PDA

View Full Version : history channel is whack



XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:00 PM
i was watching a show called "history of the gun" yesterday, and they were talking about guns used in aviation. when they got to world war 2, they started mentioning a whole list of american planes and how they all had browning .50 cal's mounted on them as the main gun. after they were done showing all the different aircraft with the .50 cal's they somehow decided that 'obviously, the .50 cal was the best gun used in aircraft for wwII.' well of course it is if they only compare american planes. the only cannon they showed was the 37mm on the p-39. how do you go about deciding what the best aircraft gun was in wwII anyway? well the fact that the history channel could be so biased towards american planes has been bugging me ever since. they could have at least shown another plane for a few of the other countries involved.

p.s. i'm american so don't flame me for that kind of stuff

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:00 PM
i was watching a show called "history of the gun" yesterday, and they were talking about guns used in aviation. when they got to world war 2, they started mentioning a whole list of american planes and how they all had browning .50 cal's mounted on them as the main gun. after they were done showing all the different aircraft with the .50 cal's they somehow decided that 'obviously, the .50 cal was the best gun used in aircraft for wwII.' well of course it is if they only compare american planes. the only cannon they showed was the 37mm on the p-39. how do you go about deciding what the best aircraft gun was in wwII anyway? well the fact that the history channel could be so biased towards american planes has been bugging me ever since. they could have at least shown another plane for a few of the other countries involved.

p.s. i'm american so don't flame me for that kind of stuff

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:05 PM
I don't think it said at anything to the effect of "the M2 was the best gee darned gun of WWII".

Roy Baty
III/7/JG2

"Be happy in your work!"
- Col. Saito

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:07 PM
i coulda sworn it did

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:11 PM
Timmothias wrote:
- i was watching a show called "history of the gun"
- yesterday, and they were talking about guns used in
- aviation. when they got to world war 2, they started
- mentioning a whole list of american planes and how
- they all had browning .50 cal's mounted on them as
- the main gun. after they were done showing all the
- different aircraft with the .50 cal's they somehow
- decided that 'obviously, the .50 cal was the best
- gun used in aircraft for wwII.' well of course it is
- if they only compare american planes. the only
- cannon they showed was the 37mm on the p-39. how do
- you go about deciding what the best aircraft gun was
- in wwII anyway? well the fact that the history
- channel could be so biased towards american planes
- has been bugging me ever since. they could have at
- least shown another plane for a few of the other
- countries involved.
-
- p.s. i'm american so don't flame me for that kind of
- stuff


History channel scores very low in regard with historical accuracy. Quite a paradox isn't it?
No wonder how misinformed are our american forum colleagues.

They have interesting footage to show though.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:11 PM
Well I watch it again this weekend, to confirm /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

Roy Baty
III/7/JG2

"Be happy in your work!"
- Col. Saito

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:13 PM
Just an FYI ALL history is bias in some manner wether it was intended to be or not. Another thing is that there are better ways to learn better history than what is provided on channels like Discovery. The only true way to get at the facts is to read and read all types of sources cause sticking with one absolute source is always trouble as a researcher.... always!

The history channel provides very general and many times flat out wrong information. If you are generally intersted in the topic of which gun was the best then read and compare for yourself. Sorry for the mini rant just that as an archaeologist one of my jobs is to debunk history cause it is infact very very bias.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:16 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- History channel scores very low in regard with
- historical accuracy. Quite a paradox isn't it?
- No wonder how misinformed are our american forum
- colleagues.


Yea, since we've all been watching history channel since we were kids, and that's been the extent of our interest in Histary....

Most of us know that the History channel is like all television, it just entertainment.

<center>http://www.goobage.com/pics/D_Rat.gif </center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>Visit RatFinks Screaming Pile of Sin and Confusion</font></font size> (http://www.goobage.com/forum.php)</center>


Message Edited on 06/28/0303:30AM by Tully__

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:18 PM
I have seen the history channel a number of times when I have been in the US on business or pleasure and, although it's is interesting stuff, it is certainly NOT world history. If a visitor from Alpha Centurii were to tune in and watch it, you could understand them believing that the USA was the only nation on Earth!

