Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Peasant

How Not to Post in the Historical Warfare Section

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Peasant said:

Is that so

 

It is quite so.  In fact, I invented that particular trick.

 

And no, I don't have your password.  It's encrypted by the forum software so as even I can't get at it.  Same as all other forum software.  And yes, I do know what your email address is because you had to enter an email address in order to register your account.  Same as all other forum software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Akula_941 said:

It is simply just cringe to read your post, here:

ThyzcX0.pngcG8abst.png

Oh boy, that is pretty good stuff. Kind of akin to the affection affixed to the M-14 in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RobotMinisterofTrueKorea said:

 

Which began execution in 1945?

 

Dude, That does nothing to refute the fact that the F6F, F4U, and even the plucky little FM-2 were superior aircraft. A quick check shows the A6M8 is going to have a top airspeed of 356mph. Sorry to tell you, this is slow by 1945 standards. The F6F-5 has a higher top speed at 391 mph, and the F4U-4 had a blistering top speed of 446 mph. There's also other US Aircraft to consider, namely the F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat, which both broke 400 mph. There's also USAAF aircraft to consider, the P-51D/K and P-47N also break 400 mph. That's not counting FAA aircraft with latter variants of Seafire.

 

Also, one of the major issues with the A6M was loss of maneuverability at higher air speeds. The entire reason the plane was so maneuverable was that it had these ECKSBAWKS HUEG control surfaces. If you put on any sort of significant airspeed, the airflow over the control surfaces makes maneuvering the aircraft difficult. How on earth would putting a larger engine on the aircraft correct that problem? The Bf-109K4 had similar issues. If you put too large of an engine on an air frame, you turn the damn thing into a death trap.

"If you put too large of an engine on an air frame, you turn the damn thing into a death trap."

 

Effectively.

You run into a case of the dog eating it's tail.  The very features that made the airframe wonderful to handle, are now co-conspirators in the pilots murder, once you stick a bigger mill in the works.   The rarely seen Beech QU22 is a great example.  Near 400 HP in what is basically a Beech Debonair is not a good combo for inexperienced pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Collimatrix said:

How much did the lack of torque and P-factor play into the decision to adopt jets?

I'd bet a lot, look at the T28 trainer, a plane designed to have "less than steallar" take off behavior, in order to simulate the way early gas turbine mills behaved on takeoff.

 

Having only flown stick in a T-33, I can say it is very unnerving.

I am a low time "pilot", but my time is mostly in taildraggers, and cropdusters, with relatively high power to weight ratios. 

 

The T-bird was "Move it steadily forward, and wait for the push. "

 

And then it was assholes and elbows to get the gear up and the flaps up before  they decided to fuckoff and part company from the airframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RobotMinisterofTrueKorea said:

 

Which began execution in 1945?

 

Dude, That does nothing to refute the fact that the F6F, F4U, and even the plucky little FM-2 were superior aircraft. A quick check shows the A6M8 is going to have a top airspeed of 356mph. Sorry to tell you, this is slow by 1945 standards. The F6F-5 has a higher top speed at 391 mph, and the F4U-4 had a blistering top speed of 446 mph. There's also other US Aircraft to consider, namely the F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat, which both broke 400 mph. There's also USAAF aircraft to consider, the P-51D/K and P-47N also break 400 mph. That's not counting FAA aircraft with latter variants of Seafire.

 

Also, one of the major issues with the A6M was loss of maneuverability at higher air speeds. The entire reason the plane was so maneuverable was that it had these ECKSBAWKS HUEG control surfaces. If you put on any sort of significant airspeed, the airflow over the control surfaces makes maneuvering the aircraft difficult. How on earth would putting a larger engine on the aircraft correct that problem? The Bf-109K4 had similar issues. If you put too large of an engine on an air frame, you turn the damn thing into a death trap.

 

 

Yeah, Peasant doesn't seem to really know about fighter maneuverability and assumes since the Zero has a very good sustained turn rate, but the Zero has pathetic high-speed turning ability.  above 250 MPH, all the American fighters you listed can out turn and roll the Zero, and as long as they turn just long enough to get the shot, then extend to gain speed, they can and did outmaneuver zeros. 

 

The Zero was a very good aircraft for a very short period of the war, then the Allies learned fighter tactics, and the Japanese never improved, the equipment had little bearing on things. Had they had actually good aircraft, like the Hellcat or Corsair, their training and tactics would still have doomed them to failure. By 1945 the US was training combat pilots so well, they rivaled the Japanese at their BEST. 

 

 

 

And speed is the number one factor in WWII fighter performance, because it lets you chose to fight or not, or escape if things go wrong. Everything else is nice to have, good climb, range etc, but most of that stuff can be trained around. 

 

 

I think all Japanese stuff is overrated, but they did pretty well considering how shitty their gear, tactics, and leadership was. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. I understand now

 

Yak-3 is not especially fast 655 km/h? But has good energy retention, speed characteristics, and acceleration?

 

If you talk about Japanese tanks most people think they cannot stop LMG's but for their time; they weren't too terrible?

Like Chi Ha vs Pz II?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When compared to specifically a Pz II, then yeah the Chi Ha with like a 47mm gun might be the more attractive tank?

 

Opposite US Armor, and really just in general, IJA armor is lacking. They tend to be larger, slower, and sport inferior armor and firepower to their Allied counterparts. I mean what does a Chi Ha have that an M2/M3 Light Tank, or M4 Medium doesn't? Literally nothing. In the world of Axis armor, it's the same sort of deal, the contemporary German stuff generally winds up looking superior. There are exceptions, for instance, I don't think Chi-Has set themselves on fire by driving up hills, or blew out their final drives after 200km, as was the case with some wartime German tanks *Cough* *Cough* Panther *Cough* Ferdinand *Cough* *Cough*

 

It's also worth noting that post-war Japanese armor developments don't emulate their pre-war and war-time efforts. If anything they basically start building AFVs that are infinitely closer to contemporary West German and American designs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Ha-Go being one of the notable ones that were, yes.

When your tank is vulnerable to a infantry rifle from the previous war, then you are doing tonks wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

When your tank is vulnerable to a infantry rifle from the previous war, then you are doing tonks wrong.

 

 

Technically, I guess, M2 AP wasn't adopted until 1940? Though they had AP rounds before then, but not when the Ha-Go was designed, I think? I am just playing Devil's Advocate here... It's not really working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Technically, I guess, M2 AP wasn't adopted until 1940? Though they had AP rounds before then, but not when the Ha-Go was designed, I think? I am just playing Devil's Advocate here... It's not really working.

Well the Germans had SmK rounds for 8mm, and 8mm Mauser was everywhere. So it should have gone without saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the Army raise a concern about it's armor, but eventually agreed (with the cavalry) that to keep the weight lower they would keep it as is?

That's the story I heard anyway

 

Aside from not stopping infantry rifles, it doesn't seem like a poor performing tank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peasant said:

Didn't the Army raise a concern about it's armor, but eventually agreed (with the cavalry) that to keep the weight lower they would keep it as is?

That's the story I heard anyway

 

Aside from not stopping infantry rifles, it doesn't seem like a poor performing tank?

What is the purpose of a tank? What is it primarily designed for?  oO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Belesarius said:

What is the purpose of a tank? What is it primarily designed for?  oO

 

Japan seems to have neglected the tank part of light tank in their pursuit of padding X stat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Peasant said:

Didn't the Army raise a concern about it's armor, but eventually agreed (with the cavalry) that to keep the weight lower they would keep it as is?

That's the story I heard anyway

 

Aside from not stopping infantry rifles, it doesn't seem like a poor performing tank?

 

It was supposed to have been decent mechanically for the era, but by the Forties it was just obsolete in all respects. And not giving it protection against common weapons was a mistake. When you're vulnerable to a Stuart's shoulder MGs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×