PDA

View Full Version : poll:WW2 USA and its .50BMG's



Pages : [1] 2

fordfan25
06-05-2006, 11:14 AM

fordfan25
06-05-2006, 11:14 AM

JtD
06-05-2006, 11:37 AM
I refuse to vote with these possible answers.

Imho it was acceptable to do as they did, not right, not wrong, just ok.

Xiolablu3
06-05-2006, 12:05 PM
20mm would have been better.

50cal was ok for the job, especially against the lightly armoured Japanese planes.

In the Euro theatre they had numerical superiority, so 50 cal was ok for the job there too.

I think its the same situation as the P51. WHat made it outstanding was its range, its fighting ability was OK tho and good enough for the situation for the USAAF to win out.

Being able to hang around where other planes couldnt, made sure that the USAAF always had large numbers of planes over the enemy territory. Sure a 190D or Me262 may be there for a while in small numbers and it could outfly the P51, but in its sheer numbers, its good enough performance and its endurance, THAT is what made it outstanding.

Sorry got a bit sidetracked there. 50 cal had its advantages too, easy and cheap to produce, lots of it, one single calibre meant supply was simple rather than having lots of different calibers. It may not be as destructive, but its other advantages made up for this.

In real war logistics are 75% of the war. A pilot cant fight if he is not at the battlefield, nor if he has no ammunition.

FatBoyHK
06-05-2006, 12:53 PM
I think it is intented to be an historical discussion, but most people here will certainly use what they see in this game as a reference.

Historically it was a good choice for escort duty, where shooting down bandit in a very short time is not a mandate requirement, instead you need a lot of ammo to scare off the enmey from the bomber.

And it is not weak either. IL2 engine's DM has its limitation, it doesn't simulate quite a number of internal components and systems. It RL structural failure was not that common, most of the kill were instead caused by the failure of these internal components. 50cals was, if not better, just as effective as cannon in destorying these components, and you usually had 6 of them firing together.

also, its flat ballistic and high ROF make it a very user firendly weapon.

mynameisroland
06-05-2006, 01:01 PM
For mission kills yes .50 cals were adequate. To destroy fighter sized targets with snapshot shooting opportunities Id take 20mm or higher.

The .50 cal was excellent for air to air gunnery, Lag pursuit, Lead pursuit, deflection shooting ect But for destroying an aircraft or pilot within a fraction of a second 4 x Hispanno 20mm or Mg 151 20mm does the job more efficiently and effectively.

LStarosta
06-05-2006, 02:10 PM
yes

HayateAce
06-05-2006, 02:32 PM
http://members.tripod.com/tasterschoice/yarddance.gif

han freak solo
06-05-2006, 02:59 PM
Man, this hindsight is 20/20 thing is really late in coming.

WOLFMondo
06-05-2006, 03:31 PM
When your talking about manufacturing hundreds of millions, possibly billions of bullets and hundreds of thousands of guns it makes allot of sense to only make one type.

I think it made sense logistically to have all US planes armed with the same gun and the .50 was the best choice for that. All factories have the same tooling, only a few raw materials are needed, all the workers are trained the same way, all the packing and logisitics of moving the ammunition is the same, the armourers only need learn about 1 weapon, as do the pilots, parts are all interchangable etc. I bet even only 1 type of grease was needed to store them in.

20mm is the better choice though but I can't see all those medium bombers using 20mm's as defensive guns.

Kocur_
06-05-2006, 03:43 PM
Well, question is not formed properly - US DID NOT CHOOSE .50s! Their choice was 20mm Hispano, but things went bad, so 50s became stopgap. Sorry. Let me just repost what I wrote earlier:

You can put on shelf with fairy tales any claims that US were totally satsfied with .50 and didnt want anythig else. As soon as 1936 USN decided to search for suitable aircraft cannon. Four types were initially considered: Danish Madsen, German Rhinemetall-Borsig and two Swiss guns: Solothurn and Oerlikon.
Develpement of Hispano was closely watched by American Navy AND Army attaches in Paris. On 27 february 1937 War Department authorised its attache to "ascetain prices and dates of delivery" of 20mm and 23mm Hispanos. On 27 july 1937 US War Department ordered a Hispano with certain amount of ammo, and that was ready for inspection on 15 december 1937. The gun and ammo arrived in US on 26 february 1938! The gun was tested by Army in Aberdeen Proving Ground, with Navy watching closely, from 21 june 1938 to april 1940 (sic!). Also 23mm Madsens were tested, even got Army designations 0.9'' T1 to T3!
Finally Hispano was chosen and contract between US Gov and Societe Francaise Hispano-Suiza was signed, by which 33 Hispanos were bought, 20 for Navy, 13 for Army plus option for buying all manufacturing rights withina a year for 425.000$ plus 100$ of royalty per gun made in US. Those 33 guns arrived Aberdeen Proving Ground on 20 february 1940.

On 11 april 1940 gen. Arnold, chief of USAAC wrote to US Army Chief of Ordnance suggesting him to take immediate steps to buy production rights to Hispano and buy 400 guns even before rights were bought. He also pointed out to standarise Hispano ASAP. Since original blueprints would not be available before buying rights to produce guns, Watervliet A.rsenal was ordered to prepare set of drawinigs basing of Hispanos in their disposal. Initial USAAC needs were estimated 456 guns and Navy's - 100, therefore 600 were planned for production to ensure surplus. But when it came to ordering production 1.202 guns were ordered in three companies. Finally Bendix Aviation Corp. was choosen as main US manufacturer of Hispano and order was placed there for up to 5.000 guns on 23 septeber 1940. And so something unprecedented happened: a major power, the USA, adopted a weapon of foreign origin and ordered its local production before licence to produce it was bought! I call it a serious rush, quite far from full satisfaction with .50!
Licence was finally bought on 6 november 1940. Initially 1.202 guns were ordered in Eclipse Machine Division of Bendix Aviation Corp. as M1., including 500 for US Navy. Before any were delivered, order was changed for modified version standarised as "Gun, Automatic, 20mm, AN M2 (Aircraft)". Bendix shippings begun in late 1941 and production capability of 1.300 per month was reached. Until early 1941 Army ordered production of 44.747 20mm cannons! Later on more companies joined production program including Oldsmobile (77.010 total), International Harvester (24.526 total) and... IBM (10.500 total)!
As it was said above in january 1942 British Hispano and its drawnings arrived in US. British asked to produce US Hispanos, i.e. M1 ans AN M2 with minor changes, which would make them identical to British Hispano Mk. II. Of those minor changes, one was rather major, i.e. lenght of chamber - that was shorter by 2mm in British gun. By then it was clear that US Hispanos suffered high misfire rate, which did not happen to British ones, even though both used the same ammo. But Army Ordnance enineers decided in april 1942 that British shorter chamber has no advantages over American and decided not to alter it...
But soon level of inreliability of US manufactured Hispanos forced new tests which lasted from june 1942 to january 1943. It was found that it is necessary to... shorten chamber by 1mm!! AN M2s with shorter chamber of International Harvester and Oldsmobile were tested in UK in july and august 1943, being mounted in Hurricane along with British Hispanos - reliability of all guns was found satisactory. All 35.955 US Hispanos with long chambers were declared UNSERVICEABLE!

So some conceited engineers of Army Ordnance who decided not to shorten US Hispano chamber according to British blueprints in january of 1942 so their reliability was far too low, delayed practical service of 20mm AN M2 by over a year. That forced US Hispano out of service as primary US fighters armament... And .50 AN M2 Browning was left as the only other thing in American inventory - and so legend of such a US "decision" begun...


In initial NA P-51B project it had 4 x 20mm, but since US made Hispanos proved to be unreliable, 20mm AN M2 had to be replaced with next best weapon in US inventory: .50. There was no time to redesign wings gunbays to increace number of gun stations and so... Later on, i.e. after US Hispanos were finally corrected in summer of 1943, production of P-47 and P-51 was already too hot to alter anything in the design, not to mention lost confidence in US Hispano reliability...

dragonfly1971
06-05-2006, 03:54 PM
Hi
The main reason the germans went for heavier cannons was because they had to defend "the Reich"from huge fleets of heavy bombers.This required the stopping power of the larger calibre,as the americans were more concerned with the threat of fighters(and the lesser protected medium bombers and fighters of japan) the fiftys were fine.
Remember the different priority targets of each side!

VW-IceFire
06-05-2006, 03:58 PM
The choice of .50cal was based on the request for a simplified supply chain, a universal weapon type able to be used in multiple types of installations, and based on the situation where US fighters were not involved in bomber intercept so often as they were in anti-fighter operations where the HMG was useful.

I voted that they were being stubborn...given the options available.

I think that the USAAF and USN would have done much better with mixed cannon and HMG installations (like the Hellcat F6F-5P). I think they also would have done better if they had actually adopted the RAF's Hispano Mark II modifications rather than making their own license copy of the original Hispano 20mm design and fixing it a second time.

leitmotiv
06-05-2006, 04:45 PM
The lack of 20s forced Americans to have to literally "hack" (as Johnny Johnson so ably put it) down enemy aircraft as a perusal of European Theater gun cam footage shows. Cannon, bless 'em, end the proceedings quickly and violently.

fordfan25
06-05-2006, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kocur_ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
awsome i did not know that. of course you know im going to call it propaganda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WarWolfe_1
06-05-2006, 07:05 PM
I've read something like what Kocur posted, but I think it may have been tainted by USAAF thinking.

I will say this much about the 50cal BMG, I have seen its DEADLY results in real life. My stint in the Army allowed me to witness and use the very gun in ?, and will say yes I do think that the in game version is undermodeled. No it may not be as strong as the 20mm, but compare firing rate and accuracy the 50 wins hands down in my view.

Whats better 30(20mm)rounds put in to a 10ft wide cricle or 70(50cal)rounds in to a 4ft circle? Its the shotgun theroy.....

WTE_Galway
06-05-2006, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
So some conceited engineers of Army Ordnance who decided not to shorten US Hispano chamber according to British blueprints in january of 1942 so their reliability was far too low, delayed practical service of 20mm AN M2 by over a year. That forced US Hispano out of service as primary US fighters armament... And .50 AN M2 Browning was left as the only other thing in American inventory - and so legend of such a US "decision" begun...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


A similiar story occured with the P39.

The original P39 design had none of its reknowned faults like poor high altitude performance and dangerous spin. Those faults were the direct result of modifications (to turbosupercharging and armor) introduced by USAAC ordinace engineers against the wishes of the aircrafts original designers.

This link gives a classic story of how goverment committees can stuff up things big time:

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html (http://home.att.net/%7EC.C.Jordan/XP-39.html)

Quote from the article :

"Taken as a whole, the P-39 was a dismal failure of the AAF's engineering and procurement establishment to identify and develop the better attributes of an advanced and promising fighter aircraft. This was the same establishment that prevented Lockheed from installing Merlin engines in the P-38 as early as 1941. "

RCAF_Irish_403
06-05-2006, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
I've read something like what Kocur posted, but I think it may have been tainted by USAAF thinking.

I will say this much about the 50cal BMG, I have seen its DEADLY results in real life. My stint in the Army allowed me to witness and use the very gun in ?, and will say yes I do think that the in game version is undermodeled. No it may not be as strong as the 20mm, but compare firing rate and accuracy the 50 wins hands down in my view.

Whats better 30(20mm)rounds put in to a 10ft wide cricle or 70(50cal)rounds in to a 4ft circle? Its the shotgun theroy..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the .50's worked just fine... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Remember, the US was fighting a massive Logistics problem throughout the war...having one universal HMG helped loads

faustnik
06-05-2006, 08:09 PM
A follow up to Kocur's post:

A report at the Joint Fighter Conference 1944 on a USN investigation:

As it is now, we have the .50-cal gun which has reached its peak. The only improvements will be minor. The only good increase is to the number of guns. So it seems to be just about the right time to look for a better weapon. There are two possibilities here- the one we have and the one we might get shortly. The one we have is the 20-mm. gun. I think very highly of it. It is a fact, it is one we have here, and it is one on hand. It won€t do what the 60 will do, but we haven€t got the 60, and we won€t have it for a year. So, we are gradually working into all our aircraft the 20-mm. gun. To give you some idea of the 50 vs the 20 and to dispel a lot of ideas that have bothered us, I would like to give you a comparison. When somebody goes from four 50€s to two 20€s, to the layman that means a decrease in firepower. Actually, quite the reverse is true. In the horsepower of the gun, one 20 is equal to three .50-calibers. In the actual rate of fire delivered to the target, one 20 equals three 50€s; in kinetic energy at 500 yards, one 20 equals two and one-half 50€s.

That adds up to four 20€s equaling twelve .50 calibers, judging by those standards. Of course you have other advantages of the 20. You have greater penetration of armor. The 20 will go through 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the .50 cal. will go through only .43. In addition to that you have one more great advantage - that is, you can have longer and more frequent bursts without damage to the gun with the 20 than you can have from the .50 cal. That is important for the strafing airplane, because they are burning up thier barrels and ruining their guns in one flight. Sometimes it is long before that one flight is over. They will come down with screaming barrel and get trigger happy, and then all the barrels are gone in one flight. It should not happen with 20-mm. Of course, you have disadvantages. You have a heavier installation, one-half as much ammunition for the same weight. Our standard ammunition in the Navy is 400 round in one guns. We can€t do that with the 20, so we give them 200 rounds. The 20 is lethal enough to get far more results out of that 200 rounds than the .50 ever will get out of 400 rounds.

With the 20 you are putting out a new weapon. Fortunately, we are over the headaches to get a great extent in the Navy. The SB2C has led the way with the 20-mm. We had an awful lot of headaches getting the new ammunition, the new lengths, etc., and getting the ordinance men to learn how to use the gun and get around the temperamental characteristics. We are over that now, and majority opinion is very enthusiastic about the 20-mm. gun. We have at the present 200 Corsairs going out, at the rate of 50 a month, which will go into action as soon as we can get them aboard the carriers to get an evaluation of the 20-mm. gun in the Navy fighter. I am personally very anxious for the first report on that, and I think the first time they open up on a Jap fighter, it€s going to fly into a million pieces. We have a great cry for the 20-mm. gun.

-Commander J. P. Monroe, USN Armament Branch

Xiolablu3
06-05-2006, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:


Whats better 30(20mm)rounds put in to a 10ft wide cricle or 70(50cal)rounds in to a 4ft circle? Its the shotgun theroy..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you dont need 30 rounds, you dont even need 10.

4 cannon shells to down a fighter on average, that means one pass. A BIG advantage.

You cannot deny the 20mm is a far better Air to Air weapon than the 50 cal. Every otehr major nation in WW2 moved onto the cannon, are you saying the USAAF was right to stick with the 50 cal and the rest were wrong? The RAF had the same situation as the USAAF but used 20mm.

50 was adequate, not ideal. 20mm would obviously have been better, it is unquestionably more effective. It is still in use today, not many aircraft still carrying 50 cals as main armament.

J_Weaver
06-05-2006, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
...I think the first time they open up on a Jap fighter, it€s going to fly into a million pieces. We have a great cry for the 20-mm. gun.

-Commander J. P. Monroe, USN Armament Branch

[/i] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

WTE_Galway
06-05-2006, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
I've read something like what Kocur posted, but I think it may have been tainted by USAAF thinking.

I will say this much about the 50cal BMG, I have seen its DEADLY results in real life. My stint in the Army allowed me to witness and use the very gun in ?, and will say yes I do think that the in game version is undermodeled. No it may not be as strong as the 20mm, but compare firing rate and accuracy the 50 wins hands down in my view.

Whats better 30(20mm)rounds put in to a 10ft wide cricle or 70(50cal)rounds in to a 4ft circle? Its the shotgun theroy..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the .50's worked just fine... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Remember, the US was fighting a massive Logistics problem throughout the war...having one universal HMG helped loads </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

of course the 0.50 cal work fine .. and they do in game as well

its just some people say they should work at least as well as 20 mm in game based on the very mistaken theory that the USAAC and later USAAF chose 0.50 cal over cannon because 0.50 cal was somehow better.

It wasnt and the USAAC knew that .. they were stuck with 0.50 cal for wartime logistic reasons

UberDemon
06-05-2006, 11:27 PM
In the case of the USN, they were interested in cannons, and found through tests that 3x.50s were about the same as one 20mm. Some planes like the Corsair, Hellcat and Bearcat used 20mm cannons but apparently pilots did not like them too much, and seemed to opt for the 6x.50s better for fighter to fighter combat. I quoted some things from a book in the link below:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4111027944

The info I am talking about in this post and the link are from Anthony William's "Rapid Fire: the Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces" is a well researched book and goes into painful detail about the pros and cons of MGs and Cannons from their early states through WW2 up to modern times. Interesting stuff, plus the tables are nice.

WTE_Galway
06-06-2006, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UberDemon:
In the case of the USN, they were interested in cannons, and found through tests that 3x.50s were about the same as one 20mm. Some planes like the Corsair, Hellcat and Bearcat used 20mm cannons but apparently pilots did not like them too much, and seemed to opt for the 6x.50s better for fighter to fighter combat. I quoted some things from a book in the link below:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4111027944

The info I am talking about in this post and the link are from Anthony William's "Rapid Fire: the Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces" is a well researched book and goes into painful detail about the pros and cons of MGs and Cannons from their early states through WW2 up to modern times. Interesting stuff, plus the tables are nice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think too many people are complaining about the 50's against unarmored Zekes. Its not surprising the RT navy pilots were happy enough with it either.

Kocur_
06-06-2006, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kocur_ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
awsome i did not know that. of course you know im going to call it propaganda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it is! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The info was taken from "The Machine Gun" by George M. Chinn, colonel in Marines and as we know they are close with the evil Navy and as a USAF general put it: "Commies are merely an adversary, THE ENEMY is the Navy!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

HayateAce
06-06-2006, 01:16 PM
The USN and USAAC soundly defeated both the Japanese and German airforces.

Tells me all I need to know.

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

http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/usa/p51mustang/p51-m005.jpg

WWMaxGunz
06-06-2006, 02:48 PM
Rate of Fire of 2x20mm is how many per second? Compare to 4x50cal and which is smaller?

Planes are not tanks. They don't completely protect the cockpit and gunners. There are
places on every plane where a sh-load of bullets with some close degree of scatter or width
even swept over will result in casualties let alone critical hits on controls and engine.

You shoot from high deflection so that your exit will be behind and across his tail, hard
to follow if he even sees you. Hard for a wingmate to track. Give credit to Erich Hartmann.

Yes a swarm of bullets through the side will get results. Not that 20mm would be ineffective,
just that there would be a lot less of them. 20mm HE's that explode inside do make up for that
but they actually have to do that just as one or more of those 50 bullets actually does have
to hit pilot, gunner, control line, panel, engine, etc.

Kocur_
06-06-2006, 03:19 PM
A HE Hispano is 130g, including 10g of explosive. What happenes to remaining 120g of steel when explosive goes off? HMM!?
Does it evaporate? Just disappear? NO! All that steel changes into small, but very fast secondary projectiles, called FRAGMENTS. And their energy is more than enough to kill crew, cut fuel/oil/coolant lines, control cables etc. Every HE hit produces number of fragments far exceeding number of .50 projectiles possibly hitting, if weight of 20mms and .50s weapon systems is to remain in the same area. Good people! Stop BSing about higher ROF and higher number of hits - fragments make lower number of 20mms hits turn into vast numbers of fragments hits, not to mention explosion itself. .50 M2s did the job indeed, yes, but they neither were chosen, nor offered ANY advantage over cannons.

Kuna_
06-06-2006, 03:31 PM
.50cal is about ideal thing for ww2 fighter IMO very easy to hit with with little deflection from 6'o clock which is important thing for newbie pilots.

BTW what does BMG means?

Lordbutter4
06-06-2006, 06:39 PM
I have to agree 50's did just fine. Americans had no need for instant kills. They protected the bombers. 50's could be produced in mass easily, cheaply, and did the job. 50's were much easier for a novice pilot to use and gave a greater chance of hitting. True they didnt cause immediate structural failure or spread fragments, but there is something to be said about being hit in itself. If a german is flying around getting HIT by 50 cals, he isnt telling himself, well i have armor. Hes thinking about hitting that eject button and going home and living. There are tales of pilots bailing out to Americans who are down to 1 mg. No matter how much damage you do if you hit, you have to hit for that power to happen.

WTE_Galway
06-06-2006, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna_:
.50cal is about ideal thing for ww2 fighter IMO very easy to hit with with little deflection from 6'o clock which is important thing for newbie pilots.

BTW what does BMG means? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It means its a Browning

BMG = Browning Machine Gun

BfHeFwMe
06-06-2006, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:

A similiar story occured with the P39.

The original P39 design had none of its reknowned faults like poor high altitude performance and dangerous spin. Those faults were the direct result of modifications (to turbosupercharging and armor) introduced by USAAC ordinace engineers against the wishes of the aircrafts original designers.

This link gives a classic story of how goverment committees can stuff up things big time:

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html (http://home.att.net/%7EC.C.Jordan/XP-39.html)

Quote from the article :

"Taken as a whole, the P-39 was a dismal failure of the AAF's engineering and procurement establishment to identify and develop the better attributes of an advanced and promising fighter aircraft. This was the same establishment that prevented Lockheed from installing Merlin engines in the P-38 as early as 1941. " </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, don't know if it P-39 was a dismal failure, but do know the author of that piece of garbage failed to do his homework.

The P-39 without turbosupercharger was faster and more manouverable in most of it's combat envelope. It's not that they wanted it removed, they HAD to remove it.

P-39 the Real story.... (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/ch7.htm)

The NACA did its best to help industry realize these dramatic increases of speed in production aircraft. This effort can be seen clearly in Langley's cleanup of the Bell XP-39 Airacobra, eleventh in the series of military planes subjected to the NACA operation. Bell's chief engineer Robert J. Woods (a former LMAL employee in Eastman Jacobs's VDT section) had designed the unconventional plane-its power plant amidships, at the center of gravity, and its cannon in the nose-as a 400-MPH fighter. At Wright Field in the spring of 1939, the unarmed XP-39 prototype (with a turbosupercharged Allison engine, rating 1150 horsepower) flew to a [199] maximum speed of 390 MPH at 20,000 feet. The aircraft reached this speed, however, with a gross weight of only 5550 pounds, thought to be about a ton less than a heavily armored production P-39. That meant that the existing aircraft, when normally loaded, would have a hard time exceeding 340 MPH. Still, the test performance impressed the Air Corps enough for it to issue a contract, three weeks later, for 13 production model YP-39s. Gen. Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, desperate for a new fighter, hoped that the speed of the airplane could be increased to over 400 MPH by cleaning up the drag. On 9 June 1939 he formally requested NACA approval for immediate testing of the XP-39 in the Full-Scale Tunnel.21

Actually Langley had received the XP-39 from Wright Field three days before Arnold's request, which had been put in writing on 6 June to satisfy NACA headquarters. On 8 June, Robert Woods and other representatives from Bell arrived at Langley to see the NACA's experimental setup and witness the initial round of tests. For the next two months the FST team systematically investigated the airplane's various sources of drag. On 10 August, Lawrence D. Bell, president of the Bell Aircraft Company, visited Langley to discuss the test results obtained to date. Bell was shown preliminary data from the FST indicating that the prototype in a completely faired condition had a drag value of only 0.0150 compared to 0.0316 in the original form. This meant a maximum increase in speed, if all the NACA's suggestions for drag improvement were met, of 26 percent. The NACA realized, of course, that not all of the changes to the configuration studied in the FST were feasible for the production aircraft. Fifteen days later, the head of the FST team reported that by cuffing the propeller at the point where it met the hub, streamlining the internal cooling ducts of the wings, lowering the cabin six inches, decreasing the size of the wheels so that they could be completely housed within the wing, and removing the turbosupercharger and certain air intakes, the speed of the XP-39 airplane for a given altitude and engine power could be increased significantly. Extrapolating from the same weight airframe to a more powerful (1350-horsepower) engine with a geared supercharger, he estimated that the top speed attainable with the aircraft might be as high as 429 MPH at 20,000 feet. The FST head did not know precisely how much additional air would be required to cool the bigger engine, but he did believe that even if this increase was very large, it would not prohibit the plane from obtaining at least 410 MPH.22

Bell incorporated enough changes recommended by the NACA to improve the speed of the airplane by about 16 percent. These changes included installation of an engine that could be equipped with a gear-driven supercharger but had only 1090 horsepower - 60 horsepower less than the engine which had driven the unarmed XP-39 to 390 MPH at Wright Field in the spring of 1939 (and 260 horsepower less than that used hypothetically by the FST head in his paper study). The Air Corps then resumed flight trials. The less powerful aircraft, redesignated XP-39B, weighed some 300 pounds more than the original, and without the turbosupercharger flew to a maximum speed of 375 MPH at 15,000 feet in the first trials. Both the Air Corps and Bell expressed satisfaction with the NACA results. In January 1940 the Air Corps told Bell to finish the production of the first series of YP-39s without turbosuperchargers. (The Bureau of Aeronautics called the NACA report on the XP-39B the "worst condemnation of turbo supercharging to date.")23 Soon thereafter Lawrence Bell informed George Lewis that



as a result of the wind tunnel tests at Langley Field, we are getting extraordinarily satisfactory results. From all indications the XP-39 will do over 400 m.p.h., [even] with 1150 H.P. All of the changes were improvements and we have eliminated a million and one problems by the removal of the turbosupercharger. The cooling system is the most efficient thing we have seen. The inlet ducts on the radiator are closed up to 3% and the engine is still over cooling . ... I want to convey to you personally and your entire organization ... our very deep appreciation of your assistance in obtaining these very satisfactory results.24



[201] The top speed of the Airacobra never came anywhere near 400 MPH during this second round of flight trials - for that matter, no version of the P-39 ever would. However, the plane showed reasonable stability and roll rates and maneuverability at low altitudes - attributes that were not due to NACA drag testing - which meant it would be useful in ground support as a strafer and fighter-bomber.25

The Army Air Corps seems to have left the problem of increasing the speed of the XP-39 to over 400 MPH to Langley. On 6 February 1940, General Arnold's office advised the NACA to make any modifications its staff thought necessary "which do not involve structural change to the airplane." NACA headquarters responded with word that "the entire investigation should be carried out in flight" at Langley Field. At first, this appeared possible: during a telephone conversation with George Lewis on the morning of 28 February, General Arnold said that if the NACA felt the best way to increase the speed of the Airacobra to over 400 MPH was to make flight tests with the airplane at Langley, Langley "should do that and, if necessary, get a pilot from Wright Field."26

However, the Air Corps, Bell, and the NACA soon agreed that "these tests could be better conducted first in the Full-Scale Tunnel."27 In early March the XP-39B was flown to Langley from Bolling Field, where it had undergone performance tests, and was again mounted immediately in the FST. Within a few weeks the FST team finished another systematic drag investigation, this time concentrating on internal flow problems. Little more could be recommended to improve the airframe, however, because within the poorly designed ducts were structural members for the wings which could not be altered without some basic reconstruction of the aircraft.28 A flight test program followed (at Wright, not Langley, Field).

"In order to provide for the possibility of additional tests being requested by the Air Corps," George Lewis notified Langley to keep the research authorization (no. 674) covering drag cleanup of the XP-39 open.29 For the next several months, Langley sent representatives to both Wright Field and the Bell plant in Buffalo to make sure that the major modifications called for by the FST analysis (such as the installation of propeller cuffs and wheel well covers, the latter being "the most likely possibility for large drag reduction") were being carried out properly.30 In September 1940 the first YP-39, having incorporated most of the suggestions called for by the NACA, flew, top speed 368 MPH at 13,300 feet. Deliveries of the first production model P-39s, which were very similar to the service-test YP-39, began four months later. In 1941 the United States sent nearly 700 Airacobras to Great Britain and the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease. After [202] the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, the Air Corps rushed P-39 units into action in the South Pacific.

Because these P-39s flew well below 400 MPH, with a slow rate of climb and a low ceiling, Bell asked the NACA for another round of tests in the FST. Langley answered that it seemed "unlikely that further tests in the Full-Scale Tunnel would result in any other suggestions than those already made as a result of the tests of the experimental model."31 LMAL engineers did suggest two ways to boost the aircraft's speed by modifying the exhaust stacks for auxiliary thrust, but neither earned much support.32

The first unarmed P-39 prototype had flown 390 MPH, faster than any subsequent P-39, but 10 miles per hour slower than Bell advertised. The maximum speed of the production P-39D was only 368 MPH. Thus to assert that NACA drag testing helped the airplane to pick up speed may not appear to make sense: how could it make sense when, in spite of the NACA improvements, the production model flew slower? The answer to this riddle is weight. The army added a new and bigger power plant and heavier armor plate to the production model. (The XP-39E would weigh nearly 9000 pounds!) Based on drag coefficients from the FST, it seems that the NACA drag cleanup recommendations improved the speed of the airplane by a dramatic 16 percent.33 In other words, if the P-39 had not gone through drag testing, it would have been slower than it ultimately was.

LStarosta
06-06-2006, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lordbutter4:
I have to agree 50's did just fine. Americans had no need for instant kills. They protected the bombers. 50's could be produced in mass easily, cheaply, and did the job. 50's were much easier for a novice pilot to use and gave a greater chance of hitting. True they didnt cause immediate structural failure or spread fragments, but there is something to be said about being hit in itself. If a german is flying around getting HIT by 50 cals, he isnt telling himself, well i have armor. Hes thinking about hitting that eject button and going home and living. There are tales of pilots bailing out to Americans who are down to 1 mg. No matter how much damage you do if you hit, you have to hit for that power to happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What eject button?

WOLFMondo
06-07-2006, 01:14 AM
Ctrl+E. Its below the fuel gauge on the 190. Dunno about where it is on the 109.

civildog
06-07-2006, 02:59 AM
Why is it that you people keep dragging up such boring moot subjects? We won, they lost, we had .50's and they had cannon.

How about the psychological angle? US pilots were more secure in their manhood and therefore had greater confidence in combat because their prowess in action wasn't tied to the size of their weapons.

The other guys kept putting bigger and more cannons on thier planes and it made no difference. They still suffered from premature expectations of conquest resulting in national shrinkage as they found themselves on the bottom while the Allies pounded them from on top.

Ratsack
06-07-2006, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
I've read something like what Kocur posted, but I think it may have been tainted by USAAF thinking.

I will say this much about the 50cal BMG, I have seen its DEADLY results in real life. My stint in the Army allowed me to witness and use the very gun in ?, and will say yes I do think that the in game version is undermodeled. No it may not be as strong as the 20mm, but compare firing rate and accuracy the 50 wins hands down in my view.

Whats better 30(20mm)rounds put in to a 10ft wide cricle or 70(50cal)rounds in to a 4ft circle? Its the shotgun theroy..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I€ve seen a lot of footage of P-47s firing these 0.50s at ground targets, and the effect is impressive. I imagine that it was even more impressive if you were on the ground nearby. What is so striking about it is that the same eight weapons fired at an airborne fighter are not nearly as impressive. They usually cause flashes of multiple hits or some smoking, but it€s the exception to see flames, a wing come off, or the plane to explode.

I think it€s a question of perspective and proximity. If you€re firing at targets on the ground (or are on the ground yourself) you have a feel for what those big half inch rounds are doing: you see the dust and debris kicked up, stuff flying around. This is even more pronounced if it€s a fighter that€s strafing, because EVERY round hits the ground. That€s a lot of hits, and it looks very impressive.

I€ve never seen a 4 x 20 mm AAA battery fired at ground targets, nor have I ever seen footage of it (although it was common practice). Given what a few 0.50s can do, I find it hard to even imagine what a quartet of 20 mm cannon would do.

cheers,
Ratsack

luftluuver
06-07-2006, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Taken as a whole, the P-39 was a dismal failure of the AAF's engineering and procurement establishment to identify and develop the better attributes of an advanced and promising fighter aircraft. This was the same establishment that prevented Lockheed from installing Merlin engines in the P-38 as early as 1941. " </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So you think the single stage Merlins, for there was no 2 stage Merlins (60 series) in 1941, would have helped the P-38? Actually, there was studies done and even the 2s Merlins offered no improvement over the tc Allisons.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-07-2006, 04:10 AM
It's all very simple.

All countries except US stopped arming their fighter with recoil operated guns after WWI.

Browning .50 cal is a recoil operated gun based entirely on the Hiram Maxim Machine-Gun, which was designed in 1885.

By WWII the operating principal of the Browning was over FIFTY years old.

By the beginning of WWII it was already an obsolete relic.

By 30s gas operated, high rate of fire cannons were used world wide as the principal fighter weapon.

When it comes to arms, US policy always leans towards favorable contracts, not quality.

It was CHEAPER to manufacture 50s, that's all it is.

Gas operated guns are MUCH more reliable, faster firing, lighter, and jamed guns can be cleared with pneumatic assist.

None of the fighters with RR/Packard Merlin Alison engines could fire through the prop hub, that's all.

P-38 is a good example of that. Gas Cannons WERE used where they could be.

Stuffing wings with heavy guns and a ton of ammo only kills the roll rate.

Germans only mounted guns on the wings of bomber interceptors or supplemented with gun pods.

Russians only mounted wing cannons in ground attack IL-2s.

Recoil operated .50s (MG53-2/M-2) were particularly prone to jamming do to belt twist and pull lag while performing maneuvers.

It's just the way it is with recoil operated guns, and it's a fact to this day.

The only advantage of the 6/8 gun spray is that it eased aiming for green pilots.

The magical conversion of all 6 guns on a "dime" is an illusion. Around 80% of all kill were from rear hemisphere, and spraying .50s all over the place only alerts the targeted pilot of the attack, and his chances of survival are MUCH higher do to a simple fact that a .50 cal simply cannot penetrate the armor plate behind the pilots seat.

A lot of German pilots survived .50 calls attack even though their fighter was shredded exactly because they were protected by the armor plate, while US boys did not enjoy such a luxury.

German/Japanese 20/30s either busted right through the plates or knocked the shrap out of it which wounded/killed the pilot.

Do the math, .50s not only did not "do the job", they gave the enemy an advantage, just as later in Korea.

While MiGs regularly returned to home plate looking like swiss cheese, very few Sabers that were "touched" by MiG cannons came home.

Simple.

WOLFMondo
06-07-2006, 04:11 AM
A 2 stage Merlin would have been a better choice than the turbosupercharged Allison IMHO, for the reason it would be lighter as the Merlin wouldn't require the additional weight of the turbo.

Imagine that space with say, an extra fuel tank.

The problem IMO with the Merlin is that it would require a Merlin to be built that rotated the other way.

Sergio_101
06-07-2006, 04:12 AM
[/QUOTE]Merlins offered no improvement over the tc Allisons.[/QUOTE]

True.
The Merlin instalation may have slowed things down.
But it would have saved weight and complexity.

The Merlin's advantage over the Allison is
more myth than fact.

As to the .50BMG.
They did the job well.
The shot gun effect og 6 or 8 guns
may have been an advantage over fewer
slower firing cannons.

My chief complaint in this sim is that the
Russian 12.7 is so much more effective
when it's ballistics are nearly identical.
In fact the .50BMG has the edge with a heavier
bullet/projectile with higher muzzle energy
and better long range ballistics.

sergio

Sergio_101
06-07-2006, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
It's all very simple.

All countries except US stopped arming their fighter with recoil operated guns after WWI.

