|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Not true, actually! Allegedly that misconception comes from a mistranslation of an old memoir; in reality Soviet P-39s couldn't really do ground attack even if they wanted to, on account of the US not providing any AT rounds for the 37mm. I support you on this one. Acebuckeye13 posted:The P-39 was, on the whole, a pretty good low-altitude dogfighter. It had a decent armament of 2 .50 cals and a 37mm canon (All mounted in the nose), good manoeuvrability, and a reliable and powerful engine in the Allison V-1710. The top-scoring Soviet ace of the war flew P-39s, and by the end of the war the type actually had the most claimed kills of any US built aircraft. In a twist of fate, Bell Aircraft actually consulted with Soviet pilots for the follow-up P-63 Kingcobra, which was exclusively delivered for combat use to the Soviet Union. The P-39, and P-36, are both much misunderstood types. In my opinion they were both given a bad deal by the USAAC in regard to the (lack of) development of the types. Which is why they are often judged badly. Actually, the P-39 was quite handy, better balanced than the P-40 and with a heavy armament. But, as we know, due to the lack of a super-charger (removed by USAAC) the P-39 became sluggish above 15.000 feet. Incidentally, that conforms with the need for aux. oxygen. That the British rejected it wasn't so much for its low speed, actually it wasn't inferior to the Spitfire under 15.000 feet, but rather because its speed was so much lower than in the early-version advertisements (before armor, sealed fuel tanks, etc). They were simply disappointed. Actually, its manoeuvrability could be a little too much of the good - in the vertical plane, that is. If pulled up too hard it could tear off the wings or back-flip. There were some accidents because of this. Emil "Bud" Anderson had many hundred hours in it before he went to Europe, transferred to the P-51 and became a triple-ace. He loved the P-39 and wrote a lot about it in his book: "To Fly and Fight". Saburo Sakai, the famous Japanese fighter pilot, also refers to a couple of occasions when he had great trouble with P-39's in a low-level fight. Of course, it depended a lot on the pilot. I've never understood why the USAAC went for a 37 mm gun, and stuck to it. The British ordered it instead with a 20 mm gun, lighter, with a higher ROF and double the ammo capacity (60 rounds). The first P-39's sent to the South-West Pacific were of this version. The Soviets allegedly often removed the four wing-mounted machine guns to lighten it. They were happy with the 37 mm and two .50 calibres (12.7 mm) in the nose. As a matter of fact this may have improved its vertical balance as the wing guns were mounted behind the CG. A member has stated here that the Zero had triple the range of the P-39. That is not correct. With a drop tank - maybe. But the Japanese also trained very hard at long-range flying. Looking in at the P-39 manual one can see that, flown economically, it could achieve an endurance of more than 4 hours - without a drop tank. These, eventually, became available for the P-39, too. Incidentally, the P-36 could fly for 6 hours without a drop tank. All weights fully loaded. Later in the war Charles Lindbergh was called in to improve upon the long-range proficiency of US pilots. A little hint for WitP players: The P-36 weights in the game are incorrect, they are for later, heavier versions (Mohawk), not the US P-36 in use in 1941/1942. Same, I believe, goes for the P-39. This probably results in inferior manoeuvrability and climb performance.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
   We care not for the American submarine defences around their most important port.   A nice big one!   We jump up another base.  And crack another layer of forts at Manilla.   We hit Changsha again.  We continue our random advances.   Not much to comment on today.  We sunk some nice ships though!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
That's a proper, military-ordered AP. That's a good kill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Dangeresque posted:I hadn't heard about any German or Japanese guided torpedoes. These weapons weren't really "guided" - but rather self-seeking - "homing". The best known German ones are the "Falke" and "Zaunkönig" - Falcon and Elf's King. Google them.....  ...The Falke came into service in 1943, the Zaunkönig the year after. I think the Germans could have made much better use of these than they did. They were originally meant as a counter-measure against enemy escort vessels. As with many other German weapons project this was also dormant till they finally understood they needed it - too late.Those of you who have played Silent Hunter would know these torpedoes. If you ever got to 1943...
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
It seems Bataan gets greener and greener...?.... 
fredleander fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
fredleander posted:[...] "Falke" and "Zaunkönig" - Falcon and Elf's King[...]  , a wren.Apparently there was even another improvement, called the "Geier", another kind of bird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
fredleander posted:These weapons weren't really "guided" - but rather self-seeking - "homing". The best known German ones are the "Falke" and "Zaunkönig" - Falcon and Elf's King. Google them..... The T-V Zaunkönig was lucky to get the results it did. It was slower than a destroyer and thus of limited use against them, while against heavily escorted merchantmen it was dangerous to use because failure to dive to 60 meters and stop moving after launch meant that there was a very good chance the torp would home in on you instead of your prey (U-972 and U-377 were lost in this manner, and there are plenty of boats that simply never came back that could have met the same fate) which not only prevents you from making additional attacks but makes you very vulnerable if the escort picked up your launch transitent or hears the incoming torpedos, each of which is an arrow pointing straight at you since you couldn't move after launch. Compounding the problem, the seekers were quite likely to position and detonate the torpedo behind the target due to the way sound propagates and the lack of decent filters on the hydrophones, and was also very vulnerable to towed decoys. It would work great against lone ships, but those were rare, and already easy meat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Hinomaru falls Only one can protect us Tokyo Bay Fortress
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
fredleander posted:Emil "Bud" Anderson Clarence E. "Bud" Anderson does not go by his middle name. In fact, you'd actually have to do some digging to discover that his middle name is Emil, because he's commonly known as "Clarence E. 'Bud'" or "C.E. 'Bud'" Anderson, yet somehow despite this you still got his name wrong. Everything I've ever seen you write seems to have a rather half-assed approach to detail and you never cite sources. It is objective fact that anything you say needs to be treated with suspicion, if not outright scorn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Compounding the problem, the seekers were quite likely to position and detonate the torpedo behind the target due to the way sound propagates and the lack of decent filters on the hydrophones, and was also very vulnerable to towed decoys. It would work great against lone ships, but those were rare, and already easy meat. McNally posted:Clarence E. "Bud" Anderson does not go by his middle name. In fact, you'd actually have to do some digging to discover that his middle name is Emil, because he's commonly known as "Clarence E. 'Bud'" or "C.E. 'Bud'" Anderson, yet somehow despite this you still got his name wrong. Everything I've ever seen you write seems to have a rather half-assed approach to detail and you never cite sources. It is objective fact that anything you say needs to be treated with suspicion, if not outright scorn.  Truly a master of revisionist history, in the vein of the great Belton Cooper and Victor Suvorov. 
AceRimmer fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Katznmaus posted:You have a mistranslation: The Zaunkönig (lit. king of the fence) is this cute little bugger Thank you for pointing that out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
McNally posted:Clarence E. "Bud" Anderson does not go by his middle name. In fact, you'd actually have to do some digging to discover that his middle name is Emil, because he's commonly known as "Clarence E. 'Bud'" or "C.E. 'Bud'" Anderson, yet somehow despite this you still got his name wrong. I like to use "Emil" because that is such a typical Swedish name. And his forefathers were Swedish. "Clarence" is so.......womanly....My reference? His son. And his book, of course. I wrote a review on it: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163234 McNally posted:Everything I've ever seen you write seems to have a rather half-assed approach to detail and you never cite sources. It is objective fact that anything you say needs to be treated with suspicion, if not outright scorn. I'd say that was rather subjective. What's bothering you? fredleander fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
I am curious how good is Grey's submarine commerce raiding compared to what AI did in his US game. Is he doing better or worse than AI, and can he do any real damage that way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
fredleander posted:I'd said that was rather subjective. What's bothering you? Perhaps it's all your factually inaccurate statements, your shilling of your poorly-researched book, and dumb poo poo like this: fredleander posted:"Clarence" is so.......womanly Please leave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
HEAVEN FORBID SOMEONE BE 'FEMININE' Rolleyes so hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
So whats the word on our holed carrier? Would she have made it back to port yet or is she still desperately pushing the limits of Japanese damage control?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
fredleander posted:"Clarence" is so.......womanly....  Bitches leave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:So whats the word on our holed carrier? Would she have made it back to port yet or is she still desperately pushing the limits of Japanese damage control? Difficult to say without seeing how much they're capable of fixing under way. Probably at sea for weeks yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
McNally posted:
After you.....dear....  ....you ever fired a Desert Eagle..?...I have. A silencer on that gun - how idiotic. You want references..?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:So whats the word on our holed carrier? Would she have made it back to port yet or is she still desperately pushing the limits of Japanese damage control? The two biggest dangers for her are moving too fast or running across an enemy sub on the way back home. There is a notion of damaged ships blowing up in WITP. But it's not likely. In fact, I think there is a small chance any ship can just blow the hell up while in port. pthighs fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
fredleander posted:After you.....dear.... Wow, okay, so you've never seen a movie either. At any rate, changing someone's name to suit your own tastes hardly inspires confidence in someone as a reliable source of information. So either you are, in fact, dumb enough to think that you can remain credible after deciding on your own to refer to a known figure by a name that nobody else on the planet refers to him or you made up an excuse to cover up the fact that you can't be bothered to fact check enough to get someone's name right. When confronted with evidence that you are not the credible historian you think you are, you tend to just ignore it and point out that you're a credible historian because you've written books and articles. So has David Irving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
McNally posted:So has David Irving. He'll probably take that as a compliment. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
McNally posted:Wow, okay, so you've never seen a movie either. Oh, yes...movies....good references... ....you losing the punch now..? I suppose you shall soon state that I hate you...? As for David Irving I won't comment on that - the mother of all derails...Love you, too...sweet dreams...the winter night has descended where I live...  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
History Question: What was the first naval strike in which carriers were the only offense tool used? The earliest example I can think of is Pearl Harbor, where the entirety of the damage caused was by carrier borne aircraft, or in some small scale air raids in China by the IJN.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Even Pearl Harbour involved mini-subs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Gaj posted:History Question: Coral Sea is the answer you'll generally get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Gaj posted:History Question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto quote:The Battle of Taranto took place on the night of 11–12 November 1940 during the Second World War between British naval forces, under Admiral Andrew Cunningham, and Italian naval forces, under Admiral Inigo Campioni. The Royal Navy launched the first all-aircraft ship-to-ship naval attack in history, employing a small number of obsolete Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers from the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious (R87) in the Mediterranean Sea. The attack struck the battle fleet of the Regia Marina at anchor in the harbour of Taranto using aerial torpedoes despite the shallow depth of the water. The devastation wrought by the British carrier-launched aircraft on the large Italian warships was the beginning of the ascendancy of naval aviation over the big guns of battleships. According to Admiral Cunningham, "Taranto, and the night of November 11–12, 1940, should be remembered for ever as having shown once and for all that in the Fleet Air Arm the Navy has its most devastating weapon."[2]
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Tondern Raid, 1918: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tondern_raidquote:The Tondern raid, officially designated Operation F.7, was a British bombing raid mounted by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force against the Imperial German Navy's airship base at Třnder, Denmark, then a part of Germany. It was the first attack in history made by aircraft flying from a carrier flight deck. On 19 July 1918 seven Sopwith Camels took off from the converted large cruiser Furious. For the loss of one man, the British destroyed two German zeppelins, L 54 and L 60, and a captive balloon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
If you count seaplanes there are Japanese air raids in 1914, though you could debate whether those count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
In 1944 the us developed closed loop aa guns - did they ever get deployed on a ship or even in the pacific? As an aside this time saw some really amazing work in control theory from both both bell labs and Norbert Weiner. Weiner extended control theory to become cybernetics, and the foundation of ai. He was a weird guy. He was Jewish and his wife owned a copy of Mein Kampf and was supposedly an anti Semite. He decided that computers were going to make workers obsolete and stopped doing new work for fear it would be misused.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
   Another ship picked off.  Another valuable passenger liner.   The Permit resubmits its paperwork via deck gun.  I'll trade a light ship for a tanker any day.   Hmm, reinforcing or evacuating?  Several waves hit Singapore without encountering defensive fighters.  The Tanks begin to push into Malacca.  Another base in Borneo is ours, and there are two less units to worry about.  We break the last layer of forts at Changsha. I'll rest a day before making the next assault.  We retreat before a large Chinese force.  We get fresh troops into Manila. Hopefully we can overwhelm them now.  We could see some nice advances in the next few days – or some high casualties!  Two more ships down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
It looks like we're making solid progress in Changsha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
The mountain of bodies will soon overtop their defences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
I see that the allied subs have realized their torpedoes are worthless and are taking to deck guns like the should.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:I see that the allied subs have realized their torpedoes are worthless and are taking to deck guns like the should. Speaking of which, Ch. 6 of Hellions of the Deep (available sans images here) is highly recommended if you're interested in the Mk. 14 saga.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:I wonder if it's coded so that the switch happens after x duds or just happens by x date in the game for Mk. 14 equipped subs? It's by date. Starting in 1943 all torps with dud rates above 49% drop by 20 (I think the Mk. 14 starts at like 90% dud rate). Then in September 1943 the dud rate goes to a fixed 10%. pthighs fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Pounding tropic heat Liner shimmers in the haze Torpedoes away
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
My math class in school never said I could kill with trigonometry
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
pthighs posted:It's by date. Starting in 1943 all torps with dud rates above 49% drop by 20 (I think the Mk. 14 starts at like 90% dud rate). Then in September 1943 the dud rate goes to a fixed 10%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:40
|
|