I'd never join a club that would have ME as a member!!.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:20 PM
IMO the M2 was the most important, versatile, and most used machine gun of the United States during WWII, but if they said it was "the best aerial gun" I would have to disagree.

Roy Baty
III/7/JG2

"Be happy in your work!"
- Col. Saito

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>


Message Edited on 06/27/0301:22PM by roybaty

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:32 PM
Thanks Tully/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:33 PM
Listen kids,

The History Channel is an American production and almost all the documentaries that are shown are indeed American produced. IMHO you gotta give any channel props for even talking about firearms in todays politically correct environment. There is a History Channel International that is more cosmopolitian then the usual fair. And yes, all history is biased. And yes, this forum is chalk full of amateur historians forever arguing what aircraft was the best in WWII, which is a prime example of how there is really no right answer in History, only strong opinions.. All history is relative. If it was black and white, we would teach History like Math.

Signed and American fan of the History Channel and any channel that shows documentaries,

BV

<center>http://777AVG.com/sigs/sig01.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:46 PM
Hmmm i wouldn't say so, from what watching one program?
There was a tales of the gun: guns of Russia that dealt with russian small arms from the age of czars to ww2 to modern AN-94. No mention of america at all. Lots of other shows like that also.
So you could say, all of you are being biased.
Haha.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:47 PM
I saw that show too. Well I watched until they said that! I can confirm that they said that the Browning .50 was the best airborn weapon of the war! Oh well, it is just TV. Advice to people who watch the History Channel and think they are experts: READ! When you get done reading, read somemore from the opposite side. The only way to understand history is to read as many sources as possible, and distill your own opinions from that. Just as every eyewitness will describe a crime differently, every historian will add his own slant. It is just human nature.

You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Sigfreid Sassoon- Suicide in the Trenches

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:51 PM
My question is, how is anyone here to know what the best air to air gun is? I mean all we know is from sims. Maybe the M2 is the best gun. After all the P38 had a 20mm but you never saw them putting more 20mm cannons in newer American planes.

I don't know how much this applies to WW2 but I was reading at the Air Force musuem about the Mig15 vs the F86. They were saying that the 15 was designed to knock out bombers so it had large cannons on board i think 2 20mm and a 37mm or something like that. The 86 on the other hand had 6 .50 cal. At jet speeds the six .50 were better cause they fired faster. They needed more hits to bring down a 15 but given the speeds of combat and the gun firing rate, it made those hits easier to achieve than was true for the 15. The cannons on the 15 fired slower so it was difficult to get hits. The only thing is that it only took a few hits from a 15 to bring down an 86. However, overall the 86 and its .50 cal proved to be more effective than the larger cannons of the 15, in air to air engagements.

I don't know how well this would apply to WW2, but it is intersting to note that the FW190 and later versions of the 109 were given upgraded armament not necessarily for dogfighting, but to knock down bombers. And the United States used .50cal for air to air since they really never went after bombers to the same degree as the Germans.

Thus, the .50s may be much better against fighers, while cannons are better against bombers. It may be that the .50 is the best air to air gun for its purpose.


_____________________________________

Tolerance = hypocracy to the fullest extent.
Aces High (social worker/philosopher)

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:52 PM
Well when you think about it, if you can think.
Primary purpose of american fighters - destroy enemy fighters, wasn't to many german or japanese bombers to kill.
.50 cal is more than adequate for that job, espiacly with 4, 6 or 8 machine guns tend to shred planes to little bits and pieces. .50 is a potent weapon.
It armed every american fighter and bomber.
It had a fast rof, relativly light (compared to larger cannon) good hitting power, long range, flat trajectory, armor periecing incendairy rounds.
Only lacked extreme hitting power that is seen in larger 20mm and 30mm cannons of the germans that were needed to down bombers.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:56 PM
whew, i'm glad someone heard them say that too. i thought i might be imagining things.

about the other history of the gun episodes: sure they showed russian guns and stuff, and that's cool. but my point was that on this particular show about aircraft, they only showed american planes from wwII (i didn't see the rest of the show so i don't know what else went on) and then they went on to make the comment about the brownings, which was very opinionated at best, idiotic at worst.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 07:15 PM
They also had seperate shows on that day praising the AK, the German Sturmgewehr, and one in which they praised the German MG42.

Americans found the .50 to be the best for us because of the shotgun theory, most of the pilots never had years of battle against lesser forces to get good, they went from one day being a milk man and a few weeks later they were battling in the skies against some of the best/ most experienced pilots in the world, they didn't have time to develop the gunnery skills required for a low ROF/ammo count cannon, not that they didn't develop it, but at first they were noobs without a replay button, so the 6/8 .50's gave them a lot of ammo to spray at the enemy, with a reletivly flat trajectory, and powerfull enough for bringing down fighters. So for American needs, it was the best.

<center>http://www.goobage.com/pics/D_Rat.gif </center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>Visit RatFinks Screaming Pile of Sin and Confusion</font></font size> (http://www.goobage.com/forum.php)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 07:23 PM
I know a certain MG151/20E that would have something to say about the puny little M2 being considered better than he is.





_______________________________
Hauptmann Jochen "Heidi" Heiden
Jagderband 44
www.JagdVerband44.com (http://www.JagdVerband44.com)

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 07:49 PM
Thx TurboCrotch for a little theory spiced with history. I have never watched The History channel but Discovery from time to time. And from what I can judge they have a glorifing show for every piece of junk man has ever made. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
As for being biased. I would rather think the producers where cutting corners to fit the budget or just plain lazy. So after watching lets say 200 mind numbing shows you are left with what? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 08:01 PM
Yeah, but nothing beats Arlie on Mail Call!

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 08:04 PM
The History Channel is great!

...but certainly not for accurate, unbiased facts regarding most things they cover. The footage is the reason I watch it and they often show actual footage shot by axis powers as well.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/_uimages/TBolt.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 08:48 PM
Exactly. The footage is the only reason I watch it as well. Even though it is sometimes taken out of context.

Tully__
06-27-2003, 09:40 PM
Perhaps we can agree that the 0.50 Browning was the best 0.50cal of the war fitted to American planes ..... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>


Salut
Tully

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 10:00 PM
pdog1 wrote:
- Well when you think about it, if you can think.
- Primary purpose of american fighters - destroy enemy
- fighters, wasn't to many german or japanese bombers
- to kill.
- .50 cal is more than adequate for that job, espiacly
- with 4, 6 or 8 machine guns tend to shred planes to
- little bits and pieces. .50 is a potent weapon.
- It armed every american fighter and bomber.
- It had a fast rof, relativly light (compared to
- larger cannon) good hitting power, long range, flat
- trajectory, armor periecing incendairy rounds.
- Only lacked extreme hitting power that is seen in
- larger 20mm and 30mm cannons of the germans that
- were needed to down bombers.

It also helped that the Browning M2 was already well into production. They were cheap, plentiful, reasonably reliable and as mentioned a very hard hitting heavy MG.

The U.S. had lots of them and since it was indeed the case that our fighters were more purposed with bringing down fighters rather than bombers (though they did a good job on those as well) it was an opportune set of circumstances to have lots of .50s to put on these a/c.

The other thing was that the U.S. had not developed a decent, reliable 20mm cannon and was not in a position to be experimenting when something as pletiful and reliable as the Browning was around.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 10:17 PM
Most shows on the History Channel consist of nothing more than a series of historic clips of explosions set to dramatic music, with a dramatic soundtrack. There's usually very little to be gained from watching them.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 10:55 PM
One: The History Channel is an educational network- and tries to educate the majority of Americans. Unfortunatly the majority of Americans, as well as the majority of any market, need things to be generalized and put into familiar terms. The .50 Cal is Amercian and the show did a good job on getting the average American to understand aviation weapons of WWII.

Two: I beleive that particular show only had a 30 minute time slot. That is about 22 minutes of show with 8 minutes of commercials. There is no way they could cover the majority of aviation weapons in 22 minutes. They did well for the time alotted.

Three: the .50 cal won the war.

"Yellow-nosed b@st@rds, 6 o'clock high, coming down now!"

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:41 AM
When General Yeager talks, I listen.

The M2 would not be in service today if it weren't a good weapon.

There were several inaccuracies galring in that show on the history channel, one of which stated that the P-39 used the M2 and gave the impression it always did use that and only that, well, the majority of them had .30 machine guns...not sure about the P-400's armament, maybe that had the point-50's?

Muzzle velocity has a good deal to do with a weapon being good air-to-air, as far as firearms go. Trajectory? On a M2? Not a lot, no sir, but a heavier shell from a cannon WILL experience more "droop" along it's path of flight. The .50 M2 had a reputation, deservedly so, for long range accuracy. The HC also mentioned that since the guns were in the wing usually, and 'spread' (not quite the same a FB's convergance- the mgs could be set to converge at different ranges on US fighters) it was easier to get strikes on an enemy.

The HC never said that the M2 was the HARDEST HITTING aerial weapon of WWII. The weapon's reliabilty, it's weapons platform and how it was mounted on that platform, it's sight, and it's practical use should all be considered as being criteria for being the 'best' weapon. The M2 was/is a fine weapon and the USAAF used it until the '50s for good reason: High cyclic rate, reliability, accuracy, flexible ammo loadout, history of success and ease of availability.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:08 AM
Oh and I forgot to mention The ammo+logistics, While the Germans and Russians had many different calibers they had to wory about stocking for thier A/C The Americans had one caliber that was used for many different things, portable squad weapons, armor/vehicle mounted guns and A/C. so instead of dropping off a few diffenrent boxes of stuff, the could drop off many boxes of stuff that would work for many different things.

<center>http://www.goobage.com/pics/D_Rat.gif </center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>Visit RatFinks Screaming Pile of Sin and Confusion</font></font size> (http://www.goobage.com/forum.php)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:26 AM
Alright, if the M2 was junk, what WAS the single best plane-mounted gun in WW2? And how did it effect the war?

Did the side employing your favorite weapon win? That's something to think about.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0yn9h/IL-2sig01.jpg

Message Edited on 06/28/0301:26AM by BPond

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:35 AM
Roybaty! You ol' WB refugee -- good to see ya!

As far as the History Channel is concerned, you don't have to watch very long to see that you need to run their shows through the BS filter. They obviously don't spend a lot on fact-checking or editing. Whether it's because they try to do a lot on a limited budget, or simply don't think it's important, I can't say...

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:12 AM
WHo said the m2 was junk?
However i do belive that the russian equivalent is superior.

<bgColor="green">

<center>http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/small/john001.jpg</p>


I complained that my radar hums so the mechanics taught it words.
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:16 AM
History is written by the winners nuff said /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:15 AM
There were some interesting things said on that program for sure. Chuck Yeager said that it didn't matter what gun was on the plane, the one aiming it was the most important factor. I tend to agree, as an example, in the show they also told how an F80 shot down a Mig15 on their first encounter, thats proof enough for me. He also didn't like the cannons of WWII, he said it was like throwing grape fruits. One more interesting thing he said is that 11% of the pilots shot down 80 percent of the enemy aircraft that were shot down. Its obvious that the .50s worked fine for Americans. I've seen my fair share of gun cam footage showing how effective it was. It did mention that "obviously" the .50s were the best gun in the sky during WWII. They said this while showing a B-17 and a P-51, it certainly was the most versatile mg of the war, IMO, but the best gun, well, for the Americans it was. Americans were more concerned with ROF over knock out blows, they didn't change to cannons until they could increase the ROF. Since they added multi-barrels and electric motors to the cannons the guns haven't changed much, matter of fact they still feel that ROF is more important than bigger size.

"The Peacock will be on time, fan his tail."

William Frederick "Bull" Halsey

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:21 AM
Gotta love the the gattling gun the mentioned. 50 cal served well.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/jjffjj/images/0-picture.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:03 AM
I do believe russian UBS/UBK HMGs were superior to both, the M2 and MG131 heavy machine guns.

Here's an interesting webpage with stats for probably all aerial guns of WWII:


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


(gram) (rpm) (m/s)(kg)(kW/kg)(1/s)

Germany
MG 131 13 x 64B 36.2 900 730 17 8.5 31.9

USSR
UBK 12.7 x 108 52.0 1050 860 25 13.5 36.4
UBS 12.7 x 108 52.0 800 860 25 10.3 27.7

United States
Browning .50 M2 12.7 x 99 43.3 750-850 880 29 7.7 19.9





<center>[BlitzPig_Voskhod]<center>
<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif <center>

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 12:57 PM
You're right about that. Everytime you see a show on the history channel or the Discovery channel, they always show american equipment.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:20 PM
I think an important thing is that the general attitude of the majority of americans towards their country is different than in other countries. As we all know patriotism in the US is much higher than in europe for example especially since all those things going on for the last 2 years. In such a situation it is a usual procedure to show the advantages and victories of the own country as something special. Another thing which is important is that american media always tendet to leave out others. How many movies were made about world war 2. 99% have John Wayne or someone like that as the American hero killing germans alone and saving the world, no brits, no russians involved cause you will not show the victories of your cold war opponent on TV right? BTW in my opinion (I'm studying media science) the worst channel in the US is CNN. This channel always presents itself as THE seriouse news channel but it is mainly used as a "propaganda" channel. I've already seen lots of completely biased and invented things on CNN.

This was not intended to attack any of you Americans out there (i know there will be some smarties around feeling attacked in their national pride and who are going to disprove me with facts like: liar, idiot,a$$ or whatever.)
I tried to explain some circumstances which lead to this faking of programmes on US TV, which doesn't mean that happens nowhere else. BTW the BBC is one of the best big newschannels, it was interestign to watch it during the Iraq war and compare to news on my beloved CNN lol.

http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:29 PM
Gershy did u ever watching FOX /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:35 PM
No i don't have FOX.We don't get all american programmes over here just the most important ones /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:40 PM
Its becouse FOX is for US only.

but when i m in the USA i always watch it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Still the best news chanel is EuroNews for me.
BBS is also good
and of course Deutsche Welle /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:42 PM
The History Channel won the war.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:47 PM
Gershy wrote:
-. 99% have John
- Wayne or someone like that as the American hero
- killing germans alone and saving the world, -
http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif
-



Well, if you are studying this, I'd like to hazard the suggestion that you watch a few of those movies, and note how many times John Wayne is NOT killing Germans, but rather the Japanese. And not alone, you are confusing his characters with Rambo. wayne's characters didn't stride out into the battlefield and singlehandedly kill a regiment of enemies. As an example, I'd like to cite "Sands of Iwo Jima". He's part of a unit...

See, the "John Wayne" attitude is very often a negative comment. In actuality, Wayne really beleived that what the US did was right, and he was, by most accounts, a fairly up-front type of person. However, his stoic, grin-and-bear-it, take-charge-at-all-costs portrayal of many (but not all) his characters, has become a hackneyed and trite example for the attitude of US foreign policy during that era- which isn't quite right.

A big mistake is to take a John Wayne movie and compare it to any sort of popular feeling in America. For one thing, the movies are in the main over 50 years old- not exactly films with a finger on the pulse of popular sentiment. Secondly, there was a lot of ignorance, and plain old prejudice in one way or another that was hardly given a second thought in those films- it wasn't so much a case of hatred toward some groups, but more of case of "that's just how it's always been", particularly in regard to the very simplistic characters often giving supporting roles in those films. Lastly, John Wayne is not an actor who is extremely popular today, like he was 50-60 years ago (yes, I know he made movies until the '70s).

maybe you should choose a different actor to illustrate your point. Wayne is sort of a cheap shot, easy to use example, but using him as an example isn't very appropriate- he doesn't do quite what you seem to think he does...maybe Audie Murphy is closer to the mark, in a few of his films, he's the one who gets the close up as he kills yet another soldat...but then again, he got the CMH, so the film mkers milked his fame all they could.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 04:18 PM
One thing I've noticed over the years with the history channel and discovery channel is a degredation in fact checking.

The culture throughout the two seems to have begun the shift from bringing niche product to american airwaves to a that of maximum profit/ growth potential.

Those that screen the tapes that come in are not looking for facts at a detailed level. They only need to make sure that the presentation overall is sound and has entertainment value to retain and attract viewership.

As for the gun argument. The .50 as AC armament should not be thought as an individual gun but more of a methodology.

Compare modern AC arms.

Russian AC have a large cannon with maybe 120 rounds with low rate of fire. On some AC the weapons system is designed to fire the gun automatically when the computer has a fire
solution. One shot one kill.

The american philosophy is target saturation. Gatlin gun with 400 to 900 rounds
100 rounds of 20mm in a 1 second burst initiated by the pilot. AKA spray and pray

One method relies on a large explosive round causing damage
The other is several 100 rounds are bound to hit something important.

both methods are effective as evident by historical records

With this in mind to judge a gun by it's individual design qualities does'nt always translate to combat effectiveness.
You have to think of its implementation as well. The .50 was used on everything from boats to bombers to fighters to AA. It deserves credit for flexibilty at the very least.

2 20mm cannons vs 6-8 .50's?

both will achieve the desired result

on the flip side

P-47's have survived 190's throwing everything at them
Mig-15's have survived the full ammo load being dispensed into them by f-86's

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 04:40 PM
the M2 .50 cal may have been the best all around gun for aircraft in WW2...it certainly was up there with them. High fire frate, dependable, high velocity, multi ammo types. It may not have been as good a weapon for knocking down B17's as were the 20MM cannon of German fighters. The M2 has survived for over 50 years and is still an effective weapon. I had the opportunity to fire the 50 during my service time....and it sure impressed me....however it was from a boat not a plane.

"Nothing difficult is ever easy"

fluke39
07-02-2003, 04:47 PM
Vaquero77 wrote:
- You're right about that. Everytime you see a show on
- the history channel or the Discovery channel, they
- always show american equipment.

i presume you're talking about the american history channel..

the History channel we get here in britain seems to have a more balanced approach - i would say in terms of equipment it seems to cover british/ american and german in equal quantities. russian stuff probably next, then japanese - i don't think iv'e ever seen a program covering any other countries equipment.


<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/ffluke.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 05:02 PM
Gershy wrote:
- No i don't have FOX.We don't get all american
- programmes over here just the most important ones


Yo man, get Fox, it puts "p" into "propaganda". Even their news anchors have little US flags on their lapels :-)


<Center><img src=http://images.fotopic.net/?id=338437&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1><Center>

<Center>"I have no principles; I make Adaptability to all circumstances my Principle.<Center>
I have no tactics; I make Emptiness and Fullness my Tactics."<Center> <Center>Bushido<Center>




Message Edited on 07/02/0304:02PM by PE_Tigar

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 06:29 PM
I am just glad we have a history channel at all. Any person with a true interest in history will most likely have done or will do enough of their own research to recognize the problems with the programs they air. CNN, on the other hand, continues to pass off their lame, confused and sometimes even invented "facts" to the viewing public as though it were unbiased, respectable journalism. Heh. They still call the chechens "freedom fighters" or "rebels". Give me a break. Generally the BBC is better, but when they have a bias they make no bones about it. I have seen the BBC go way overboard reporting only about the side of a story they are sympathetic to.

What's that? Oh, yeah...IL2 forum...ahem...sorry.

The M2 is a great weapon, all in all. Can't knock it. If you have any doubts about its lethality I recommend you figure out a way to fire one. Once you do that, go sit in a ww2 fighter and give it some thought. Still, one has to wonder why the US kept trying to figure out how to best use 20mms. You definitely saw an increase in the US's interest in bigger calibres when the threat was soviet strategic bombers.

Sorry about the rant.

When in doubt,

~Szzr.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 08:55 PM
I'll stick to cartoons.

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 03:43 PM
Hi guys!

I'm not sure if what I see on the History Channel is the same as that seen by viewers in other countries.

The content here in Australia, according to my impressions, seems to be about 25-30% WW2 related. Of this, by no means all is American-focussed. Having said that, the American influence, or viewpoint, is evident in a number of programs.

As for quality and accuracy, IMHO it's difficult to generalize. Some shows are very good, some downright atrocious, with every shade of variation in between.

I think we should remember that many of these shows are made for the interest of a 'general' viewership, with a casual or passing interest in history, rather than the outright enthusiast (we are relatively few in number).

I would have to say that in the 40 years I've been studying military history, probably 80-85% of my information has come from books, these from the widest possible variety of sources.

I tend to regard television documentaries as supplementary, frequently with good footage (as someone else has already mentioned). When watching them, I often find errors and/or misunderstandings/misrepresentations. By the same token, I have also picked up useful titbits of info here and there.

Others on this thread have suggested we should not rely too much on TV docos, if we want dependable info, but also invest time in varied reading. This is good advice. The greater the variety of sources, the more likely we are to get a balanced picture.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 04:04 PM
If you plan to ask a question such as "what is the best..whatever", you have to establish agreed-upon criteria.

In air combat, there are a whole lot of variables, many of which have been touched on here.
What is the primary mission of the aircraft?
Ground attack? Pursuit? Dogfighting? Bomber destruction?

What is the aircraft capable of carrying?

What is available in sufficient quantity?

Obviously, all the different combatants in WWII had differing answers to these questions.

How do you judge "best"? Most kills per number of rounds fired? General effectiveness? Ease of training? Reliability? Serviceability?

In the end, it's kind of like asking who's the best guitar player.

One thing I've noticed is that many combat veterans are quite enthusiastic over what worked for them. They didn't really have much opportunity to fly the other guy's plane, or shoot the other guy's gun.

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 04:23 PM
Good post, Bikewer!

I hope that some people who need to read it, and take note, do so.

I've seen vigorous, sometimes heated discussion on many a thread over what was the 'best' xxxxx in xxxxx.

I know it can be fun to air your views and challenge the opinions of others, and generally enjoy messing around, without necessarily being serious about trying to get anywhere. But you can only do so much of this before it becomes pointless.

If the aim is to try and get some sort of reasonable consensus, you MUST have agreed criteria.

Even then it's often far from easy but without agreement on criteria, forget it, you've got no chance!

Best regards,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 07:50 PM
Bikewer wrote:
-Obviously, all the different combatants in WWII had
- differing answers to these questions.
One of them being that the Russian/Americans could produce weapons in staggering numbers that dwarfed anything ever seen. As opposed to the German/Japanese's who, that's my impression, spent far too much time on innovation which the victors in the end where to benefit from. One also has to look at the culture of weapons manufacturing and available reasources. few will can ingnore the inverent bulkieness of early soviet designs. Big is better seems to be the design philosophy the allies shared back then. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif