left out! Tomorrow is another day and there will be plenty more good topics out there!


Best regards,
panther3485

LilHorse
03-15-2006, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
What was the name of the woman responsible for the idea that solved the problem with negative g's in the early Merlins? She came up with a simple idea (so simple I can't remember it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) to modify the float chambers in the carbs so they didn't cut out.. anyone?

Tilly Shilling. She came up with a diaphram with an opening in it that regulated the flow of fuel in the float chamber.

luftluuver
03-15-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
What was the name of the woman responsible for the idea that solved the problem with negative g's in the early Merlins? She came up with a simple idea (so simple I can't remember it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) to modify the float chambers in the carbs so they didn't cut out.. anyone? A
Tilly Shilling. She came up with a diaphram with an opening in it that regulated the flow of fuel in the float chamber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A washer, not a diaphram.

Lucius_Esox
03-15-2006, 11:44 AM
Tilly Shilling,,thx,, what a great name http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That seems so,,er quaint,, bless her cotton socks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

MLudner
03-15-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi MLudner,

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Quote:
"I can get more specific numbers later that break down Hurricane's vs. 109's and Spits vs 109's, but for now:
333 Bf-109's were shot down by Spitfires and Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. The remaining losses were due to FLAK fire, engine failure, fuel shortage and pilot error.
495 (0r 499) Spitfires and Hurricanes were shot down by Bf-109's during the Battle of Britain. The Spitfires have a better ratio than the Hurricanes, but the 109's still shot down more Spits than the Spits shot down 109's.


Thanks, mate!

We seem to be doubling up on our info here! I did actually include more specific figures in one of my previous posts, which you may not have read, but what you have posted here is very consistent with my own findings on this subject:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

My Quote (in part):
"The subject of Hurricane or Spitfire vs. Bf 109 (with the suggestion of either type having "kicked the 109's *** during BoB" - neither really did, as such) may need clarifying for some. Plane for plane, kill/loss ratios against both the Hurricane and the Spitfire favoured the Bf 109....(etc, etc)

During the course of BoB, Hurricanes and Spitfires achieved the following loss/kill ratios against the Bf 109*:

{*Note: these are losses reckoned to have been confirmed as sustained in direct combat against Bf 109's only. Total BoB Hurricane & Spitfire losses, against all German aircraft types and from all causes, were more than double this amount.}

Hurricane losses - 272 for 153 109's shot down.
(1.78 lost for each 109 destroyed)

Spitfire losses - 219 for 180 109's shot down.
(1.22 lost for each 109 destroyed)

[Source - 'Spitfire Special' by Ted Hooton]


These figures are not much different from the ones you posted (exact same overall for the 109's, very nearly the same - 491 total - for Hurris/Spits).

In case you missed that post, it's on page 6 of this thread (after the Tiger pics I posted). I posted it as a re-run from another thread, where somebody requested figures and I supplied them quickly (without spending too much of my precious time, checking and double-checking between sources etc.)

Looks like we are on to much the same line of thinking and conclusions here.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

I saw your post after I posted that. That was why I did not make another post with more specific numbers: You already had. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

My source is a Squadron/Signal publication on the Bf-109 and its numbers are close to those you quoted.

MLudner
03-15-2006, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
The underpowered early 109's set all new speed records. Not so underpowered after all.

Besides, I never said the 109 was the BEST propfighter ever; I said it was the greatest.

109 B's/C's and D's were not opposing the Spit I during the BoB, anyway. But, they do have a significant advantage that is commonly ignored:

Fuel injection. Try flying a Spit I upside down. Try doing a sudden dive.....or climb.

If a Bf-109C pilot sees you coming in your Spit I you'll probably never get a round into him because there are maneuvers he can do that you cannot without stalling your engine. You either catch him by surprise or you'll lose him. What kind of power did the Jumos put out? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif They didn't set any speed records with Jumos. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Only with over boosted DBs on special fuel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Btw, the Jumo 210D used, in the 109C, used a carb. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif What to fly inverted or do a sudden dive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may not have been with a Jumo, but an early, pre-war mark of 109 set new speed records. It might have been a special job, but the 109 - the early marks in particular - were also light.

I know some early mark 109's had carburated engines, but I do not know it to be as late as the C. I thought it was the A & B variants. Not really any big deal though; just change it to a 109D, then. That is the earliest variant in WWII, anyway.

Besides, again: I am not arguing the 109 was the best propfighter. Again: the Spit was also a brilliant design and the two aircraft were always well matched.

The improved carburated engine still, however, loses power during positive and negative G maneuvers and will stall if the maneuver is too sustained or violent.

IMD: The Spit I is the only variant involved. Spit II's, V's, IX's, XIV's et cetera don't matter. The English did eventually put a carburated engine in the Spit, but they really should have done it sooner.

LilHorse
03-15-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
What was the name of the woman responsible for the idea that solved the problem with negative g's in the early Merlins? She came up with a simple idea (so simple I can't remember it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) to modify the float chambers in the carbs so they didn't cut out.. anyone? A
Tilly Shilling. She came up with a diaphram with an opening in it that regulated the flow of fuel in the float chamber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A washer, not a diaphram. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Semantics. Okay a washer that functioned as a diaphram. Same diff.

LUFT11_Hoflich
03-15-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
IMD: The Spit I is the only variant involved. Spit II's, V's, IX's, XIV's et cetera don't matter.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
If you mean by "The Spit I is the only variant involved" in BOB.

Then Britain should OLY get this variant. And, GE would have maybe F and E variants of the 109, In any case, equiped with Fuel Injection Systems which will allow for any G maneuver without engine stalls, Unlike the Carburetor equipped Spit mkI.

Again, My guess is that Allied tears and whines will equip Spits with a FI engine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Just my 2 cents.
I guess (hope)time will prove me wrong.

H¶f... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Xiolablu3
03-15-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
What was the name of the woman responsible for the idea that solved the problem with negative g's in the early Merlins? She came up with a simple idea (so simple I can't remember it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) to modify the float chambers in the carbs so they didn't cut out.. anyone?

Tilly Shilling. She came up with a diaphram with an opening in it that regulated the flow of fuel in the float chamber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Miss Shillings Orifice' was the name the RAF pilots gave it, no joke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

She went around RAF bases fitting it to Spitfires and Hurricanes engines to make sure they didnt cut out under neg G.


There were many Spitfire II's in the BOB too , not just Spit I's. MkII deliveries started in June 1940. BUt there were more Mk1's fighting in what is regarded as the official Battle Of Britain dates than MkII's.

MkII's had a more powerful engine

Spitfire Mk.II / Mk.IIb
In June 1940, the Mk.I gave way to the more faster and powerful Type 329 - Mk.II. Testing and research had evolved the Spitfire into a superior aircraft. The Merlin II/III engine was replaced with the Merlin XII, which gave the Spitfire a total of 1175 horsepower. The difference in armament from the Mk.I / Mk.Ib was still in place. The Mk.IIa was the eight .303 BMG version, and the Mk.IIb was the 2x20mm Hispano Cannon version. A total of 751 Mk.IIa's and 170 Mk.IIb's were built.

The cannons were unreliable however.

MLudner
03-15-2006, 04:45 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

We are experiencing a failure to communicate! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It was not specifically about the BoB, but about the Spit I. The Spit II, though, still had the carburated engine problem but Tilly's device did help.

ImpStarDuece
03-15-2006, 05:22 PM
Schilling modifications weren't fitted until April, 1941. Too late for BoB by about 6 months. They were fitted as standard to Mk Vs and retrofitted to other Spitfires.

luftluuver
03-16-2006, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
Semantics. Okay a washer that functioned as a diaphram. Same diff. No, not sematics. A diaphram would not allow any fuel flow, while the 'orfice' is a flow reducer.

G Whites's book on Allied piston engines gives a good description of her fix and what caused the engine cut-out. There was 2, one for 12lb boost and another for 16lb boost. It was fitted to the restrict the fuel flow.

LilHorse
03-16-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
Semantics. Okay a washer that functioned as a diaphram. Same diff. No, not sematics. A diaphram would not allow any fuel flow, while the 'orfice' is a flow reducer.

G Whites's book on Allied piston engines gives a good description of her fix and what caused the engine cut-out. There was 2, one for 12lb boost and another for 16lb boost. It was fitted to the restrict the fuel flow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I read White's book. You'll notice I said a "diaphram with an opening in it" a hole, an "orafice", an void, an area distinctly lacking the material which comprised the rest of the surrounding device or any other material for that matter....

It was a poor choice of words perhaps. But to simply say that a washer was installed in the float valve may not have given the proper graphic description.