-False, Britian, Japan and others used Brownings and other guns of the delayed recoil principal.-

Browning .50 cal is a recoil operated gun based entirely on the Hiram Maxim Machine-Gun, which was designed in 1885.
-Not hardly, it's VERY different. Both use a delayed reciol system.-

By WWII the operating principal of the Browning was over FIFTY years old.
-true-

By the beginning of WWII it was already an obsolete relic.
-so was the Mauser rifle, but the germans stubbornly continued with it-
-The "obsolete relic" is still in use today in the US Army-

By 30s gas operated, high rate of fire cannons were used world wide as the principal fighter weapon.
-Not true, not true at all. Most still used Brownings!-

When it comes to arms, US policy always leans towards favorable contracts, not quality.
-Not always true, but the lowest bidder usually wins.-

It was CHEAPER to manufacture 50s, that's all it is.
-Not a cheap gun to make, I have manufactures some parts for it-

Gas operated guns are MUCH more reliable, faster firing, lighter, and jamed guns can be cleared with pneumatic assist.
-NOT true, Gas operation has many more issues with gas port fowling, piston fowling etc.-
-Belt feed issues at high "G" are still there for gas operated guns-


None of the fighters with RR/Packard Merlin Alison engines could fire through the prop hub, that's all.
-Not true, try a P-39 or P-63-

P-38 is a good example of that. Gas Cannons WERE used where they could be.
-Finally you ain't wrong-

Stuffing wings with heavy guns and a ton of ammo only kills the roll rate.
-P-51 had nearly the same roll rate of a Fw-190-
-Both had wing guns and could out roll a Bf-109-

Germans only mounted guns on the wings of bomber interceptors or supplemented with gun pods.
-WRONG again, Man, where do you get your "facts"-

Russians only mounted wing cannons in ground attack IL-2s.
-At least in this sim-

Recoil operated .50s (MG53-2/M-2) were particularly prone to jamming do to belt twist and pull lag while performing maneuvers.
-Only in the P-51B/C-

It's just the way it is with recoil operated guns, and it's a fact to this day.
-More BS, dude, your all wrong!-

The only advantage of the 6/8 gun spray is that it eased aiming for green pilots.
-Yes, this is true-

The magical conversion of all 6 guns on a "dime" is an illusion. Around 80% of all kill were from rear hemisphere, and spraying .50s all over the place only alerts the targeted pilot of the attack, and his chances of survival are MUCH higher do to a simple fact that a .50 cal simply cannot penetrate the armor plate behind the pilots seat.
-100% propaganda. A .50 cal at 300M would piss right through on a square hit-

A lot of German pilots survived .50 calls attack even though their fighter was shredded exactly because they were protected by the armor plate, while US boys did not enjoy such a luxury.
-dude, again you are 100% wrong. Where did you get this garbage, from Kurfurst?-

German/Japanese 20/30s either busted right through the plates or knocked the shrap out of it which wounded/killed the pilot.
-usually true. But notably many P-47 pilots survived multiple 20mm hits-

Do the math, .50s not only did not "do the job", they gave the enemy an advantage, just as later in Korea.
-That's why so many German pilots died at the hands of US pilots, they comitted suicide rather than face inferior .50 cal ammo.-

While MiGs regularly returned to home plate looking like swiss cheese, very few Sabers that were "touched" by MiG cannons came home.
-10:1 kill ratio in favor of the F-86, something went right-

Simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
-Finally correct, you are obviously Simple!-



Sergio

WOLFMondo
06-07-2006, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:


True.
The Merlin instalation may have slowed things down.
But it would have saved weight and complexity.

The Merlin's advantage over the Allison is
more myth than fact.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might have slowed things for a while but had the change over been made on early Lightnings the J and L would not have been held up.

It would have complicated things in the Pacific where most landbased US fighters early on were powered by Allisons but later on when P51's were more common in both theatres, it would have made logistics and training of fitters easier. Same reason I think why the .50 was stuck with. Logistics, training, manufacture etc. 1 gun type makes it all allot easier from the raw materials of the gun and ammunition all the way through the process to being used by the pilots.

luftluuver
06-07-2006, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-10:1 kill ratio in favor of the F-86, something went right- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This myth has been <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">BUSTED</span>.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">None of the fighters with RR/Packard Merlin Alison engines could fire through the prop hub, that's all.
-Not true, try a P-39 or P-63- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agh, but the engine was behind the pilot.

Xiolablu3
06-07-2006, 05:12 AM
The Russians claimed 4:1 in favour of the Mig. (The US 'replied' with their 10:1 claims)

The Migs had a 10,000 feet higher ceiling than the Sabre and the Sabre pilots could do nothing if the Migs refused to come down and fight. It was also an easy getaway if they were outnumbered. We all know what an advantage altitude is.

It was most likely pretty even loses on each side. Both good planes.

danjama
06-07-2006, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
yes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Matz0r
06-07-2006, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Rate of Fire of 2x20mm is how many per second?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you asked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BMG M2:
Rate of fire 750 rpm
Muzzle vel. 870 m/s
Gun weight 30 kg

MG 131:
Rate of fire 900 rpm
Muzzle vel. 730 m/s
Gun weight 17 kg

MG 151/15:
Rate of fire 700 rpm
Muzzle vel. 960 m/s
Gun weight 42 kg

MG 151/20:
Rate of fire 740 rpm
Muzzle vel. 800 m/s
Gun weight 42 kg

UBK:
Rate of fire 1050 rpm
Muzzle vel. 850 m/s
Gun weight 21 kg

ShVAK:
Rate of fire 800 rpm
Muzzle vel. 860 m/s
Gun weight 42 kg

MG-FF:
Rate of fire 520 rpm
Muzzle vel. 600 m/s
Gun weight 28 kg

Hispano MkII:
Rate of fire 600 rpm
Muzzle vel. 880 m/s
Gun weight 50 kg

Type 99-1:
Rate of fire 520 rpm
Muzzle vel. 525 m/s
Gun weight 26 kg

Megile_
06-07-2006, 06:23 AM
This thread is 100% proofs.... of something. What, I dunno

danjama
06-07-2006, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
This thread is 100% proofs.... of something. What, I dunno </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes sir, i'll get to finding out what right away!!

ImpStarDuece
06-07-2006, 06:54 AM
To add to that list:

Hispano Mk V

Rate of Fire: 750 rpm
Muzzle Vel.: 840 m/sec
Gun weight: 43 kg

Same RoF as an M2. Muzzle velocity is within 50 m/sec of the Browning and its only 13 kg heavier.

Kocur_
06-07-2006, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
It's all very simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is if someone knows as little as you - the more you learn the more it gets complicated, but lets go step by step.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
All countries except US stopped arming their fighter with recoil operated guns after WWI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete BS. Virtually all countries had recoil operated aerial weapons (except from France), and direct Browning's M1917 mmg derivatives were the world's most popular design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:Browning .50 cal is a recoil operated gun based entirely on the Hiram Maxim Machine-Gun, which was designed in 1885. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total BS. Browning mg has NOTHING IN COMMON with Maxim mg, apart from operating principle - and that is very little, as little as bicycles having two wheels and cars having four.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
By WWII the operating principal of the Browning was over FIFTY years old.

By the beginning of WWII it was already an obsolete relic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By WW2 ALL operating principals, except for (free) blowback (invented by Browning in 1898) were in their fifties! Maxim invented recoil operation in 1883, Clair brothers and Browning invented independently gas operation in 1888 and 1889. ******ed blowback was invented by prince Salvator in 1888. All mg/rifle-useable operating principles were almost equally "obsolete" by beginning of WW2 - does that mean, that MG3, Barret M82,G36, FN SCAR, FAMAS or UMP are "obsolete relics"? No to mention M2HB still being used and produced today.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
By 30s gas operated, high rate of fire cannons were used world wide as the principal fighter weapon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Oh yeah? Name ONE "gas operated, high rate of fire cannon" used "world wide" as "principal fighter weapon" by 1930s! Heck, name ONE such a weapon! Truth is that until ShVAK there were NO gas operated cannons adopted by anyone, not to mention that ShVAK cannon is conversion of ShVAK 12,7mm hmg! The only aerial cannons functionning reliably until mid-1930s were in fact Oerlikon's API blowback operated weapons. In fact, apart from SvVAK, world's first high rof, (partially) gas operated cannon to make world wide career was Hispano, and it was in developement, until 1937! And as soon as it became known it was adopted by France, UK and USA, Czechoslovakia - does it suggest, that marked was filled with "gas operated, high rate of fire cannons" as late as LATE 1930s? Not really! FYI there were only two aerial cannons in early 1930s: Italian Scotti - operated very similarly to Hispano, (i.e. gas operation governes unlocking and thus early bolt opening - most of energy to operate weapon comes from residual pressure in barrel), the weapon was not used practically and purely gas operated Finnish Lahti - not quite ready for service (as UK trials proved) until late 1930s. In fact 1937 is breaking point for ANY operating principle HIGH ROF aerial cannons, as it was when Bofors developed 700rpm recoil operated 20mm cannon and at Mauser's first examples of MG151 were completed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Gas operated guns are MUCH more reliable, faster firing, lighter, and jamed guns can be cleared with pneumatic assist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is "more reliable"? Less prone to breakages - no, not at all, as Vickers', various countries Maxims etc., proved firing VAST numbers of shots in almost continous bursts for tens of hours during WW1! What makes gas operated weapons more attractive for military use are two issues: gas operated weapon have stationary barrel, which ensures possibilty of quite easy achieving good accuracy and unlike in all other operating principles, it is very easy to adjust amount of energy in the weapon, by using gas regulator. But in fact gas operation is rather primitive idea (not that unpractical), compared to recoil operated weapons, especially clean, simple and simply put beautiful designs by Louis Stange (MG30, MG34).
Gas operated weapons are not faster firing than recoil operated weapons by nature! Fastest firing adopted gas operated mg is listed at 1800rpm - ShKAS, but recoil operated MG81 listed at 1700rpm is quite close, isnt it. In fact achieving even faster operation is quite easy in both systems, what makes troubles is keeping them reliable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Russians only mounted wing cannons in ground attack IL-2s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They used fuselage weapons mounting, because wooden wings of their fighters couldnt take additional weight. In fact there were WW2 era prototypes of Soviet fighters with wing armament, but were never produced.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Recoil operated .50s (MG53-2/M-2) were particularly prone to jamming do to belt twist and pull lag while performing maneuvers.

It's just the way it is with recoil operated guns, and it's a fact to this day.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total BS again. Principle of operation had NOTHING to do with those P-51B/C and F4F problems, which were caused by design of feed ways - any weapon used with those would keep refusing to fire. If Im wrong how would you explain fixing armament problems of mentioned planes and totally flawless operation of .50s in ALL other US fighters?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Do the math, .50s not only did not "do the job", they gave the enemy an advantage, just as later in Korea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soooo all those Luftwaffe, Japanese, Italian and Korean/Chinese planes were rammed by US fighters? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Sergio_101
06-07-2006, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
[QUOTE]-10:1 kill ratio in favor of the F-86, something went right- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This myth has been <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">BUSTED</span>.

Please show me the evidence.
Gun camera evidence and crash sites were
required during the Korean war.

Evidence is iron clad.

Don't tell me that Oleg said so.....

Sergio

PSYOP_mongoose
06-07-2006, 08:38 PM
Sergio_101, I won't argue with you, because I don't have to.

"CANNON OR MACHINE GUN?The Second World War Aircraft Gun Controversy."

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

This has led to the often-expressed view that the .50 inch M2 was the best all-round fighter gun of the war. After all, the USAAF and US Navy fighters unquestionably came to dominate the skies in which they fought. If there had been a better gun, America would have used it. However, the truth is not quite as simple as that. There are two issues here; how good was the .50 M2 compared with other HMGs, and how effective was it compared with cannon?

The most obvious comparator was the Soviet UB, which fired ammunition of virtually identical power. The UB weighed 25 kg, compared with the M2's 29 kg, but the Soviet gun fired at 17.5 rps, compared with around 13 for the M2. In terms of power- to-weight ratio the Berezin was therefore clearly superior. The Browning fared better against most other HMGs, as they all fired less-powerful ammunition, so the M2 enjoyed advantages in range and penetration. However, it had a slightly lower rate of fire than the German and Japanese guns (both around 15 rps), and was also bigger and heavier. The most powerful of all of the HMGs was the 15 mm MG 151, but this was heavier and slower-firing than the M2. Overall, therefore, the .50 M2 was not the best of the HMGs but was about average, with reasonable performance for its weight.

How did HMGs compare with 20 mm cannon? The first problem is that the cannon varied hugely in size, weight and performance. The MG*FFM, Type 99-1 and B-20 were all lighter than the M2, but the first two were significantly worse in terms of muzzle velocity and rate of fire, although the B-20 matched the M2's rate of fire and was not far behind in velocity. The Japanese Ho-5 and Type 99-2 and the ShVAK and MG 151/20 were all somewhat heavier. Muzzle velocities and rates of fire were closer to the M2's but generally still not as good. The Hispano was significantly heavier and slower-firing until the British Mk V emerged near the war's end, matching the MG 151/20 in weight and rate of fire.

The foregoing compares only the guns' efficiency; it takes no account of ammunition, the area in which the HMG loses most ground. The 20 mm cannon shells were not only two to three times heavier than HMG bullets, but their HEI contents greatly increased their effectiveness. Although HE ammunition was available for most HMGs, their small bullets severely limited the quantity of chemicals carried, so the Americans decided not to use them. Initially, the M2 used a mix of incendiary and AP bullets, with some tracers, but in 1944 the M8 API began to take over. Rather curiously, this was based on the Soviet B.32 API used in the Berezin.

It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of different ammunition types, but various tests suggest that a typical World War Two-era HE or incendiary shell, with chemical contents forming about 10 per cent of total shell weight, was about twice as destructive as a plain steel shell of similar size and weight. This makes it clear that 20 mm cannon were considerably more destructive for a given total weight of armament than any HMG could hope to be. For example, the .50 M8 API contained less than one gram of incendiary, whereas the 20 mm Hispano SAPI achieved similar armour penetration but carried more than ten times as much incendiary material.

This advantage was recognised by the US Navy. After comparing the .50 M2 and the 20 mm Hispano they estimated that the cannon was three times as effective. In other words, the typical RAF armament of four 20 mm cannon was twice as destructive as the USAAF's six .50 HMGs, for very little more weight. Proponents of the Browning HMG point to its excellent ballistics, which enhanced its range and hit probability. But the Hispano's muzzle velocity was very similar, and although the blunt-nosed shells were less aerodynamic the difference over typical air-combat ranges was not significant.

The cannon's advantages are clearly shown in the decisions made as a result of combat experience by air forces with a choice of good HMGs and cannon. We have already seen how Germany preferred the 20 mm version of the MG 151 despite its poorer ballistics. In the 12.7 mm Berezin the Soviets had arguably the best HMG of the war, but they still preferred the heavier, slower-firing 20 mm ShVAK. Japan had several good HMGs available; the army's Ho-103, and the navy's 13 mm Type 3, a .50 Browning chambered for slightly larger-calibre ammunition, but they made increasing use of cannon.

So why did the Americans not make more use of cannon, specifically the 20 mm Hispano they already had in mass production? There were two main reasons. One was certainly that the M2 was adequate for its purpose. In Western Europe the main adversaries were fighters, which were much easier to damage and shoot down than bombers. In the Pacific Theatre the Japanese aircraft were initially poorly protected and easy to shoot down. Later Japanese aircraft were better protected, but again these were usually fighters. If the Americans had faced the need to stop raids by heavy, well-protected bombers, it is likely that the HMG's shortcomings would have been starkly revealed.

There was another reason, however, which explains why the US Navy, despite rating the cannon very highly and facing the need to deal with attacking bombers and kamikazes, fitted it to few aircraft. That was serious production prob*lems with the American Hispano, which gave it a reputation for unreliability. Despite production running well into six figures, the American Hispano failed to achieve an acceptable reliability standard for the duration of the war.

To return to the original question, were the Americans right to rely so heavily on the .50 M2 when all other combatant nations had a clear preference for cannon of at least 20 mm calibre? The answer has to be yes. It was adequate for its purpose, and was the only satisfactory aircraft gun in production in the USA. It was very reliable (except where the installations created problems), was made in huge quantities, and the simplification of supply by comparison with the diversity of weapons used by the Axis powers gave a major logistical advantage. However, the Americans could get away with using a weapon so deficient in destructive power not only because of the nature of their opposition, but also because the size and engine power of their fighters enabled them to carry a battery of at least six guns, thus making up in quantity what they lacked in destructive quality.

The advantages of the 20 mm Hispano M2 were not entirely ignored. It was carried by Lockheed P-38s, together with four .50 Brownings. It was also installed in nightfighters, which needed maximum firepower to convert a short firing opportunity into a kill. Four were installed in Northrop's P-61 Black Widow, and two could be mounted in a Grumman F6F-5N. The cannon's extra firepower was also appreciated for ground strafing.

After the war the US Navy quickly changed over to the 20 mm cannon in its improved, faster-firing and more reliable M3 form, but the USAF stayed with the .50 M3 until the fighting in Korea demonstrated once and for all that the HMG had had its day. From the mid-1950s the USAF at last replaced the old Browning with 20 mm cannon, initially the M39 revolver and then the M61 rotary - just as most of the rest of the world was moving up to 30 mm!

Naturally there's a lot more, so feel free to explore such an excellent resource.

fordfan25
06-07-2006, 08:49 PM
wow. i almost want to claim this as a fishing thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

UberDemon
06-07-2006, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
This thread is 100% proofs.... of something. What, I dunno </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes sir, i'll get to finding out what right away!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah? Well, I'' find out right awayer than you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PSYOP_mongoose
06-08-2006, 06:17 PM
You're right fordfan25, not much more to discuss after that.

I don't mean to start it up again, but my apologies to Sergio_101 though, I meant Kocur_.

I jumped the gun and apparently he's the one that keeps insisting that gas is not better then recoil, and not even a mention of API recoil, which Browning was not.

I sure hope he considers rotary and revolver to be better then gas piston.

The list of disadvantages on using obsolete an 50 year old concept in modern WWII warfare just keeps going, and validating the use of obsolete technology in war because it works both logistically and economically is exactly the same as arguing the use of Ford Model-T to this day because it also works.

To wrap it up, I agree with;

VW-IceFire
leitmotiv
RCAF_Irish_403
faustnik
J_Weaver
WTE_Galway

and all of the other reasonable people that do not need a degree or a Internet link to realise that a single HE loaded SHELL will do MUCH more damage then a burst of BULLETS.

HayateAce apparently thinks that only USN and USAAC fought in WORLD WAR II. To each their own I guess.

Have a good weekend everybody!

Sergio_101
06-08-2006, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
You're right fordfan25, not much more to discuss after that.

I don't mean to start it up again, but my apologies to Sergio_101 though, I meant Kocur_.

I jumped the gun and apparently he's the one that keeps insisting that gas is not better then recoil, and not even a mention of API recoil, which Browning was not.

I sure hope he considers rotary and revolver to be better then gas piston.

The list of disadvantages on using obsolete an 50 year old concept in modern WWII warfare just keeps going, and validating the use of obsolete technology in war because it works both logistically and economically is exactly the same as arguing the use of Ford Model-T to this day because it also works.

To wrap it up, I agree with;

VW-IceFire
leitmotiv
RCAF_Irish_403
faustnik
J_Weaver
WTE_Galway

and all of the other reasonable people that do not need a degree or a Internet link to realise that a single HE loaded SHELL will do MUCH more damage then a burst of BULLETS.

HayateAce apparently thinks that only USN and USAAC fought in WORLD WAR II. To each their own I guess.

Have a good weekend everybody! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It is not that gas is not better than recoil
operated guns. It's that your post is 99% incorrect.
Remember, the US had many good gas operated
guns, a gas operated aircraft gun would
have been an easy step to make.

The Browning delayed "blowback" is still in use today.
MANY attempts have been made to replace the BMG
and, so far, all have failed.

The argument that gas or recoil is better is lame.
Both have their place.

I can also tell you that new Browning .50 cal
machine guns are being made today.

Sergio

Kocur_
06-09-2006, 08:27 AM
Not knowing something from a area is nothing shameful, but failing to learn when opportunity comes and repeating same ignorant BS is just another matter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:

I jumped the gun and apparently he's the one that keeps insisting that gas is not better then recoil </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I say that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:and not even a mention of API recoil, which Browning was not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> '

There is no such thing like is "Advanced Primer Ignition barrel recoil" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
The list of disadvantages on using obsolete an 50 year old concept in modern WWII warfare [...] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gas operation is SIX years newer concept than recoil operation (1883 vs. 1886). And if you still refer to Maxim, while thinking of Browining M1917 and its derivatives its just another proof of total ignorance in smallarms area.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
To wrap it up, I agree with;

VW-IceFire
leitmotiv
RCAF_Irish_403
faustnik
J_Weaver
WTE_Galway

and all of the other reasonable people that do not need a degree or a Internet link to realise that a single HE loaded SHELL will do MUCH more damage then a burst of BULLETS.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not being mentioned above doesnt bother me, it just indicates, that you didnt bother yourself to read the thread you posted in. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Im very last of .50 defenders in the good ole' .50 vs. 20mm debate, which did show in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif But 20mm cannon superiority over hmg has nothing to do with operation principle, as apart from Hispano, .50 AN M2's most important not only rival but also 'enemy' was 20mm MG151/20, which was recoil operated too. Not to mention series of succesful Japanese cannons, based closely on M2.

BfHeFwMe
06-09-2006, 07:16 PM
Actually the USA was the largest manufacturer of 20mm Oerlikons, making 124,735 war time units. There was a redesign, because it was necessary, the Swiss method of manufacture was so cumbersom and slow, from June to December 41 a total of 379 units were manufactured, all exact copies with metric tooling.

It wasn't till the Mk4 version that the specs were changed to inches and the metric tooling was dumped. By doing this and redesigning some parts for machining ease they droped the per gun manufacture rate from 428.4 man hours to 76.2.

Priority of all manufacture for domestic use went to USN warships for AAA protection. Nearly half the planes dropped by the Navy in 43 were by shipborne 20mm's.

Does anyone really believe with the slow manufacture rate, the thousands of fighters that existed could be armed with them exclusively, even if they wanted to. It worked with small forces like the Luftwaffe, especially buying over the counter, across the border.

Lets not forget thousands of these guns went lend leases, even Russia was supplied with 2000+.

fordfan25
06-09-2006, 08:24 PM
this thread has been very "educatonal".....im very disopointed in all of you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LStarosta
06-09-2006, 08:46 PM
http://www.bluejacket.com/usn/images/oth/w2_mtb_sailor_50cal.jpg

How hard is it to believe that one of these things can pwn j00?


If the .50 sucks so much, why don't you come out and take a .50 in the chest?

I mean... it's totally harmless, right?

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

GrislyAccord
06-09-2006, 09:34 PM
I wasn't gonna weigh in on this issue until I saw this:

http://www.cinemanow.com/Watch-Free/TV/2,1,5,w,0,0,2654...ar-II-Volume-Two.htm (http://www.cinemanow.com/Watch-Free/TV/2,1,5,w,0,0,26545/Warbirds-of-World-War-II-Volume-Two.htm)

The second half of the movie deals with my beloved P-47 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif The pilots discuss the effectiveness of the 8 BMG's...one of them says he knocked over a boxcar with em. Didn't blow it up; the impact blew it over. That seems pretty tough to me...

UV

fordfan25
06-09-2006, 09:55 PM
8 bmg's is a lotta kaboom. biggst advantge i could see to 20's instead of the BMG is that you could carry roughly half as many guns and do roughly the same damnge for roughly half the weight while carring more ammo per gun.

Kocur_
06-10-2006, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Actually the USA was the largest manufacturer of 20mm Oerlikons, making 124,735 war time units. There was a redesign, because it was necessary, the Swiss method of manufacture was so cumbersom and slow, from June to December 41 a total of 379 units were manufactured, all exact copies with metric tooling.

It wasn't till the Mk4 version that the specs were changed to inches and the metric tooling was dumped. By doing this and redesigning some parts for machining ease they droped the per gun manufacture rate from 428.4 man hours to 76.2.

Priority of all manufacture for domestic use went to USN warships for AAA protection. Nearly half the planes dropped by the Navy in 43 were by shipborne 20mm's.

Does anyone really believe with the slow manufacture rate, the thousands of fighters that existed could be armed with them exclusively, even if they wanted to. It worked with small forces like the Luftwaffe, especially buying over the counter, across the border.

Lets not forget thousands of these guns went lend leases, even Russia was supplied with 2000+. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems you confuse Oerlikon and Hispano. Noone ever considered Oerlikon FFS as possible aircraft weapon! They were heavy, slow ROF and magazine fed. They were produced, as you mention, for US Navy as AA cannons - ONLY - the same was happening in UK. And in both countries Hispano, which was smaller, lighter and faster was chosen to be primary fighter weapon.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-10-2006, 03:07 AM
There is nothing here to argue about.

HMGs are simply inferior in fire power to 20mm, it's a physical, logical and historical fact.

Recoil operated .50 cal Browning is inferior to API and gas operated HMGs of the same caliber. Gas operated design fires faster, weights less, and by design is inherently more reliable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no such thing like is "Advanced Primer Ignition barrel recoil </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is about the history of the Advanced Primer Ignition Blowback (or API Blowback) family of automatic cannon, which flourished between 1918 and 1945, played an important role in the Second World War, and some of which probably are still in service today. This type of gun is strongly associated with the Swiss Oerlikon company, but other firms and countries were involved in their development also. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/apib.html

Simple;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The foregoing compares only the guns' efficiency; it takes no account of ammunition, the area in which the HMG loses most ground. The 20 mm cannon shells were not only two to three times heavier than HMG bullets, but their HEI contents greatly increased their effectiveness. Although HE ammunition was available for most HMGs, their small bullets severely limited the quantity of chemicals carried, so the Americans decided not to use them. Initially, the M2 used a mix of incendiary and AP bullets, with some tracers, but in 1944 the M8 API began to take over. Rather curiously, this was based on the Soviet B.32 API used in the Berezin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Simple;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For more about the problems of the US-made 20 mm Hispano, click HERE - http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read, learn, move on.

Kocur_
06-10-2006, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
There is nothing here to argue about.

HMGs are simply inferior in fire power to 20mm, it's a physical, logical and historical fact.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Ive been saying around here for looong while now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:Recoil operated .50 cal Browning is inferior to API and gas operated HMGs of the same caliber. Gas operated design fires faster, weights less, and by design is inherently more reliable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were no API blowback operated hmgs dummie.
There were no "gas operated HMGs". There was A gas operated hmg, the sole UB. All other air-used hmgs, Italian, Japanese, German ones were recoil opearted.
It is recoil operation that in fact is "inherently more reliable" - if you had belt fed recoil operated mg with absurdly long belt, you could fire it as long as tou wished, until parts wearing off, with no maintenece whatsoever. In gas operated weapon on said conditions, you would have clean gas orifice at some point. Not that it makes practical differece, due to gas regulators and barrel change capability in weapons supposed to fire really long bursts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no such thing like is "Advanced Primer Ignition barrel recoil </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is about the history of the Advanced Primer Ignition Blowback (or API Blowback) family of automatic cannon, which flourished between 1918 and 1945, played an important role in the Second World War, and some of which probably are still in service today. This type of gun is strongly associated with the Swiss Oerlikon company, but other firms and countries were involved in their development also. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/apib.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif I knew it would happen, so I added even "barrel" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif You dont have a tiniest idea what are you talking about. You cant tell differece between the very basic terms, so let me help you a bit. In blowback operation, regular or advanced primer ignition, the part that moves is bolt only - barrel is stationary. In recoil operation, short or long, barrel is locked with bolt during projectile movement through bore and said recoiling group moves back due to recoil, thus powering mechanism.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Read, learn, move on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do actually. You could start to too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

luftluuver
06-10-2006, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Please show me the evidence.
Gun camera evidence and crash sites were
required during the Korean war.

Evidence is iron clad.

Don't tell me that Oleg said so.....

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So much for your 'iron clad' gun camera evidence. So the Americans visited MiG crash sites deep in Communist territory. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

These are the top 5 American aces.

Capt. Joseph M. McConnell: 16.0/13.0 - 51st FIW

Maj. James Jabara: 15.0/13.0 4th FIW

Capt. Manuel J. "Pete" Fernandez: 14.5/13.5 - 4th FIW

Maj. George A. Davis: 14.0/10.0 4th FIW

Col. Royal N. Baker: 13.0/11.0 - 4th FIW

The second number is the adjustment per Soviet data.

In the years since the breakup of the old Soviet Union, records relating to the Korean War have come to light. Aviation history researchers like Cookie Sewall and Diego Zampini have pored over these records and have been able to correlate Soviet records of specific aerial battles on specific dates, and thus documented certain over-claims by the USAF pilots.

Now you can continue in your fantasy world if you want.

horseback
06-10-2006, 10:25 AM
Actually, an overclaim ratio of (at worst) 7 for 5 while operating primarily over enemy territory is a pretty good one. Most if not all of the pilots listed had some combat time in WWII, and the professionalism appears obvious to me.

The question in my mind now is if the Soviet/Chinese/Korean claims recorded over Korea correspond to USAF and UN loss figures and dates with similar or better consistancy...

On the .50 vs 20mm issue, there is no doubt in my mind that gun for gun, the heavier weapon is greatly superior. Generally speaking, though, you go through much, if not all, of a war with the weapons you either have on hand or have in late development when it starts.

For US purposes, the .50 was a more than adequate air to air weapon. It was pretty accurate over the ranges it was used, and it had sufficient punch to be effective (in real life; the DMs and to some degree the prejudices of the sim's developers weigh against it in this game-though I'll concede that the game engine was not designed with Western ETO air combat in mind, so HMGs' weren't really a major consideration and were essentially shoe-horned in later).

According to Witold Lanowski, who went from Spitfires to P-47s, the firepower edge unquestionably went to the P-47s' eight .50s over the Spit's two Hispanos and four peashooter .303s. An even greater edge over a fighter optimized 109's single 20mm and two 13mm guns can be assumed. 190As presented a greater challenge.

The .50 was sufficiently light that several could be put into each wing, and still give the pilot a significant edge over his adversaries in firing time as well(not a small consideration when US pilots spent most of their combat time deep in enemy territory), giving the pilots the psychological comfort of a 'little extra to get you home.'

Certainly, the absence of heavy bombers or truly armored fighters on the Axis' side made a move to cannon seem unnecessary to the USAAF and later on, to the USAF. If you are beating the opposition's brains out with what you have, why waste time getting a bigger club?

cheers

horseback

fordfan25
06-10-2006, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Actually, an overclaim ratio of (at worst) 7 for 5 while operating primarily over enemy territory is a pretty good one. Most if not all of the pilots listed had some combat time in WWII, and the professionalism appears obvious to me.

The question in my mind now is if the Soviet/Chinese/Korean claims recorded over Korea correspond to USAF and UN loss figures and dates with similar or better consistancy...

On the .50 vs 20mm issue, there is no doubt in my mind that gun for gun, the heavier weapon is greatly superior. Generally speaking, though, you go through much, if not all, of a war with the weapons you either have on hand or have in late development when it starts.

For US purposes, the .50 was a more than adequate air to air weapon. It was pretty accurate over the ranges it was used, and it had sufficient punch to be effective (in real life; the DMs and to some degree the prejudices of the sim's developers weigh against it in this game-though I'll concede that the game engine was not designed with Western ETO air combat in mind, so HMGs' weren't really a major consideration and were essentially shoe-horned in later).

According to Witold Lanowski, who went from Spitfires to P-47s, the firepower edge unquestionably went to the P-47s' eight .50s over the Spit's two Hispanos and four peashooter .303s. An even greater edge over a fighter optimized 109's single 20mm and two 13mm guns can be assumed. 190As presented a greater challenge.

The .50 was sufficiently light that several could be put into each wing, and still give the pilot a significant edge over his adversaries in firing time as well(not a small consideration when US pilots spent most of their combat time deep in enemy territory), giving the pilots the psychological comfort of a 'little extra to get you home.'

Certainly, the absence of heavy bombers or truly armored fighters on the Axis' side made a move to cannon seem unnecessary to the USAAF and later on, to the USAF. If you are beating the opposition's brains out with what you have, why waste time getting a bigger club?

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>well said

PSYOP_mongoose
06-10-2006, 07:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What Ive been saying around here for looong while now </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well hey, I'm glad we agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There were no API blowback operated hmgs dummie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said they were?

Please read again - "Recoil operated .50 cal Browning is inferior to API and gas operated HMGs of the same caliber."

Focus on this part "API &gt;AND&lt; gas operated HMGs of the same caliber.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There were no "gas operated HMGs". There was A gas operated hmg, the sole UB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Here's one - http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg24-e.htm

Here's another - http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg05-e.htm

The list goes on, so I take it you though of WWII only, I didn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is recoil operation that in fact is "inherently more reliable" - if you had belt fed recoil operated mg with absurdly long belt, you could fire it as long as tou wished, until parts wearing off, with no maintenece whatsoever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, even with water cooled barrel, since driving spring rod assembly is right over the bolt/barrel lifter/extension group, heating causes spring to loose its temper (at 700+F) which results in ROF roll, which in turn forces belt feed drift/lag.

Same as with gas operated that had their recoil spring housed around the gas piston. Modern designs place recoil spring and guide rod within the hollow interior of the piston extension assembly.

Note that those huge retracting slide assembly slits are not there just for good looks, they help to cool barrel extension/lifter assembly and bolt group/rod assembly.

The bigger recoil = longer guide rod/spring, resulting in uneven heat distribution and higher probability of temper failure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In gas operated weapon on said conditions, you would have clean gas orifice at some point. Not that it makes practical differece, due to gas regulators and barrel change capability in weapons supposed to fire really long bursts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. Do to the loose tolerances of PKM for example, its three stage gas regulator allows for sequential regulation so overpressure is compensated. No overpressure no bolt/piston slam.

Barrel burn is no longer an issue, look here;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">New barrel is heavy and ribbed, and enclosed in the metallic sleeve. During the fire, the hot powder gases emerging from the barrel cause the air in the sleeve to circulate along the barrel and cool it, so a sustained rate of fire of about 1000 rounds per hour, or about 600 rounds in long, sucesing bursts of 40-50 rounds each, can be maintained without any decrease of performance or barrel life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

During testing at one sitting 10 thousand round were fired at 1000 rounds per hour was with out a single stoppage. Considering that the barrel life is 30K, the weapon expended one third of its life with out a malfunction.

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg30-e.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no such thing like is "Advanced Primer Ignition barrel recoil"-----

----I knew it would happen, so I added even "barrel" You dont have a tiniest idea what are you talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pardon me? Or should I say "like is"?

You post some "API barrel recoil" nonsence, for the lack on any ideas to what the heck you meant I give you a link to an actual explanation to what API is, and now you're backtracking and trying to say that it was some sort of ingenious trap? How old are you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You cant tell differece between the very basic terms, so let me help you a bit. In blowback operation, regular or advanced primer ignition, the part that moves is bolt only - barrel is stationary. In recoil operation, short or long, barrel is locked with bolt during projectile movement through bore and said recoiling group moves back due to recoil, thus powering mechanism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want to talk shop? Ok then.

Here's what I got on my desk right now, half-**** locked breech rotating barrel with a single locking lug in a cam track.

You got only about three choices in that category, and with the details given you should know exactly what I'm talking about.

After getting really familiar with what a single lug really is (at least 7 thousand rounds worth of familiarity), what I really want is a fixed barrel gas ******ed squeeze cocking double stacker, but since they are impossible to find I'll have to settle for a short-recoil locked-breech striker with a chamber indicator and a grip safety.

I see google in your near future, while people who know what they're talking about will immediately identify every item in this round up with out thinking twice. Break a leg.

LStarosta
06-10-2006, 07:36 PM
Sounds like a bad sex toy.

What did I win?

Sergio_101
06-10-2006, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Sergio_101:
Please show me the evidence.
Gun camera evidence and crash sites were
required during the Korean war.

Evidence is iron clad.

Don't tell me that Oleg said so.....

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So much for your 'iron clad' gun camera evidence. So the Americans visited MiG crash sites deep in Communist territory. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

These are the top 5 American aces.

Capt. Joseph M. McConnell: 16.0/13.0 - 51st FIW

Maj. James Jabara: 15.0/13.0 4th FIW

Capt. Manuel J. "Pete" Fernandez: 14.5/13.5 - 4th FIW

Maj. George A. Davis: 14.0/10.0 4th FIW

Col. Royal N. Baker: 13.0/11.0 - 4th FIW

The second number is the adjustment per Soviet data.

In the years since the breakup of the old Soviet Union, records relating to the Korean War have come to light. Aviation history researchers like Cookie Sewall and Diego Zampini have pored over these records and have been able to correlate Soviet records of specific aerial battles on specific dates, and thus documented certain over-claims by the USAF pilots.

Now you can continue in your fantasy world if you want. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dang, I got no use for idiots, and you have proven yourself
worthy of that title.

That is why the USAF adjusted the previous claim
down to 10:1 from 14:1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sergio

danjama
06-10-2006, 08:50 PM
So anyway, the shop owner didnt let me exchenge it. I was angry of course, but no biggie, i could also see his point....

LStarosta
06-10-2006, 09:53 PM
You bought a fiddy?

PSYOP_mongoose
06-11-2006, 03:23 AM
LStarosta, LOL! Good going ladhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Man, I can see it now, a pair of "trendy" guys in BOSE QuietComfort "ear protection" headphones and ballistic glasses, shooting a nickel plated .50 DE, and then saying something like---

"Oh yea, I'll take a ******ed squeeze cocking double stacker over a half-cocking single locking lug any day!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Your prise is a tip of the day.

Today's tidbit is the true meaning of the term "feminist".

While we are lead to believe that it represents some liberation movement, its true definition is "feminine communist", and that's just gotta be pure evilhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
06-11-2006, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
There were no API blowback operated hmgs dummie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said they were?

Please read again - "<span class="ev_code_RED">Recoil operated .50 cal Browning is inferior to API and gas operated HMGs of the same caliber</span>."

Focus on this part "API &gt;AND&lt; gas operated HMGs of the same caliber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooo you not only have no knowledge on guns, but also problems with logical thinking I see. <span class="ev_code_RED">Above </span> statement assumes existance of "API HMGs of the same caliber".


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
There were no "gas operated HMGs". There was A gas operated hmg, the sole UB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Here's one - http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg24-e.htm

Here's another - http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg05-e.htm

The list goes on, so I take it you though of WWII only, I didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didnt have to "take", as it was written. Comprehensive reading problems too... For what I said was:
"There were no "gas operated HMGs". There was A gas operated hmg, the sole UB. All other air-used hmgs, Italian, Japanese, German ones were recoil opearted."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
It is recoil operation that in fact is "inherently more reliable" - if you had belt fed recoil operated mg with absurdly long belt, you could fire it as long as tou wished, until parts wearing off, with no maintenece whatsoever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, even with water cooled barrel, since driving spring rod assembly is right over the bolt/barrel lifter/extension group, heating causes spring to loose its temper (at 700+F) which results in ROF roll, which in turn forces belt feed drift/lag.
Same as with gas operated that had their recoil spring housed around the gas piston. Modern designs place recoil spring and guide rod within the hollow interior of the piston extension assembly.
Note that those huge retracting slide assembly slits are not there just for good looks, they help to cool barrel extension/lifter assembly and bolt group/rod assembly.

The bigger recoil = longer guide rod/spring, resulting in uneven heat distribution and higher probability of temper failure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Such a long speach, mostly gibberish admittedly, and still useless: show me recoil operated weapon, other than pistol naturally, with operating spring located over barrelhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In gas operated weapon on said conditions, you would have clean gas orifice at some point. Not that it makes practical differece, due to gas regulators and barrel change capability in weapons supposed to fire really long bursts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. Do to the loose tolerances of PKM for example, its three stage gas regulator allows for sequential regulation so overpressure is compensated. No overpressure no bolt/piston slam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What tolerances? What overpressure? WTF are you gibbering about? You have absolutely no idea on gas operated weapons! Gas orifice or port in barrel gets fouled and requires cleaning after a number of shots - as shown on page 71, bottom right of this: http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/sa80.pdf

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:

Barrel burn is no longer an issue, look here;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">New barrel is heavy and ribbed, and enclosed in the metallic sleeve. During the fire, the hot powder gases emerging from the barrel cause the air in the sleeve to circulate along the barrel and cool it, so a sustained rate of fire of about 1000 rounds per hour, or about 600 rounds in long, sucesing bursts of 40-50 rounds each, can be maintained without any decrease of performance or barrel life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

During testing at one sitting 10 thousand round were fired at 1000 rounds per hour was with out a single stoppage. Considering that the barrel life is 30K, the weapon expended one third of its life with out a malfunction.

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg30-e.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Russians say it is in case of their Pecheng GPMG. What about ALL other world's mgs? Not to mention numbers quoted there for sustined and intence fire are pathetically low - if there was no error in units, and totally unbelivable if they meant "per minute". Btw. idea of barrel in sleeve and gun gas inducted air flow is just copied from WW1 Lewis lmg. As Max Popenker says there idea is contoversial. Quick change barrel mgs can fire with intesity Pecheng cant even dream about, i.e. at cyclic rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
There is no such thing like is "Advanced Primer Ignition barrel recoil"-----

----I knew it would happen, so I added even "barrel" You dont have a tiniest idea what are you talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pardon me? Or should I say "like is"?

You post some "API barrel recoil" nonsence, for the lack on any ideas to what the heck you meant I give you a link to an actual explanation to what API is, and now you're backtracking and trying to say that it was some sort of ingenious trap? How old are you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Actually it was you who invented "API recoil"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
not even a mention of API recoil, which Browning was not </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I agree - your idea is nonsense.
You gave link to explanation of API BLOWBACK. Any kind of *recoil* operation means recoil of barrel. But how would you know...

luftluuver
06-11-2006, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Dang, I got no use for idiots, and you have proven yourself
worthy of that title.

That is why the USAF adjusted the previous claim
down to 10:1 from 14:1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If you have no use for idiots then pray tell, how do you live with yourself or even look in a mirror? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Can you put down that red, white, blue star spangled painted shovel? A book by B Gunston published in 1981, 10 years before the SU's breakup, btw, has 792 MiG vs 78 F-86.

Xiolablu3
06-11-2006, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Sergio_101:
Please show me the evidence.
Gun camera evidence and crash sites were
required during the Korean war.

Evidence is iron clad.

Don't tell me that Oleg said so.....

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So much for your 'iron clad' gun camera evidence. So the Americans visited MiG crash sites deep in Communist territory. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

These are the top 5 American aces.

Capt. Joseph M. McConnell: 16.0/13.0 - 51st FIW

Maj. James Jabara: 15.0/13.0 4th FIW

Capt. Manuel J. "Pete" Fernandez: 14.5/13.5 - 4th FIW

Maj. George A. Davis: 14.0/10.0 4th FIW

Col. Royal N. Baker: 13.0/11.0 - 4th FIW

The second number is the adjustment per Soviet data.

In the years since the breakup of the old Soviet Union, records relating to the Korean War have come to light. Aviation history researchers like Cookie Sewall and Diego Zampini have pored over these records and have been able to correlate Soviet records of specific aerial battles on specific dates, and thus documented certain over-claims by the USAF pilots.

Now you can continue in your fantasy world if you want. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dang, I got no use for idiots, and you have proven yourself
worthy of that title.

That is why the USAF adjusted the previous claim
down to 10:1 from 14:1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm Sergio do you really believe those 10:1 claims?

If that was correct then why has the Mig15 such a fearsome reputation? If 10:1 were correct then it would have been a turkey shoot.

DO you not see how important it was for the US to appear to be far superior to the 'evil' communists?

I dont know for sure, I dont know a lot about the Korean war, but any intelliegent person would tell you to take those claims with a pinch of salt. (even Americans)

Also if the top American Aces only acheieved 10:1, as LL has posted, then the total claims can only go down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I think he thought you would work this out on your own when he posted the figures, but obviously you didnt...

No country is immune from propaganda. See this video for a great piece from my own country http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7959339676002643644

Far superior to the 109F4!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Dtools4fools
06-11-2006, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No country is immune from propaganda. See this video for a great piece from my own country Big Grin

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7959339676002643644

Far superior to the 109F4!!! bow Veryhappy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I watched this too a few days ago...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

horseback
06-11-2006, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If that was correct then why has the Mig15 such a fearsome reputation? If 10:1 were correct then it would have been a turkey shoot.

DO you not see how important it was for the US to appear to be far superior to the 'evil' communists? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all, the USAF claim ratio overall was adjusted down to 10:1 over Korea, and it was still a turkey shoot. The majority of the MiG-15 victims were piloted by Koreans and Chinese, much less well-trained and experienced than the Americans they faced, negating whatever advantages they had in their aircraft.

The MiG itself didn't have that awesome a reputation, except that it demonstrated a much greater technical sophistication than the West expected (primarily on the strength of a British engine design). It could fly a bit higher and had slightly better accelleration than the F-86 due to its lighter weight, but the Sabre was just as fast, better in the dive, and more maneuverable than the less aerodynamically sophisticated MiG. The MIGs heavier armament was also significantly slower firing, and further hampered by a relatively primative sighting/aiming system.

The Sabre's 6x.50 armament was less effective, but the radar assisted ranging/aiming system made hits much more likely, particularly with a combat experienced pilot at the controls.

In fact, when these two aircraft met, the reality is that the issue was decided by pilot skill in most cases. US and later, Nationalist Chinese pilots facing MiGs over Korea and the Straits of Formosa simply held most of those cards.

Given that the Sabre's Korean combat missions were usually flown at the far end of their combat radius (and at the far end of a very long logistics chain) and that the MiGs held the altitude advantage at the start of many, if not most encounters, the USAF's mastery was quite decisive, whether it was a 7:1 or 14:1 ratio.

Simply put, there was no need to exaggerate; the claims were made in good faith, and were comparable in their accuracy to late-war USAAF claims to actual enemy loss ratios, also achieved over enemy held territory where one could not visit & count crash sites.

While I recognize that propaganda was used by both sides in the Cold War, I cannot comprehend the need of some persons to pretend to greater sophistication by morally equating the two sides. If they had been morally the same, Xiolablu, somebody would have been knocking at your door to take you to an Anglo-American gulag long ago.

cheers

horseback

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2006, 01:16 PM
Discussion of .50 power to 20mm power is all fine if the targets are armor or the range is far.
But in WWII the planes being shot at by those .50's were not generally beyond the power of the
AP to damage severely at the ranges involved or even twice so far. Range limits were more
about time of travel to the target and target movement during that time than kinetic energy.
Those same .50's shot through heavier ground vehicles at longer ranges.

Where a full set of .50's had -an- edge is total Rate Of Fire as in more chance of hits and
criticals, esp on deflection shots. At least some 20mm's have been noted as slow firing for
air to air purposes and yet some Aces did manage to tactic their way around it.

Yes the Russian UB guns were better as while MV and bullet mass were less, the ROF was so much
better. But the US did not have UB's or perhaps politics prevented their acceptance in US.
We know that money and politics, who got what did have a large part of who made what.

For the 20mm though, delayed burst HE does get big approval with me. If you hit, it counts
3x... more for MG shell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LStarosta
06-11-2006, 01:26 PM
Look, I flew the sabre back in 2004(FS) and I know it pwnz so lets just close this book.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a6/CWD/F-86-2006-may-1-011.jpg

jimDG
06-11-2006, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Yes the Russian UB guns were better as while MV and bullet mass were less, the ROF was so much
better. But the US did not have UB's or perhaps politics prevented their acceptance in US.
We know that money and politics, who got what did have a large part of who made what.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russian 20mm and .50cal are lighter and have a higher ROF than western counterparts simply becase they were designed to last 1000 rounds, while the Hispano and Brownings were designed to last 10000 rounds.
Having lighter mechanism elements lowers thier inertia and raises ROF considerably, but also makes them break after the 1000th round rather than the 10 000 round.

In reality, few fighters on any side survived long enough (or got the opportunity) to shoot more than 1000 rounds from their guns.

Simple.

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2006, 09:54 PM
More real they might have gotten 2000 shots before needing to replace, but accuracy would
suffer some time beyond 1000-1200 depending on how long bursts used and time to cool between.

You know that how long the bursts you fire makes even more difference?
Sustained fire with .50 BMG's had worn barrels out in one strafing sortie, under 1000 rounds.

I know of early tests with water cooled Brownings that continuous fired amazingly long,
but those were water jacket cooled MG's. Makes me wonder that no one put a sleeve on a .50
and ran water over the barrel and out... well no because it would freeze solid at high alt
and crack the pipe.

fordfan25
06-11-2006, 11:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
More real they might have gotten 2000 shots before needing to replace, but accuracy would
suffer some time beyond 1000-1200 depending on how long bursts used and time to cool between.

You know that how long the bursts you fire makes even more difference?
Sustained fire with .50 BMG's had worn barrels out in one strafing sortie, under 1000 rounds.

I know of early tests with water cooled Brownings that continuous fired amazingly long,
but those were water jacket cooled MG's. Makes me wonder that no one put a sleeve on a .50
and ran water over the barrel and out... well no because it would freeze solid at high alt
and crack the pipe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>pluse would add weight......hmmmmmm would make good use of piolet "waist" yea just get him to drink 12 bottles of water befor a mission LOL

Xiolablu3
06-12-2006, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If that was correct then why has the Mig15 such a fearsome reputation? If 10:1 were correct then it would have been a turkey shoot.

DO you not see how important it was for the US to appear to be far superior to the 'evil' communists? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all, the USAF claim ratio overall was adjusted down to 10:1 over Korea, and it was still a turkey shoot. The majority of the MiG-15 victims were piloted by Koreans and Chinese, much less well-trained and experienced than the Americans they faced, negating whatever advantages they had in their aircraft.


horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But Horseback, just how do you work the maths out from the top US aces then?

If what Lufluuver posted are the top US Aces and they scored slightly over 10 to 1, then EVERY US pilot in the airforce flying Sabres must have scored 9:1 , 10:1 to keep that average at 10:1&gt;?

Or is my maths suffering in my old age?

PSYOP_mongoose
06-12-2006, 07:36 AM
Oh this just made me cringe;

horseback
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Simply put, there was no need to exaggerate; the claims were made in good faith </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, ain't that something! Tell that to any vet that was doing the war and not pushing papers, and he'll tell you exactly how the kill cards are filled out.

What a load of crapp.

This is even better;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While I recognize that propaganda was used by both sides in the Cold War, I cannot comprehend the need of some persons to pretend to greater sophistication by morally equating the two sides. If they had been morally the same, Xiolablu, somebody would have been knocking at your door to take you to an Anglo-American gulag long ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Morality? You kiddin me? The current reality is that the number of incarcerated Americans is higher then the gulags.

Granted, in gulags prisoners were worked to death, while in our prisons our tax dollars are spent on cable TV, gyms, pools, and other "necessities".

When the budgets are finally cut, those "privately" owned prisons immediately began farming out their "labor force" to everything from construction to 1-800 costumer service, so that Anglo-American gulag has been here for quiet some time now mr. horseback, and that's exactly why 10 year sentences are regularly handed out for a possession of a single joint.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It could fly a bit higher and had slightly better acceleration than the F-86 due to its lighter weight, but the Sabre was just as fast, better in the dive, and more maneuverable than the less aerodynamically sophisticated MiG. The MIGs heavier armament was also significantly slower firing, and further hampered by a relatively primative sighting/aiming system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? MiG-15 "less aerodynamically sophisticated"? Where the heck did you get that from? F-86 had higher sustained speed, that's
it.

When the Brits got their hand on one they were shocked to find that "MiGs were built like a Rolls Royce".

MiG-15 guns hampered? 23mm shells were realistically matched to 37mm shell which weighed almost two pounds. As soon as 23s begin to strike a single burst from a 37 and it's all over.

You are absolutely correct on importance of pilot skill though. It was the deciding factor no doubt about it. Both MiG-15s and F-86s gun arrangements were a poor choice for the pilots flying them.

Inexperienced MiG pilots would have been much better of with the spray-and-pray .50s, while experienced F-86 pilots would have simply devastated every target in range with an excellent 23X2+37X1 arrangement.

Russian pilots that flew in Korean were WWII vets so they were used to firing cannons, and they swore by the 23X2+37X1 arrangement as the best thing since sliced bread.

Some time ago I watched a HC documentary with interviews of both US and Russian pilots that fought in Korea.

While US pilots repeatedly stated that .50s just did not do the job, Russian pilots said that it must have been very frustrating for US pilots to pull a good lead and fire the guns with little result.

Xiolablu3
06-12-2006, 07:52 AM
MY stupid country gave a away the Rolls Royce jet design to the Russians over a game of snooker. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I guess it was in good faith at the time, but it was soon turned against us.

I dont know enough about the Korean war to keep adding stuff really, but please, keep talking, its very interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

One thing I do remember was an interview with the Korean Mig pilot, saying that his planes often took hits from the Sabres guns and got home safely. But if a Sabre was hit, it almost always went down. Not very scientific, but interesting comment nonetheless.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-12-2006, 08:28 AM
Pilot experience alone makes no difference if a wing does not work together and this is exactly where US pilots had a decisive edge.

Chinese and Korean languages were complete not suited for comm use. A slight change in intonation completely changes the meaning of a word and sentence, so radio distortion/interference resulted in complete comm gibberish. Basic commands were so long that they could not be used effectively anyway, so Chinese/Korean pilots could not coordinate worth of crapp even between themselves.

It took a while for useful terminology to be developed, and it's during that time they took most of their losses.

At first Russian instructors were used only to train pilots, but do to high loss rate, pilots could not be trained in sufficient numbers so Russian pilots were ordered to get up there and do some damage. Since Soviet involvement could not be made public, radios were literally ripped out from MiGs piloted by Russians, thus effectively negating any advantage of pilot experience.

After all the time it took to develop standardised comm terminology, it took even more time to retrain Russian pilots to speak it in order to allow them the use of the radios.

Basically a damn mess all around, but what else can be expected when nations that never fought an air war are out fighting a jet age battle against a super power like US.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-12-2006, 08:43 AM
Just to add to that, I'm positive that if the Sabres were armed with 20mm cannons, MiG-15 losses would have been so high that total air superiority could have been achieved, and that would have drastically changed the course of war.

Since a lot of MiG-15s regularly came home even after being thoroughly shot up by .50s it allowed them to build a base of experience pilots, but most importantly it was a great moral lifting factor for green pilots.

There is no better morale lifting sight for fresh pilots then regularly seeing other pilots make it home after taking massive damage.

For fresh pilots knowing that they are in fact inexperienced, and also knowing that they have a chance of surviving even if they get shot up, greatly help them in dealing with fear.

It helps them think that even if they make a mistake, they still have a good chance of coming home alive.

Kocur_
06-12-2006, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I guess it was in good faith at the time, but it was soon turned against us.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good faith indeed in a way... as it was Commu...eee Labour Party government that made this decision...

horseback
06-12-2006, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But Horseback, just how do you work the maths out from the top US aces then?

If what Lufluuver posted are the top US Aces and they scored slightly over 10 to 1, then EVERY US pilot in the airforce flying Sabres must have scored 9:1 , 10:1 to keep that average at 10:1&gt;?

Or is my maths suffering in my old age? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your maths are suffering from worse than old age, mate. The OVERALL overclaim ratio for US pilots matched the 7:5 ratio that the top pilots had, an indication that they all had about the same level of optimism.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">These are the top 5 American aces.

Capt. Joseph M. McConnell: 16.0/13.0 - 51st FIW

Maj. James Jabara: 15.0/13.0 4th FIW

Capt. Manuel J. "Pete" Fernandez: 14.5/13.5 - 4th FIW

Maj. George A. Davis: 14.0/10.0 4th FIW

Col. Royal N. Baker: 13.0/11.0 - 4th FIW

The second number is the adjustment per Soviet data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Some of these are better, some are worse than 7:5. I suspect that these would be consistant with the overall 'spread' within the combat fighter pilots who served in Korea.

You may not be aware of this, but the Air Force made sure that most of the Sabre pilots sent to Korea were combat experienced; there were plenty of WWII veterans available, and unless they were already in a deployed unit heavily leavened with veteran combat pilots, pilots with low jet hours and no combat time had a tough time getting orders for Korea until fairly late in the conflict. As I said, the Sabre drivers in Korea maintained a pretty high level of professionalism, and an initial overclaim ratio of 7:5 was unheard of for the early rounds of a conflict before Korea.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing I do remember was an interview with the Korean Mig pilot, saying that his planes often took hits from the Sabres guns and got home safely. But if a Sabre was hit, it almost always went down. Not very scientific, but interesting comment nonetheless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Considering that the Sabres were operating at the far end of their endurance, well over enemy territory, any damage had the potential to be critical. It was very much like being hit over Berlin during the height of the daylight bombing campaign; damage that would allow you to safely set down within a half hour led to US fighter pilots and their aircraft being lost, while the more fragile 109s and FWs made it back to base with comparable damage.

It's not exactly a fair comparison.

cheers

horseback

horseback
06-12-2006, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Oh this just made me cringe;

horseback
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Simply put, there was no need to exaggerate; the claims were made in good faith </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, ain't that something! Tell that to any vet that was doing the war and not pushing papers, and he'll tell you exactly how the kill cards are filled out.

What a load of crapp. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow. This is just what I need to wake up to on a Monday morning. Maybe this is what you think from chatting up a few fellow soreheads & know-it-alls, but I literally grew up on US Air Force bases from my birth in Great Britan in 1953 (where my father was stationed at RAF Wethersfield) to right after my 1971 high school graduation in Tucson, AZ (where the Old Man retired from the USAF at Davis-Monthan AFB). I went to the same church services, I went to school with their kids (I even dated some of their daughters), and I carried their groceries out to their cars while I worked as a bagboy at the Base comissary. That was hardly the sum total of my contact, but it gives you some basis for comparison. Since then, I served a tour in the Navy, and worked the last 25+ years in the defense business as a field engineer, often in close contact with those on the cutting edge (I'm working on a USMC system this year).

In my experience, the overwhelming majority of USAF officers, and especially the Korea-era combat veterans were very high caliber people in every sense of the word. I literally cannot imagine them lying (and necessarily entering into a conspiracy to lie by falsifying their gun camera film, rehearsing their stories with their wingmen and squadronmates, and somehow 'fixing' the radar pickets' reports and afteraction recon photos of land crash sites).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is even better;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While I recognize that propaganda was used by both sides in the Cold War, I cannot comprehend the need of some persons to pretend to greater sophistication by morally equating the two sides. If they had been morally the same, Xiolablu, somebody would have been knocking at your door to take you to an Anglo-American gulag long ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Morality? You kiddin me? The current reality is that the number of incarcerated Americans is higher then the gulags.

Granted, in gulags prisoners were worked to death, while in our prisons our tax dollars are spent on cable TV, gyms, pools, and other "necessities".

When the budgets are finally cut, those "privately" owned prisons immediately began farming out their "labor force" to everything from construction to 1-800 costumer service, so that Anglo-American gulag has been here for quiet some time now mr. horseback, and that's exactly why 10 year sentences are regularly handed out for a possession of a single joint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, that clears up what you've been smoking, anyway. Typical left wing rant by a liberal who hasn't been mugged or burglarized yet.

My point stands. Your point appears to be the usual America-is-evil-because-it-hasn't-lived-PRECISELY-up-to-my-high-but-unenunciated-and-just-a-bit-inconsistant-moral-standards song and dance.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It could fly a bit higher and had slightly better acceleration than the F-86 due to its lighter weight, but the Sabre was just as fast, better in the dive, and more maneuverable than the less aerodynamically sophisticated MiG. The MIGs heavier armament was also significantly slower firing, and further hampered by a relatively primative sighting/aiming system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? MiG-15 "less aerodynamically sophisticated"? Where the heck did you get that from? F-86 had higher sustained speed, that's it.

When the Brits got their hand on one they were shocked to find that "MiGs were built like a Rolls Royce". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>MiG ENGINES were built like Rolls Royce because they were designed by Rolls Royce. The rest of the MiG's construction and finish was typically shoddy Soviet workmanship. Successful Soviet weapon designs usually took the distractions of the 'Workers' Paradise' into account, and made things as simple, reliable, and idiot-proof as possible. At the height of the Cold War, client states of the Soviet Union wanted their weapons built in Czechoslovakia or East Germany for excellent reason. India preferred to build their own MiGs, and Pakistan bought its MiG copies from China. MUCH better quality.

I said "aerodynamically more sophisticated" because I had just read a quote from a Soviet colonel (Lebov?-I'm away from my home, and I can't remember) who had flown over Korea against the Americans that used those same words. It's in Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces' volume on the Korean War in the section comparing the MiG to the F-86. He also said that the F-86 was more maneuverable than the MiG, and that the sighting system was superior. Chuck Yeager said much the same things from his test flights of the defector's MiG-15 right after the conflict.

I figure that those two were sufficiently authoritive sources to say that the Sabre was better in those areas.

More sophisticated aerodynamic design is how you get a faster, more maneuverable airplane in spite of a lower thrust-to-weight don'tcha know...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiG-15 guns hampered? 23mm shells were realistically matched to 37mm shell which weighed almost two pounds. As soon as 23s begin to strike a single burst from a 37 and it's all over.

You are absolutely correct on importance of pilot skill though. It was the deciding factor no doubt about it. Both MiG-15s and F-86s gun arrangements were a poor choice for the pilots flying them.

Inexperienced MiG pilots would have been much better of with the spray-and-pray .50s, while experienced F-86 pilots would have simply devastated every target in range with an excellent 23X2+37X1 arrangement.

Russian pilots that flew in Korean were WWII vets so they were used to firing cannons, and they swore by the 23X2+37X1 arrangement as the best thing since sliced bread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Soviet sources I've read complained that the cannon (particularly the 37mm) tended to fire a bit slowly, and that the 37mm 'lobbed' its rounds, so the likelihood of being able to hit with the 37mm at the same time as the 23mms was dependent upon both sets of guns and the target being at the same convergence range. Using the basic reflector sights available on the early MiG-15s was little help for any kind of deflection shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some time ago I watched a HC documentary with interviews of both US and Russian pilots that fought in Korea.

While US pilots repeatedly stated that .50s just did not do the job, Russian pilots said that it must have been very frustrating for US pilots to pull a good lead and fire the guns with little result. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>History Channel? Oooooh, now there's some validation for you!

Let's boil it down to what happened: unless you were very good with those cannon, you couldn't hit your target at the greater ranges at which cannon were effective (and there were damned few men skilled enough to do that consistantly with the basic reflector sight the MiG came with in Korea). MiG drivers usually had to use the classic WWII tactic of getting in close enough that the enemy a/c's tailpipe filled the windscreen and then pulled the trigger.

Conversely, because the .50 wasn't very effective at the longer ranges that their sights allowed them to get strikes, the Americans too had to get right on top of their targets before they pulled the trigger. In a maneuvering dogfight, the F-86, with its superior maneuvering response & better speed allowed them to tuck in on their targets more consistantly, or rollout and dive to escape when the situation called for it than the MiGs could, in spite of the tactical situation usually favoring the MiGs flying higher over their own territory.

As I pointed out in my earlier posts, even if the Sabre drivers' advantage was 'only' 7:1 instead of the initilly supposed 14:1, it was still a thorough butt-kicking, whether I'm a flag-waving, jingoistic Yankee running dog imperialist lackey or not.

cheers

horseback

Kocur_
06-12-2006, 12:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Oh and MiG-15 indeed was "less aerodynamically sophisticated". Exceeding Ma=1 in MiG-15 was dangerous, while F-86 behaved well not only at low speeds (those slats!) AND was able to exceed speed of sound in dive, shallow one was enough btw, with little if any problems.

zeno303
06-12-2006, 12:24 PM
Against other fighter planes, IMO, the only place 6 fiftys are inadequit is in some WWII flight sims. US fighters rarely took on bombers. More often tha not, that was in the Pacific, where flameable Japanes bombers could be taken down with a BB gun.

If US fighters had to go against heavy bombers on a regular basis, they could have used canon and more of them probably would have been armed with them. (The Brits added then during the BOB for that reason)

That's why the P-38 & P-39s had them -- to defend the US against long range bombers that never materialized.

Xiolablu3
06-12-2006, 12:28 PM
I am confused by the 7:5 stuff.

Are you guys saying that the real ratio was not 10:1 but 1.33333:1

Is it 7 migs shot down for every 5 Sabres lost?

berg417448
06-12-2006, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I am confused by the 7:5 stuff.

Are you guys saying that the real ratio was not 10:1 but 1.33333:1

Is it 7 migs shot down for every 5 Sabres lost? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he means 5 actual kills for every 7 kills claimed. Pretty good claim accuracy, if true.

horseback
06-12-2006, 01:40 PM
Sorry, Xiolablu, yes, I'm talking about 7 kills claimed for every five actually confirmed by correlating Soviet/Chinese/North Korean date/time losses. This would have reduced the overall win to loss ratio from the originally believed 14 victories for every pilot shot down to a mere 10:1.

I suspect that in most cases, the sixth and seventh aircraft claimed were rendered hors de combat, that is, disabled and out of the fight, but managed to limp back to base to be repaired and/or the pilot hospitalized.

You can take the overall losses at face value, i.e., if the Americans claimed X number of victories on a certain day/place/time and the other side's records reflect Y number (where Y=5/7[X])of losses, but I question whether you can consistantly identify a specific pilot's actual victims using that method, unless his were the only claims made on the time and place in question.

cheers

horseback

PSYOP_mongoose
06-12-2006, 03:17 PM
Oh please, all the chest pounding is making me sick.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe this is what you think from chatting up a few fellow soreheads & know-it-alls, but I literally grew up on US Air Force bases from my birth in Great Britan in 1953 (where my father was stationed at RAF Wethersfield) to right after my 1971 high school graduation in Tucson, AZ (where the Old Man retired from the USAF at Davis-Monthan AFB). I went to the same church services, I went to school with their kids (I even dated some of their daughters), and I carried their groceries out to their cars while I worked as a bagboy at the Base comissary. That was hardly the sum total of my contact, but it gives you some basis for comparison. Since then, I served a tour in the Navy, and worked the last 25+ years in the defense business as a field engineer, often in close contact with those on the cutting edge (I'm working on a USMC system this year). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My gramps was yanking and banking all the way through WWII. Early on a 20mm shell hit his armored plate, busted it open and shrapnel split his guts all over the dash/canopy. He made it to base, crash landed and after recovery volunteered to rejoin.

My other gramps was a recon paratrooper, the type of guy that gets dropped behind enemy lines to scout things out, set up transponders, so on.

Captured by the Germans twice, escaped and rejoined both times.

Both decorated to the point of medal "weight" issue.

My dad served in Turkey (USAF comm surveillance) and later as a AFOSI officer, now retired.

What I do is none of anybodies business, and if some get overly interested, it's no longer up to me.

It all boils down to so what, big deal, make your own sense.

If you're all hot and bothered about score cards, look up the stats in WWII. High altitude engagements were regularly counted as double and triple kills on the same target unless it didn't explode for everyone to see.

As soon as there's a smoke trail everybody takes a pass and counts it as a kill, and it all has nothing to do with USAF, EVERY AF dealt with over counts regularly so get of the high horse and get real.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I literally cannot imagine them lying (and necessarily entering into a conspiracy to lie by falsifying their gun camera film, rehearsing their stories with their wingmen and squadronmates, and somehow 'fixing' the radar pickets' reports and afteraction recon photos of land crash sites). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please, it's not about lying, you got a bunch of young kids flying around in a mess shooting stuff up, no lying is necessary, it's called "the fog of war".

Talking about professionals and "high caliber people", when a simple car accident happens it doesn't matter who they are and everybody has a different story.

I've been in situations which happened so fast, that for the life of me I though that I was completely positive on what happened, only later to find out that I was totally wrong. It's human nature, all it is.

As to all other "talking points", by seeing where you coming from I know for a fact that trying to make any kind of sense to you will only end up as a waste of time. You're that type of patriot that blindly believes in your own complete superiority until that inferior enemy sticks a round up your rear end.

It's the mentality of a suck-up corporal, until he fs up and gets sent up to where all the business is, and there that kind of talk falls right of.

I'm done with this particular non issue.

Here's what I do want to know. In the setup up menu, Is it possible to tow in the convergence for each pair of .50s or is it total convergence only?

Because talking about accuracy of the .50s, I'm getting pretty tired of all the rudder work when targets are closer then the convergence set in the setup menu.

I'd like to try an even spread like 200 for the inner pair, 250 for the mids, and 300 on the outs.

Any ideas?

berg417448
06-12-2006, 03:25 PM
You can set up the 50's convergence sort of like that on the P-47. Setting Cannon convergence controls one pair of guns and Machine gun convergence controls the other pair of guns...so you can have 4 of the guns converge at one distance and the other 4 converge at a second distance.

horseback
06-12-2006, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to all other "talking points", by seeing where you coming from I know for a fact that trying to make any kind of sense to you will only end up as a waste of time. You're that type of patriot that blindly believes in your own complete superiority until that inferior enemy sticks a round up your rear end.

It's the mentality of a suck-up corporal, until he fs up and gets sent up to where all the business is, and there that kind of talk falls right of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your description of high alt battle is appropriate to late WWII over Germany, where the excessive numbers of bomber gunners and Allied escorts might have had that sort of result some of the time.

Korea was a matter of small unit engagements when we're talking about fighter sweeps along the Yalu. There were very few fights where the outnumbered F-86s had enough extra bodies to spare to chase after somebody else's 'smoker'. They were too busy shooting or avoiding being shot at.

The point that we were talking about was originally whether the claims made in Korea were legitimate. A ratio of seven awarded claims for every five actual kills (confirmed by enemy records) over enemy territory is pretty close to as good as you can hope for in the aforementioned fog of war.

As for my patriotism, yeah, I guess if I've been to lots of other countries, learned to make myself understood in their language, picked up on some of the local culture and still think my country is better for me in most ways, I suppose I'm beyond the reach of your inherent moral superiority.

I've been there, I've handled the Soviet gear, and I've talked to some of the airmen, soldiers and sailers who used it, occasionally in their own language. Our stuff was better in the '50s, went to s**t in the 60s and 70s, and just became overwhelmingly better by the mid 80s by most meaningful qualitative standards.

If that makes you unhappy, stick around, cowboy. I'll be sticking the spurs in you again.

horseback

fordfan25
06-12-2006, 06:06 PM
if those 37MM's on the mig were anything like the big cannon on the p63 i would have wanted it removed to eather save weight or add another 23mm

PSYOP_mongoose
06-12-2006, 06:14 PM
Thanks berg417448, I didn't think of that, I'll give it a try.

Here we go again and the south is getting deeper.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for my patriotism, yeah, I guess if I've been to lots of other countries, learned to make myself understood in their language, picked up on some of the local culture and still think my country is better for me in most ways, I suppose I'm beyond the reach of your inherent moral superiority.

I've been there, I've handled the Soviet gear, and I've talked to some of the airmen, soldiers and sailers who used it, occasionally in their own language. Our stuff was better in the '50s, went to s**t in the 60s and 70s, and just became overwhelmingly better by the mid 80s by most meaningful qualitative standards.

If that makes you unhappy, stick around, cowboy. I'll be sticking the spurs in you again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look who's talking gear! Sure bud, keep on ridin'. My pops took Russian in college for a carrier in USAF/AFOSI, and I'm fluent in Russian as well.

If by now you don't know that Pentagon/DOD is all about the lobby contracts and state politics, go rent 'Pentagon Wars' and have a few laughs at the expense of every tax dollar squandered into the pockets of "retired stars" that went "private sector".

Feel free to flip a couple of pages back to AVRO Arrow, a complete decimation of Canadian aircraft industry and resulting brain-drain into US high-tech. Point a finger at any worthwhile program and you'll find an ex-Avro employee.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">overwhelmingly better by the mid 80s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh if it was funny I'd laugh - Again, 'Pentagon Wars' will hit the sweet spot just right. 15 Billion dollars and over TWENTY years of development all for a POS that Israelis would not even buy with out scroll of required modifications. "They knew it was a death trap by looking at it."

All while our boys in Iraq are riding in a poor mans APC, aka pseudo-armored Humvee. Slow, no firepower, and even with armor it's still a death trap. No fire suppression, ah screw it I'm not even going to start it's to depressing, all the boys lost cause a bunch of ***holes "secured" their retirement plans along with a summer cottage on the beach.

There's also the 'Striker', the 'wheeled wonder' that chews through THREE sets of tires in one day when field fitted with RPG gates. Not to mention constant drive train burnouts.

As predicted Raptors blew up into completely astronomical cost, JSF is still "in the pipe line" while Aussies already published reports in the tone of "why bother?".

When you deregulate energy, Enron happens, when you let DI lobby every descent man out of the chain, this happens.

Whom are you kidding, the list goes on, and if things will keep going as they are, pretty soon YOU will need your SPURS to get to the front line, cowboy.

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2006, 07:10 PM
Back in 1999 Rowan released MA and there was much discussion on the forums.

MiG-15 is claimed to have one drawback in the wings being very thin were also "whippy".
Yeager noted that when flying the new one that the defector handed over.
In the sim it does translate yet the MiG is the easier noob plane to fight in as it has
higher power to weight.

A point in the F-86 favor is the controls are hydraulic which did not translate in MA.
The same thing made a real difference between MiG-15's, 17's and the Phantoms over Vietnam.
When MiG-23 showed up, it was time for Phantoms to leave.

WTE_Galway
06-12-2006, 07:45 PM
When comparing WWII with Korea just remember the MIG15 was more like an IL2 in terms of armor.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fk.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The MiG-15 represented an approach to fighter armament that was totally different from that of the F-86: Big guns with a modest (690 m/sec) muzzle velocity, firing rounds with a very high destructive power. This armament had been devised to destroy bombers such as the B-29, and the MiG-15 very effective in that role. The USAAF was forced to call a halt to daylight B-29 operations.

But for use against fighters this armament suite was less ideal; it mixed guns that were a poor ballistics match.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">North American F-86 Sabre .... The M3 version of the venerable Browning fired at 1200 rpm, so the Sabre could fire 120 rounds per second for 13 seconds. This gave a weight of fire of 5.8 kg/sec. The muzzle power was 2203 kW. Identical armament was installed in the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star (with 300 rounds per gun) and the Republic F-84 Thunderjet.

In terms of weight of fire and muzzle power it was not so bad; but the during the Korean war it became clear that the .50 projectile was inadequate against the sturdy and well-armoured MiG-15. Many MiG-15s returned to base despite numerous hits.

Four 20 mm cannon were installed in a few Sabres for combat evaluation, but only after the Korean war did they become standard armament on USAAF fighters.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Grumman F9F Panther .... Four 20mm Hispano M3 cannon in the nose, with 190 rounds per gun. The F9F fired 57 rounds per second, a weight of 7.4 kg/sec. Total muzzle power was 2660 kW. It had ammunition for 13 seconds.

This was the best armament combination available, considerably more destructive than the .50s of the F-86 and without the disadvantages of trajectory and harmonisation of the MiG-15.

But the foresight of the USN in the selection of armament was balanced by its conservative approach to aircraft design. Its F9F and F2H straight-wing jet fighters were outclassed by the two swept-wing types. The McDonnell F2H Banshee and the Gloster Meteor (operated in Korea by the RAAF) had the same armament as the F9F, and the same problem. They were used mainly for ground support operations. Grumman developed the swept-wing Cougar from the Panther, but the type was too late to see combat in Korea.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2006, 09:30 PM
Just how armored were the rear turbine blades of any of those jets?
Yes, a very small target but even the cockpit perspex could take more IMO.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
06-12-2006, 09:56 PM
50s does not cre8 that much torque compared to cannons so...its Ok....its more accurate

horseback
06-12-2006, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Thanks berg417448, I didn't think of that, I'll give it a try.

Here we go again and the south is getting deeper.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for my patriotism, yeah, I guess if I've been to lots of other countries, learned to make myself understood in their language, picked up on some of the local culture and still think my country is better for me in most ways, I suppose I'm beyond the reach of your inherent moral superiority.

I've been there, I've handled the Soviet gear, and I've talked to some of the airmen, soldiers and sailers who used it, occasionally in their own language. Our stuff was better in the '50s, went to s**t in the 60s and 70s, and just became overwhelmingly better by the mid 80s by most meaningful qualitative standards.

If that makes you unhappy, stick around, cowboy. I'll be sticking the spurs in you again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look who's talking gear! Sure bud, keep on ridin'. My pops took Russian in college for a carrier in USAF/AFOSI, and I'm fluent in Russian as well.

If by now you don't know that Pentagon/DOD is all about the lobby contracts and state politics, go rent 'Pentagon Wars' and have a few laughs at the expense of every tax dollar squandered into the pockets of "retired stars" that went "private sector".

Feel free to flip a couple of pages back to AVRO Arrow, a complete decimation of Canadian aircraft industry and resulting brain-drain into US high-tech. Point a finger at any worthwhile program and you'll find an ex-Avro employee.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">overwhelmingly better by the mid 80s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh if it was funny I'd laugh - Again, 'Pentagon Wars' will hit the sweet spot just right. 15 Billion dollars and over TWENTY years of development all for a POS that Israelis would not even buy with out scroll of required modifications. "They knew it was a death trap by looking at it."

All while our boys in Iraq are riding in a poor mans APC, aka pseudo-armored Humvee. Slow, no firepower, and even with armor it's still a death trap. No fire suppression, ah screw it I'm not even going to start it's to depressing, all the boys lost cause a bunch of ***holes "secured" their retirement plans along with a summer cottage on the beach.

There's also the 'Striker', the 'wheeled wonder' that chews through THREE sets of tires in one day when field fitted with RPG gates. Not to mention constant drive train burnouts.

As predicted Raptors blew up into completely astronomical cost, JSF is still "in the pipe line" while Aussies already published reports in the tone of "why bother?".

When you deregulate energy, Enron happens, when you let DI lobby every descent man out of the chain, this happens.

Whom are you kidding, the list goes on, and if things will keep going as they are, pretty soon YOU will need your SPURS to get to the front line, cowboy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh dear, I must have touched a nerve.

Still smoking that stuff before posting are we?

horseback

fordfan25
06-12-2006, 10:30 PM
the truth is out there be sure. I'll say this. I have never left the USA and dout i ever will. but i also dout its much deffernt any wear else the world over there is no bigger crook than the goverment. law enforcment,judges,lawyers ect ect. Not saying every cop or every rep of the gov is of a bad sort, just a great big bunch of them. even in my small town "hay were getting a wallmart ....soon" most of the cops are in on the shaddy stuff drug's ect and the judge is of the "scratch my back" breed that as long as you'v got mony attached to your last name you can get away with just about anything and in my exp its like that most everywear and the only deffernce between small town curruption and washington curroption is the scoop of it. The biggst deffernce between curroption in the USA and in other countrys is im betting the launge.Of course i watch a lot of duke's of hazzerd so what do i know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

LStarosta
06-12-2006, 10:33 PM
LOL did you see the politically correct Dukes of Hazzard on Blue Collar TV tonite?

Kocur_
06-13-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
When comparing WWII with Korea just remember the MIG15 was more like an IL2 in terms of armor.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who told you that BS? Il-2 had armoured capsule around engine and pilots cocpit, while all MiG-15 had were plates in front and behind pilots back and head. Fuselage skinning was just ordinary 0,6 to 1,2mm sheet metal aluminum

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2006, 01:57 PM
Compared to say, a 109 or Zero, between skin and frame how would you rate strength of MiG-15?

Somewhere there and at early jets ranges the .50 was not so mighty as a few years before.

By my reading the MiG-15 was a deal lighter than F-86 and... well here's the take from
the Rowan sim which does fly well (if you can avoid stall and spins) and has a really
GOOD view system.

http://www.combatsim.com/memb123/archive/htm/htm_arc3/mig-sabre.htm

I did get one thing wrong, the MiG had the thicker wings but the internal structure was
not strong as the F-86. Sabre had torsion box construction and MiG had less, suffered
'badly' from wing flexing. Oh, just read. That is from the data they used to make the
sim and Rowan is not a US company but still I predict it is all 'propaganda' especially
what any US pilot had to say from flying actual Mig-15.

horseback
06-13-2006, 02:15 PM
Simply put, there were two reasons the MiG didn't get damaged as much as a similar prop-sized fighter would from six fifties:

1. Speed. In terms of distance traveled, the rounds had to go as much as 20 to 30% farther even though the two a/c were approximately 200m apart and traveling at similar speeds. Air combat in WWII took place with the participants going 200-350mph in most cases, while once jets entered combat, you were looking at something on the order of 300-500mph. The rounds lost a lot of momentum.

2. Jets are both simpler (no big cooling or lubricating systems, hydraulics are imbedded ) and more robust. In terms of structure and control systems, they have to be stronger to handle the stresses of flight at those speeds, so much like the heavy bombers of WWII, even without armor, they just took a lot more of a beating to knock them down.

I would expect that a Sabre would be just as hard to down with .50s as a MiG in a high alt combat.

cheers

horseback

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2006, 02:25 PM
Those MiG's had no hydraulics. For that matter neither did Learjets at least until the 35
series (I know this for very sure.) and probably onward.

RCAF_Irish_403
06-13-2006, 02:44 PM
Horseback/Galway....relax peeps...both of you ought to lower the rhetoric level a tad

Blutarski2004
06-13-2006, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Simply put, there were two reasons the MiG didn't get damaged as much as a similar prop-sized fighter would from six fifties:

1. Speed. In terms of distance traveled, the rounds had to go as much as 20 to 30% farther even though the two a/c were approximately 200m apart and traveling at similar speeds. Air combat in WWII took place with the participants going 200-350mph in most cases, while once jets entered combat, you were looking at something on the order of 300-500mph. The rounds lost a lot of momentum.

2. Jets are both simpler (no big cooling or lubricating systems, hydraulics are imbedded ) and more robust. In terms of structure and control systems, they have to be stronger to handle the stresses of flight at those speeds, so much like the heavy bombers of WWII, even without armor, they just took a lot more of a beating to knock them down.

I would expect that a Sabre would be just as hard to down with .50s as a MiG in a high alt combat.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... IIRC, one of my F86 / Korean Air War references mentioned an average expenditure of 1600 x 50cal rounds per engagement, which statistically resulted in 1 kill & 2 damaged on average. Don't quote me on this, as I may be a little off in my recollection, but the thrust of the commentary was that it took a LOT of 50cal bullets to knock down a Mig.

Possible reasons for this poor performance (my informed speculation here) was that the 50cal relied a great deal on its API round for target effect, but the less volatile nature of jet fuel and the high oxygen-poor altitudes at which many engagement occurred combined to greatly reduce fir risk. The very much simpler mechanical nature of the jet engine, compared to a piston aero engine was likely an added factor.

Other material I have read (can't recall where) claims that examination of an intact crashed F86 by the Soviets alerted them to three important design features which were immediately copied into their a/c:

- Gyro gunsight.

- Hydraulically booster controls.

- G Suit.

As for the armament of the Mig-15, both the 23mm and 37mm guns were extremely powerful weapons. Two or three 23mm hits on an F86 usually meant a kill. On the downside, the 23mm and 37mm guns were badly matched in ballistic terms. The 23mm were good flat-shooting weapons, while the 37mm was a low velocity gun with a very arced trajectory. US pilot reports occasionally remarked upon being vertically bracketed by the tracer streams of the two calibers - two streams over and one stream under the plane. Since the Mig-15 was designed as a high-altitude bomber interceptor, and proved its worth in that role when it confronted B-29s over Korea, the inclusion of the low velocity 37mm gun should not be viewed as a mistake by any means. Also, the Soviet reflector gun sight of that era was not ideal in coping with high speeds of jet vs jet engagements.

Kocur_
06-13-2006, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Compared to say, a 109 or Zero, between skin and frame how would you rate strength of MiG-15?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if I had knowledge, I have no data to perform detailed analisys, but it is obvious where in planes technology area MiG-15 is located: its classical all metal, light-aloy, semi-monocoque fuselage and wing similar to some extent to Fw-190 wing, i.e. semi-monocoque too, with skin supported with lots of stiffeners.

My "Samoloty MiG" book has breakdown of MiG-15 weight:
fuselage with tail-1733kg
wings-841kg (area-23,7m^2)
airframe total-2574
engine-808kg
total empty-3382kg.

Now lets see... P-51D Mustang:
fuselage w/tail and radiators, w/o entire engine section-918kg
wings-1026kg (area-21,65m^2)
airframe total-1944
engine with prop, cowling and engine bed-1225kg
total empty-3169kg.


Now considering that technology used in both planes was similar I would risk to say, that MiG-15 and P-51 were in similar area of durability airframe-wise. Two things need to be noticed:
- MiG-15 fuselage diameter was huge compared with P-51's and that fuselage was over a meter longer, which explains why MiG-15 fuselage was so much heavier, not to mention differece in size of tail surfaces and engine location,
- P-51 wings were more "dense" than MiG-15's. P-51 wing had 47,3kg of construction per m^2, while in MiG-15 case it was 35,5kg/m^2. Some of that weight was saved by lack of aramament and fuel, i.e. lack of need to include more strenght to carry stresses created by them, OTOH those wings were supporting heavier fuselage.

MiG-15s advantage in construction weight will be smaller if we have in mind two issues: MiG-15 was a bit larger (1,2 longer, 2,05m^2 bigger wings) and due to operating at higher speeds some parts, especially wings were under heavier stresses during fight.


Now if F-86s had 20mm cannons, thus ability to make BIG holes in those lightly constructed, heavily stressed (from higher speeds and more gs than in WW2 I guess) MiG-15s wings by almost every hit...

Kocur_
06-13-2006, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Those MiG's had no hydraulics. For that matter neither did Learjets at least until the 35
series (I know this for very sure.) and probably onward. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. MiG-15 had usual hydraulic system to operate airbrakes, flaps and gear.

Blutarski2004
06-13-2006, 05:29 PM
<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 WWMaxGunz:
Those MiG's had no hydraulics. For that matter neither did Learjets at least until the 35
series (I know this for very sure.) and probably onward. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. MiG-15 had usual hydraulic system to operate airbrakes, flaps and gear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While Max was a bit imprecise in his language, I believe what he was getting at was that the Mig-15 did not have hydraulically boosted aileron/elevator/rudder controls.

luftluuver
06-13-2006, 05:41 PM
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/mig15-2.gif

Also worth looking at is the Squadron/Signal WalkAround of the the MiG 15, #5540.

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2006, 04:19 AM
Yes Max the Dummy missed the flaps and gear, it was no boosted regular control surfaces.
Same for MiG-17. US pilots over Korea and Vietnam who were wise used that difference.
MiG-23 I dunno about the controls but that was the air superiority fighter over Vietnam.

I see the airframe of the MiG as about 25% heavier than P-51 and fuselage almost 2x.
The wings are the weak area. How much the cannon massed I dunno and there are extras
on the P-51 that do nothing in the way of structural integrity either. That is why I
think I'd rather compare airframes.

Also the P-51 was a very strongly built fighter for WWII at least according to Rall.
Not a P-47 but not a 109 even late model either. Compare to what fighters the .50's
were used on, only the FW and 262 I think have so much frame to compare.

I have read a quote in Robert Shaw's book from Korea by a wingman of an ace who said
that his leader shot down a MiG at 800 yards. They were chasing it at very high alt
and the MiG was getting away. To shoot is to slow down some and he wouldn't chance
the shot, the bullets wouldn't make enough damage. But he says his leader took into
account the extreme thinness of the air and made the aim and the shot correctly, that
is the difference in quality of those two pilots.

Above 10km IRL you get much better damage range and flatter trajectories. I wonder if
air density is part of IL2 ballistics?

GR142-Pipper
06-14-2006, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
[QUOTE]When the budgets are finally cut, those "privately" owned prisons immediately began farming out their "labor force" to everything from construction to 1-800 costumer service, so that Anglo-American gulag has been here for quiet some time now mr. horseback, and that's exactly why 10 year sentences are regularly handed out for a possession of a single joint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The "Anglo-American gulag"? That's so amazingly stupid it's hilarious. I read it and laughed out loud. Did you learn that at a Black Panther or SDS meeting? Hey, how about this one..."Free Huey". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper

berg417448
06-14-2006, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes Max the Dummy missed the flaps and gear, it was no boosted regular control surfaces.
Same for MiG-17. US pilots over Korea and Vietnam who were wise used that difference.
MiG-23 I dunno about the controls but that was the air superiority fighter over Vietnam.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mig-23? I don't think so. The North Vietnamese Air Force did use Mig-21 aircraft in the Vietnam War but not the Mig-23.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-14-2006, 10:24 AM
[/quote]while the 37mm was a low velocity gun with a very arced trajectory.[/quote]

NR-23

# Rate of fire: 800 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,264 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 200 grams (7.05 oz)

N-37

# Rate of fire: 400 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,260 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 735 g (26 oz)

Muzzle velocity of both cannons is matched. Do your own caculation and figure out at what distance 37mm shell begins to drop, and that'll be the point of ballistic matching.

Kocur_
06-14-2006, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:


NR-23

# Rate of fire: 800 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,264 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 200 grams (7.05 oz)

N-37

# Rate of fire: 400 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,260 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 735 g (26 oz)

Muzzle velocity of both cannons is matched. Do your own caculation and figure out at what distance 37mm shell begins to drop, and that'll be the point of ballistic matching. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So nice of you to quote data on armament of MiG-15bis http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
MiG-15 had two NS-23s (550rpm) fed with the same ammo as NR-23 and a NS-37 (250rpm) fed with ammo of the same projectile as in N-37 but 900m/s muzzle velocity.

Kocur_
06-14-2006, 10:59 AM
On MIGs and hydraulic controls:
MiG-15 indeed didnt have any hydraulics between stick/pedals and contol surfaces but it was the last MiG fighter not to have any.
MiG-15bis had hydraulic aileron booster called BU-1U, the same was used in MiG-17. Later MiGs naturally had hydraulics in other axes too.

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2006, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">while the 37mm was a low velocity gun with a very arced trajectory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NR-23

# Rate of fire: 800 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,264 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 200 grams (7.05 oz)

N-37

# Rate of fire: 400 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,260 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 735 g (26 oz)

Muzzle velocity of both cannons is matched. Do your own caculation and figure out at what distance 37mm shell begins to drop, and that'll be the point of ballistic matching. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 23mm shell will lose velocity faster and both drop with the same rate over time.
It has about 70% of the mass to frontal area of the 37mm you show.
Only thing is what angle the tilt of each gun is and how far below the sight the guns are?
But I think that in IL2 the convergence you set changes barrel tilts to match.
It is the inside and beyond convergence range differences that can screw you up, check out
the Mk108 which has 2 very different shells in one gun with only one inclination.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-14-2006, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiG-15 had two NS-23s (550rpm) fed with the same ammo as NR-23 and a NS-37 (250rpm) fed with ammo of the same projectile as in N-37 but 900m/s muzzle velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. For God sakes look stuff up and make sense before waisting peoples time.

MiG-15 was never armed with NS-37, N-37 was adopted in 1946. They were different guns and fired completely different cartridges.

NS-37 -&gt;37 x 195 ----&gt; http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2aircart2.jpg

N-37 -&gt;37 x 155 -----&gt;http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ModernAC.jpg

Nudelman-Suranov NS-23

# Weight (complete): 37 kg (82 lb)
# Rate of fire: 550 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,260 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 200 g (7.1 oz)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman_NS-23

Thank god you got the 23x115 right.

Take your time taking the foot out of your mouth there bud.

Blutarski2004
06-14-2006, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>while the 37mm was a low velocity gun with a very arced trajectory.[/quote]

NR-23

# Rate of fire: 800 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,264 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 200 grams (7.05 oz)

N-37

# Rate of fire: 400 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,260 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 735 g (26 oz)

Muzzle velocity of both cannons is matched. Do your own caculation and figure out at what distance 37mm shell begins to drop, and that'll be the point of ballistic matching.[/QUOTE]


..... Thank you for correcting me, sir. Another lesson as to why I should not try to write from memory.

The ballistic mismatch would have been exactly the opposite to what I described. The 37mm would unquestionably have the flatter trajectory by virtue of its superior ballistic co-efficent value. At ranges considerably beyond convergence, it would be the 23mm rounds passing beneath and the 37mm rounds passing above a targeted a/c.

Kocur_
06-14-2006, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiG-15 had two NS-23s (550rpm) fed with the same ammo as NR-23 and a NS-37 (250rpm) fed with ammo of the same projectile as in N-37 but 900m/s muzzle velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. For God sakes look stuff up and make sense before waisting peoples time.

MiG-15 was never armed with NS-37, N-37 was adopted in 1946. They were different guns and fired completely different cartridges.

NS-37 -&gt;37 x 195 ----&gt; http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2aircart2.jpg

N-37 -&gt;37 x 155 -----&gt;http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ModernAC.jpg

Nudelman-Suranov NS-23

# Weight (complete): 37 kg (82 lb)
# Rate of fire: 550 rpm
# Muzzle velocity: 690 m/s (2,260 ft/s)
# Projectile weight: 200 g (7.1 oz)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman_NS-23

Thank god you got the 23x115 right.

Take your time taking the foot out of your mouth there bud. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I bet you dont even know about existence of MiG-15<span class="ev_code_RED">bis</span>.
Apart from receiving more powerful engine, better avionics and ailerons booster the new MiG-15 variant had armament changed. Initially only NS-23s were replaced with NR-23s and in later series MiG-15<span class="ev_code_RED">bis</span> also NS-37 was replaced with N-37. In another words: ALL MiG-15s had NS-37s and even some MiG-15<span class="ev_code_RED">bis</span> had them.
Ammo for N-37 compared to NS-37 ammo had new, smaller case with less propellant joined initially with set of projectiles from NS-37 and original ones later. Also FYI N-37 was already mounted in Yak-9UT prototype back in 1945, but it took several years more to make the cannon suitable for service.

Some links for you to learn some info:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig15.html
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig15bis.html

Try to limit youself to being ignorant - without being arrogant at the same time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

PSYOP_mongoose
06-14-2006, 01:03 PM
More creative guesstimating here;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">50s does not cre8 that much torque compared to cannons so...its Ok....its more accurate </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do the math for 6X50s verses 2X23+1X37

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Conversely, because the .50 wasn't very effective at the longer ranges that their sights allowed them to get strikes, the Americans too had to get right on top of their targets before they pulled the trigger. In a maneuvering dogfight, the F-86, with its superior maneuvering response & better speed allowed them to tuck in on their targets more consistantly, or rollout and dive to escape when the situation called for it than the MiGs could, in spite of the tactical situation usually favoring the MiGs flying higher over their own territory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go again. Look into 'Zoom and boom' and 'gomers'. 50s needed to be "walked" through the target, and do to their high collective recoil, piston pilots that flew Sabres tended to open up to early letting MiGs get away. Thrust of early jets did not have the sheer torque/acceleration of piston fighters, and regaining momentum took much longer.

MiG gun system was a burst weapon. MiGs main disadvantage was the lack of assisted controls, even though they were needed only for high speed maneuvering at black out Gs. Since it took a lot of strength to pull out of a high speed dive, Sabre pilots called MiG pilots 'gomers'.

MiG was unstable at supersonic speeds, just as ALL SUBsonic aircraft.

MiGs climbed faster, dove faster, and turned tighter.

Do to the lack of assisted controls and supersonic instability, speed/dive breaks were added, and were very successfully used against Sabre zoom and boom attacks.

A classic Sabre mistake was diving on the MiG, opening up early, chasing the MiG in a dive, MiG pops his breaks and Sabre overshoots right into MiGs "sweet spot'. If there is enough altitude Sabre continues the dive to simply level and to out run the MiG, if not, it's on MiGs platter.

It's all real quick, and that's exactly where heavy HE cannon shell burst plays a pivotal role, not a long high recoil HMG bullet strafe.

Blutarski2004, the jury is still out on 37mm shell ballistics.

Kocur_, thank you very much on educating me, I'm glad you managed to find wikipedia. It's that page with the NS-37 description I've posted, the one that leads to MiG-15bis. Good job there lad, a true example of investigative process.

I'm also hoping that you'll find the time to further familiarise your self with the "CANNON, MACHINE GUNS AND AMMUNITION" page, it being another reference source I've provided which unfortunately you chose to ignore.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ammo for N-37 compared to NS-37 ammo had new, smaller case with less propellant joined initially with set of projectiles from NS-37 and original ones later. Also FYI N-37 was already mounted in Yak-9UT prototype back in 1945, but it took several years more to make the cannon suitable for service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are on the IL-2 forum after all, so at least I hope you can find the time and interest to find out that N-37 was a high velocity anti-tank gun, while NS-37 was a high caliber high rate of fire autocannon, firing a high yield HE shell.

Kind of like, open up the sim and notice that all Yaks that carry N-37 are marked as "anti-tank".

Blutarski2004
06-14-2006, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
50s needed to be "walked" through the target, and do to their high collective recoil, piston pilots that flew Sabres tended to open up to early letting MiGs get away. Thrust of early jets did not have the sheer torque/acceleration of piston fighters, and regaining momentum took much longer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Where did you learn that 50cal fire had to be "walked" through a target? I'd be very interested to read about that.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> MiGs main disadvantage was the lack of assisted controls, even though they were needed only for high speed maneuvering at black out Gs. Since it took a lot of strength to pull out of a high speed dive, Sabre pilots called MiG pilots 'gomers'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... The lack of boosted controls was felt by the Mig-15 in more conditions than simply "near blackout" G loads. Its unboosted controls meant less aileron deflection at higher speeds and consequently a lower roll rate A standard Sabre evasion tactic was a high speed roll reversal, or S-turn, which the Mig was unable to follow.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Blutarski2004, the jury is still out on 37mm shell ballistics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Relative to caliber, the N-37 37mm did fire a somewhat lighter round. But if you calculate the ballistic co-efficients of the two projectiles, the 37mm projectile still held an advantage of about 1.4:1 over that of the NR-23. Unless the form factors of the two were grotesquely different, that C advantage means a better retained velocity and therefore a flatter overall trajectory fo the 37mm round.

Kocur_
06-14-2006, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Kocur_, thank you very much on educating me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problemo, even if there is little hope http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
I'm glad you managed to find wikipedia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show me a link to Wikipedia article in my posts above...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
It's that page with the NS-37 description I've posted, the one that leads to MiG-15bis. Good job there lad, a true example of investigative process. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And now put away the mirror and start to actually read on MiG-15bis and guns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
I'm also hoping that you'll find the time to further familiarise your self with the "CANNON, MACHINE GUNS AND AMMUNITION" page, it being another reference source I've provided which unfortunately you chose to ignore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will as soon as Tony posts his fine new articles, so will I do with his "Flying Guns of WW2". Btw. should I give him your regards next time we talk on his forum? Does this reference support youd silly idea that NS-37 was never used in MiG-15s?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
We are on the IL-2 forum after all, so at least I hope you can find the time and interest to find out that N-37 was a high velocity anti-tank gun, while NS-37 was a high caliber high rate of fire autocannon, firing a high yield HE shell. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all you confused cannons, but thats a minor surprise. Secondly NS-37, indeed as it seems originally was intended for ground attack role, but saw more use in fighter Yak-9T, than in any other plane. Experiences with it in this role lead to developement similar to what happened in Germany with MK101/103 and MK108 or British Hispano Mk.II and Mk.V, i.e. a gun of higher ROF at expense of ballistics was designed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Kind of like, open up the sim and notice that all Yaks that carry N-37 are marked as "anti-tank". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh sure, why read anything, let the game be the source of knowledgehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif In reality inspired by P-39, the Yak-9T was intended to be a bomber killer and was used in fighter role, while ground pounding was Il-2s duty - against tanks they used PTAB-2,5s mainly.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-14-2006, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ..... Where did you learn that 50cal fire had to be "walked" through a target? I'd be very interested to read about that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same old "pursuit curve". Loads of info on that, just google it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its unboosted controls meant less aileron deflection at higher speeds and consequently a lower roll rate A standard Sabre evasion tactic was a high speed roll reversal, or S-turn, which the Mig was unable to follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S-turns bleed energy, so it all depends on position/situation and numbers.

Russian pilots were resisting boosted controls all the way to MiG-21. They said it took away the "feel".

A Sabre coming out from a low alt S-turns looses to much energy to escape if there is another MiG there to line up. Then it's all about thrust to weight and it's MiGs territory.

To skip the S leading MiG goes high and leaves it to the wingman while looping back, or always having a choice of just out climbing.

Sabre - slashes, MiG - maneuvers, but in the end it all comes down to pilot skill, leadership and coordination, and in Korea US pilots held an unquestionable advantage there.

horseback
06-14-2006, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Conversely, because the .50 wasn't very effective at the longer ranges that their sights allowed them to get strikes, the Americans too had to get right on top of their targets before they pulled the trigger. In a maneuvering dogfight, the F-86, with its superior maneuvering response & better speed allowed them to tuck in on their targets more consistantly, or rollout and dive to escape when the situation called for it than the MiGs could, in spite of the tactical situation usually favoring the MiGs flying higher over their own territory.


Here we go again. Look into 'Zoom and boom' and 'gomers'. 50s needed to be "walked" through the target, and do to their high collective recoil, piston pilots that flew Sabres tended to open up to early letting MiGs get away. Thrust of early jets did not have the sheer torque/acceleration of piston fighters, and regaining momentum took much longer.

MiG gun system was a burst weapon. MiGs main disadvantage was the lack of assisted controls, even though they were needed only for high speed maneuvering at black out Gs. Since it took a lot of strength to pull out of a high speed dive, Sabre pilots called MiG pilots 'gomers'.

MiG was unstable at supersonic speeds, just as ALL SUBsonic aircraft.

MiGs climbed faster, dove faster, and turned tighter.

Do to the lack of assisted controls and supersonic instability, speed/dive breaks were added, and were very successfully used against Sabre zoom and boom attacks.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can't let this horsesh*t go unchallenged. If you can't read the whole post, and take things in context, all your arguement does is generate heat instead of light.

AS I ORIGINALLY STATED, the cannon was hard (that means difficult, requiring greater skill than the average pilot was capable of) to hit with from the greater ranges at which it could be effective.

This meant that the MiGs, who started out with the altitude advantage and therefore the initiative, were the ones doing the zooming and booming, and the Sabres were the ones looking for the maneuvering fight. It was a rare (and happy) occasion when a Sabre caught MiGs beneath him.

As I referred to earlier, Soviet as well as American sources state flatly that the Sabre was more maneuverable, better (faster, more easily controlled) in the dive, and slightly faster in top speed. See Yeager's autobiography, 'Boots' Blesse's 'Check Six', or Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces, Volume 4 (I think-it's one of the early ones) Aces of the Korean War.

I can't say that I'm terribly interested in the roots of the expression 'gomer', except to say that my Korean acquaintances don't like hearing it, and become dangerously agitated when it is repeated in their hearing.

As for the rest of your description, it sounds very much as though your arguement is based on that History Channel show you quoted.

cheers

horseback

jimDG
06-14-2006, 03:54 PM
You forget several "sophisticated" touches that the Saber had and Mig-15 dont.
1) Gun ranging radar = makes the .50 more accurate + can hold the sight on target longer
2) Slats - better than fences (on Mig-15) when it comes to low speed performance
3) Hydraulic tail + G-suits = the pilot can pull more G-s.

So basicly all the Mig-15 has over the Saber is better height performance = limited to BnZ, and slow ROF cannons are actually a slight drawback for high speed shooting passes vs. maneuvering target - 4-6 20mm would have been better (to deal with the Saber. 23+37mm was deadly against b-29s which is why they were selected over 20mm)

PSYOP_mongoose
06-14-2006, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This meant that the MiGs, who started out with the altitude advantage and therefore the initiative, were the ones doing the zooming and booming, and the Sabres were the ones looking for the maneuvering fight. It was a rare (and happy) occasion when a Sabre caught MiGs beneath him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Educate me, sortie statistics please, especially the ones with B-29s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As I referred to earlier, Soviet as well as American sources state flatly that the Sabre was more maneuverable, better (faster, more easily controlled) in the dive, and slightly faster in top speed. See Yeager's autobiography, 'Boots' Blesse's 'Check Six', or Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces, Volume 4 (I think-it's one of the early ones) Aces of the Korean War. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better, faster, more radical, extreme, grander, sweeter, all around awesomer. Everybody says so, right? F-86 was in fact more stable, at high speeds, around M0.91. Were talking dive buffeting here. That's what speed brakes are for.

In the hands of inexperienced pilots the most serious problem for the MiG was touchy spins. Think FW190/P-39, to green pilots it mean pants full of load, but to guys that know what they're doing it's just a snappy roll rate.

MiG-15 was designed for and tested by seasoned and experienced Russian veterans of WWII. They are the ones that objected to boosted controls, arguing that the "feel" trade off for the extra high speed muscle was to much. Same with snappy roll rate.

Put an Afghan that never saw a plane before in a FW190 and see what happens. Maneuverability, poor bastards were afraid to death just to go into a high speed turn thinking that their guts would explode.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can't say that I'm terribly interested in the roots of the expression 'gomer', except to say that my Korean acquaintances don't like hearing it, and become dangerously agitated when it is repeated in their hearing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry about your acquaintances. Gomer was a nick name for big Russian pilots that had the rocks to go into defensive spiral dives. Main word here is DARED. Since MiG-15 was not boosted, it was all about G control and sheer stick strength.

When defensive spiral dives was executed properly, Sabre found it self in a very uncomfortable spot. On the S MiG turned tighter and out powered on the scissors. Might as well pull back and let the bastard overshoot to set up a high G barrel roll.

Chinese/Korean pilots were afraid of black outs like of a witch on a stick. With out G suits inexperienced pilots regularly blacked out/dove straight into the ground to be counted as a maneuvering kill. High Gs=less strength to pull the stick back with, there's your maneuverability.

Experienced pilots immediately judged their adversary by the way he enters a high speed turn. As soon as a Sabre forces a green MiG into a defensive spiral dive, the MiG is dead duck and speed brakes wont help.

LStarosta
06-14-2006, 05:53 PM
I resent your uneducated comment on Afghan pilots.

Blutarski2004
06-14-2006, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Same old "pursuit curve". Loads of info on that, just google it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm perfectly familiar with pursuit curves in aerial gunnery. Please explain exactly what you mean by "50s needed to be "walked" through the target". Sabre radar-ranging gyro gunsights produced a high percentage of on-target first burst.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> S-turns bleed energy, so it all depends on position/situation and numbers. A Sabre coming out from a low alt S-turns looses to much energy to escape if there is another MiG there to line up. Then it's all about thrust to weight and it's MiGs territory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... High G break turns bleed energy as well, but they were commonly used by both sides. Obviously a pilot chooses his maneuvers and counters according to his impression of the situation; that goes without saying.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sabre - slashes, MiG - maneuvers, but in the end it all comes down to pilot skill, leadership and coordination, and in Korea US pilots held an unquestionable advantage there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Fair comment. Although it was not unknown for savvy Mig pilots to B&Z. As a matter of fact, some Mig attack tactics resembled those employed by FW190's against Spitfire V's over the coastal France in 1942.

horseback
06-14-2006, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This meant that the MiGs, who started out with the altitude advantage and therefore the initiative, were the ones doing the zooming and booming, and the Sabres were the ones looking for the maneuvering fight. It was a rare (and happy) occasion when a Sabre caught MiGs beneath him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Educate me, sortie statistics please, especially the ones with B-29s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We are clearly talking about two different things. I assumed that if we are talking fighter vs fighter combat, and MiG vs F-86, we're talking about the fighter sweeps along the Yalu. According to the Osprey book, "senior Soviet officers have averred" that MiGs spent the majority of their time attacking fighter bombers, and only engaged Sabres when they got between them and the bombers. I would bet heavily on the probability that many of the F-86s claimed were actually F-80s and F-84s, in the same way that German pilots claimed so many more Spitfires than Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain.

Whether cruising just north of the Yalu waiting for the Sabres to near the end of their fuel endurance or attacking fighter-bombers, the clear implication, borne out by most UN pilots' accounts is that the MiGs usually started with the altitude advantage.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As I referred to earlier, Soviet as well as American sources state flatly that the Sabre was more maneuverable, better (faster, more easily controlled) in the dive, and slightly faster in top speed. See Yeager's autobiography, 'Boots' Blesse's 'Check Six', or Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces, Volume 4 (I think-it's one of the early ones) Aces of the Korean War. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better, faster, more radical, extreme, grander, sweeter, all around awesomer. Everybody says so, right? F-86 was in fact more stable, at high speeds, around M0.91. Were talking dive buffeting here. That's what speed brakes are for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sergei Kramarenko, credited with 13 kills in Korea to go with his 12 in the Great Patriotic War, said this:

"The Sabre was the most dangerous threat to my friends and I in Korean skies. Our MiG-15 and the F-86 belonged in the same class, similar types with similar performance. They differed only in that the MiG had an advantage in rate of climb at altitude, while the Sabre was superior in maneuvering, especially at low level."

Maj. General Georgy Lobov, who commanded the 303rd Guards' Regiment at Manpo, Korea:

"The MiG-15 in its main characteristics surpassed all similar enemy aircraft except the F-86. In comparison with the latter, the MiG had a better rate of climb and thrust to weight ratio, but was somewhat inferior in maneuverability and radius of action. Their maximum flight speeds, however, were roughly equal. The F-86 had a better fuselage and aerodynamic form. This fighter gained speed in a dive faster than ours and had a lesser 'sink' rate than the MiG-15 when recovering from a dive.

"The MiG-15 armament was more powerful and consisted of two 23mm and one 37mm (cannon) in a good arrangement. The American fighters and fighter bombers had up to six 12.7mm (.50 caliber) Colt-Browning machine-guns scattered along the wing."

Apparently General Lobov was not well served by either his memory or his intelligence officers during the Korean conflict, but it is typical of men who served in combat not to correct the incorrect information they were given during 'their' wars. A neighbor in San Diego who had served in the infantry in North Africa had been told that Stukas were fighters. He 'corrected' me every time the subject came up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In the hands of inexperienced pilots the most serious problem for the MiG was touchy spins. Think FW190/P-39, to green pilots it mean pants full of load, but to guys that know what they're doing it's just a snappy roll rate.

MiG-15 was designed for and tested by seasoned and experienced Russian veterans of WWII. They are the ones that objected to boosted controls, arguing that the "feel" trade off for the extra high speed muscle was to much. Same with snappy roll rate.

Put an Afghan that never saw a plane before in a FW190 and see what happens. Maneuverability, poor bastards were afraid to death just to go into a high speed turn thinking that their guts would explode. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Given the very high overall experience levels of US fighter pilots in Korea, I think we'll just ignore the wallpapering here. Yeager said that the MiG-15 was a treachorous SOB in a dive, and that the Korean pilot who delivered it said that they were strictly warned about steep dives. Other pilots who have flown the 15 & 17 in both military appraisals during the Cold War and in recent air shows have said similar things. If a very few hot rocks Soviet types thought that they needed the extra feel and bullied the design bureau into giving it to them, then I'd put them in the same class as Douglas Bader when he was trying to bully the rest of Fighter Command into staying with the eight .303 armament in the early Spitfire Mk V.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can't say that I'm terribly interested in the roots of the expression 'gomer', except to say that my Korean acquaintances don't like hearing it, and become dangerously agitated when it is repeated in their hearing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry about your acquaintances. Gomer was a nick name for big Russian pilots that had the rocks to go into defensive spiral dives. Main word here is DARED. Since MiG-15 was not boosted, it was all about G control and sheer stick strength.

When defensive spiral dives was executed properly, Sabre found it self in a very uncomfortable spot. On the S MiG turned tighter and out powered on the scissors. Might as well pull back and let the bastard overshoot to set up a high G barrel roll.

Chinese/Korean pilots were afraid of black outs like of a witch on a stick. With out G suits inexperienced pilots regularly blacked out/dove straight into the ground to be counted as a maneuvering kill. High Gs=less strength to pull the stick back with, there's your maneuverability.

Experienced pilots immediately judged their adversary by the way he enters a high speed turn. As soon as a Sabre forces a green MiG into a defensive spiral dive, the MiG is dead duck and speed brakes wont help </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm just going to point out here that the F-86 had dive brakes too, situated very similarly to the MiG-15s, and performing the same function.

The popping the dive brakes and forcing an overshoot trick is taken right out of the movie Top Gun, and as the instructor pilot in the movie points out, it's trick of last resort and it sacrfices all your airspeed for one shot. No experienced pilot overshoots in a straight line; he'll roll a bit to one side or another, or go straight up if he doesn't duck underneath his intended victim and bank hard.

EVERYBODY has thought of that trick and tried it almost as soon as they're allowed in the air by themselves.

All I'll say about the gomer tag is that that is NOT the way I heard it, from men who were there. It had to do with Asians wearing leather helmets and long scarves pretending to be the Red Baron, and it was at best condescending.

Thank you for developing a more civil tone.

cheers

horseback

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
More creative guesstimating here; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which describes some part of your material in this thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiG gun system was a burst weapon. MiGs main disadvantage was the lack of assisted controls, even though they were needed only for high speed maneuvering at black out Gs. Since it took a lot of strength to pull out of a high speed dive, Sabre pilots called MiG pilots 'gomers'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That explains how Blesse and his wingman were able to outturn MiG-15's that BOUNCED them from
above by going into a sustained 4G descending spiral. 4G's must be blackout for Koreans?
Funny, one of the toughest guys I've ever known is Korean. Blesse followed the MiG on his
wingmans' tail as another MiG followed him. When the 1st MiG lost ability to hold the turn,
Blesse shot him without getting a 23mm enema himself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiG was unstable at supersonic speeds, just as ALL SUBsonic aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PLEASE; just when ever did a MiG-15 get to Mach 1? EVER? You make this up?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiGs climbed faster, dove faster, and turned tighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the ones that wore Keds but the real ones did NOT dive faster or turn tighter.
F-86 by accounts from both sides picked up speed faster in the dive and turned better.
Yeager flew against an Lt. Col. in the MiG-15 and won, staying right on his tail. Then
they switched planes and Yeager did the same again. But he described the MiG-15 as a
flying booby trap. The wings had flex and the plane was whippy, not solid, not stable
in MANEUVER and not something to approach Mach 1 with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do to the lack of assisted controls and supersonic instability, speed/dive breaks were added, and were very successfully used against Sabre zoom and boom attacks.

A classic Sabre mistake was diving on the MiG, opening up early, chasing the MiG in a dive, MiG pops his breaks and Sabre overshoots right into MiGs "sweet spot'. If there is enough altitude Sabre continues the dive to simply level and to out run the MiG, if not, it's on MiGs platter.

It's all real quick, and that's exactly where heavy HE cannon shell burst plays a pivotal role, not a long high recoil HMG bullet strafe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where you get this from? Soviet comic books?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Blutarski2004, the jury is still out on 37mm shell ballistics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

BTW, "do the math", F-86 had 6 .50's in the nose. That's about the same or less than two
23mm in the nose of the MiG. The 37mm being centerline I think doesn't count except that
firing all guns on the LIGHTER MiG-15 would slow it down than all guns fired on the F-86.
It is not just recoil but the mass being recoiled against and engine thrust which MiG-15
to F-86 was about equal. So while you do the math at least include the major factors?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kocur_, thank you very much on educating me, I'm glad you managed to find wikipedia. It's that page with the NS-37 description I've posted, the one that leads to MiG-15bis. Good job there lad, a true example of investigative process.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That explains so much. A source where people can chip in on the 'facts'.
True Investigative Process indeed.

Sergio_101
06-15-2006, 05:44 PM
Wow, this is a hot button topic!
A thread about the US .50BMG becomes a slug fest
about the Mig-15 VS the F-86.

Guys, they were a close match.
Sabres were a bit faster.
Sabres could dive MUCH faster. (capable of Mach1.2)
Sabres had the advantage of power boosted controls.
I read Chuck Yeagers comments, the Sabre had
a more predictable stall.
Turn rate was close, at high speeds advantage Sabre.
Sabre was a more stable gun platform.
Sabre had better visibility.
Sabre had better avionics.
Sabre had the advantage of very good ground controllers
and their RADAR.

Mig had the advantages of....
Climb
Low speed turning.
Firepower.
Maximum service cealing.
Cost.....

Neither plane was easy to fly for a noob.

again the differences were small, except for training
tactics, and the HUGE advantage of excellent ground
controllers and their RADAR.

Was US training and tactics that much better?
I doubt it. I suspect the ability to vector
in the F-86's to intercept the Mig's was the
primary advantage.
Nothing like knowing where your opponent is
when he does not.

I read about a situation where a squadron of Mig-15's
attacked a flight of US Navy F9F Panthers.

The Migs got spanked hard. No Panthers were lost to
at least 3 Migs confirmed kills.
Why did the slower Panthers prevail?
The Navy RADAR tracked the Mig-15s all the way from their
take off in vladivostock! (Yes, they were RUSSIAN Mig-15bis).
The F9F Panthers were ready and at an advantage
in knowing when and where the Migs would appear.

Sergio

horseback
06-15-2006, 09:59 PM
Sergio, over Korea, the Sabres were flying over enemy territory, literally over North Korea, and along the Yalu River, which demarks the border with Red China. Soviet territory was also in easy distance at the northeastern end. The idea, as far as I know, was to bottle the MiGs up north of the Yalu (their safe haven-officially, the Sabres weren't allowed to violate Chinese airspace) where they were based.

Generally speaking, the MiGs had the radar vectoring advantage in those cases. The USN had radar picket ships (usually destroyers) just off the coast, and these helped as much as they could, but reliable long-range 3-D air search radar wasn't available back then (I know-I worked on 2nd generation 2-D air search radars in the Navy from 75-81).

The F-86's radar was strictly a short-range fire control radar; speculating, I would guess that it could give a pilot a (very accurate)range to target up to a nautical mile (2,000 yds) or so. Most of the time, the pickets could give you a general vector to a formation of MiGs at high alt near the coasts, but they'd be blind to lower alts and further over the middle of the penninsula.

Overall, I would say that the MK I Eyeball was more valuable to US pilots over North Korea than search radar.

cheers

horseback

Kocur_
06-16-2006, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The F-86's radar was strictly a short-range fire control radar </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats right. It wasnt radar for 'searching', but stricly range finder for the gyro gunsight. MiG-15 pilot had to input range manually, by sorrounding target picture in the sight with dots, which was achived by turning knob on throttle. F-86 pilot was free of that due to radar range finder and could concentrate on aiming itself.

GR142-Pipper
06-16-2006, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes Max the Dummy missed the flaps and gear, it was no boosted regular control surfaces.
Same for MiG-17. US pilots over Korea and Vietnam who were wise used that difference.
MiG-23 I dunno about the controls but that was the air superiority fighter over Vietnam.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mig-23? I don't think so. The North Vietnamese Air Force did use Mig-21 aircraft in the Vietnam War but not the Mig-23. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right on both counts. They did, however, also use Mig-19's which often get overlooked.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
06-16-2006, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I can't say that I'm terribly interested in the roots of the expression 'gomer', except to say that my Korean acquaintances don't like hearing it, and become dangerously agitated when it is repeated in their hearing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>North Vietnamese pilots were also referred to as gomers. They had these lame looking flight helmets referred to as "gomer hats".

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
06-16-2006, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Was US training and tactics that much better?
I doubt it. I suspect the ability to vector
in the F-86's to intercept the Mig's was the
primary advantage.
Nothing like knowing where your opponent is
when he does not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This seems to be counter to much that I've read regarding the aircraft of the period. It was EXACTLY the training and tactics that enabled the F-86s to prevail over the similarly-performing Mig-15.

GR142-Pipper

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
MiGs . . . turned tighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the leading Mig-15 pilot of the Korean war (& highest scoring pilot of the Korean war) , pepelyev , disagrees with you

modern owners of both A/C have flowen them both , the verdict is the Saber is more stable & user freindly

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 11:41 AM
I know all about Evgeny, Ivan, Alexandr, Vladimir, Nikolay, Anatoly, and other Russian aces.

This will never end.

So lets put it this way, the Sabre is the hottest, the mostest and the bestest of anything like ever, it is the undisputed champion, it's the Elvis of the skies, blah blah blah.

MiG-15s on the other hand were built by bored circus chimps, and that's why their engine sometimes stalled during high G turns.

Good, were done here.

Back to Browning's.

When I hear people complain that Browning's are under modeled I literally cringe. When it comes to AI, In this sim Browning's don't shot bullets but cut like laser beams.

If Browning's were modeled with any more power it would be an arcade, not a sim.

A simple example.

Since ace AI will simply not fight unless you have a clear speed advantage, I set up a flight of 3 Ace P-40Ms verses me in an 42 Yak-9.

Out of EVERY single flight, when taking fire I was only hit twice with out being killed or suffering critical damage.

Every other time it's either a single sniper kill shot, engine kill/explosion or a complete elevator/rudder controller destruction.

On the other hand, even though P-40 is just about the softest US fighter modeled, it still soaks up a whole boat load of 20mm shells unless it's a solid engine hit or a good burst to the wing.

Two things bug me a lot, when AI flies in pairs, it the same story every time. Going for the wingman naturally allows the leader to swing right on your 6, but by simply going after the leader a quick kill is assured while his wing man just follows with out engaging me.

Pretty silly, I completely expose my 6 for a perfect shot and the wingman just wobbles around waiting until I blow his leader out of the sky.

Another thing is the above mentioned superman accuracy of the Ace AI. I don't care how much of an ace anybody is, those sniper single shots to the canopy for a pilot/engine kill while almost blacking out for Gs and yanking all over the place are totally bogus unless he has guided bullets.

Usually that happens right after I take a first leader kill, and on the extreme high aoa/speed merge, other P-40 somehow manages that single super sniper pilot/engine shot. It's like AI revenge or something.

rmorgansmith
06-17-2006, 01:40 PM
Wow, what a debate. I am surprised no one has mentioned the work of Col. John Boyd, a visionary thinker and fighter pilot and proponent of the " energy manuverability" concept. What was learned by Col. Boyd was that the F-86,s big advantage was two fold, one: the ability to transition more rapidly from one manouever to the next, transition being the key word here. Two; due to better visibility from the cockpit the F-86 pilot was able to stay inside of the enemy pilots OODA loop, observe, orient, decide, act, another of Col. Boyd's concepts. So it is in essence turning inside the pilots brain, not his aircraft.

berg417448
06-17-2006, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rmorgansmith:
Wow, what a debate. I am surprised no one has mentioned the work of Col. John Boyd, a visionary thinker and fighter pilot and proponent of the " energy manuverability" concept. What was learned by Col. Boyd was that the F-86,s big advantage was two fold, one: the ability to transition more rapidly from one manouever to the next, transition being the key word here. Two; due to better visibility from the cockpit the F-86 pilot was able to stay inside of the enemy pilots OODA loop, observe, orient, decide, act, another of Col. Boyd's concepts. So it is in essence turning inside the pilots brain, not his aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I once read some comments from the North Korean pilot who defected with his MIG. He noted these things with respect to visibilty from the MIG-15s that he flew:

The T-shaped tail obscured rear view.
The double-wall canopy would often fog up.
There was no rear view mirror.

I can see how those things could make a big difference with respect to your situational awareness.

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
This will never end.

Back to Browning's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>well stating things that are correct will get you agreed with . i too used to think the lighter & more powerfull Mig had a better turn ability that was counted untill the F-86F , but pepelyev states otherwise . & he should know

the M3 had excellent ballistics , even better again than the M2 . unlike the mig's cannon that had poor trajectory , the Saber's guns were suited to A2A combat . combine this with the Saber being a more stable gun platform & you have a better chance of longer range hitting ability

the Saber had at least 13 seconds of firing time over the 6 seconds of 37mm & 9 seconds of 23mm that the Mig pilot had

M3 RoF 1150/m (M2 only 550-650/m)
M3 MV 1050 m/s (M2 920+m/s)

those are excellent ballistics that are ideal for high speed , deflection , long range shooting . what Saber pilots found tho was teh Mig-15 was tough & Mig's often flew away after recieveing good bursts

it makes you wonder why they made the Mig-15 so manouverable & twitchy when its job was hi-alt bomber interception/killing , when the Saber designed from the start as a A2A fighter , yet was more stable

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/clippa-Mig15gunbay.jpg

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 03:35 PM
I see that some are not willing to let it go and move on back to the topic of guns.

Total Russian aces - 50

Total US aces - 37

Top Russian ace kills - 21
Top US ace kills - 16

Russian top five aces kills - 21/19/15/15/14
US top five aces kills - 16/15/14/14/13

Total Russian top five - 84
Total US top five - 73

Main Russian pilots disadvantages;

1) Severely limited ability to communicate and coordinate group attracts do to a) removal of radios, b) requirement to communicate in Korean which was not suited for air combat.

2) Fighting experienced US pilots.

3) Compressor stall at high speed turns.

Main US pilots disadvantage;

1) Lower thrust to weight.

2) Weaker guns.

Majority of Russian ace kills were against fighters, since B-29 kills are attributed to specific "Free Hunter" missions, like in the case of Anatoly Karelin with his nine B-29 only kills.

In the case of US pilots the exact ratio of kills against experienced Russian pilots verses green Korean pilots is unknown, at least to me, while it is knowing that the overwhelming majority of downed MiG-15s were piloted by inexperienced pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The T-shaped tail obscured rear view.
The double-wall canopy would often fog up.
There was no rear view mirror. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'm surprised he did not complain that there was no stewardess to serve him tea with crumpets, and really sad that the lack of the mirror prevented him from fixing his hair so he can look nice and sporty for his defection.

Everything designed into MiG-15 was to maximise performance, not for creature comfort.

MiG did not have a steerable nose wheel and instead used pneumatic differential braking.

If a green pilots fussed to much while taxing, often upon landing they did not have the pressure for braking and slid of the runway. Those were also counted as kills by US.

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 03:45 PM
pepelyev was the leading russian ace of the Korean war with 19 kills

only 74 Sabers were shot down during the whole war in the air , at a bear minimum over 330 Migs were shot down A2A

& at least 40 UN pilots are credited with being ace (5 kills) . you do know that Russian pilots were paid more for their kills , they had a cash incentive to over-claim

berg417448
06-17-2006, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The T-shaped tail obscured rear view.
The double-wall canopy would often fog up.
There was no rear view mirror. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'm surprised he did not complain that there was no stewardess to serve him tea with crumpets, and really sad that the lack of the mirror prevented him from fixing his hair so he can look nice and sporty for his defection.

Everything designed into MiG-15 was to maximise performance, not for creature comfort.

MiG did not have a steerable nose wheel and instead used pneumatic differential braking.

If a green pilots fussed to much while taxing, often upon landing they did not have the pressure for braking and slid of the runway. Those were also counted as kills by US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's with the attitude? The posted comments are from someone who actually flew a MIG-15 and you come off like it is some personal assault against you.

Every plane has strong points and weaknesses and this MIG 15 pilot felt that rear view was a weakness. He's entitled to his opinion and other MIG-15 pilots might agree or disagree with him.

fordfan25
06-17-2006, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The T-shaped tail obscured rear view.
The double-wall canopy would often fog up.
There was no rear view mirror. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'm surprised he did not complain that there was no stewardess to serve him tea with crumpets, and really sad that the lack of the mirror prevented him from fixing his hair so he can look nice and sporty for his defection.

Everything designed into MiG-15 was to maximise performance, not for creature comfort.

MiG did not have a steerable nose wheel and instead used pneumatic differential braking.

If a green pilots fussed to much while taxing, often upon landing they did not have the pressure for braking and slid of the runway. Those were also counted as kills by US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's with the attitude? The posted comments are from someone who actually flew a MIG-15 and you come off like it is some personal assault against you.

Every plane has strong points and weaknesses and this MIG 15 pilot felt that rear view was a weakness. He's entitled to his opinion and other MIG-15 pilots might agree or disagree with him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>some people cant accept the truth be sure

Kocur_
06-17-2006, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
the M3 had excellent ballistics , even better again than the M2 . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im affraid M3 ballistics were identical to those of M2. They had the same barrel lenght and were fed with the same round.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
M3 RoF 1150/m (M2 only 550-650/m)
M3 MV 1050 m/s (M2 920+m/s) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AN M2 ROF was averagely 800rpm, "550-650" would be valid for land-used M2HB.
Velocities quoted are different due to different projectiles. "1050m/s" is valid for M23 Incendiary aka "MiG killer", but the same round fired from AN M2 would have identical MV.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:unlike the mig's cannon that had poor trajectory </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naturally .50 ballistics were by far superior to those of MiG-15 cannons (with exception of NS-37, but low ROF made it totally unsuitable weapon for fighter vs. fighter), but the latter werent so bad. 690m/s of NS/NR-23 is quite close to 720m/s of HEI fired from MG-151/20, also 23mm cannons projectiles weighted 200g vs. 117g of MG151/20. OTOH angular speeds of targets in deflection shooting were increaced compared to WW2...
Both weapon systems were at opposite extremes, none was as effective as set of 20m cannons would be.

horseback
06-17-2006, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a green pilots fussed to much while taxing, often upon landing they did not have the pressure for braking and slid of the runway. Those were also counted as kills by US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...and he's off again!

Tell me, how did those crafty US pilots know that their opponents of a half hour before had overrun the landing strip?

cheers

horseback

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tell me, how did those crafty US pilots know that their opponents of a half hour before had overrun the landing strip? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like in WWII Soviets counted total units lost, not just air kills over combat area.

When it comes to pilot kills, US only counted kills over the combat area, and Air Force did not count planes damaged beyond repair or forced to land on the way home.

The total US count though, includes the TOTAL of MiG losses, not just pilot kills, and that includes AAA, DBR and forced landings.

That is exactly why the kill ratio has been debated ever since.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(with exception of NS-37, but low ROF made it totally unsuitable weapon for fighter vs. fighter), </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jesus. How the f do you know?

I bet this guy will disagree with you, since he's been hit by 37mm shell

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A MiG bore down on me and began firing with his 37 mm. and 23 mm. cannons. I could see that mean-lookining red nose gun flash when my ship bucked, skidded around and head down. I had been hit Ӛ€" but good. A shell had slammed into my engine just aft of my right wing. The force of the blast had trown the plane around and into a spin. One second I was in the middle of the fight the next I was on my way out with a GI insurance policy due to mature." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


October 6 1951, wing leader of a 4 group Captain Gill Garrett on sortie #97, Sabre BuNo 49-1319, 334th FIS of 4th FIW.

luftluuver
06-17-2006, 04:49 PM
Agh, the 37mm Golden BB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

berg417448
06-17-2006, 04:50 PM
But that BB will definitley shoot your eye out!

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 04:50 PM
More guesstimating;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Both weapon systems were at opposite extremes, none was as effective as set of 20m cannons would be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1/37 + 2X23 system is more effective then the a quad MK 108 pack.

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 05:45 PM
^ & both of them were poor in high speed/closure rate , long range shooting - where you want high MV & RoF

& not only that , the Mig guns were mis-matched giving one trajectory for the 37mm & another for the 23mm - a poor combination for high-speed A2A

the Mig-15 was a bomber killer that had fantastic manouverability - its armament wasnt the best for A2A

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 06:42 PM
Badsight-, what your doing is called revisionism - "a term used in a pejorative sense, indicating an attempt to rewrite history by downgrading or simply ignoring essential facts."

In other words, when enough people repeat the same fallacy it becomes the truth in the eyes of a simpleton.

I suggest you make an attempt to improve your sight and look one page back where the ballistics of 23mm and 37mm were clearly posted. Both share identical muzzle velocity.

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 06:45 PM
heh , & did you think the Bis Mig-15 was there was in Korea untill this thread ?

please ive read this thread start to finish now , on every page there is you posting something wrong , getting clarified & then dropping it for the next point - seems this thread has been a learning experience for you : O


. . . . & you accuse me of revisionisim lol

LStarosta
06-17-2006, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Badsight-, what your doing is called revisionism - "a term used in a pejorative sense, indicating an attempt to rewrite history by downgrading or simply ignoring essential facts."

In other words, when enough people repeat the same fallacy it becomes the truth in the eyes of a simpleton.

I suggest you make an attempt to improve your sight and look one page back where the ballistics of 23mm and 37mm were clearly posted. Both share identical muzzle velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay... Forgive me, being a n00b. But two projectiles of different mass/diameter with identical velocity do not share the same ballistic properties.

I learnt that in teh boondocks.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">heh , & did you think the Bis Mig-15 was there was in Korea untill this thread ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

please I've read this thread start to finish now , on every page there is you posting something wrong , getting clarified & then dropping it for the next point - seems this thread has been a learning experience for you :[/quote]

Please, at least put some effort into yet another lame revisionist attempt.

NR-23 AND NS-23 fire the same projectile at the same velocity, the only difference is the fire rare.

Are you getting payed for this or is it your personal exercise in ignorance?

Try again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Okay... Forgive me, being a n00b. But two projectiles of different mass/diameter with identical velocity do not share the same ballistic properties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct, thus the reason for calculated ballistic convergence point.

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 07:38 PM
lol , come on - how do you expect people to believe that the guns of the Mig-15 didnt have different trajectory

even the pilots said they did - the 37mm would drop under the bandit while the 23mm flew over it

it was a poor combination for high-speed deflection A2A , & its not surprising as bomber killing was what the Mig-15 was designed for

Blutarski2004
06-17-2006, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
690m/s of NS/NR-23 is quite close to 720m/s of HEI fired from MG-151/20, also 23mm cannons projectiles weighted 200g vs. 117g of MG151/20. OTOH angular speeds of targets in deflection shooting were increaced compared to WW2...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


.....Having made a ballistic comparison of M2 50cal versus MG151/20, using official USAF and LW data, I can confirm Kocur's statement that the M2 50cal displayed superior (flatter) trajectory characteristics at any range beyond 200 yards. Its high MV made it a superior air-to-air weapon in terms of scoring hits.

Anyone interested can search for it in the Ubi archives.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 08:05 PM
Oh you're funny, I bet you're the kind of guy that argues that Holocaust did not happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">lol , come on - how do you expect people to believe that the guns of the Mig-15 didnt have different trajectory </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about opening a physics text book and looking that one up before spreading nonsense and polluting the air with utter crapp.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">even the pilots said they did - the 37mm would drop under the bandit while the 23mm flew over it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, who said that? Let me guess, your just going to either ignore this one or switch to something else. How predictable and boring.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it was a poor combination for high-speed deflection A2A , & its not surprising as bomber killing was what the Mig-15 was designed for </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you must have flown MiG-15s then, cause so far I have not read a single Russian pilot account calming that MiG gun system was a "poor combination".

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Oh you're funny, I bet you're the kind of guy that argues that Holocaust did not happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>your a post away from naming me a nazi as well - bites learning new stuff this bad ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
How about opening a physics text book and looking that one up before spreading nonsense and polluting the air with utter crapp. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
lol & im all ears to the physics that show how the heavier round flys the same as the lighter one
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Really, who said that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> russian , as well as korean pilots who wrote about it , doesnt fit your propaganda view tho does it
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Well you must have flown MiG-15s then, cause so far I have not read a single Russian pilot account calming that MiG gun system was a "poor combination". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>doesnt sound like you have read much of anything thats accurate , from page 2 to now you have had multiple people having to correct what you have gotten wrong . good luck with it tho . . .

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its high MV made it a superior air-to-air weapon in terms of scoring hits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, so did the Germans, Brits, Russians, Japanese, and any other logical person.

Yet what counts is the ratio between scoring hits and delivering devastating fire power.

EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERYBODY, including US, arrived to an inescapable conclusion that a MINIMUM of 20mm caliber shell is required to assure a satisfactory degree of effectiveness in air to air gunnery.

It is a simple, logical, historical, and indisputable FACT.

If it was not a fact, then US would have not adopted a single 20mm Vulcan, but a twin .50 cal Gatling.

That did NOT happen. Case closed.

Anyone attempting to dispute such fact are simply lost in a place I do not care to venture into, because as a good movie quote states, 'Hell is the impossibility of reason.'

Keep doing what you're doing.

Blutarski2004
06-17-2006, 08:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
You are correct, thus the reason for calculated ballistic convergence point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I do not understand what you are driving at here. What do you mean by "ballistic convergence point"? Are you referring to some point along the pilot sight line where the trajectories of the two weapons cross? If so, you are discussing a point which, within reason, can be moved anywhere along the sight line by adjustment of respective guns. In fact, it would be possible to sight the guns in such a manner as to produce no such ballistic convergence point. If you fired the 23mm and 37mm weapons of the MiG-15 with the same elevation, there would be no ballistic convergence point at all, as the trajectories of the two guns would never cross one another.

The armament of the Mig-15 was MUCH better suited for anti-bomber work (which was the plane's intended role) than for fighter-vs-fighter combat. No one can argue about the lethality of the MiG-15's weapon outfit; it was much superior to 6 x 50cal, as would be expected of a bomber interceptor. But its hit probability vs a maneuvering fighter target was clearly inferior to that of the 50cal armament outfit of the Sabre. On that point there can be no argument.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">your a post away from naming me a nazi as well - bites learning new stuff this bad ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, it's called a fallacious analogy, in your case it's right on the money, since holocaust deniers use exactly the same fallacious logic as you do, and if you don't want to be compared to Nazi sympathisers, don't use the same lame tricks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">russian , as well as korean pilots who wrote about it , doesnt fit your propaganda view tho does it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote it smarty pants.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">doesnt sound like you have read much of anything thats accurate , from page 2 to now you have had multiple people having to correct what you have gotten wrong . good luck with it tho . . . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote it mouth flapper, cause it "doesn't sound like you know anything", and "it sounds like your like, not totally genuine", and like "other people say that you always post lies cause you like it", etc.

Well buddy, here's what I did read - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/, so if you're thinking of using any more of old lame tricks, I'll be right here tap dancing on your forehead all day.

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Yea, it's called a fallacious analogy, in your case it's right on the money, since holocaust deniers use exactly the same fallacious logic as you do, and if you don't want to be compared to Nazi sympathisers, don't use the same lame tricks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>oh man this is awesome , so disagreeing with you makes anyone a holocaust denying nazi does it ? great way to view it!

anyways hows that physics lesson coming along that shows the flight paght of the differnt Mig-15 guns being the same ?

oh wait - your making it up & trying to say the convergence point is the same thing . the sad thing is you believe the load your pushing

as for pilot accounts , do what i do & read more . the couple you have obviously (& wrongly) suit your viewpoint

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you fired the 23mm and 37mm weapons of the MiG-15 with the same elevation, there would be no ballistic convergence point at all, as the trajectories of the two guns would never cross one another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? How does that work? Both projectiles are launched at exactly the same velocity, so what do you base you "logic" on? How about you refresh my memory on basic high school physics? I'll really appreciate it, thank you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But its hit probability vs a maneuvering fighter target was clearly inferior to that of the 50cal armament outfit of the Sabre. On that point there can be no argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, exactly in the same way as a pair of Shkas firing at 1800 have a higher hit probability then a pair of UBS at 750, yet the DAMAGE caused to the target by UBS is higher.

Humm... what ever could that mean?

I know what that means, yet apparently a lot of people don't, and that's entirely their business.

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 08:54 PM
whose saying the 37mm & 23 didnt hit hard ?

i think your getting mental block here from being disagreed with

PSYOP_mongoose
06-17-2006, 08:55 PM
Lets see if you guys are friendly with basic math.

Browning .50 cal fires a 45 gram projectile at 750 rounds per minute.

One second burst = 12.5 rounds totaling 562.5 grams of lead towards the target time 6 guns to a total of 3375 grams, with 75 round fired.

Shkas 7.62 fires a 9.6 gram projectile at 1800 rounds per minute.

One second burst = 30 rounds totaling 288 grams of lead towards the target time 12 guns (4 through the prop + 6 in the wings) to a total of 3456 grams, with 360 rounds fired.

So by your theory, a fast firing 7.62mm gun combo is more effective then 6 .50 caliber Brownings, because not only it sends more lead towards the target by weight, but by firing FIVE times more projectiles it assures a much greater hit probability by creating a SOLID wall of fire.

Yet in reality it isn't so. Get with it.

Blutarski2004
06-17-2006, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERYBODY, including US, arrived to an inescapable conclusion that a MINIMUM of 20mm caliber shell is required to assure a satisfactory degree of effectiveness in air to air gunnery.

It is a simple, logical, historical, and indisputable FACT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... With the exception of the P-38 and the P39, the USAF did not attempt to fit any of its WW2 or immediate post-WW2 fighter a/c with anything other 50cal until the F86 "GUNVAL" tests late in the Korean War.

The F80, F82, F84, and F86 were all designed with 50cal armament installations. The F89 and F94 carried no gun armament. the first USAF fighter after the P38 to carry a 20mm armament was the F100 Super Sabre.

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 09:04 PM
mongoose is endorsing hit power as the be-all . which is BS

hit-power is great , as long as its useable . & the different guns of the Mig-15 didnt suit - especially for high-speed A2A deflection . whats the use of hit power if its hard to hit anything with it &lt;~~ great when it does connect tho which is why some Russians said that Saber's exploded from just one burst

the Mig wasnt the super-fighter it could have been - no matter how much mongoose thinks it was , especially after the F model Saber was introduced . i too thought the Mig had the turning advantage , lighter , better T-W . but the leading soviet ace stated the opposite - either way its close & like the FB 109 v Spitfire , its stability & user-freindlyness that is the decider

ImpStarDuece
06-17-2006, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERYBODY, including US, arrived to an inescapable conclusion that a MINIMUM of 20mm caliber shell is required to assure a satisfactory degree of effectiveness in air to air gunnery.

It is a simple, logical, historical, and indisputable FACT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... With the exception of the P-38 and the P39, the USAF did not attempt to fit any of its WW2 or immediate post-WW2 fighter a/c with anything other 50cal until the F86 "GUNVAL" tests late in the Korean War.

The F80, F82, F84, and F86 were all designed with 50cal armament installations. The F89 and F94 carried no gun armament. the first USAF fighter after the P38 to carry a 20mm armament was the F100 Super Sabre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct with the exception of the P-61 night fighter, which was fitted with 4 x 20mm and 4 x .50s

However, during WW2 the USN decided that the 20mm was the next step in aircraft armament. Hence the F7F had 4 x 20mm and 4 x .50cal, the F8F started with a .50 armament, but went on to a 20mm armament, the mixed 20mmand .50 cal armemtn of F6F night fighters, and the 4 x 20mms armament fitted to the F4U-1C, the F4U-5 and the F9F Panther.

In fact, between the MiG-15, MiG-15bis, F-86 and F9F, the Panther clearly had the best weapons suite of the group.

The 4 20mms provided a higer rate of fire and better ballsitic match than the mixed armament of the MiG. Similarly, the Panthers wepaons bank fired a far more destructive shell, with a significantly greater weight of throw, both in kinetic and chemical (HE) energy than the 6 x.50 M3s of the Sabre.

Its also interesting to note that very few fighters have been produced with a mixed armament since WW2,

In fact, the 4 x 20mm

Blutarski2004
06-17-2006, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you fired the 23mm and 37mm weapons of the MiG-15 with the same elevation, there would be no ballistic convergence point at all, as the trajectories of the two guns would never cross one another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? How does that work? Both projectiles are launched at exactly the same velocity, so what do you base you "logic" on? How about you refresh my memory on basic high school physics? I'll really appreciate it, thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Mongoose, your argument is valid if the two projectiles were to be fired into a vacuum environment, thereby eliminating the influence of air resistance. Most high school physics courses eliminate the air resistance factor because it is an extremely complex calculation. In fact, air resistance is a major factor in shaping the ballistic trajectory of any projectile. A good exterior ballistics texbook will demonstrate the difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But its hit probability vs a maneuvering fighter target was clearly inferior to that of the 50cal armament outfit of the Sabre. On that point there can be no argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, exactly in the same way as a pair of Shkas firing at 1800 have a higher hit probability then a pair of UBS at 750, yet the DAMAGE caused to the target by UBS is higher.

Humm... what ever could that mean?

I know what that means, yet apparently a lot of people don't, and that's entirely their business. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The issue is much more complicated than what you envision. Overall effectiveness of a weapon is a factor of hit probability and hit lethality with respect to a given target at a given range.


You need to do some more research on this.

Blutarski2004
06-17-2006, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

But the USN did...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You're perfectly correct. Notice that I mentioned USAF as opposed to USA. The point I wanted to make was that the issue was not quite so indisputable as Mongoose made it out to be.

SkyChimp
06-17-2006, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
MiG was unstable at supersonic speeds, just as ALL SUBsonic aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MiG wasn€t capable of supersonic flight. And it had severe pitching problems at relatively low Mach speeds for a swept wing fighter..

Flight testing at Okinawa in 1954 revealed the MiG had severe pitching problems at high speeds. In dives from 55,000 feet, the nose began to pitch-up at mach .83 to such a degree that the pilot had to roll inverted, continue his inverted dive at a 45 degree angle so that the continued pitch-up pointed the plane at the ground.

At Mach .92 a red light on the instrument panel would illuminate indicating the plane€s €œred line.€ The highest speed reached was Mach .98. During the dives, it was found that the rudder and elevators were ineffective €" observed to literally be moving with no effect on the attitude of the plane. The pilot was forced to use the air-brakes, reduce power, and dive to 12,000 to regain control of the aircraft. Curiously, the chase F-86 did not experience any of these problems.

Chuck Yeager, and Tom Collins, the test pilots, stated things like:
€œIt was the most dangerous plane I ever flew,€
€œThe guns fired slowly and had little range,€
€œ{the guns were} good for downing B-29s, but not good for a dogfight with a Sabre,€
€œThe MiG has problems with oscillating, pitched up unexpectedly, entered fatal spins, gave no stall warning, was poorly pressurized, and had a particularly dangerous emergency fuel pump.€

The Americans found that the gauges in the MiG were inaccurate, particularly the airspeed indicator, which had to be replaced with an American unit. The Russian gauge read too-high, which may be the impetus for the myth that the MiG had supersonic capability.

The Sabre, on the other hand, could exceed Mach 1 in a shallow dive, with only a minor and controllable tendency to pitch-up. Below 25,000 there was a tendency for the plane to roll at supersonic speeds. Thus, a limitation was placed on the plane of Mach .95 below 25,000 feet. Above 25,000 there were no limitations. As is well known, this €œbelow 25,000 feet€ limitation was not always observed.

The Sabre possessed a huge advantage over the MiG in terms of controllability at high subsonic speeds, with the added ability to fly supersonic that the MiG did not possess.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
MiGs climbed faster, dove faster, and turned tighter.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MiGs had better climb rates due to better wing loading and better thrust:weight ratios.

MiGs certainly didn€t dive faster. They may have accelerated faster, but they reached their critical Machs much sooner as a result, with the added disadvantage of having a much lower critical Mach than the Sabre.

That the MiG €œturned tighter€ is a theoretical assertion based on wing loading which favored the MiG. It was not an advantage in reality, however. There was some advantage at very high altitudes, until the introduction of the F-86F with the broad-chord wing. MiGs had poor high speed stall characteristics that prevented tight turns. Some pilots were able to fly the plane on the edge of the stall, but many were killed from entering unrecoverable spins as a result of the stalls. At all but very high altitudes, and at higher speeds, the advantage was with the Sabre.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Do to the lack of assisted controls and supersonic instability
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no supersonic instability. There was severe instability at high subsonic speeds.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
F-86 was in fact more stable, at high speeds, around M0.91. Were talking dive buffeting here. That's what speed brakes are for.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nonsense. Again, the Sabre had no speed restrictions above 25,000 feet, and a placard dive speed limitation of Mach .95 below 25,000 feet. At speeds higher than Mach .95 at lower altitudes the plane was characterized as having controllable pitch up tendencies, and a slight tendency to roll. No mention of €œdive buffeting€ at any sped, and certainly not at Mach .91.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In the hands of inexperienced pilots the most serious problem for the MiG was touchy spins. Think FW190/P-39, to green pilots it mean pants full of load, but to guys that know what they're doing it's just a snappy roll rate.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MiG pilots avoided the snap roll like the plague. Experienced pilots could, inexperienced pilots sometime didn€t, and died by the dozens. The suggestion that experienced pilots could use the snap roll, with often resulted in unrecoverable spins, to some advantage is preposterous.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Everything designed into MiG-15 was to maximise performance, not for creature comfort.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they had thought about €œcreature comfort,€ its pilots may have performed better with it. The plane had a notoriously lousy oxygen system that often failed, forcing pilots to lower altitudes. Some pilots passed out and crashed due to oxygen deprivation. Due to the lack of an air conditioner and adequate defroster, the cockpit retained moisture and the canopy often frosted as a result. American pilots at Okinawa found that the oxygen regulator had already corroded in a relatively new plane.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I suggest you make an attempt to improve your sight and look one page back where the ballistics of 23mm and 37mm were clearly posted. Both share identical muzzle velocity.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you suggesting that the 23 and 37mm guns would have the same trajectories because they had the same muzzle velocities? BTW, €œmuzzle velocity€ is only a part of the €œballistics€ picture. One has to take into account the ballistic coefficients of the projectiles. Given the disparities between projectiles, its probable that the 37mm was arching through the flatter trajectory of the 23mm at the point of convergence. I€m not going to do your homework for you, but given your expertise, I suggest you plug the muzzle velocities, and ballistic coefficients (if you have them) of the respective projectiles to any number of the ballistic calculators available on the net and check it out. I€d like to see your results.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Well you must have flown MiG-15s then, cause so far I have not read a single Russian pilot account calming that MiG gun system was a "poor combination".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin executed some pilots in WWII if they voiced their preference for a lend-lease plane over a domestic fighter. If my knowledge of history is correct, Stalin was still in power at the time of the Korean War.

And if no Russian pilot ever said the combo was sub-par for fighter work, a well known North Korean pilot did. No ***-Sok stated the guns fired too slowly and had little range, a fact confirmed by US testing. US examination of NK ammo found that it was fused to detonate at 600 yards.

LStarosta
06-17-2006, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Oh you're funny, I bet you're the kind of guy that argues that Holocaust did not happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">lol , come on - how do you expect people to believe that the guns of the Mig-15 didnt have different trajectory </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about opening a physics text book and looking that one up before spreading nonsense and polluting the air with utter crapp.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:


You are correct, thus the reason for calculated ballistic convergence point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


With all due respect, I think you agreed that the 23mm and 37mm cannons have different trajectories in your response to my post.

If two projectiles of varying mass and frontal surface area have the same initial velocity, then they cannot have the same ballistic properties at any range after the initial position of the projectiles. Therefore, a convergence must be calculated, like you said. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that not imply that the 37mm and 23mm projectiles have a different trajectory?

GR142-Pipper
06-18-2006, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The F80, F82, F84, and F86 were all designed with 50cal armament installations. The F89 and F94 carried no gun armament. the first USAF fighter after the P38 to carry a 20mm armament was the F100 Super Sabre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...a few small nit-picky clarifications. The F-89A, B and C models were actually the first operational USAF fighter aircraft to carry the 20 mm armament as standard. The F-89D and subsequent deleted the 20mm armament and went to an all-rocket and/or missile combination. F-94A and B models used 4 50cal mg's (optionally, plus 4 more in two underwing pods) while the F-94C model dispensed with the gun weapons.

GR142-Pipper

Blutarski2004
06-18-2006, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The F80, F82, F84, and F86 were all designed with 50cal armament installations. The F89 and F94 carried no gun armament. the first USAF fighter after the P38 to carry a 20mm armament was the F100 Super Sabre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...a few small nit-picky clarifications. The F-89A, B and C models were actually the first operational USAF fighter aircraft to carry the 20 mm armament as standard. The F-89D and subsequent deleted the 20mm armament and went to an all-rocket and/or missile combination. F-94A and B models used 4 50cal mg's (optionally, plus 4 more in two underwing pods) while the F-94C model dispensed with the gun weapons.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Thanks for the correction, Pipper. I learned something new today.

My first employer was a F89 radar intercept officer ("GIB") and used to talk about carrying the big nuclear tipped ait-to-air missiles (Genies?)

PSYOP_mongoose
06-18-2006, 01:31 PM
This is going to be a long one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hit-power is great , as long as its useable . & the different guns of the Mig-15 didnt suit - especially for high-speed A2A deflection . whats the use of hit power if its hard to hit anything with it &lt;~~ great when it does connect tho which is why some Russians said that Saber's exploded from just one burst </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you base that on which statistics? Again your personal speculations? How about some WWII stats from Britain/Japan/Germany/Russia?

Ant numbers to back up those assumptions of yours? Opinions are all good about the weather and stuff, but people did a lot of research about this stuff, so it's just all you right? So who are you exactly to present your home made opinions as fact?

No disrespect here, just curios minds want to know what exactly you base your statements on, you know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
the Mig wasnt the super-fighter it could have been - no matter how much mongoose thinks it was </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Putting words in my mouth I see, so where did I state that MiG-15 was superior? Another old tired trick ha? Man you're used up. Think of something a tad more tangible will ya.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">either way its close & like the FB 109 v Spitfire , its stability & user-freindlyness that is the decider </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? LOL! Right....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With the exception of the P-38 and the P39, the USAF did not attempt to fit any of its WW2 or immediate post-WW2 fighter a/c with anything other 50cal until the F86 "GUNVAL" tests late in the Korean War. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both of which had cannons suplemented with 50s, as we all know. What's your point?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the first USAF fighter after the P38 to carry a 20mm armament was the F100 Super Sabre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well gee, I wonder why....

Thanks to ImpStarDuece for pitching in for the side of logic and common sense, espetially about the Panther.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mongoose, your argument is valid if the two projectiles were to be fired into a vacuum environment, thereby eliminating the influence of air resistance. Most high school physics courses eliminate the air resistance factor because it is an extremely complex calculation. In fact, air resistance is a major factor in shaping the ballistic trajectory of any projectile. A good exterior ballistics texbook will demonstrate the difference.[=/quote]

Good God, another example of our faling educational system, and considering the scale it simply can not be a an accident.

Blutarski2004, I asked for NUMBERS, not WORDS, OK?

[quote]..... The issue is much more complicated than what you envision. Overall effectiveness of a weapon is a factor of hit probability and hit lethality with respect to a given target at a given range.


You need to do some more research on this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I give numbers, you give words and oppinions. Humm, how can I make it more clearer I wonder? CALCULATE stuff and the post the results, it can't you got nothing to say, period.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If two projectiles of varying mass and frontal surface area have the same initial velocity, then they cannot have the same ballistic properties at any range after the initial position of the projectiles. Therefore, a convergence must be calculated, like you said. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that not imply that the 37mm and 23mm projectiles have a different trajectory? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do the math LStarosta, don't assume.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The MiG wasn€t capable of supersonic flight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, it was not a supersoninc platform.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And it had severe pitching problems at relatively low Mach speeds for a swept wing fighter.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Flight testing at Okinawa in 1954 revealed the MiG had severe pitching problems at high speeds. In dives from 55,000 feet, the nose began to pitch-up at mach .83 to such a degree that the pilot had to roll inverted, continue his inverted dive at a 45 degree angle so that the continued pitch-up pointed the plane at the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, it was NOT a supersonic plane. As it's well know, buffeting did accur at m.83, thus the need for speed brakes. What's the point?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At Mach .92 a red light on the instrument panel would illuminate indicating the plane€s €œred line.€ The highest speed reached was Mach .98. During the dives, it was found that the rudder and elevators were ineffective €" observed to literally be moving with no effect on the attitude of the plane. The pilot was forced to use the air-brakes, reduce power, and dive to 12,000 to regain control of the aircraft. Curiously, the chase F-86 did not experience any of these problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's just the same as saying that strapping rocket boosters to F-86 caused structurall collapse upon attempts to bring it into the orbit. MiG-15 was NOT desinged to operate at supesonic speeds, that's it.

Chuck Yeager, Tom Collins, great Americans, their oppinons on MiG-15 stem from their pilot expiriance, build philosophy of which ENTIRELY differs from Soviet phylosophy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Chuck Yeager, and Tom Collins, the test pilots, stated things like </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which MiG was it? I'm curious to know if the problems reported were unit specific or desing spesific, because I'm not aware of production wide problems with poor pressurizition and dangerous emergency fuel pump. In what way was it dangerous?

All other comments are pilot preference specific.

In the hands of Russian pilots MiG-15 created more aces and scored more ace kills then F-86, so it obviously worked for the Russians.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiGs certainly didn€t dive faster. They may have accelerated faster, but they reached their critical Machs much sooner as a result, with the added disadvantage of having a much lower critical Mach than the Sabre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Sabre possessed a huge advantage over the MiG in terms of controllability at high subsonic speeds, with the added ability to fly supersonic that the MiG did not possess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely correct. How about do to it's higher thrust to weight it pulled away faster in a dive, and yes, as repeated agian and again, the critical M was 0.92, speed at weach the least figthing took place.

Remind me, have there been any gun kills at M 0.92 or M1? I can't recall personally, but what I do know is that gun engagment at near M1 and over are considered a waste of ammo.

Even today with M2.5 jets, do to human factor limitations most combat takes place with in 400 to 800km/p, and reaching supersonic speeds only during escapes/chaces. It's just the way it is, and for the MiG-15 not having supersoninc capability was not in any way a disadvantage, in stead of out diving it just climbed.

Finally, I really apritiate some common sense here;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That the MiG €œturned tighter€ is a theoretical assertion based on wing loading which favored the MiG. It was not an advantage in reality, however. There was some advantage at very high altitudes, until the introduction of the F-86F with the broad-chord wing. MiGs had poor high speed stall characteristics that prevented tight turns. Some pilots were able to fly the plane on the edge of the stall, but many were killed from entering unrecoverable spins as a result of the stalls. At all but very high altitudes, and at higher speeds, the advantage was with the Sabre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are damn right, on just about everything. Early MiGs did enjoy higher high altitude maneuverability do to a better wing load, yet most of the combat took place at lower altitudes, where Sabre was naturally easier to pilot do to assisted controls.

We already talked about high speed buffeting and high speed turn compressor stall. For Russian pilots it was common knowledge, and was considered as favorable performance trade-offs.

The main difference in design philosophies here are in pilot requirements. Considering massive Soviet pilot losses in WWII, their pilot training program took on massive proportions, and aircraft design

When Russian pilots get to fly US gear the always say say something like "oh wow, it's like flying in a first class hotel, I love it! But if I'm to go into combat I'll have to rip more then half of this junk away though, but it sure is nice."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nonsense. Again, the Sabre had no speed restrictions above 25,000 feet, and a placard dive speed limitation of Mach .95 below 25,000 feet. At speeds higher than Mach .95 at lower altitudes the plane was characterized as having controllable pitch up tendencies, and a slight tendency to roll. No mention of €œdive buffeting€ at any sped, and certainly not at Mach .91. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't get me, I was talking about MiGs buffeting. You said M0.92 I said M0.91, that's all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiG pilots avoided the snap roll like the plague. Experienced pilots could, inexperienced pilots sometime didn€t, and died by the dozens. The suggestion that experienced pilots could use the snap roll, with often resulted in unrecoverable spins, to some advantage is preposterous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, see above for pilot training depth and design philosophy. As I have previously said, in general Korean pilots tried to avoid all high energy maneuvers in fear of loosing control.

Remember the I-16, MiG-1/3, same control issues, yet along with the wealth of highly trained pilots with massive flight time hours.
When the majority of experienced pilots were wiped out in the opening days of the war, highly aerodynamically stable designs were preferred to shorten pilot training time.

Yak line was considered as the easiest and most forgiving fighter to pilot for green pilots.

After WWII the abundance of highly skilled pilots allowed the designers to again push the performance envelope, as with MIG-15.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If they had thought about €œcreature comfort,€ its pilots may have performed better with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true, at least for Russians, as their WWII records indicate.

Note the WWII Yak development pattern. Yak-1, Yak-7 trainer converted for combat, Yak-9, Yak-3. While Yak-1/7 were the "common" man bread, Yak-9/3 were high performance and well tuned units assigned to pilots with greater experience.

Yak-9/3 in fact had oxygen supply while most 1/7s did not. It takes skill to fly at altitudes that require oxygen.

Simple economics here, why spend the resources when in the hands of inexperienced operator they will only be burned.

Soviet combat statistics clearly dictated and enforced a brutal survival policy, if a pilot was skilled enough to survive X number of sorties in lower quality machine, he was assigned to better units with better equipment to maximise the effectiveness of his skills.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The plane had a notoriously lousy oxygen system that often failed, forcing pilots to lower altitudes. Some pilots passed out and crashed due to oxygen deprivation. Due to the lack of an air conditioner and adequate defroster, the cockpit retained moisture and the canopy often frosted as a result. American pilots at Okinawa found that the oxygen regulator had already corroded in a relatively new plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That I simply don't know about that. I do know that pressurisation systems on I-225, LA-9/11/15/17 and a whole line of other Soviet aircraft were problem free, so I'm at a loss to how a whole line of standardised systems operate on regular bases and all the sudden do not work in MiG-15.

Faulty oxygen system aspect is also odd, since it was by far not the first Russian system, with MiG-1 being one of the first mass produced fighters with oxygen as standard, and it is totally absurd to assume that after two decades of development and successful designs Russians could not manufacture a reliable system for MiG-15.

Loss of consciousness from oxygen deprivation is a CLASSIC example of pilot inexperienced. As I hope you know, ALL US pilots go through oxygen deprivation training, to learn the "feel" of their limits. Green pilots simply do not recognise the symptoms of oxygen deprivation, as WWII records indicate time and time again.

If the oxygen systems exhausts/fails the pilot is warned with a warning light indicating not to exceed the alt limit, and procedures REQUIRES him to communicate that to GCI, because he will no longer be able to fight at high alt.

Since high alt B-29 intercept was the primary mission for MiG-15s, it is illogical to assume that MIG had a faulty oxygen system because it would render the whole weapon platform simply useless, which was obviously not the fact since MIGs forced B-29s into night bombing.

On regulator corrosion I've noted below in regards to ground crews.

Cockpit freezing is also rather strange, again since it's the first step basics of high altitude flight. MiG-1/3 ceiling is 39,360, so I'm sure they know all about cockpit freezing, and again it's simply hard to believe that after ten years they simply didn't care about it.

It just doesn't make any sense unless the units that exhibited such problems were damaged, suffered from factory quality control which in case of MiG-15 is highly unlikely considering the manufacturing culture level of that time, so I just don't know, it's strange.

When Brits closely examined the MIG they were surprised by the quality of construction, and compared it to the Rolls Royce not because of the engine origin, but by tight fit and finish and as they put it "lavish" cockpit and instrumentation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[quote]The Americans found that the gauges in the MiG were inaccurate, particularly the airspeed indicator, which had to be replaced with an American unit. The Russian gauge read too-high, which may be the impetus for the myth that the MiG had supersonic capability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, considering 40 years of Russian record setting aviation it's hard to believe that they could not make an accurate gauge. That's just simply preposterous.

Instrument calibration is a regular ground crew duty, and if US ground crews were not familiar with Russian procedures, all kinds of maintenance inconsistencies will naturally crop up, including all kinds of instrument errors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Are you suggesting that the 23 and 37mm guns would have the same trajectories because they had the same muzzle velocities? BTW, €œmuzzle velocity€ is only a part of the ballistics picture. One has to take into account the ballistic coefficients of the projectiles. Given the disparities between projectiles, its probable that the 37mm was arching through the flatter trajectory of the 23mm at the point of convergence. I€m not going to do your homework for you, but given your expertise, I suggest you plug the muzzle velocities, and ballistic coefficients (if you have them) of the respective projectiles to any number of the ballistic calculators available on the net and check it out. I€d like to see your results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly SkyChimp. 23mm and 37 will have matched trajectories to the point of ballistic calibration. Same as a tank coax 7.62 is matched to the main gun.

I know all well that muzzle velocity is only a part of the picture, that is exactly why I said that "the jury is still out on 37mm shell ballistics."

I have not done the numbers my self, that's all. I can't find my ballistics program, I haven't used it in awhile, since I'm not loading.

The online ballistic calcs I found were for big game hunting, and they do not take large calibers into account. If you find one let me know.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Stalin executed some pilots in WWII if they voiced their preference for a lend-lease plane over a domestic fighter. If my knowledge of history is correct, Stalin was still in power at the time of the Korean War. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll skip that entirely, it's a non issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And if no Russian pilot ever said the combo was sub-par for fighter work, a well known North Korean pilot did. No ***-Sok stated the guns fired too slowly and had little range, a fact confirmed by US testing. US examination of NK ammo found that it was fused to detonate at 600 yards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

600 yards sounds about right. The chances of gun combat beyond that range are statistically so marginal that sacrificing high HE yield for the ability to engage at long range is simply illogical. It's a simply statistical conclusion everybody arrived by 1942.

Statistically the overwhelming majority of gun engagements took place with in what, 200/300 yards? So there is absolutely no point of sacrificing higher kill probability for a 1000 yard engagement range. Simple numbers.

[quote].... Relative to caliber, the N-37 37mm did fire a somewhat lighter round. But if you calculate the ballistic co-efficients of the two projectiles, the 37mm projectile still held an advantage of about 1.4:1 over that of the NR-23. Unless the form factors of the two were grotesquely different, that C advantage means a better retained velocity and therefore a flatter overall trajectory for the 37mm round.

Yes, Russians followed the excellent thin walled shell fire by MK-108.

I'm still not sure on the trajectory curve though. If the 37 retains a flatter trajectory, why download the 23 to match the muzzle velocity?

I'm thinking it's for matching the impact point for both shells, so that way the 37 will reach the target at the same time as 23, thus increasing kill probability and ease of aiming.

By leading with 23s, as soon as you see sparks open up with a 37 and solid hits are assured, so the "low" 400 rof is a non-issue.


SkyChimp, I'm glad you're here btw, good stuff, keep it up.

horseback
06-18-2006, 02:19 PM
You think that if you wait a week and repeat the same misinformation, no one will notice?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It just doesn't make any sense unless the units that exhibited such problems were damaged, suffered from factory quality control which in case of MiG-15 is highly unlikely considering the manufacturing culture level of that time, so I just don't know, it's strange.

When Brits closely examined the MIG they were surprised by the quality of construction, and compared it to the Rolls Royce not because of the engine origin, but by tight fit and finish and as they put it "lavish" cockpit and instrumentation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On Monday the 12th of June, we had this exchange:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Me:
It could fly a bit higher and had slightly better acceleration than the F-86 due to its lighter weight, but the Sabre was just as fast, better in the dive, and more maneuverable than the less aerodynamically sophisticated MiG. The MIGs heavier armament was also significantly slower firing, and further hampered by a relatively primative sighting/aiming system.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You:

What? MiG-15 "less aerodynamically sophisticated"? Where the heck did you get that from? F-86 had higher sustained speed, that's it.

When the Brits got their hand on one they were shocked to find that "MiGs were built like a Rolls Royce". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Me:

MiG ENGINES were built like Rolls Royce because they were designed by Rolls Royce. The rest of the MiG's construction and finish was typically shoddy Soviet workmanship. Successful Soviet weapon designs usually took the distractions of the 'Workers' Paradise' into account, and made things as simple, reliable, and idiot-proof as possible. At the height of the Cold War, client states of the Soviet Union wanted their weapons built in Czechoslovakia or East Germany for excellent reason. India preferred to build their own MiGs, and Pakistan bought its MiG copies from China. MUCH better quality.

I said "aerodynamically more sophisticated" because I had just read a quote from a Soviet colonel (Lobov?-I'm away from my home, and I can't remember) who had flown over Korea against the Americans that used those same words. It's in Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces' volume on the Korean War in the section comparing the MiG to the F-86. He also said that the F-86 was more maneuverable than the MiG, and that the sighting system was superior. Chuck Yeager said much the same things from his test flights of the defector's MiG-15 right after the conflict.

I figure that those two were sufficiently authoritive sources to say that the Sabre was better in those areas.

More sophisticated aerodynamic design is how you get a faster, more maneuverable airplane in spite of a lower thrust-to-weight don'tcha know... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>'Nuff said.

cheers

horseback

PSYOP_mongoose
06-18-2006, 05:35 PM
Here we go, typical cold war era propaganda;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiG ENGINES were built like Rolls Royce because they were designed by Rolls Royce. The rest of the MiG's construction and finish was typically shoddy Soviet workmanship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, have you ever personally seen Soviet workmanship? What do you know about it? Metallurgy, welding, and all other general manufacturing aspect.

What exactly do YOU know?

Indeed MiG-15s RD-45 is a Rolls Royce Nene, but if one has a basic interest to find out why, it very quickly becomes apparent that for Russians it was a matter of R&D time, not their inability to produce their own design.

A simple look into Soviet airspace evolution shows that back in the 30s they were actively working on rocket, gas turbine, ramjet and turbojet propulsion.

Most of R&D was halted do to WWII, and when a turbojet became immediately necessary for mass production, they simply adopted Nene because it already went through all testing phases and was reliable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Successful Soviet weapon designs usually took the distractions of the 'Workers' Paradise' into account, and made things as simple, reliable, and idiot-proof as possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are the distractions of the 'Workers' Paradise' exactly?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At the height of the Cold War, client states of the Soviet Union wanted their weapons built in Czechoslovakia or East Germany for excellent reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh man, do some reading will you. It's called politics/economics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">India preferred to build their own MiGs, and Pakistan bought its MiG copies from China. MUCH better quality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got to be kidding me. It is CHEAPER to build under licence then to pay full price. In addition manufacturing under license builds up manufacturing capacity, creates jobs and lowers dependency.

We are talking economic basics here. I can only blame our non existent educational system. What a shame and embarrassment, no wonder Europeans loathe us and love our money at the same time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I said "aerodynamically more sophisticated" because I had just read a quote from a Soviet colonel (Lobov?-I'm away from my home, and I can't remember) who had flown over Korea against the Americans that used those same words. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote it, I'd like to read that for my self.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">More sophisticated aerodynamic design is how you get a faster, more maneuverable airplane in spite of a lower thrust-to-weight don'tcha know... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh wait a minute, let me call a friend of mine, incidental a PhD in aerodynamics, I'm sure he'll "remind" me to what's it all about.

Look up what wing flex/vibration is and what it has to do with turbulence interaction.

Russians calculated dynamics of supersonic flight back in the 30s. Moskalyev's 1933 SAM-4 project was to exceed Mach 1 with a delta wing rocket powered plane. They didn't need to prove that supersonic flight was possible, they were already working on a delta and swept wing destined for supersonic flight.

Russian fighters of WWII were the most maneuverable, stable and fastest designs, and it traditionally stayed that way to this day. It's just how it is.

If you want to babble some tired, old school anti-communist propaganda about the 'Workers' Paradise' and such, go ahead, I for one live in the 21st century, and when it comes to appreciating professional achievements I don't discriminate on the bases of politics, race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, etc.

Great design is like good music, I don't care who plays it as long as its true and inspired.

I deeply respect proper effort regardless of its origin, and In the case of Russian engineers, especially considering the book of world records they have been writing in spite of "distractions of the 'Workers' Paradise' ", that respect has been certainly earned.

edit:missed a quote bracket

HerrGraf
06-18-2006, 05:42 PM
Gentlemen, some civility please!
It is better to hit with a .22 than to miss with a .44 mag.
Comparing WW2 aircraft and aircraft armaments to Korean War equipment requirements is comparing apples and oranges (evan if some equipment was used in both wars). As airplane speeds increase, the smaller caliber weapons become less effective in thier deadlyness.
During WW2 the .50 cal. was very deadly against all advaseries. Even German Heinkle 111 bombers were shot down with ease. Anyone who thinks this weapon is a pile of #&*^ is a fool. Does that make it superior to a 20MM? No! Pound for pound the 20MM is a better gun in its destructiveness. However, destructiveness is not the only criteria to judge a weapon on. The U.S. felt that it was good enough for what was called for and had the 20MM waiting in the background if it was needed. As long as it destroyed its targets, was easy on the supply line, guarantied a high hit percentage, was a reliable weapons system in any environment, etc. why change to a new weapons system?
Look at the U.S. Armies ground to air defense systems of WW2. The mobile setup at first was 2 .50s and 37MM on a 1/2 track. This did not last very long before being changed to 4 .50s on a 1/2 track and there it stayed for the rest of the war. No 20MM were used by the army for anti-aircraft defense. After war a twin 40MM was developed.
If one wants to compare apples to pears, then if 20MM is so uber, then howcome most modern airforces have armed thier planes with 25MM or 30MM cannons?

LStarosta
06-18-2006, 05:53 PM
If Russian planes are so good just because they're Russian, then how come 8/10 videos of modern jets exploding at air shows are of Russian airplanes?

Oh wait... It's probably Cold War era propaganda.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-18-2006, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is better to hit with a .22 than to miss with a .44 mag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No arguments there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anyone who thinks this weapon is a pile of #&*^ is a fool. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed as well, yet the only advantage of the .50 is not technological, but economical.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The U.S. felt that it was good enough for what was called for and had the 20MM waiting in the background if it was needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is incorrect, see here; "problems of the US-made 20 mm Hispano" -

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[Editor's note: a recurring subject of debate is why the USAAF and USN relied almost exclusively on the .50 Browning MG as an aircraft gun during the Second World War, and did not make more use of the 20 mm Hispano cannon which was in production in the USA during this period. Some people assume from this that the .50 Browning was inherently superior to any and all aircraft cannon of 20+mm, despite the fact that all other major powers engaged in the war had adopted 20 mm cannon as the principal fighter weapon long before the end of the war, with some moving up to even larger calibres. The answer that the explanation lay in production quality problems with the American Hispano is often greeted with incredulity; after all, wasn't American industrial production the best in the world?

The history of the acquisition and development of the American Hispano is dealt with at great length in the classic work, "The Machine Gun", written by George M. Chinn, a retired USMC Colonel, in the early 1950s. What follows is two extracts from this account, which between them explain (almost) what happened, and why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full article here - http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If one wants to compare apples to pears, then if 20MM is so uber, then howcome most modern airforces have armed thier planes with 25MM or 30MM cannons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because gun sights became sophisticated enough to allow for more accurate targeting with projectiles which had higher HE load, thus increasing kill probability while cutting down on total weight of the gun system.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-18-2006, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If Russian planes are so good just because they're Russian, then how come 8/10 videos of modern jets exploding at air shows are of Russian airplanes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good question actually.

Because do to high thrust to weight ratio Russian jets regularly perform high performance maneuvers at low altitudes, while US jets are not cleared to do the same maneuvers at low altitudes.

I know every video you are referring to.

One is a Flanker pulling a low altitude high AOA power loop, miscalculates and scrapes the tarmac with the engines.

The other was with a pair Fulcrums, one cut the loop to tight and the other clipped it on the merge. That was clear pilot error. Do to thick cloud cover the maneuver should never have been performed.

The other was a fulcrum doing a super high AOA power pass, and right engine sucked in a bird and flamed out.

In all instances all pilots survived with out injuries do to excellent K-36D ejection seat.

The ejection seat proved to be so superb, that currently it is built in US under license and fitted on all US jets.

IBP Aerospace builds K-36 3.5A and K-36 3.5L variants, while Goodrich Safety Systems Division purchased the K-36 3.5 program and is now in charge of the majority of American seat manufacture with all three major systems to be produced in the US.

So much for "shabby" Russian workmanship.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-18-2006, 06:37 PM
Man that engine flame out crash was spectacular!

The pilot landed two seconds after the parachute opened. He was flying so low and after he ejected his Fulcrum crashed so close, that as soon as he touched down the parachute was shredded by the heat wave from the explosion, so if he would've ejected earlier and was in the air when the heat wave went out, he would most likely be dead or at least severely injured.

That was something to see.

tigertalon
06-18-2006, 07:00 PM
Nice read, nice discussion...

However I find it interesting how after 15 years (!!!) after the breakup of Soviet Union and thus ending of cold war, some people here still think Soviets/Russians are/were a lower life forms without basic common sense, with IQ lower than their heigth in feet...

Now this is not aimed at anyone on this forum -
There's one thing americans are good at: propaganda, and this thread is one of most beautiful proofs of it I have ever seen.

Did any expert here in this thread learn some cyrilic, spend a few years on russian sources, and learn their claims? Of course not, they are liars.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

KraljMatjaz
06-18-2006, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
If Russian planes are so good just because they're Russian, then how come 8/10 videos of modern jets exploding at air shows are of Russian airplanes?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Russian planes are so bad just because they're Russian, then how come 8/10 videos of modern jets performing breath taking maneouvers and flying on the edge at air shows are of Russian airplanes?

PSYOP_mongoose
06-18-2006, 07:52 PM
Take it easy guys, this is how flame wars start, and then it just turns ugly.

LStarosta
06-18-2006, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
If Russian planes are so good just because they're Russian, then how come 8/10 videos of modern jets exploding at air shows are of Russian airplanes?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Russian planes are so bad just because they're Russian, then how come 8/10 videos of modern jets performing breath taking maneouvers and flying on the edge at air shows are of Russian airplanes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask Oleg, he overmodelled them.

SkyChimp
06-18-2006, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The U.S. felt that it was good enough for what was called for and had the 20MM waiting in the background if it was needed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
That is incorrect, see here; "problems of the US-made 20 mm Hispano" -
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, he's correct. By the time Korea rolled about, the problems with the Hispano had been solved. As you know, the Hispano was the primary armament of USN/USMC fighters from the end of WWII through the Korean War. The USN's primary jet fighter in Korea was the F9F Panther that carried 4 M3 Hispanos that were considered very reliable and destructive. The USN preferred the 20mm - and they were reliable.

However, the USAF didn't see it that way. They had a reliable 20mm cannon that could have been installed in production F-86s - an it wasn't the Hispano.

The USAF experimented with 20mm armament on the F-86. They tried both the Swiss made Oerlikon 206 RK cannons, and the US made T-160 (later designated M-39) 20mm revolving cannons - copies of German Mausers. Both guns were very reliable. Both were destructive. And operational testing of F-86F-2s armed with the T-160 showed they were perfectly capable of dealing with MiGs. Aside from the time it took to harmonize the guns (3 times longer than the .50s), and compressor stalling due to gas ingestion (which was fixed with the installation of a shield in the firing port), the USAF still stuck with the .50s for the rest of the war. While recognizing the greater punch of the 20mm over the .50, it was decided the .50 offered sufficient punch for the planes the USAF was encountering, along with greater hit probability.

The 20mm M-39 was incorporated into later F-86Hs (fighter/bomber), F-86Ks (interceptor) and F-100s (fighter/bomber), none of which served in Korea. No 20mm armed F-86 day fighters (A, E, F) were serially produced with 20mms.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-18-2006, 09:33 PM
Oh this is just SO weak;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ask Oleg, he overmodelled them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

History shows how it really was, and is accepted as such world wide as a fact;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Nicknamed "Dogfighter Supreme", the Yakovlev Yak-3 was the ultimate refinement in Soviet wartime fighter development. The smallest and lightest combat fighter of World War II, it possessed quick acceleration, light and responsive controls and an excellent rate of climb. Its sleek lines, aerodynamic cleanliness, wide landing gear and spacious cockpit made it very popular with all of its Russian pilots. So well liked, it was also chosen by the Free French Normandy-Niemen Squadron who flew with the Russians. This group of pilots had the choice of any allied fighter aircraft - and chose the Yak-3.

First flown in 1943, trials showed a speed of 410 mph at 9,840 ft and 422 mph at 12,140 ft. It could complete a 360 degree turn within 18.5 seconds. Reaching quantity production in 1944, a total of 4848 were produced. Upon entering combat with the Luftwaffe it was fund to be markedly superior to both the Focke Wulf 190 and the Messerschmitt Me-109 at lower altitudes. Such was the panic amongst Luftwaffe staff upon the appearance of the Yak-3 that they sent a signal to all squadrons saying "Avoid all combat below 10,000 ft with any Yak fighter lacking an oil cooler under the nose". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/former/yak3.htm

Under land lease, Russian pilots loved their P-39s for a number of very specific reasons.

It was general build quality and what especially mattered was the quality of the radios. Pokrishkin traded his MiG-3 in favor of P-39 do to its strong radio, better low/med alt performance and snappy roll rate. As the war progressed and Pokrishking racked up more kills, Yakovlev invited him to try out a Yak-3, but since Porishkin hated Yak-1s for their initial poor quality, and personally disliked Yakovlev for his lavish life style, he complained about Yaks instrument panel, position of the armor plate, and other mundane issues of little importance.

He wasn't executed for his views by the way.

After testing LA-7 he stated that he considered it as a premier fighter, and that it would be his choice to take into combat, but by that time he was promoted to a commander of 9 GIAD-- a Guards Fighter Air Division division and no longer flew missions.

Similarly, various models of P-47Ds were also shipped to Russia under land-lease, and after series of tests Russians deemed them as unfit for Eastern front combat, and used them only for high altitude recon.

The "Jug" was just to slow and cumbersome at low/mid altitudes, making it an easy target for agile German fighters. The reality of the Eastern front was entirely different from high altitude bomber escort, and was all about brutal low/mid altitude dog fighting.

Initial low quality issue with LaGG and Yak was because in the opening stages of war, Germans advanced so fast that Soviet industry was being overrun by opp Barbarossa and entire factories were being literally catalogued, disassembled and moved by train behind Ural mountains to be reassembled again, to take the industrial sector out German bomber reach.

In the beginning those newly assembled factories manufactured weapons which in most cases were not battle ready and had to be completed by ground crews in the field.

It was the same story with small arms, armor and aircraft. Manufacture quality culture took a back seat to numerical output because the front simply needed quantity to slow the Germans down.

As time went on quality improved to standardised levels.


To this day this such a feat of engineering, organisation and logistics is considered as one of the greatest achievements of man kind. No exaggerations here.

Soviets developed a data base system which later enabled them to reverse engineer a B-29 to the last bolt and rivet. While in the West it is commonly believed that Russians did so for the lack of their own engineering capability, yet even Boeing engineers stated that reverse engineering project on such scale is much more involved and complicated then building a entirely new design from scratch, and admitted that they them selves could not tackle a project of similar scope.

The very reason Stalin ordered Tupolev to copy the B-29 was for a sole reason of political propaganda, clearly aimed to display to the West the advanced stage of Soviet industry at that time.

HerrGraf
06-18-2006, 09:34 PM
PSYOP_mongoose, mypoint is that destructive power is one aspect of a weapons system. Current main U.S. Airforce cannon is of 20MM while other airforces have gone to larger caliber weapons. Look how long U.S. stayed with 105MM main gun in thier tanks after England, France and Germany had fixed on 120MM as thier main choice. Evan U.S.S.R. was using a 125MM main gun before the U.S. upgunned to 120MM. Because it was felt that ammunition types of smaller caliber were sufficiant to deal with current threats at normal combat ranges there was no rush to upgun and loose ammo capacity.

There are many reasons why one weapons system is chosen over another. Keep in mind that what one persons priorities are is not what the next persons priorities are. Just look at the different choices people around here use when flying online!

SkyChimp
06-18-2006, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The "Jug" was just to slow and cumbersome at low/mid altitudes, making it an easy target for agile German fighters. The reality of the Eastern front was entirely different from high altitude bomber escort, and was all about brutal low/mid altitude dog fighting.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand the Soviets didn't prefer it, but the USAF had great success with the P-47 as an air-to-air fighter at all altitudes. The 9th AF used it as a fighter bomber and it had countless engagements at lower altitudes where it aquitted itself extremely well against German fighers.

horseback
06-18-2006, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Here we go, typical cold war era propaganda;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MiG ENGINES were built like Rolls Royce because they were designed by Rolls Royce. The rest of the MiG's construction and finish was typically shoddy Soviet workmanship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, have you ever personally seen Soviet workmanship? What do you know about it? Metallurgy, welding, and all other general manufacturing aspect.

What exactly do YOU know?

Indeed MiG-15s RD-45 is a Rolls Royce Nene, but if one has a basic interest to find out why, it very quickly becomes apparent that for Russians it was a matter of R&D time, not their inability to produce their own design.

A simple look into Soviet airspace evolution shows that back in the 30s they were actively working on rocket, gas turbine, ramjet and turbojet propulsion.

Most of R&D was halted do to WWII, and when a turbojet became immediately necessary for mass production, they simply adopted Nene because it already went through all testing phases and was reliable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Successful Soviet weapon designs usually took the distractions of the 'Workers' Paradise' into account, and made things as simple, reliable, and idiot-proof as possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are the distractions of the 'Workers' Paradise' exactly?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At the height of the Cold War, client states of the Soviet Union wanted their weapons built in Czechoslovakia or East Germany for excellent reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh man, do some reading will you. It's called politics/economics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">India preferred to build their own MiGs, and Pakistan bought its MiG copies from China. MUCH better quality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got to be kidding me. It is CHEAPER to build under licence then to pay full price. In addition manufacturing under license builds up manufacturing capacity, creates jobs and lowers dependency.

We are talking economic basics here. I can only blame our non existent educational system. What a shame and embarrassment, no wonder Europeans loathe us and love our money at the same time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I said "aerodynamically more sophisticated" because I had just read a quote from a Soviet colonel (Lobov?-I'm away from my home, and I can't remember) who had flown over Korea against the Americans that used those same words. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote it, I'd like to read that for my self.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">More sophisticated aerodynamic design is how you get a faster, more maneuverable airplane in spite of a lower thrust-to-weight don'tcha know... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh wait a minute, let me call a friend of mine, incidental a PhD in aerodynamics, I'm sure he'll "remind" me to what's it all about.

Look up what wing flex/vibration is and what it has to do with turbulence interaction.

Russians calculated dynamics of supersonic flight back in the 30s. Moskalyev's 1933 SAM-4 project was to exceed Mach 1 with a delta wing rocket powered plane. They didn't need to prove that supersonic flight was possible, they were already working on a delta and swept wing destined for supersonic flight.

Russian fighters of WWII were the most maneuverable, stable and fastest designs, and it traditionally stayed that way to this day. It's just how it is.

If you want to babble some tired, old school anti-communist propaganda about the 'Workers' Paradise' and such, go ahead, I for one live in the 21st century, and when it comes to appreciating professional achievements I don't discriminate on the bases of politics, race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, etc.

Great design is like good music, I don't care who plays it as long as its true and inspired.

I deeply respect proper effort regardless of its origin, and In the case of Russian engineers, especially considering the book of world records they have been writing in spite of "distractions of the 'Workers' Paradise' ", that respect has been certainly earned.

edit:missed a quote bracket </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You have yet to cite any of your sources. What British? When? Where? Was this information obtained from a book or magazine us poor commoners can put our grubby mits on? Or did it come by way of your PhD friend?

And yes, I have seen Soviet era workmanship, climbed over it, handled it, and unfortunately, smelled it. I have visited operational Soviet Navy warships, I've crawled inside Soviet built armor at Ft Irwin & Ft Hood (I'm a senior Field Engineer for a major defense contractor, remember?), and I've assisted in the preparation for display of the MiG-17 at the San Diego Aerospace Museum (my high school Russian teacher, Gospodin McNabb, would be so proud). I also have had a pretty good look of the MiG-15 they have on display there as well.

In every case, the design is very good, insofar as the tactical philosophy required, BUT the manufacturing quality and finish were manifestly poor. The warships were literally held together by the many layers of paint over the rust, the tanks and APCs were simply crude to the point of limiting functionality, the MiGs both had steel rivets in aluminim skinning (as any USN veteran will tell you, that's a Very Bad Thing). Every item I saw also showed evidence of horrific maintenance.

I agree that the Soviet theoreticians in every field were terrific and that their best engineers were second to none, BUT they weren't the ones building the ships, tanks, and airplanes, and they had damned little control over the people who (mis)managed the plants where they were built.

The Soviet system was the happy recipient of the excellence of people who loved what they were doing and were good at it, like the creator of this sim for instance. However, almost without exception, these accomplished people did it out of love for their work. They were self-motivated.

What motivates the average worker in the fields or factories? A shot at a better quality of life, a bigger house, a nicer fridge, a color TV, maybe a bigger car. None of these were available to the average Soviet worker. He received no rewards for his hard work, a house was out of the question, the fridge worked intermittently, the TVs tended to blow up, and the highest quality car he could aspire to was an overbuilt Fiat design renamed the Lada.

The apartment he was squeezed into was shoddy, he had little hope of advancement regardless of his attention to his duties, his wife spent all her time standing in lines for things like toilet paper, for Pete's sake, they couldn't produce enough food to feed themselves four out of every five years. Alcoholism was rife in the old Soviet Union, and even if you didn't drink yourself into a stupor, what did you have to work for, and why bother to do it right?

That's your Workers' Paradise. That's real life, not propaganda, and that's why the Soviet Union collapsed. The average citizen had no hope.

My source for the Lobov quote was from Osprey Aircraft of the Aces Vol. 4; Korean War Aces. You'll find it on page 19 under Sabre versus MiG, and the section on Soviet Aces and the MiG-15 starts on page 81. I posted quotes from both sections in an earlier reply but here they are again, by popular demand:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sergei Kramarenko, credited with 13 kills in Korea to go with his 12 in the Great Patriotic War, said this:

"The Sabre was the most dangerous threat to my friends and I in Korean skies. Our MiG-15 and the F-86 belonged in the same class, similar types with similar performance. They differed only in that the MiG had an advantage in rate of climb at altitude, while the Sabre was superior in maneuvering, especially at low level."

Maj. General Georgy Lobov, who commanded the 303rd Guards' Regiment at Manpo, Korea:

"The MiG-15 in its main characteristics surpassed all similar enemy aircraft except the F-86. In comparison with the latter, the MiG had a better rate of climb and thrust to weight ratio, but was somewhat inferior in maneuverability and radius of action. Their maximum flight speeds, however, were roughly equal. The F-86 had a better fuselage and aerodynamic form. This fighter gained speed in a dive faster than ours and had a lesser 'sink' rate than the MiG-15 when recovering from a dive.

"The MiG-15 armament was more powerful and consisted of two 23mm and one 37mm (cannon) in a good arrangement. The American fighters and fighter bombers had up to six 12.7mm (.50 caliber) Colt-Browning machine-guns scattered along the wing."

Apparently General Lobov was not well served by either his memory or his intelligence officers during the Korean conflict, but it is typical of men who served in combat not to correct the incorrect information they were given during 'their' wars. A neighbor in San Diego who had served in the infantry in North Africa had been told that Stukas were fighters. He 'corrected' me every time the subject came up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>cheers

horseback

horseback
06-18-2006, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Soviets developed a data base system which later enabled them to reverse engineer a B-29 to the last bolt and rivet. While in the West it is commonly believed that Russians did so for the lack of their own engineering capability, yet even Boeing engineers stated that reverse engineering project on such scale is much more involved and complicated then building a entirely new design from scratch, and admitted that they them selves could not tackle a project of similar scope.

The very reason Stalin ordered Tupolev to copy the B-29 was for a sole reason of political propaganda, clearly aimed to display to the West the advanced stage of Soviet industry at that time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, right down to the graffitti on some interior panels. Stalin ordered the copies made because it was the longest ranged, highest flying heavy bomber in the world, and he personally lacked the faith that Soviet designers could match it with anything they came up with on their own.

It took them -what?-Three or four years? The originals landed in Siberia in late 1944, so...

By the way, tigertalon, I can read Cyrillic letters. When I was 16 (1969-early Iron Age to you), my third year Russian class had to read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch in the original language, and write a report on it, also in Russian. I was a straight A student in Russian, not least because my father suggested that "not even the Army would send you here if you spoke Russian" during a MARS phone call from Vietnam two years earlier.

Incidentally, the teacher assigned each of us Russian names for use in the class. My name was Oleg (actually, it's pronounced Olyeg, with the emphasis on the second syllable).

cheers

horseback

GR142-Pipper
06-18-2006, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The 20mm M-39 was incorporated into later F-86Hs (fighter/bomber), F-86Ks (interceptor) and F-100s (fighter/bomber), none of which served in Korea. No 20mm armed F-86 day fighters (A, E, F) were serially produced with 20mms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...small aside. There was also one model of Saber that had 2 x 30mm as standard armament. It was the Australian-built CA-27. This also had an Avon engine too. It was the definitely the "hot rod" Saber.

GR142-Pipper

PSYOP_mongoose
06-18-2006, 11:26 PM
To finalise the discussion on Sabre .50s verses MiGs 23/37s, here's an actual gun system effectiveness comparison chart.

North American F-86A Sabre

6 ƒ€" Browning .50 M3 (267)
Weight (kg) - 353
Ammo Power - 7370
Gun Power - 552
Time to fire 2320 - 4.20


Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15

1 ƒ€" N-37D (40) 2 ƒ€" NR-23 (80)
Weight (kg) - 285
Ammo Power - 7680
Gun Power - 1373
Time to fire 2320 - 1.69

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You have yet to cite any of your sources. What British? When? Where? Was this information obtained from a book or magazine us poor commoners can put our grubby mits on? Or did it come by way of your PhD friend? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well for an easily available source, if you have Military channel it's all over the place. The comments on MiG build quality were from a MIG special on the Military channel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In every case, the design is very good, insofar as the tactical philosophy required, BUT the manufacturing quality and finish were manifestly poor. The warships were literally held together by the many layers of paint over the rust, the tanks and APCs were simply crude to the point of limiting functionality, the MiGs both had steel rivets in aluminim skinning (as any USN veteran will tell you, that's a Very Bad Thing). Every item I saw also showed evidence of horrific maintenance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen my share of their hardware my self, and I have to disagree with you on the manufacturing philosophy though. I have no idea about the warships, but the fact that you mentioned rust raises questions to the life span limit of the given ship.

Tanks APC? I've seen them, and they are built just right. No over design or over manufacture. Crude, cheap, reliable, functional, and reparable in the field. T-34 legacy reverberates to this day and is present in all Russian armor.

Steel rivets where exactly? Rivet fracture geometry and tearing separations are specific to high loads, and Russians designs are notorious to "rough" over areas not essential to structure integrity/aerodynamics.

Horrible maintenance is an issue with the majority "black market" items that were smuggled out right after the collapse. At that point funds were cut so severely, that parks of obsolete armor and aircraft were not maintained at all and just sat there rusting.

Other maintenance issue were with exported assets.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I agree that the Soviet theoreticians in every field were terrific and that their best engineers were second to none, BUT they weren't the ones building the ships, tanks, and airplanes, and they had damned little control over the people who (mis)managed the plants where they were built.

The Soviet system was the happy recipient of the excellence of people who loved what they were doing and were good at it, like the creator of this sim for instance. However, almost without exception, these accomplished people did it out of love for their work. They were self-motivated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you here completely, and again I don't care where such people come from, because they have a genuine love for the craft.

IMHO one of the truly outstanding examples of free enterprise ingenuity was the AVRO Arrow, and its unfortunate end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What motivates the average worker in the fields or factories? A shot at a better quality of life, a bigger house, a nicer fridge, a color TV, maybe a bigger car. None of these were available to the average Soviet worker. He received no rewards for his hard work, a house was out of the question, the fridge worked intermittently, the TVs tended to blow up, and the highest quality car he could aspire to was an overbuilt Fiat design renamed the Lada. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is actually not true. During Stalin repressions everybody was on the line to be shot or sent to the gulag, but with Khrushchev talented engineers were appreciated and generously awarded.

I've read quite a bit a\on post WWII Soviet economy, I can't remember the number exactly but around 60% of housing and 70% of industry were destroyed in the war, so getting out of that kind of economic calamity aint easy, especially with the cold war arms race.

There are a lot of aspect, but most of what we hear about Soviet economy was from late 80s when it was collapsing.

On that note, back in the days a friend of mine had to move to France for a job assignment, and for around $4500 he boght a Lada. He said it was one of the most reliable cars he ever drove, since the whole time he was there (at least over a year) he never changed the oil and was determined to drive it into the ground. He ended up selling it and said that it was just as impossible to kill as a Dodge Dart.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The apartment he was squeezed into was shoddy, he had little hope of advancement regardless of his attention to his duties, his wife spent all her time standing in lines for things like toilet paper, for Pete's sake, they couldn't produce enough food to feed themselves four out of every five years. Alcoholism was rife in the old Soviet Union, and even if you didn't drink yourself into a stupor, what did you have to work for, and why bother to do it right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've actually traveled to Russian quite a bit in the 90s, and you got it all wrong.

Their apartment buildings are actually built better then ours. We got sheet rock and 2X4s, they got brick and concrete. I'm sure a lot of apartment renters know all to well how bad sound insulation is, you can hear everything your neighbour does, yet when I stayed both in hotels and apartments in Russia, it was dead quite.

The food issue entirely had to do with industrial sabotage, look into it, Perestroyka.

Alcoholism exploded in mif 80s, Afghanistan, and then continued to rise in the 90s after the collapse. Again data is readily available.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's your Workers' Paradise. That's real life, not propaganda, and that's why the Soviet Union collapsed. The average citizen had no hope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can only recommend alternative sources supported by data, not TV spin and cultural perceptions.

Thanks for the source, it really does pain the full picture when presented in its entirety.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yeah, right down to the graffitti on some interior panels. Stalin ordered the copies made because it was the longest ranged, highest flying heavy bomber in the world, and he personally lacked the faith that Soviet designers could match it with anything they came up with on their own.

It took them -what?-Three or four years? The originals landed in Siberia in late 1944, so... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are wrong there horseback. Even before reverse engineering work began, Tupolev presented his own design to Stalin which surpassed the capabilities of B-29. Stalin refused the design and forced Tupolev to copy the 29 as a statement to US.

To this day it is the largest and most involved reverse engineering project, and the complexity of reverse engineering increases exponentially depending on the complexity of the original design. There is a point at which the effort required to reverse engineer exceed the effort required to create an original design, and it was the case with B-29.

I'm glad to hea you're a speaker though! I dabble my self. Takie vot dela.

Badsight-
06-18-2006, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
So who are you exactly to present your home made opinions as fact?. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>well who are you ?

the hot air from you is ignoring the role the Mig-15 was intended to play - as well as how the actual pilots said the guns worked

they didnt fire their rounds with the same trajectory - its a failing of the Mig-15 for A2A &lt;~~ which it wasnt designed for in the first place

the guns of the Saber were eaiser to use - not because of the gunsite radar combo but their basic ballistics

you seem to be trying to say that the hit power made the Mig-15 have the better armament - that argument works except for totally ignoring the human factor . if the guns have a low RoF & a low MV & a differing trajectory - then despite how much better damadge they do they are worse for A2A . especially in the high-speed low opportunity DF's that were the norm in Korea .

KraljMatjaz
06-19-2006, 04:03 AM
from what I read here it seems twin 23mm cannons alone were more than a match for 6 .50 cals, why then it's so important to have similar trajectory to the 37mm one? anyone care to explain?

to me it's like saying: P51B/C has superior firepower to Bf109G with gunpods and nose 30mm because the nose gun doesnt have same trajectory as wing guns do.

luftluuver
06-19-2006, 05:22 AM
The Lada was a hunk of dung. Only the best cars coming down the assembly line were exported. I know people that regret they went for the cheaper Lada over the Fiat. They spent more time in the garage being fixed than they did being driven.

AndyHigh
06-19-2006, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The Lada was a hunk of dung. Only the best cars coming down the assembly line were exported. I know people that regret they went for the cheaper Lada over the Fiat. They spent more time in the garage being fixed than they did being driven. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And for the build quality of Lada:
http://www.autoreview.ru/new_site/year2001/n22/2107/2107.htm
http://saabclub.fi/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16237&view=pr...0cdb491c9d021b3090e8 (http://saabclub.fi/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16237&view=previous&sid=69c6afae83c90cdb491c9d021b3090e8)

Not very safe even at 64kmh (40mph) speed. Death trap would be better name.

Aaron_GT
06-19-2006, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aside from the time it took to harmonize the guns (3 times longer than the .50s), and compressor stalling due to gas ingestion (which was fixed with the installation of a shield in the firing port), the USAF still stuck with the .50s for the rest of the war. While recognizing the greater punch of the 20mm over the .50, it was decided the .50 offered sufficient punch for the planes the USAF was encountering, along with greater hit probability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would the 50 cal armed version have a greater hit probability? The M3 had an ROF of 1100 rpm, so 6 gives 6600 rpm total. The M39 had an ROF of 1500 rpm, so 4 gives 6000 rpm total, so very similar. The only real difference is time of firing, 15 seconds for the M3 gun, 8 seconds for the M39. It would give less time spare for bracketing a target, but more chance of downing an aircraft if the firing solution was accurate.

Blutarski2004
06-19-2006, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
To finalise the discussion on Sabre .50s verses MiGs 23/37s, here's an actual gun system effectiveness comparison chart.

North American F-86A Sabre

6 ƒ€" Browning .50 M3 (267)
Weight (kg) - 353
Ammo Power - 7370
Gun Power - 552
Time to fire 2320 - 4.20


Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15

1 ƒ€" N-37D (40) 2 ƒ€" NR-23 (80)
Weight (kg) - 285
Ammo Power - 7680
Gun Power - 1373
Time to fire 2320 - 1.69
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... These figures represent the ability of the weapons outfits to produce weight of fire, which undeniably is greatly in favor of the MiG-15. As mentioned before, that is only one part of an overall evaluation process which must be made in assessing the effectivenss of an aerial gunnery system.

The features of the F86's armament system were:

(1) Stable high-speed gun platform.

(2) Automatic radar-ranging gunsight permitting engagement at ranges up to 600 yards.

(3) Very good ballistics of the M3 50cal, which were equivalent to several 20mm auto-cannon in the 2800 f/s MV zone and palpably better than better than many lower velocity 20mm weapons (MG151/20, for example). This clearly had to have been the result of a superior projectile form of the 50cal ammunition.

(4) Ballistic uniformity of the armament, which greatly simplified harmonization/convergence and shooting.

(5) High rate of fire (6 x M3 @ 1100 rpm per gun = the equivalent of 2 x 50cal mini-guns @ 3300 rpm each).

(6) Generous ammunition supply, which was counter-balanced by the enormous expenditures of ammunition necessary to achieve a kill against the MiG-15.

(7) Poor lethality. The undeniably bad point of the F86 armament outfit was the very poor lethality of its API ammunition against modern jet-powered fighter airframes. According to USAF Korean war analysis, Korean War Sabre pilots on average expended 1,000 rounds of 50cal ammunition per target engagement, which resulted in only one in three engaged targets actually being shot down.

By comparison "GUNVAL" 20mm armed F86's during their evaluation period engaged and fired upon 41 Mig-15s. Ammunition mix was HEI and API 1-to-1 with no conventional tracer ammunition avaliable. Of the 41 attacks, hits were scored on 22 targets. The reported results were: 6 targets clearly destroyed; 4 targets probably destroyed; 12 targets damaged.

- - -

The features of the MiG-15 armament outfit were:

(1) Very high lethality. The advantage of the Mig-15's armament outfit was absolutely and unquestionably the lethality of its projectiles, as would befit an armament designed to shoot down multi-engined bombers. Against fighter targets, a single 37mm hit or 2-3 23mm hits gave a high likelihood of a kill.

(2) Unstable gun platform at the high speeds commonly associated with fighter-vs-fighter combat.

(3) A manually controlled gyro-gunsight system, effective within 400 yards if it mirrored the capabilities of the similar K14 series gunsight of late WW2.

(4) Dual caliber armament with disparate ballistics. Not really a problem at ranges under 300 yards, but an issue at longer ranges.

(5) Low MV. Not a problem at all against a non-maneuvering bomber target. Not so mch of a problem at short fighter-vs-fighter ranges, but an issue at longer ranges (400+ yds)

(6) Small ammunition supply - about 6 seconds worth of fire. Not really an issue versus a bomber target against which a relatively high percentage of hits could be expected, but an issue in fighter-vs-fighter combat where likely hit percentages were quite considerably lower.

Everything about the MiG-15 armament suite, unsurprisingly, points toward usefulness in the bomber interception role. For the air superiority duties which the MiG-15 was called upon to perform in Korea, a uniform armament of 3 x 23mm with more ammunition, or even 2 x 23mm with a much larger ammunition supply, would IMO have been preferable. The armament which the MiG-15 carried into combat against the F86 was overkill.

LStarosta
06-19-2006, 09:28 AM
LOL I'm sorry... what part of Russia did you visit in the 90s, Mongoose?

I'm sorry, but Soviet-influenced communist-style architecture is nothing to brag about.



Not that it matters. Please, let us continue with the discussion of the US M2 HMG in WWII.

Kocur_
06-19-2006, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback
In every case, the design is very good, insofar as the tactical philosophy required, BUT the manufacturing quality and finish were manifestly poor. The warships were literally held together by the many layers of paint over the rust, the tanks and APCs were simply crude to the point of limiting functionality, the MiGs both had steel rivets in aluminim skinning (as any USN veteran will tell you, that's a Very Bad Thing). Every item I saw also showed evidence of horrific maintenance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen my share of their hardware my self, and I have to disagree with you on the manufacturing philosophy though. I have no idea about the warships, but the fact that you mentioned rust raises questions to the life span limit of the given ship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horseback comment of manufacturing quality is right on the money and I am entitled to judge this by spending half of my life in communist system state. What should be added to lack of economical motivation other than getting is coupon to buy some chinese pan, is fact that it was all PLANNED economy. There was no quality in THE PLAN - the only thing that mattered was QUANTITY. Plans were never real and due to 'cheating' at all point of cooperation net, every next producer (state owned plant naturally) had to use some short-cuts to meet quantity plan requirement at cost of quality naturally. Its deeply within the very nature of communist system no matter what years or region we might discuss.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Tanks APC? I've seen them, and they are built just right. No over design or over manufacture. Crude, cheap, reliable, functional, and reparable in the field. T-34 legacy reverberates to this day and is present in all Russian armor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif REAL T-34 legacy is quite different to known in the west (read: happily parroted by western authors after Soviet propaganda with zero attempt or in fact possibility, to verify their claims). The 'legacy' is armour plates spilling fragments from internal surfaces, wounding crew even if enemy projectiles had zero chance of penetrating, engine leaking oil constantly and crew standing in oil puddles because battery access panel in crew/engine compartments wall was never sealed, air filter produced as badly as badly designed, so engine seized as easily as in no other AFV, lack of communication between crew and lack of ventilation - making it imposiible to function in combat at any decent efficiency, that WOULD BE there if the item was manufactured and (at some parts) designed better. T-34 tested in Aberdeen, despite being nursed like a baby just died after couple of hundrets of km, while Soviets testing M4 Sherman in Kubinka gave up on attmpt to overdrive after like 5.000km...
The legacy indeed influenced next generations of tanks, say Sirian crews abandonning their T-55s because it was impossible to stay under armour in Golan heights sun or relatively big tolerances in 125mm 2A46 tank cannon, making it the least accurate modern tank cannon (so Polish tanks producer, both for own army and eg. East Germany, Hungary, Iraq, Iran, Siria etc. currently known as Bumar-Labedy imported cannons from Slovakia, rather than SU) - not healed until 1990s.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Horrible maintenance is an issue with the majority "black market" items that were smuggled out right after the collapse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have no idea... Whatever were those smuggled items you though were bad quality - those were just regular communist realiaty quality examples - I know its hard to belive, you would have to live there. There were separate production lines for export products, like mentioned cars. Different components, quality and finish standards. Naturally that export was all just for prestige, it had no economical sense whatsoever.
Let me give you example of typical quality management in 'internal' market production: my friend's dad worked in engines components plant. His first (sic!) duty was quality control of some engine parts, that were supposed to be axially balanced. He placed part in control station, turned electric motor and was watching/hearing. Every other example was 'striking', so he dumped it in 'Rejected' bin. After a while he was called to plant's communist party section. Secretary let him seat and said with a cunning smile: "Comrade... Dont disturb...". The guy was smart so he stopped 'disturbing'.
Pathetic quality of products was EVERYWHERE: right after construcion brigade left newly built block... No, those flats were not handed over to people to live there, but REPAIR brigade entered. Get it? After block was constructed it had to be immediately repaired! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif And still it was cold, you couldt close windows or they let in any wind in etc. etc. Most of books were usualble only once, for one reading made them fall apart. Cars sheet metal rusted under paint even before they left plant. B6 vitamine preparations contained hardly any B6 so every decent pediatricial would warn mothers to try to get some foreign B6 (via Red Cross) to prevent rickets. And so on and so forth...
And that didnt stop at everyday items: MiG-29s were received by Polish Air Forces in late 1980's right from production plant. After a short while composite elements started to delaminate...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
The food issue entirely had to do with industrial sabotage, look into it, Perestroyka. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS! Food shortage sole source was TERRIBLE inefficiency of state-owned agricultural production/distribution system. SU imported cereal since mid-1960s mostly from... Canada and US! Not to mention draining satellite countries from food. In 1970s kolkhoze and sovhoze workers were allowed to have tiny lots to grow vegatables. Those lots made like 1,5% of Soviet acreage, yet made more than 50% of total Soviet food production! The 'reachest' areas of SU, in their relaitve standards naturally, were southern republics, where locals grew more fruits and vegetables in warmer climate. Naturally there was centralised, state-owned purchase system, but black market was far more profitable... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Alcoholism exploded in mif 80s, Afghanistan, and then continued to rise in the 90s after the collapse. Again data is readily available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif If it exploded then, how to call previous state? Constant eruption? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif In how many armies of WW2 100ml of spirit was included in daily rations? Drinking on hard-to-belive from western POV scale was present on Russian culture way before communists, but increaced under their rule. Moonshine or any other spirits were unoffcial current in relations with Red Army soldiers wherever they entered in WW2. Read Suvorov's "Liberators" book on invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. His soldiers were constatly tipsy and he could figure out where they stored their drinks despite number of searches. And then he discovered they replaced water in their BTR cooling systems with spirit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Not to mention MiG-25s being the most popular fighters - mostly among ground crews. MiG-25 huge, energy-consuming avionics were cooled with alcohol...

PSYOP_mongoose
06-19-2006, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LOL I'm sorry... what part of Russia did you visit in the 90s, Mongoose?

I'm sorry, but Soviet-influenced communist-style architecture is nothing to brag about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brag about? Are you that biased and jaded? Jesus, how exactly deep does the hatred for Russians runs in your blood?

I went to all over the place. Central Russia. Crimea Ukraine, Far East Russia, etc. No Baltics or Caucasus though.

This is interesting;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And for the build quality of Lada:
http://www.autoreview.ru/new_site/year2001/n22/2107/2107.htm
http://saabclub.fi/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16237&view=pr...0cdb491c9d021b3090e8

Not very safe even at 64kmh (40mph) speed. Death trap would be better name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? They are talking about head on collision safety factors, and considering that Lada is over 20 years old and Fiat is over 40 years old, obviously when compared to modern technologies they simply don't compare.

You want to compare safety then compare with cars of the same era. That's how it works.

That is exactly how the Russian articles starts btw.

The other article is about Niva, a 4X4 off road SUV type vehicle, so stick with the program, we're talking about Ladas here.

I driven Ladas personally and the ones I drove were solid 4-bangers, the type I preferred to Hyundai's of the time for example, and if people here want to be biased about quality, I recommend shifting the colective attention to Moskvich.

Now that is a certifiable POS junker.

Actually 92 Hyundai Sonata was not bad, but still not for Russian roads though. Back then used Volvo sedans rained supreme, and it was hard for me not to break a smile when I saw a rough looking mafia type gent in a leather coat getting out of a Volvo with that menacing look on his face. That was hilarious, always made me think of late 70s and Volvo being a soccer mom vihelce of the time. Anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not that it matters. Please, let us continue with the discussion of the US M2 HMG in WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok then, let's start with Oh Blutarski2004 and move on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Everything about the MiG-15 armament suite, unsurprisingly, points toward usefulness in the bomber interception role. For the air superiority duties which the MiG-15 was called upon to perform in Korea, a uniform armament of 3 x 23mm with more ammunition, or even 2 x 23mm with a much larger ammunition supply, would IMO have been preferable. The armament which the MiG-15 carried into combat against the F86 was overkill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes on the bombers. Not exactly on ammo load. Statistically 6 seconds of fire is more then enough for a regular air-to-air sortie.

High speed kills comprised the lowest percentage of fighter kills as long as I know. If you got stats I'll be interested in seeing them just to refresh my memory.

600 yard automatic radar-ranging sounds about right, since was the distance considered to be as a maximum effective engagement range, which incidentally is exactly the same range for 23mm/37mm shell fuse priming

"Very good ballistics of the M3 50cal" are largely attributed to adoption of UBS projectile, and was a good choice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ballistic uniformity of the armament, which greatly simplified harmonization/convergence and shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Against what? MiG-15 guns are matched, apples to oranges again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">High rate of fire (6 x M3 @ 1100 rpm per gun = the equivalent of 2 x 50cal mini-guns @ 3300 rpm each) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've been there. Shkas 7.62 1800 rof verses 12.7mm. BULLETS ARE INFERIOR TO SHELLS.

Bold fonts is all I can do at this point, and it's getting ridiculous.

How about 5 6 barrel 9000rof 7.62mm Gatling guns instead of 6 Browning's then? Or how about 8!, 5 barrel 5.56mm 12000rof Gatling guns, WOW, now that must be the most DEADLY gun system EVER, because it fires so MANY BULLETS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Unstable gun platform at the high speeds commonly associated with fighter-vs-fighter combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Engagement stats? 600 yard max separation at what speeds then?

LStarosta
06-19-2006, 10:59 AM
No Mongoose... I've had to live in a typical Soviet sh!thole apartment block for quite some time. Not a hotel that was purposefully "made nice" for Westerners. A real sh!thole. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.

It was typical of Communist doctrine - quantity over quality.

So in conclusion, it's not anti-Russian bias, it's my experience of living behind what was behind the Iron Curtain for about 4 years of my life.

horseback
06-19-2006, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well for an easily available source, if you have Military channel it's all over the place. The comments on MiG build quality were from a MIG special on the Military channel.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Military Channel, hm? Okay, I've seen a lot of stuff on the TV that was less than, shall we say, accurate? I quit watching the Military Channel for anything besides 'infotainment' when I counted 5 blatant factual errors in fifteen minutes one afternoon.

I would be a bit more skeptical if I were you.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Steel rivets where exactly? Rivet fracture geometry and tearing separations are specific to high loads, and Russians designs are notorious to "rough" over areas not essential to structure integrity/aerodynamics.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Steel rivets holding aluminum plating on the fuselage; you may be aware of the problems with dissimilar metals-steel and aluminum have some tendencies to react to each other in a greenish flaky way. The fit and finish on both the MiGs I worked on was uniformly poor, definitely NOT the result of treatment after manufacture. The guys working on the various avionics and control systems kept exclaiming in disgust at one kluge or another, and there appeared to be a number of manufacturing flaws that I would attribute to workers ignoring the engineering drawings-always in hard to check locations and done in the quickest and dirtiest method. They were the kinds of things I have come to associate with the last fifteen minutes before quitting time and the 5% of union employees that their shop steward spends 95% of his time defending.

As for the ships, on both occasions, the Soviet Navy had sent relatively new ships to visit US ports; I'd say that they were less than 7 years old at the time I came aboard. As a former destroyer sailer, I was more than a little disappointed by what I saw. The rust was the most apparent, but the fit of the 'watertight' doors, the anchoring of the outside ladders (stairs to you), and the audible grinding of their surface search radar antenna as it rotated were very disturbing to me on a gut level.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is actually not true. During Stalin repressions everybody was on the line to be shot or sent to the gulag, but with Khrushchev talented engineers were appreciated and generously awarded.

I've read quite a bit a\on post WWII Soviet economy, I can't remember the number exactly but around 60% of housing and 70% of industry were destroyed in the war, so getting out of that kind of economic calamity aint easy, especially with the cold war arms race. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I wasn't talking about the elites, but about the average workers-a huge difference. Fit and finish of manufactured items was always a serious problem in the Soviet Union. You can gloss over that as Western conceit and unnecessary, but besides sucking away a good sized chunk of an aircraft's performance edge (if any), it's a very strong indicator of the morale of the average worker. People who feel that their efforts matter and think they're being treated fairly pay attention to the little things.

Managers and line supervisers who know what they are doing make an effort to ensure a reasonable level of quality, and make sure that the people under them know what is expected of them (I've seen this on the job here, where the entire middle management in one plant literally had to be flushed from the system before we could get the product to an acceptable standard). The Soviet system was notorious for bad management, mismanagement, and mind-boggling bureaucratic interference.

As to apartment buildings, again, I would say that the simple, heavy and solid design was a classic example of engineering around the builders. As we are finding out here in Southern California, cheaper labor doesn't usually mean more efficient labor. My understanding was that overcrowding was rife, new construction was severely lagging, and only a favored few had a hope for a real house and decent quality home appliances (built in East Germany).

Other posters have addressed the Lada. The best examples were indeed exported, but like the late, lamented Yugo, it is no longer made, for good reason. Western made products can be had for less money and they are more reliable.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even before reverse engineering work began, Tupolev presented his own design to Stalin which surpassed the capabilities of B-29. Stalin refused the design and forced Tupolev to copy the 29 as a statement to US.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>As I said, I disagree with your interpretation of Stalin's motives. What possible 'statement' would a few perfect copies of a very early production B-29 make to the USA, which had modified and improved on the original design in the intervening 4 years?

Had Tupolev been able to produce his 'better' bomber, it would have been a meaningful statement to the West, but Stalin's statement was to his design bureaus-that he, personally, lacked the faith that Soviet designers could match it with anything they came up with on their own.

Yes, it was a great project, but ultimately, it was a huge waste of time and effort.

My one opportunity to travel to the Eastern Bloc came when I was up for the job as a tech rep at the SALT inspections of ICBM dismantlement (early 90s), but I was not approved by the Soviet side-because they found out (I suspect that they knew as soon as I started my freshman year in Russian class) that I 'spoke' Russian. I was going to be there for the electronics side, not the interpreting job, I hadn't used the language since leaving the Navy (and that was mostly for practice rather than in the line of my duties)12 years before, and so I didn't list any foreign language skills.

Apparently, they kicked up a hell of a fuss about our 'decption', according to my boss at the time. They were calling me 'Comrade' at the office for months afterwards...

cheers

horseback

PSYOP_mongoose
06-19-2006, 11:04 AM
Here is the same source I keep listing;

"WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS"

Right here - "These factors limited the effective shooting range to around 400 m against bombers (longer in a frontal attack) and against fighters more like 250 m."

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

The beginning here but feel free to dig in to the whole article;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are two types of energy that may be transmitted to the target; kinetic and chemical. The kinetic energy is a function of the projectile weight and the velocity with which it hits the target. This velocity in turn depends on three factors: The muzzle velocity, the ballistic properties of the projectile, and the distance to the target. There are therefore two fixed elements in calculating the destructiveness of a projectile, its weight and chemical (high explosive or incendiary) content, and one variable element, its velocity. The key issue is the relationship between these three factors.

A high muzzle velocity will provide a short flight time, which is advantageous in increasing the hit probability and extending the effective range, and will also improve the penetration of AP rounds. However, it might not add much to destructiveness, as unless an AP projectile hits armour plate (and not much of the volume of an aircraft was protected by this), a higher velocity just ensures that a neater hole is punched through the aircraft; the extra kinetic energy is wasted. Also, if the projectile is primarily relying on HE blast or incendiary effect, the velocity with which it strikes the target is almost immaterial. Provided that it hits with sufficient force to penetrate the skin and activate the fuze, the damage inflicted will remain constant. In contrast, AP projectiles lose effectiveness with increasing distance.

It is sometimes argued that a projectile with a high muzzle velocity and a good ballistic shape (which reduces the rate at which the initial velocity is lost) provides a longer effective range. To some extent this is true, but the greatest limitation on range in air fighting in the Second World War was the difficulty in shooting accurately. The problem of hitting a target moving in three dimensions from another also moving in three dimensions (and probably at a different speed and on a different heading) requires a complex calculation of range, heading and relative speed, while bearing in mind the flight time and trajectory of the projectiles. Today, such a problem can easily be solved by a ballistic computer linked to a radar or laser rangefinder, but at the time we are examining, the "radar" was the human eyeball and the "ballistic computer" the human brain. The range, heading and speed judgements made by the great majority of pilots were notoriously poor, even in training. And this was without considering the effects of air turbulence, G-forces when manoeuvring, and the stress of combat. These factors limited the effective shooting range to around 400 m against bombers (longer in a frontal attack) and against fighters more like 250 m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kocur_
06-19-2006, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:


"Very good ballistics of the M3 50cal" are largely attributed to adoption of UBS projectile, and was a good choice.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif BS as usual! Ballistics of .50 are attributed purely to case volume and projectile weight and those are what they are because of gen. Pershing requirement from 1917 and were decided in Frankfort Arsenal in 1919. Soviet B-32 API PROJECTILE was base for developement of US M8 API and naturally had nothing to do with .50 ballistics per se.

rnzoli
06-19-2006, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Really? They are talking about head on collision safety factors, and considering that Lada is over 20 years old and Fiat is over 40 years old, obviously when compared to modern technologies they simply don't compare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't expect to post anything in this matter, but in year 2000 I almost died in a head-on collision in a Lada Samara (a newer type, not the one in the article), IIRC designed by the Porche design bureau. I only live today because I read that about a year earlier that crast tests showed fatal consequences to the drivers at 75 km/hour, when the head hits the steering wheel column. This was really a suprise to everyone, because the steering wheel rod was fitted with the weakened 'skirt', allowing it to collapse under the weight of the driver's head, reducing the head's deceleration. When they examined the wreckage, they couldn't believe their eyes: the skirt was like brand new, it didn't deform and didn't take up any energy from the crash. They investigated it and it turned out that the factory found the cost of that special skirt too high as it was a special alloy, so they replaced with cheaper material. The fact that it was also much harder didn't apparently bother anyone. BTW, the tests were done on a domestic produced version.

Blutarski2004
06-19-2006, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Ok then, let's start with Oh Blutarski2004 and move on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Everything about the MiG-15 armament suite, unsurprisingly, points toward usefulness in the bomber interception role. For the air superiority duties which the MiG-15 was called upon to perform in Korea, a uniform armament of 3 x 23mm with more ammunition, or even 2 x 23mm with a much larger ammunition supply, would IMO have been preferable. The armament which the MiG-15 carried into combat against the F86 was overkill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes on the bombers. Not exactly on ammo load. Statistically 6 seconds of fire is more then enough for a regular air-to-air sortie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... It's enough to shoot down a heavy four-engined bomber or two, as was demonstrated over Korea.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> High speed kills comprised the lowest percentage of fighter kills as long as I know. If you got stats I'll be interested in seeing them just to refresh my memory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... However one cares to frame it, a fighter maneuvering at 0.8 Mach or thereabouts is a much more difficult target than a four-engined bomber. Korean War engagement speeds were considerably higher than those seen in WW2.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 600 yard automatic radar-ranging sounds about right, since was the distance considered to be as a maximum effective engagement range, which incidentally is exactly the same range for 23mm/37mm shell fuse priming </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... I assume that you are referring to self-destruct range.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "Very good ballistics of the M3 50cal" are largely attributed to adoption of UBS projectile, and was a good choice." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... This is a fascinating bit of news, considering that the US M2/M3 50cal projectile/cartridge family is generally understood to have been a development (read copy) of the WW1 German TuF cartridge of 1918. Source?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ballistic uniformity of the armament, which greatly simplified harmonization/convergence and shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Against what? MiG-15 guns are matched, apples to oranges again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Your first comment does not make sense to me. I don't understand how you can perceive uniform ballistics asanything other than a common-sense advantage. As for your statement that N-37 and NR/NS-23 ballistics are matched, I've examined photographs of the respective projectiles and am not confident that this can be correct. In order for it to be so the co-efficient of form relationship between the projectiles would have to be something on the order of 2crh versus 4crh. The ogives of the two rounds do not appear to be differentiated to the extent necessary. Where did you obtain this information re matched 37/23mm ballistics? I'd be interested to see it.

However, as I mentioned before, the ballistic differences within 300 yards range would be insignificant in any case



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">High rate of fire (6 x M3 @ 1100 rpm per gun = the equivalent of 2 x 50cal mini-guns @ 3300 rpm each) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've been there. Shkas 7.62 1800 rof verses 12.7mm. BULLETS ARE INFERIOR TO SHELLS.

Bold fonts is all I can do at this point, and it's getting ridiculous.

How about 5 6 barrel 9000rof 7.62mm Gatling guns instead of 6 Browning's then? Or how about 8!, 5 barrel 5.56mm 12000rof Gatling guns, WOW, now that must be the most DEADLY gun system EVER, because it fires so MANY BULLETS.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... How about 500 Shvaks? What's your point? Your response is nonsensical. I'm simply pointing out that 6 x M3's produced a very dense bullet pattern - one piece of the larger puzzle of fully evaluating a weapon suite.

And, yes, bullets are inferior to shells. Many thanks for posting that bit of wisdom in capitals. Otherwise we all would certainly have missed it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Unstable gun platform at the high speeds commonly associated with fighter-vs-fighter combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Engagement stats? 600 yard max separation at what speeds then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
[/QUOTE]

..... I've got my books and you apparently have yours. If you disagree with the above assessment and believe the the MiG-15 flew on rails, I'm perfectly OK with that. You're entitled to your opinion and I to mine.

Blutarski2004
06-19-2006, 12:33 PM
<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 PSYOP_mongoose:


"Very good ballistics of the M3 50cal" are largely attributed to adoption of UBS projectile, and was a good choice.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif BS as usual! Ballistics of .50 are attributed purely to case volume and projectile weight and those are what they are because of gen. Pershing requirement from 1917 and were decided in Frankfort Arsenal in 1919. Soviet B-32 API PROJECTILE was base for developement of US M8 API and naturally had nothing to do with .50 ballistics per se. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Kocur, don't disparage the ballistic efficiency of the projectiles themselves. I was checking some US Army data last night and the performance of the 2835 f/s 50cal M2 AP round in terms of velocity ******ation was quite surprising when compared to US 20mm and even 37mm guns AP rounds at 2800 f/s.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-19-2006, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Military Channel, hm? Okay, I've seen a lot of stuff on the TV that was less than, shall we say, accurate? I quit watching the Military Channel for anything besides 'infotainment' when I counted 5 blatant factual errors in fifteen minutes one afternoon.

I would be a bit more skeptical if I were you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're kidding me? That's all you got? To bad I don't have Tivo, yet then again why would I waste time on a stubborn skeptic.

MiG build quality and performance were discussed by two British defense analysts. Believe it or not, not my business.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Steel rivets holding aluminum plating on the fuselage; you may be aware of the problems with dissimilar metals-steel and aluminum have some tendencies to react to each other in a greenish flaky way. The fit and finish on both the MiGs I worked on was uniformly poor, definitely NOT the result of treatment after manufacture. The guys working on the various avionics and control systems kept exclaiming in disgust at one kluge or another, and there appeared to be a number of manufacturing flaws that I would attribute to workers ignoring the engineering drawings-always in hard to check locations and done in the quickest and dirtiest method. They were the kinds of things I have come to associate with the last fifteen minutes before quitting time and the 5% of union employees that their shop steward spends 95% of his time defending. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which MIGs and what was their origin of manufacture? If you worked on one personally, you got numbers, and numbers are easily traced to the assembly line.

There is an interesting guy in Quincy, Don Kirlin, look him up, he disagrees with you entirely while having a fleet of Soviet made fighters, which he leases out on regular bases to USAF and Navy for pilot training.

Since he owns them, flies them, has his own maintenance crew, and I consider his opinions above all others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the ships, on both occasions, the Soviet Navy had sent relatively new ships to visit US ports; I'd say that they were less than 7 years old at the time I came aboard. As a former destroyer sailer, I was more than a little disappointed by what I saw. The rust was the most apparent, but the fit of the 'watertight' doors, the anchoring of the outside ladders (stairs to you), and the audible grinding of their surface search radar antenna as it rotated were very disturbing to me on a gut level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again. you seem to be a bit vague. Which ships were they? When? You said Soviet, are we talking 80s then?

I have been of a Russian Navy ship.

I think it was around 94 when a sea-based control station ship from Russian Space Communications Fleet came to town.

Damn thing was huge, built on a tanker hull, with giant sat dishes that were also used as air brakes.

Shaking hands, pictures with the captain, the whole deal.

I was not at all disappointed with what I saw, because I've NEVER seen such communications/tracking capabilities period.

To top it off, they had 12 units at the time, but after USSR collapse all were scrapped. Still boggles my mind to why, unless they considered them as obsolete. I think one is still rusting in a port somewhere.

One time I was flipping channels and I swear I think I saw one being used as a movie set. The movie was called 'Virus' I think.

All I can say is that the fit and finish I've seen was fine, reception areas were huge and well furnished. The only thing that jumps out in the eyes of a Westerner is the choice of 'institutional' paint color.

We're used to "comfy", crisp and "cheery" shades, perfect shine all over the place just like the Coast Guard, but the Russians simply never gave a crapp about Martha Stuart type of decor, they were there for war, not interior design.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wasn't talking about the elites, but about the average workers-a huge difference. Fit and finish of manufactured items was always a serious problem in the Soviet Union. You can gloss over that as Western conceit and unnecessary, but besides sucking away a good sized chunk of an aircraft's performance edge (if any), it's a very strong indicator of the morale of the average worker. People who feel that their efforts matter and think they're being treated fairly pay attention to the little things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't get what your going for and what you're basing it on.

I spoke and worked with Russians on regular bases, and what you're saying seems to originate from media. Fit and finish issues are dependent of the products. First things that come to mind are Soviet Zenit 35mm photo cameras, binoculars and other optics including night vision, the list goes on. When they need to they can make what ever is needed.

I'm totally confused with "sucking away a good sized chunk of an aircraft's performance edge", Russian aircraft traditionally known for performance, be it speed, altitude, thrust to weight, maneuverability, low speed stability, high AOA, and so on. Your point escapes me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Soviet system was notorious for bad management, mismanagement, and mind-boggling bureaucratic interference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again I fail to see what you are basing all that on. I have first hand experience with Soviet/Russian bureaucracy, I know all about it.

Are we talking about aerospace industry or retail? Please focus on something tangible and not some speculative and unsupported statements.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to apartment buildings, again, I would say that the simple, heavy and solid design was a classic example of engineering around the builders. As we are finding out here in Southern California, cheaper labor doesn't usually mean more efficient labor. My understanding was that overcrowding was rife, new construction was severely lagging, and only a favored few had a hope for a real house and decent quality home appliances (built in East Germany). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm in the Valley my self, cheap slabor from South of the border has little to do with construction technology and materials used. Doesn't matter how well the sheet rock is set, it's still **** rock doesn't matter how you spin it.

As to overcrowding, absolutely, look up the stats on housing destroyed in WWII. As far as I recall it was over 60%, and then picture Soviet population at the time, total land mass and engineering obstacles they faced by having to COMPLETELY rebuild their entire infrastructure.

As to cheesy appliances you're damn right there. Some of the older stuff I saw in Russia was just damn scary, but I also know why it was that way. Consumer goods such as appliances were manufacture in the same factories that manufactured weapons of all kinds. So a refrigerator could have been assembled along side some turret assembly for BTR.

When arms quotas needed to be met, naturally QC for consumer market product was overlooked to simply save the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Other posters have addressed the Lada. The best examples were indeed exported, but like the late, lamented Yugo, it is no longer made, for good reason. Western made products can be had for less money and they are more reliable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Listen, I'm telling you, I drove Ladas personally, on Russian roads, and until you faced Russian roads you're concept of car quality is yet to meet the real world. My favorite is Niva, a great, solid, reliable 4X4.

Only recently Russians really took care of their roads, but in early 90s calling those obstacle courses roads, would simply be an insult to the driver that experienced them personally.

Ladas regularly stood up to road abuse that other cars simply didn't take. Mercedes was obviously a champ there, and while drive trains of Japanese sedans were completely superior, weak chassis needed regular repairs.

I know all this first hand because it wasn't one time that I got stuck in the middle of nowhere do to breakdowns.

Avtovaz by the way is still making Ladas of all kinds.

Here is quick link to what I think is model 2112;

http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/show_image.pl?bg=...9/2108069_1_full.jpg (http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/show_image.pl?bg=000000&image=http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/8/web/2108000-2108999/2108069_1_full.jpg)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As I said, I disagree with your interpretation of Stalin's motives. What possible 'statement' would a few perfect copies of a very early production B-29 make to the USA, which had modified and improved on the original design in the intervening 4 years?

Had Tupolev been able to produce his 'better' bomber, it would have been a meaningful statement to the West, but Stalin's statement was to his design bureaus-that he, personally, lacked the faith that Soviet designers could match it with anything they came up with on their own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, you're wrong entirely here. I don't men to be to frank, but here it a matter of management, organisation and coordination on a scale not seen before and sense.

The statement being that technologically and logistically, Soviet manufacturing capacity was at least on the same level as US, and that while Boeng guys them selfes stated that their capacity would not have allowed them to tackle the same project.

Tupolev did produce the design of a better bomber, remember that before WWII Soviets held every world record in sheer bomber size, lifting capacity and altitude.

I really recommend looking into such things with at at least a minimum degree of depth and not simply repeating popular beliefs. Such information is readily available, only interest is needed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, it was a great project, but ultimately, it was a huge waste of time and effort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That I agree with entirely. It was more then a huge waste of effort and resources, it was also a enormous waste of time. Soviets never did go for the strategic bombing concept.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My one opportunity to travel to the Eastern Bloc came when I was up for the job as a tech rep at the SALT inspections of ICBM dismantlement (early 90s), but I was not approved by the Soviet side-because they found out (I suspect that they knew as soon as I started my freshman year in Russian class) that I 'spoke' Russian. I was going to be there for the electronics side, not the interpreting job, I hadn't used the language since leaving the Navy (and that was mostly for practice rather than in the line of my duties)12 years before, and so I didn't list any foreign language skills.

Apparently, they kicked up a hell of a fuss about our 'deception', according to my boss at the time. They were calling me 'Comrade' at the office for months afterwards... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're kidding me!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Comrade! That's a good one.

Well if you know about their ICBMs you know all to well what exactly they're capable of technologically.

There was a lot of fuss all over the place. I was coming back from Vladivostok once, and some guy that worked for a private radiation cleanup company contracted by the Russians, was showing me pictures of a sub reactor he took when he was there.

After I saw the first picture I asked him not to show me anymore, especially considering that we were still over Russian waters. What an idiot.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-19-2006, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I didn't expect to post anything in this matter, but in year 2000 I almost died in a head-on collision in a Lada Samara </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Damn rnzoli, I'm glad you're with us man!

Unfortunately factory cost cutting is not surprising at all. Some smarty pants decides to "squeeze" just a little more profit margin and as result people die.

We got exactly the same crapp here. Air bags that don't deploy, or deploy accidentally, tires that loose tread, fuel injectors that catch fire, differentials that suddenly lock while pushing 80 on the freeway, and so on.

Damn shame, all it is.


p.s.

Kocur_, your type of attitude happens when parenting is replaced by television "nanny", thus the abundance of ignorance, spurious emotional response and total lack of civility.

It's you nap time kid, sweet dreams.

Kocur_
06-19-2006, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:

Kocur_, your type of attitude happens when parenting is replaced by television "nanny", thus the abundance of ignorance, spurious emotional response and total lack of civility.

It's you nap time kid, sweet dreams. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is accusing me of ignorance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

So finally you gave up on trying to post anything useful (and went personal...)? Great! So far it's been all rubbish, but luckily I was watching. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Blutarski2004
06-19-2006, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Kocur_, your type of attitude happens when parenting is replaced by television "nanny", thus the abundance of ignorance, spurious emotional response and total lack of civility.

It's you nap time kid, sweet dreams. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... And a psychologist as well. How impressive.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-19-2006, 03:41 PM
Oh please, he pulls the same nonsense on Anthony's forum as well. Just keeps going in circles and back tracks as soon as some one pegs his nonsense down.

Go and look for your selves;

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=autogun&msg=2281.71

blindpugh
06-19-2006, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
When your talking about manufacturing hundreds of millions, possibly billions of bullets and hundreds of thousands of guns it makes allot of sense to only make one type.

I think it made sense logistically to have all US planes armed with the same gun and the .50 was the best choice for that. All factories have the same tooling, only a few raw materials are needed, all the workers are trained the same way, all the packing and logisitics of moving the ammunition is the same, the armourers only need learn about 1 weapon, as do the pilots, parts are all interchangable etc. I bet even only 1 type of grease was needed to store them in.

20mm is the better choice though but I can't see all those medium bombers using 20mm's as defensive guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>EXACTLY!

PSYOP_mongoose
06-19-2006, 04:19 PM
I agree as well;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When your talking about manufacturing hundreds of millions, possibly billions of bullets and hundreds of thousands of guns it makes allot of sense to only make one type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Economics 101.

This is not correct though;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">20mm is the better choice though but I can't see all those medium bombers using 20mm's as defensive guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scores of English, German, Russian and Japanese bombers used 20s as standard defensive weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bomber_aircraft_1940-1949

AndyHigh
06-19-2006, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Soviet system was notorious for bad management, mismanagement, and mind-boggling bureaucratic interference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again I fail to see what you are basing all that on. I have first hand experience with Soviet/Russian bureaucracy, I know all about it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know all about Soviet system? Based on your input thats funniest thing I've seen for a while http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Should I spoil you idealistic view by posting some lists of people bluntly executed in Soviet Union, even they came to voluntarily to build that system and believed in its superiority over capitalism? Collected straight from Soviet archives itself.

Btw. Zenith and Kiew kameras basically s**k when compared to Japanese, German, or Swedish of the time. Build quality varies wildly from sample to sample, especially of the comera bodies. There were some fine examples of optics, which were mostly coming from eastern Germany (Zeiss Jena).

PSYOP_mongoose
06-19-2006, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You know all about Soviet system? Based on your input thats funniest thing I've seen for a while Smile.

Should I spoil you idealistic view by posting some lists of people bluntly executed in Soviet Union, even they came to voluntarily to build that system and believed in its superiority over capitalism? Collected straight from Soviet archives itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you regularly went to Russia and spoke with all kinds of Russians personally to have such a point of view, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Btw. Zenith and Kiew kameras basically s**k when compared to Japanese, German, or Swedish of the time. Build quality varies wildly from sample to sample, especially of the comera bodies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it you are a vivid photographer and personally used Zenit cameras. right? I did, and I found them to be excellent both mechanically and optically, at a fraction of the price when compared to comparable units.

Man, I wonder how many decades it'll take for Russophobia to finally pass into history as racism that it is.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-19-2006, 04:53 PM
To be objective, the only thing that was undeniably crappy about Zenits (at least in the early 90s), was poor quality film which almost always was expired.

Developers were also hard to find, and varied in proficiency from decent to out right incompetent. One developer I spoke with complained about chronic lack of fresh paper and chems.

All that changed around 94-95.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2006, 05:26 PM
Gee, I missed 3+ pages and the thread has in the meantime degraded completely. Oh well.
It's about everything that happened in before and possibly after WWII, obviously!

SkyChimp
06-19-2006, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

Why would the 50 cal armed version have a greater hit probability? The M3 had an ROF of 1100 rpm, so 6 gives 6600 rpm total. The M39 had an ROF of 1500 rpm, so 4 gives 6000 rpm total, so very similar. The only real difference is time of firing, 15 seconds for the M3 gun, 8 seconds for the M39. It would give less time spare for bracketing a target, but more chance of downing an aircraft if the firing solution was accurate.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without having the GUNVAL documents, I would hazard a few guesses from what I do know:

1) Pilots of GUNVAL F-86s (with 4 20mms) were encouraged to fire only 2 guns at once to decrease chances of compressor
stalling. The problem did not exist with .50s, but caused a number of compressor failures when equipped with 20mms.
2) Longer permissible burst times for the .50.
3) Higher total rate of fire with .50s.

Aaron_GT
06-20-2006, 02:08 AM
Skychimp,

That would have been true of the evaluation machines, but this problem was later solved, and then the ROF difference (6000 rpm versus 6600 rpm) is pretty negligible. At those sort of ROFs the diminishing returns from an increased ROF are vanishingly small, so the probability of hits would be almost identical, the same for any practical purposes. In fact 3000 rpm (two guns) versus 6600 rpm probably isn't that much different in terms of the probability of landing enough hits to down a Mig (since it needs about one third of the hits). Certainly just under 3000 rpm from 4 Hispanos was enough for the F9F to be successful against MiGs.

I think the main issue might be the total firing time, although if you were only firing a pair of guns at a time then the total firing time from 6 M3s versus paired firing of M39s would be pretty much the same.

One question, though, is due to the gun exhaust gas inhalation problem into the engine, was the maximal single burst time, even from two M39s less than that of six M3s? And is a reduction in burst time significant, i.e. what is the bracketing of the target required to score a hit versus the amount of sustained fire required to down the target? If the required bracketing fire is high, then there is an advantage to a longer firing time, but if the issue is rather that a long firing time is required to down the target then a more powerful armament, even at the expense of shorter bursts, is preferable. Obviously there is a point at which the total firing time becomes TOO short. Around 15 seconds (the same as the gun armed F86s) seems to have been standard for some airforces, like the RAF, during WW2, but the USAAF held to longer total firing times, but the gun armed F86s had a firing time of about 15 seconds. I wonder what the design process behind a shorter total firing time was? Was it a compromise regarding weight or centre of gravity of the ammunition stored, or was it felt that the chances of being in a firing solution were smaller and so an engagement would be over before 15 seconds of ammunition could be used up, or was it felt that the radar assisted sighting would mean that sufficiently accurate fire would mean that more than 15 seconds at 6600 rpm was not needed?

AndyHigh
06-20-2006, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
I guess you regularly went to Russia and spoke with all kinds of Russians personally to have such a point of view, right?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SU was a vast country, it all depends what you'd see. You propably wouldn't have clue at all what was happening behind the scenes. Spoking with regular people as a westerner wouldn't tell you much for several reasons. And then it would depend with who you spoke, somebody from the former communist elite or somebody whose life socialism had ruined. There is much of documented information in archives about what happened and when. Maybe it could widen your stubborn "first hand witness" view of the system. And to remind you, if you were there in the 90's, SU was already collapsed then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
personally used Zenit cameras. right? I did, and I found them to be excellent both mechanically and optically, at a fraction of the price when compared to comparable units.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Price was about only good thing on eastern block cameras besides some fine optics by Zeiss and Hartblei/Arsat. Build quality or reliability is not one of them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSYOP_mongoose:
Man, I wonder how many decades it'll take for Russophobia to finally pass into history as racism that it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Critisizing SU is not the same thing as Russophobia or racism. Why would somebody think so? Telling the truth is as important in this case is as important as telling the truth about Third Reich.

tigertalon
06-20-2006, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Critisizing SU is not the same thing as Russophobia or racism. Why would somebody think so? Telling the truth is as important in this case is as important as telling the truth about Third Reich. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for interfering with this thread again, anyway as a person who lived in a socialist country and was born and raised in one, and now lives in one of fastest growing democratic/capitalistic one, I can not keep my mouth shut.

SORRY for using word propaganda again, but it's unavoidable. You do realise that in socialist/kommunist countries there are virtually no beggers on the streets? That everyone has a job? That people are much more "equal" with less things to envy your neighbour? In socialism it was virtually impossible for ordinary citisen to buy a Mercedes Benz or BMW, but almost everyone could afford a cheap car like Lada. You do realise in socialism universities are for free?(one of "relics" that my country didn't drop and I enjojed the benefits of this happily) Medical care is for free? Your -money that you get from country when you are old (english: pension??)- is for free (ok, its debatable, but you do not have to save on purpose during your life, it's automatically calculated from your working years and government is paying you after you fullfilled your work duty)? You do realise that in communist countries the crime is way lower than in democratic ones (I mean heavy crime like murders etc per million)?

Yes in socialism nobody had a lot. But everyone had equally the same, enough for a living (many times barely enough though).

I am NOT advocating socialist systems, I by far prefer domocracy (and I'm not gonna start counting good sides of that). I just want to point out, that, again, western prop made it so black and white. Many people look at socialism as an evil system PURELY because western propaganda demonised it over all and any rational border. Western was alway VERY affraid of communism/socialism spreading over the borders of Iron Curt, and demonising socialism/communism was one of prevention steps from it growing too strong. With same goal CIA even ran a series of covert operations in western europe to prevent kommunism from raising stronger. GLADIO means anything to you? This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio) is a good starters.

In a nutshell: it's not THAT black and white.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Critisizing SU is not the same thing as Russophobia or racism. Why would somebody think so? Telling the truth is as important in this case is as important as telling the truth about Third Reich. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely agree on this one, but considering geopolitical situation today and similarities with past I am very affraid upper sentence in a near or far future will have to include US as well.

LStarosta
06-20-2006, 06:10 AM
LOL

Russophobia... racism...

omgh4xlol.

AndyHigh
06-20-2006, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
virtually no beggers on the streets? That everyone has a job? That people are much </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everyone had a job because "unemployed" were forced to work in labour camps. Hallelujah, there's no unemployed anymore. And don't tell me they didn't exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
like Lada. You do realise in socialism universities are for free?(one of "relics" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, they're here too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
your work duty)? You do realise that in communist countries the crime is way lower than in democratic ones (I mean heavy crime like murders etc per million)?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, but the biggest crimes were made by the ruling party. And crime statistic reported by party may very well have "modified" as were many others. Have you been to Japan? Not much crimes there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Yes in socialism nobody had a lot. But everyone had equally the same, enough for a living (many times barely enough though).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, elite of the ruling party had much better living standards. Ordinary people may have been equal among their social group.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
black and white. Many people look at socialism as an evil system PURELY because western propaganda demonised it over all and any rational border. Western was alway VERY affraid
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talkin aboat era of Ronal Reagan etc. Many of the crimes were documented in SU archives. Is that western propaganda too?

tigertalon
06-20-2006, 08:29 AM
Well, I don't wanna drag this discussion even further as it doesn't belong here, and will have no acceptable conclusion IMO.

My whole point is, that your way of thinking about socialism is completely different if you lived in western capitalist democracy for XX years and were absorbing only western... let's say media, comprad to one who actualy lived there.

(plus it's way easier to debate or discuss things in 1.st language compared to one who does it in his 3rd.)

rnzoli
06-20-2006, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
virtually no beggers on the streets? That everyone has a job? That people are much </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everyone had a job because "unemployed" were forced to work in labour camps. Hallelujah, there's no unemployed anymore. And don't tell me they didn't exist.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Off-thread mode on: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Zero unemployment was the result of terrible efficiency at the workplaces, basically 5-10 people were doing one job, also sharing the salary of one job. We called it "in-factory" unemployment.

Connecting unemployment to the labour camps was something that you made up from the linguistic aspect, I guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Off thread mode OFF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

tigertalon
06-20-2006, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
Zero unemployment was the result of terrible efficiency at the workplaces, basically 5-10 people were doing one job, also sharing the salary of one job. We called it "in-factory" unemployment.

Connecting unemployment to the labour camps was something that you made up from the linguistic aspect, I guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exatly! Now, what makes our system now, where everyone who works and pays taxes, from which comes a social support for unemployed, SO MUCH better? Hell, if I'm working and also paying support for somebody who is unemployed, I expect him to at least help me! See what I'm saying?

PSYOP_mongoose
06-20-2006, 11:51 AM
tigertalon, take my word for it, don't waste your time.

I traveled enough to see and identify a type of mentality that's entirely boob tube fed, and doesn't matter what you say, it'll not change a damn thing.

It's a kind of amazing impenetrable hypocrisy that blinds people for life.

The kind of people that go to Church every Sunday and then applaud when our troops are sent somewhere to kill a bunch of people for a profit margin.

Let it go, it's not worth your time.

Kocur_
06-20-2006, 12:27 PM
Tigertalon! So you and I have that unusual chance to tell others what really was going on behind iron courtain. Or... not: Yugoslovian (pardon me please if Im wrong, but I belive you come from Slovenia) experience must have been quite different to Polish - Yugoslavia was different case of 'socialism' than what was going on in Warsaw Pact countries - you, seen from our perspective, were far more open and less corrupted so to say.

There was NO equality in former People's Republic of Poland. There were communist elite members, who were rich at relative level of billionaires: there were housing estates with huge, beautiful houses for the red elite, and cheap, ugly, badly constructed concrete blocks for the majority of ordinary people and there were tens of thousands of homeless people. Yes, thats right! There was net of "Worker's Hotels" throught the country, where workers with lowest levels of education and payement lived in common rooms - poorhouses in every way. And there were 'real' homeless searching through garbages. Every once in a while they were jailed or just taken by Militia and driven out of cities. There were communist elite members at every level: at highest it was absolute wealth, at lower it was better flat and a car and at lowest it was better food, bought in special shops, for party members only, at special prices too. And membership in the elite, thus having possibility to reach relative wealth of another level took no skill but being servile to the party as a whole and party member just above. Apart from the top elite, actually all here were poor compared to the free world. Not only relatively, but in local terms too: apart from coupons to buy food or shoes, let alone car or a flat, there was enough money just to make ends meet, nothing more.
Free education and healtcare? No, not really - NOTHING is free and whatever was accessible 'free' WAS PAID in huge taxes - invisible taxes, since there was no individual income taxation. Payment lists of plants of all kinds were taxed - you never knew there was brutto and netto while counting your payment! And 40% taxation of workers payment makes everything avaialble from state FAR from being free. Not to mention things like flats (also you had to wait in queue for YEARS to have opportunity to buy a flat) were paid in real cash of individuals, who were lucky if money they had in state-owned bank wasnt devaluated just like that - not valorised by inflation - hey, there's no inflation in socialism, right?. There was nothing in shops in enough quantity. It was everyday struggle to buy meat (couponed!), clothes, shoes (couponed), some medications, even freaking toilet paper (couponed)! All that poverty, both of citizens and state was result of UNIMAGINABLE inefficiency of centrally governed, planned economy. Nothing was in time, in quatity nedded, not to mention quality. Nothing was done because of economical reasons, everything was political decision made by party. A tiny example from my friend, who was director of state-owned farm: there were five pick-ups in the farm. They needed tires, right? Oh, and there were tires distributed by central distribution list: usually he got three. Not three sets of tires, THREE TIRES for five pick-ups, once a year. You wont see them anymore, since they were already exploited properly in the 1990s, but there were lots of unfinshed construction sites, like hospitals or office block, that were being raised for a year or so and then local party leader fell out or simply something up the ladder changed and half-ready construction was halted and left like that, deteriorating. There were always shortages of any possible resources, so roads, hospitals, schools and anything public was in terrible condition (apart from local party seats naturally). Nobody really cared about their work, nobody felt any public property should be cared about - everything around you was state-owned - everybody's... thus nobody's. Decades of nursing 'worker's dignity' totally corrupted employees of any level: "Either Im standing or Im lying down - they owe thousand in money" ("Czy się stoi, czy się leży - tysi...c się należy"). OTOH everytime those workers, who supposedly were living in their paradise rioted (say bacause parliament (SIC!!!) decided on rising meat prices by 100% from one day to another - 1970) they were beaten, reprised and even killed mercilessly.
Less crime? Who knows? Well at least we thought so, because the real statistcs were top state secret. That brings us to the media: one of many things forbidden by preventive censorship were news like someone was killed, died in car accident or even simply drowned - if judged by the media, hardly ever anything bad happened in happy, safe socialist country. OTOH there were no other news from the west but accidents, death, poverty etc. And all that BS from the TV, geez! Lies everywhere, everyday! Media claiming great harvest, when buying fresh bread was hard, media claiming economical sucesses, while you saw roads in worse and worse condition. And there was 'friendship with Soviet Union'. Offcially we owned them eveything: "liberation", "workers' - peasants' rule", international safety from "neo-nazi" Western Germany govt and US "imperialists". And privately not only most of the society had some real knowledge what really happened during WW2 and after, but we knew we were being robbed from food and nearly everything else by 'brother-like relationship' in economic relations via "Counsil of Mutual Economical Assistance" by tricks with transfer rubel or simply orders from 'Soviet comrades'. You heard of 'communism', 'socialism' and 'Soviet Union' in every third sentence in media, with Lenin, Dzierzhinski and current Soviet Gensec as greatest of mankind.
Oh and there was corruption in every level of interacting with state - which you had to do everyday in socialist system. Offcially nothing could be fixed "There are temporary problems, ya know... BUT...". And the bribes were of all possible and impossible forms: from money through coupons to buy something to... meat from your countryside realtive (illegally naturally).

Whatever western anti-communst propaganda had to say - reality was worse! TT - you and me are too young to had witnesed early days of communist rules in our countries and we had no way of learning what really happened - untill communist rule fell. What happened here was mass murder! Killing everyone who communists thought they could be dangerous and terror for the rest. Commies were smart, they sure read Machiavelli, who advised to do all the killing and other crimes as early and in as short time as possible, which they did. WHether it was Poland in 1939-41 and 1944-56 or Vietnam (collectivistaion in NV not to mention thousnads of dead bodies with holes in their backs of their heads in Hue afer just few days of rulling there during Tet in 1968) Later on it was just 'soft pressure', like you wont be let to study at the university, you will be fired from job and wont be able to get any other but, say consierge in a worker's hotel, you wont have access to medical procedure urgently needed etc. - any of those was applicable to your relatives naturally. If you stood up anyway, you could be jailed for years or get beaten or simply killed by 'unknown perpetrators', i.e. secret police. Oh, and you'd better keep your thoughts for yourelf. Informers were everywhere and you had to REALLY trust somebody if you were to say what you really thought about politics and you wanted to avoid troubles, bigger of smaller.

Sorry for OT, but communist/socialist/Soviet Union fans from the west just annoy me. You people have NO IDEA what was reality of what you are dreaming of! There are fans of this game from so many countries, but only few of them had real 'contact' with communism or Soviet Union - finding communism fan from say Poland or say Finland is quite difficult - simply because we KNOW what it is like. Not anti-communist propaganda, just more or less practical, more or less personal experience.

Blutarski2004
06-20-2006, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Tigertalon! So you and I have that unusual chance to tell others what really was going on behind iron courtain. Or... not: Yugoslovian (pardon me please if Im wrong, but I belive you come from Slovenia) experience ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... So you actually lived in the Eastern Bloc. Very interesting.

But PSYOP-mongoose claims that you picked up your impressions of life under scientific socialism from the "boob tube"! Is that true?

Hmmmmm ... whom to believe?????

PSYOP_mongoose
06-20-2006, 12:49 PM
This really starting to wreak of z-ist tag teaming.

Self respecting and reasonable people are encouraged to pick Kocur_s "creation" apart for what it is with the help of this resource- http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

Then feel free to go right here and draw a direct parallel between the use of such tactics;

USS Liberty - http://www.ussliberty.org/

Sometimes I think that they all must have went to the same school and took the same BS classes.

Kocur_
06-20-2006, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<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 PSYOP_mongoose:


"Very good ballistics of the M3 50cal" are largely attributed to adoption of UBS projectile, and was a good choice.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif BS as usual! Ballistics of .50 are attributed purely to case volume and projectile weight and those are what they are because of gen. Pershing requirement from 1917 and were decided in Frankford Arsenal in 1919. Soviet B-32 API PROJECTILE was base for developement of US M8 API and naturally had nothing to do with .50 ballistics per se. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Kocur, don't disparage the ballistic efficiency of the projectiles themselves. I was checking some US Army data last night and the performance of the 2835 f/s 50cal M2 AP round in terms of velocity ******ation was quite surprising when compared to US 20mm and even 37mm guns AP rounds at 2800 f/s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I missed your post before.
Im not disparging anything really - how can I since MV and BC govern external ballistics! Thing is that shape and weight (i.e. external ballistics properties ) of .50 projectiles were set in 1919, when Frankford Arsenal approved and slightly modified Winchester design of .50 ammo - projectile, case and propellant weights and pressures (basic data copied from WW1 German 13,2 ammo btw). What was taken from Soviet B-32 12,7mm x 107 ammo was not external shape of jacket or weight or MV or any data of loading, but internal design of API projectile. That was used to design US M8 API with usual .50 shape and loading data. B-32 API (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/145mm.html#2) weight is 48,2g and MV is 810-825m/s, while M8 API data (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html) is 40,3g and 887m/s - rather diferent.

PSYOP_mongoose
06-20-2006, 01:16 PM
Kocur_, you didn't leave Poland on "The Wings of Eagles" now did you?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PSYOP_mongoose
06-20-2006, 01:18 PM
Hell, cause then Blutarski2004 may very well be a frequent 'Magic Carpet' flierhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif