|
steinrokkan posted:The Japanese used shaped charges on a stick as one of their main man-wielded anti tank devices. It was probably superior to alternatives such as a mine on a piece of string. Or the english 'mine in a dirty sock'.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Was it actually designed AP round, or just the can full of explosive with impact detonator?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The Japanese used shaped charges on a stick as one of their main man-wielded anti tank devices. It was probably superior to alternatives such as a mine on a piece of string. I remember an article in a book about Finland and WW2 about the office of the General Staff that had the job of receiving suggestions and inventions from the frontlines and occasionally making suggestions reality. One dude invented an anti-tank javelin and submitted a proposal to the office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
I'm not a frequent poster but I have landed what at this point in my career, as a student, is my dream job: larping milhist. I'm going to be playing an 1867 british redcoat this summer in Canada, drilling a lot and shooting cannons and a Snider-Enfield rifle. To celebrate I've cut my hair to military style but kept my sideburns long and luxurious, and I'm trying to get my girlfriend to acquiesce to the General Burnsides look. Hopefully I'll get pictures and poo poo to contribute. Ironically, I'm american. In 4th grade US history during our Revolutionary War unit I remember the teacher outlining the reasons someone would be a loyalist or patriot and taking a vote, and I was the sole loyalist in class. And this city was founded, well by the french, but it was significantly settled by loyalist veterans fleeing the insane popular tyranny of Washington's thrice-cursed Republic. It feels poetic in a way.   
vintagepurple fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:
Uh, got a source for that? I haven't read anything that suggested over 60-70k POW deaths, let alone "vast, vast majority" of 500,000.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
The Japanese had a weirder idea for exploding spear: give it to guys in dicer suits and put them in the way of Allied amphibious invasion into the home islands. Big Daddy Suicide Phalangites
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
JcDent posted:The Japanese had a weirder idea for exploding spear: give it to guys in dicer suits and put them in the way of Allied amphibious invasion into the home islands. As usual, W40K has got you covered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Or the english 'mine in a dirty sock'. Please do not disparage the great Gammon Bomb tia vintagepurple posted:I'm not a frequent poster but I have landed what at this point in my career, as a student, is my dream job: larping milhist. I'm going to be playing an 1867 british redcoat this summer in Canada, drilling a lot and shooting cannons and a Snider-Enfield rifle. To celebrate I've cut my hair to military style but kept my sideburns long and luxurious, and I'm trying to get my girlfriend to acquiesce to the General Burnsides look. Hopefully I'll get pictures and poo poo to contribute. Didn't a goon have this job last year i.e. the vaudevillian bellhop artillery guy? Or are you the same person?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
There's at least one guy in TFR who reenacts that era in a fort in Michigan or somewhere like that. Tias posted:Please tell me pike-length rifles were designed and/or used in battle at some point Not quite what you're talking about, but in the years before WW1 there was a bit of a bayonet length arms race and a subsequent panic that troops would be out-reached when some armies adopted more carbine-length rifles (at least compared to pre-1900 gun sizes). The most obvious and famous example of this is the SMLE and the insanely long bayo that it got as a result.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Question about the First Opium War: When the British went into it, were they fully aware of the power disparity between them and the Qing Dynasty? I.E. Did they go in entirely confident that more advanced weapons and technology would overwhelm the Chinese, or were there debates about how they were crazy to take on such a large country? For that matter, were there any notable Chinese government officials who believed that the Europeans were more formidable than they appeared?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There's at least one guy in TFR who reenacts that era in a fort in Michigan or somewhere like that.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Question about the First Opium War: When the British went into it, were they fully aware of the power disparity between them and the Qing Dynasty? I.E. Did they go in entirely confident that more advanced weapons and technology would overwhelm the Chinese, or were there debates about how they were crazy to take on such a large country? For that matter, were there any notable Chinese government officials who believed that the Europeans were more formidable than they appeared? The Chinese were well aware of how formidable the Europeans were, after all they desperately tried to reform their army using foreign officers and weapons (like Prussian artillery, for example). Sadly, the efforts where too late and too little. However, the warlords who took the country apart later really appreciated this upgrade to their military power
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The Chinese were well aware of how formidable the Europeans were, after all they desperately tried to reform their army using foreign officers and weapons (like Prussian artillery, for example). Sadly, the efforts where too late and too little. That happened after and because of the first Opium War (which was in 1839) though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Please do not disparage the great Gammon Bomb tia I think he's talking about the sticky bomb, the Gammon bomb was an elegant sack as opposed to a crude sock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Tias posted:Please tell me pike-length rifles were designed and/or used in battle at some point There's the Chinese "wall guns". Though as the name suggests, they weren't meant to be used like Ian is here: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
 Found this floating around in my photos, no clue where or when, but it's probably something about military trials of a punt gun circa WWI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Strategic bombers: I agree in general with what you've said, though I'd add at least two more overall objectives specific to the WWII era: 1) attrit or destroy enemy air forces, and 2) occupy a whole lot of men and resources building and manning air defense facilities. That being said, I still think the cost/benefit analysis, even at the time, should have shown that high level strategic bombing wasn't terribly worthwhile. The cost of the bombers, training and manning their crews, and then daily operations were just massive, and that cost when compared with what they actually accomplished looks pretty poor even by contemporary analyses. The strangest thing to me is that the Brits really led the way with analysis of this type...they were far ahead of their time in this regard, and we still use a lot of their models and methodologies today...but they never figured out what a waste of life and industry night bombing was. I've never really understood it. All that being said, you have to ask the question "what would the western allies have done otherwise", and that can get into a variety of different what-if scenarios that I KNOW this thread loves so much. I'll give just one example: if their objective to destroy the Luftwaffe was the primary one (and it became such, eventually), building many, many more long range fighters and tactical bombers, then attacking the Luftwaffe directly (as they did after nearly 2 years of strategic attacks) would have accomplished that objective with far fewer casualties. I realize that is rather ex post facto, but I also feel like they had the data at the time to support that conclusion. quote:The B-29: I remember being kind of shocked as a kid when my grandpa of all people told me what an absolute mess the B-29 program was. Clearly its capabilities were impressive for its day, but the cost of the thing was just staggering. You note the same issues here: my own ex post facto perspective, but I'd still argue that the US had the data at the time to recognize there were far more efficient ways to get after the ultimate objective of beating Japan. My personal favorite was submarines and mining: Japan is an island, etc etc, and from roughly late 1943 onwards we'd have had the capacity to throttle the home islands with subs and aerial mines like we did a year and half later, to devastating effect (I feel like I've brought this up a lot lately in this thread for some reason). Obviously it isn't as simple as "switch B-29 production to submarines and minelaying B-24s" like it would be in a video game, but I still think it illustrates how relatively ineffective strategic bombing was as compared to a more traditional naval guerre de course approach. I'd also argue the decision-makers at the time had all the data they needed, from watching the UK fight a similar battle during WWI and early in WWII. quote:The B-36: Coincidentally I've been slogging through some of the old B-36 testimonies and supporting documents as it kind of vaguely mirrors a contemporary struggle in the US military that I'm writing about presently (the future of close air support), and hoooooooly poo poo, whatever your issues might be with the F-35 or the V-22 or whatever, that program and its associated interservice rivalries absolutely dwarf our present day issues. Dudes actually fought. Like, fistfights. Anyway, I won't go into a long spiel about the background of the B-36, but I will say that you're essentially correct that it was a generation behind the world it served in. That generation, capability-wise, was just enormous: the B-36 was, in a lot of ways, just a massively scaled up B-17 or B-24, planes that were designed when the interceptor threat was biplanes or open cockpit braced monoplanes. By the time the B-36 entered service, swept-wing jets were the standard for frontline air forces. In the aerospace industry of the mid 20th century, that development timeline is just way, way too long. In order to really take a look at how its capabilities lined up during the era, we have to take a look at the B-36's timeline, and how it really lined up with its potential threats, the MiG-15/-17/-19: Dec 1947: First flight of an actual B-36 (same month as the original MiG-15) March 1948: First deliveries of B-36A - which were essentially prototype aircraft, with no defensive armament November 1948: first B-36Bs, the first...viable model (same month the MiG-15 enters service in the USSR) July 1950: the B-36D enters service (about 6 months after the MiG-17s first flight) Summer 1951: B-36D production ends Fall 1951: the USAF admits that the B-36s defensive armament is useless, and starts removing it (MiG-17 enters service) Winter 1954: "featherweight" modifications begin (MiG-19 enters service a few months later) Late 1955: B-36 program terminated So, the reason I laid this out: the high altitude performance claims have to be measured comparing contemporary B-36 variants versus their Soviet fighter counterparts. A loaded B-36B, for instance, was getting nowhere near 50,000 feet; even a base model MiG-15 would have had no trouble at all intercepting it. The MiG's armament was designed pretty specifically to bring down heavy bombers, and the B-36's defensive armament....never worked, even as late as 1951. Moving on to 1950, you've got the far more capable B-36D...but its potential opponent is the MiG-17, which has absolutely no trouble getting above 50,000 feet, and has the same ridiculous armament as the -15. Finally, you've got the featherweight conversion B-36s, which probably could have evaded earlier MiGs, but the -19 is getting close to modern fighters in terms of climb and altitude performance, plus the addition of early air to air missiles. In short, there really wasn't ever a period where B-36s could have hoped to evade top-line Soviet fighters through altitude alone. That being said, it is at least debatable that the Soviet air defense network was up to the task of detecting and vectoring interceptors onto targets that were flying that high in time to prevent them from getting to their targets, but I really don't have enough data on that to make any conclusions. In any case, for a program that cost that much, you really should get more than 5 or so years of useful capability, even in that era. The RB-36 is a different matter entirely of course, and that is where a lot of the anecdotes about high altitude maneuverability and flying above the interceptors and so on come from. I have no doubt the RB-36 could have given even the MiG-19 a run for its money, but the issue there of course is it wasn't carrying an offensive payload. To go back to the ex post facto analysis, I think the USAF got this absolutely wrong: they had bomber that was roughly contemporary to the B-36 that had world-beating performance at a fraction of the cost: the B-47. Its development was also tricky, though not nearly as troubled, and it was basically immune to interception by manned aircraft for the entirety of its service life. As I've read it, the debate was basically most of the USAF vs Lemay on the issue of the B-36, and Lemay...won, of course. In hindsight I think a blend of carrier-based nuclear strike aircraft and foreign-based B-47s would have been a far more effective - and less expensive - nuclear capability, but at least history gave us that ludicrously big loud beautiful thing. quote:Just to swing back to the B-29 for a sec, do you know what the strategy was for B-29 raids against Japan? It seems like the thought was simply "Get in range, bomb Japan. Oh, fire is the way to go, is it?" Basically, yeah. The raids started in China and targeted industry and the like, and were just an absolute miserable failure...turns out having to fly in all of your supplies, then fly a bomber with massive reliability issues over the Himalayas isn't a great plan. Once they started from the Marianas it turned pretty quickly into a "you know, it is just way easier to firebomb civilian housing than it is to try and target war industry". bewbies fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
That's a flintlock, i'd bet its an older version of the above wall gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
I'm pretty sure I saw that exact picture in an article about Punt Guns before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
There's one at Fort Nelson, apparently stolen by Britain in 1815, but I know nothing else about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
Pretty sure I saw this a long time ago in this same thread, so I'd guess you got it then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:That happened after and because of the first Opium War (which was in 1839) though. I keep forgetting there was more then one Opium War. Sadly, my knowledge only starts after the first one was over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:56
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Please do not disparage the great Gammon Bomb tia That is Generation Internet. They are two different goons who reinact the same era.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
the guy on the right must feel so emasculated
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:I'm not a frequent poster but I have landed what at this point in my career, as a student, is my dream job: larping milhist. I'm going to be playing an 1867 british redcoat this summer in Canada, drilling a lot and shooting cannons and a Snider-Enfield rifle. To celebrate I've cut my hair to military style but kept my sideburns long and luxurious, and I'm trying to get my girlfriend to acquiesce to the General Burnsides look. Hopefully I'll get pictures and poo poo to contribute. Guessing you're working at the Halifax citadel?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Soviets took over half a million Japanese prisoners, members of the feared and supposedly elite Kwantung Army that had plagued China for over a decade. These prisoners represented a far greater number of Japanese personnel than any American infantrymen ever shot or blew up on any godforsaken coral shithole. The vast, vast majority of these disappeared passively into the gulag to be worked to death. Some of them were held until well into the 50's. The myth of the Japanese soldier who won't give up is just that, a myth. Jesus. Seriously? I'm surprised 1) the Soviets choose to do that, and 2) nobody raised a big stink about it. Of course, I can remember when nonexistent MIAs after the Vietnam war were a legitimate political issue, so maybe I'm not the best judge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Jesus. Seriously? I'm surprised 1) the Soviets choose to do that, and 2) nobody raised a big stink about it. Of course, I can remember when nonexistent MIAs after the Vietnam war were a legitimate political issue, so maybe I'm not the best judge. Neither Japanese nor Soviet estimates of dead POWs are even close to that number. I'm curious where he got it from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Jesus. Seriously? I'm surprised 1) the Soviets choose to do that, and 2) nobody raised a big stink about it. Of course, I can remember when nonexistent MIAs after the Vietnam war were a legitimate political issue, so maybe I'm not the best judge. As Ensign Expendable said, saying they were there to be 'worked to death' is misleading as hell, since the vast majority of them survived and were released in 1947-1948. EDIT: I suppose the way you can get to that figure is if you assume everyone recorded as outside Japan at the time of the end of the war that failed to return to Japan constituted an additional, hidden population that were all killed by the Soviets. But that's one heck of an assumption to make. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The myth of the Japanese soldier who won't give up is just that, a myth. I'd say that's taking it too far in the other direction. There were 22,000 Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima, only about 200 were taken prisoner. Fewer than 1 in 30 Japanese troops survived Saipan, and 1,000 Japanese civilians really actually did kill themselves rather than face capture by the Americans. Ensign Expendable posted:I think he's talking about the sticky bomb, the Gammon bomb was an elegant sack as opposed to a crude sock. The sticky bomb wasn't a sock-based IED, it was a real manufactured grenade in a glass casing covered by adhesive-impregnated fabric, stored in a steel case. The literal idea was that instead of throwing it, you'd remove the steel storage case, run up to a tank, and smash it into the side, and then run away. Smashing the glass would supposedly give you a bit of a squash-head effect. But as these were given to the home guard, and the adhesive was *really* strong, the potential for comic dismemberment was high.  Maybe the one they come up with in SPR really is in a field manual somewhere but I haven't seen it. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Hey bewbies, For aerial mining, I'm pretty sure I remember that heavy mining and destruction of trade to basically siege Japan was in the cards at least for War Plan Orange. Was it a matter of that being primarily a Navy show but the actual war and strategic bomber use bringing in the Army and the AAF having their own ideas that led to bombing before mining? Also, how much was the B-36 delayed during WWII by the B-29 having priority?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Neither Japanese nor Soviet estimates of dead POWs are even close to that number. I'm curious where he got it from. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/63012.stm The vast, vast majority of them were released by 1950, though. About 10% are presumed to have died in labor camps. They ended up in the USSR because the Soviets declared war in August 1945 then disarmed the Japanese occupying Manchuria. Rather than being sent back to Japan like everyone else, though, they were sent into the gulags.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
It's pretty similar overall to what happened with German POWs in Soviet hands at the end of the war. And I think the difference between that and how the Western Allies dealt with German POWs is really more a matter of degree. The British and French used a lot of POWs after war for forced labour. EDIT: Besides not giving much of a poo poo overall, I strongly suspect the US occupying authorities would have balked at the practicality of releasing half a million soldiers, many of whom had taken part in atrocities, directly into a Japan that was in the middle of a general famine and in the grip of mass unemployment. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Hey bewbies, As far as I know the War Plan Orange thing basically assumed that the US would do a WWI Royal Navy-style blockade of Japan once the Japanese fleet was destroyed in the DECISIVE BATTLE, so presumably mining operations took place after all of that. I have no idea how the air component fit into any of it. I do know that the USAAF was not terribly enthusiastic about being asked to drop mines on random sections of ocean in 1945 though. The biggest issue with the B-36 delay was its engines...the rest of the thing (outside of the gun turrets) was actually pretty conventional, and while complex it wasn't anything much past the B-29. The engines though weren't really in a useable state until well into 1945, and I think the first B-36 prototypes didn't even use the Wasp Majors, this in 1947. I have no idea if that could have been accelerated had the mission the B-36 was designed for (bombing Europe from the US) actually materialized but the issues that both the B-29 and B-36 had with their engines doesn't lend itself to much optimism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Uh, got a source for that? I haven't read anything that suggested over 60-70k POW deaths, let alone "vast, vast majority" of 500,000. I apologize for my garbled phrasing. I was trying to say that the vast, vast majority were taken prisoner without incident rather than fighting to the death, as part of my overall point about how when the Japanese surrendered, they surrendered. A changed post would say that many were worked to death in the gulag but make a clearer distinction between the two clauses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
I can see the argument about food shortages, but no one really gave a gently caress about punishing the rank and file for atrocities in 1945-47. If you weren't senior enough to get caught up the tribunals or enough of a notorious fuckhead to merit a quick bullet behind the ear or field-trial and hanging right away you could coast pretty well for a few decades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'll also parrot McPherson a bit more and say that the introduction of black soldiers has been somewhat overstated in the development of an abolitionist conscience in the army. Black soldiers were of course not terribly well received, and their combat records were at best mixed...not due to any shortcomings on their part, but due to the way they were employed (see: Crater). There was a lot of racial strife pretty much everywhere black soldiers were stationed, and of course racism was still rampant in the army right through to the end of the war (and decades beyond). SA favorite son Sherman was arguably the worst about it of all the Union army commanders; he outright refused black troops in his ranks and even went so far as to prevent them from marching in the giant parade at the end of the war for who knows what reason. Point being, there wasn't a major shift in the assumptions of white superiority, et al, that resulted from the introduction of black troops, and I really don't think it had much effect overall on the sentiments of the army towards slavery. Just to provide a counterpoint here in defense of Sherman, he didn't refuse black troops to join his ranks (in fact he had many of them, and had a tendency to use them for political effect when he had the opportunity) but rather he objected to Union recruiters setting up shop right outside of his camps and poaching his black civilian laborers. He needed those men to work for him and help support the massive freed slave entourage that was following him. Sherman was by no means a vehement abolitionist, but his political views were primarily governed by what he believed would be the most pragmatic way to win the war. If raising black troops meant weakening his own forces in the field, or jeopardized the political support of the border states, then he advocated a cautious line. Maybe not the most progressive take, but then again neither were the generals whose idea of raising a battalion of black volunteers led to impressing black slaves from the fields. Also, Sherman didn't prevent black soldiers from marching in the Grand Parade, but rather the vast majority of them didn't come back up north with him because they were recent recruits that were down south serving out their enlistments. When their enlistments ended, they returned to Washington for their own victory / discharge parade. http://cwmemory.com/2015/05/20/on-the-absence-of-black-soldiers-in-the-grand-review/
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I can see the argument about food shortages, but no one really gave a gently caress about punishing the rank and file for atrocities in 1945-47. If you weren't senior enough to get caught up the tribunals or enough of a notorious fuckhead to merit a quick bullet behind the ear or field-trial and hanging right away you could coast pretty well for a few decades. It's not a period I'm greatly familiar with, but surely there's still some belief in denazification/fear of old regime elements starting trouble in that period? I mean there *was* a coup attempt in the last moments of WWII after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's not a period I'm greatly familiar with, but surely there's still some belief in denazification/fear of old regime elements starting trouble in that period? I mean there *was* a coup attempt in the last moments of WWII after all. Sure, but there's a world of difference between telling someone he can't be a teacher or serve in local government and not wanting him back in the country. There's an even bigger gap between mistrusting someone because you fear he might be a regime loyalist and thinking he's a war criminal. In that period they were very much worried about revanchist Nazis/Imperial militarists. Tracking down the mid- and lower-tier perpetrators of atrocities wasn't really on anyone's radar. If you look at the history of prosecutions for those crimes there is a big rash of them in the years right after the war that is mostly concentrated on people in senior leadership positions, and then a big gap until you hit the 60s. edit: although it should be noted that there was a lot of rough justice against people who were suspected of being the afore mentioned notorious shitheads, especially in areas the Soviets controlled. So it wasn't just the bigwigs, but things still died off pretty fast once you get into the late 40s/50s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's pretty similar overall to what happened with German POWs in Soviet hands at the end of the war. And I think the difference between that and how the Western Allies dealt with German POWs is really more a matter of degree. The British and French used a lot of POWs after war for forced labour. That's an argument that never existed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
bewbies posted:The biggest issue with the B-36 delay was its engines...the rest of the thing (outside of the gun turrets) was actually pretty conventional, and while complex it wasn't anything much past the B-29. The engines though weren't really in a useable state until well into 1945, and I think the first B-36 prototypes didn't even use the Wasp Majors, this in 1947. I have no idea if that could have been accelerated had the mission the B-36 was designed for (bombing Europe from the US) actually materialized but the issues that both the B-29 and B-36 had with their engines doesn't lend itself to much optimism. That'd match with the impression I have of the project, I'm wondering if both designs bottlenecking on the engines means that the B-29 got priority. I'd kind of expect that to be the case since it seems there were parallel ecosystems of prop planes based on the 4360 and 3350 that might have served as a way to ensure having a next generation no matter which got prioritized, but they might have just both been funded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:38
|
|