|
I thought that was Gay White Tojo
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
Time to steal an effortpost regarding the P-40 Warhawk. Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (Early Variants)  Warhawk to the United States, KittyHawk and Tomahawk for the British/Commonwealth, the P-40 was built using experience gained from the P-36/Hawk 75/Mohawk series of planes, swapping the radial engine for an inline one. The Warhawk was encountered in (almost) every theatre and was a very important aircraft during the start of World War 2, but eventually was phased out of combat use for other, more succesful types like the P-47 or P-51. Despite this, the Warhawk was a capable aircraft with firepower and lots of potential. The first P-40s were initially designated the P-40-CU and first flew in June 1940, and incorporated changes from the prototype such as: increased armament, exhaust system, tailwheel and more. Speaking of changes, the P-40 was one of many aircraft to live through many different variants to modernize it or to fill different roles. Along with the many different types, the Warhawk was also produced and exported in great numbers to Allied countries. The first foreign country to place an order for the P-40 was France, in a desperate attempt to get more planes in preparation for the end of the Sitzkrieg/Phoney War. Unfortunately for France, the Warhawk never made it to French squadrons before they collapsed in June 1940. The United Kingdom quickly took over their order and started trials for acceptance, where it was criticized for its lack of armour, self-sealing tanks and inadequate armament. These aircraft were still used by the UK but as Army Cooperation aircraft, and some being converted to reconnaissance aircraft with one or two F24 cameras installed. Canada received a handful of Tomahawks to help with familiarization. Only one P-40 was modified for the reconnaissance role by the US, designated the P-40A and carrying a camera in the rear fuselage. The 40A was followed by the P-40G which were original P-40s modified to be more combat-capable, including changes in every area the UK had criticized, but they were few in numbers. Only 44 were completed and 16 of these were shipped off to the Soviet Union. The next major version of the P-40 was the P-40B or Tomahawk IIA and was very similar to the P-40G version. One of my sources mentions that there were Tomahawk II's and IIA's "depending on internal equipment" but it doesn't say what those changes are. Maybe it had to do with the radios? After the 40B/IIA, Curtiss designed the P-40C or Tomahawk IIB. This was more of an incremental change, adding better self-sealing tanks and provisions for a 52-gallon drop tank under the fuselage. From here on out the list of operators grows quite large so I'll try to include everyone: Australia had around 100 IIBs and produced the most notable P-40 pilot Clive "Killer" Caldwell; Canada never ordered any IIBs but flew them operationally; China received 100 aircraft via acquisitions by the Chinese Aircraft Manufacturing Company (CAMCO) and they were used by the American Volunteer Group (AVG); Egypt were handed down several IIBs by the UK; the South African Air Force had several squadrons equipped with the IIBs; the Soviet Union received both the P-40C and the IIB by the US and Britain respectively; the Turkish Air Force were given 42 IIBs which had seen extensive use; the United Kingdom took delivery of 930 IIBs. Information on the P-40C General Characteristics: Crew: 1 Length: 9.7m Wingspan: 11.4m Height: 3.3m Powerplant: 1 x Allison V-1710-33 12-Cylinder inline engine at 1050hp Loaded Weight: 3,658kg Performance: Maximum Speed: 555 km/h Range: 2172 km Ceiling: 9000m Armament: 2 x .50 Cal machine guns 4 x .30 Cal machine guns During research and development, Curtiss had been trying to design a new fighter to become the successor to the P-40. This new design was submitted as the XP-46 and was set to have a new, more powerful engine and a massive increase in firepower: from 4 to 10 guns. It was calculated that the XP-46 would fall below expecations and only be about 3 MPH faster than the P-40C, so it was dropped. However, they decided that instead of wasting a lot of time retooling its assembly line for a new aircraft, they would just incorporate a lot of those elements into the P-40s design. This meant for an extensive redesign of the P-40 as a whole and gave it its defining shape. The new type was designated the P-40D or the Kittyhawk I. The list of changes is quite long, so I'll talk about the armament changes and provide comparison side shots between the B and D to give you guys an idea of the other changes. The P-40D was able to equip a drop tank or a 500-pound bomb under the fuselage, 6 20lb fragmentation bombs under its wings and it reduced its armament from 6 guns to 4 but changed them all to be .50 cal machine guns (Note: The Kittyhawk Is kept 6 guns, all in the wings and all .50 Cal). Many countries used this variant as well: Australia started using them in December of 1941; Canada received 72 Kittyhawk Is; South Africa used the new Kittyhawks in the same capacity as the previous Tomahawks; Turkey once again acquired some well worn planes from the RAFs stocks; the UK ordered over 550 aircraft of this type although the first 20 were of the P-40D configuration and not the Kittyhawk I type. Following the P-40D, the P-40E which differed only slightly and carried the 6 gun armament as standard. Interestingly, two E's were modified as two-seat trainers and designated the P-40ES. The P-40E was also the Warhawk to bare the brunt of air combat from early to mid 1942. The P-40Es used by foreign countries were: Australia used them not only in North Africa, but in the defense of Australia and Indonesia; Brazil obtained 6 of the in April 1942 and operated some until 1954; Canada received twelve examples and originally based them in Rockliffe ; China got their hands on 27 of them; Japan captured quite a few after the evacuation of the Philippines and Java, and 10 were eventually made flyable, with several being found at the end of the war in training school markings; New Zealand received some 65 Kittyhawk IAs/P-40Es with some coming from the UK and others from the US; South Africa continued to use Warhawks in Africa; the Soviet Union received as many as 924 P-40Es with some of them being re-engined to Klimov M-105P or M-105R powerplants; the RAF received around 1500 Kittyhawk IAs under the Lend-Lease program, although some 1300 of these were transferred to the USSR, New Zealand and Australia. Information on the P-40E General Characteristics: Crew: 1 Length: 9.5m Wingspan: 11.4m Height: 3.3m Powerplant: 1 x Allison V-1710-39 12-Cylinder inline engine at 1050hp Loaded Weight: 4,032kg Performance: Maximum Speed: 562 km/h Range: 1851 km Ceiling: 9327m Armament: 4 x .50 Cal machine guns or 6 x .50 Cal machine guns P-40B  P-40D 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Great M4 post, Jobbo. I'm curious, is there actually any record of what happened when a shell hit one of those sandbag/track/concrete jury-rigged armors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:Great M4 post, Jobbo. I'm curious, is there actually any record of what happened when a shell hit one of those sandbag/track/concrete jury-rigged armors? Official record? Unsure Unofficially, either through photographic evidence, word of mouth, etc, it depends. On a lot of things. Suffice to say that against most projectiles, the added "armor" didn't do too much, especially concrete. Concrete is stiff, sure, you wouldn't want to punch it with your naked fist, but it doesn't offer much protection against an AP projectile. The same applies to spare tracks; the thickness of the track doesn't add much in terms of raw stopping power that the armor of the tank doesn't already provide. Maybe there's a rare case where the added track was a deciding factor, but we're probably talking about a round that wasn't going to penetrate anyways, rather than track being the saving grace. As for sand, I've heard that the sandbags were useful against panzerfausts and other shaped-charge weapons, but I don't know if they were more or less effective than regular stand-off armor like German Schurtzen plates or the Russian bed springs. As for sandbags vs regular projectile, its the same deal as concrete or tracks, the thickness of the sandbag won't outweigh the penetrative power of a projectile unless it wasn't going to penetrate anyways. Heck, here's a guy shooting .50 BMG at some sandbags and almost completely penetrates two bags. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNLu_VvbDok&t=28s Granted, he's set up pretty close to the sandbags, but I think its a fair comparison all the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Most extra armor (especially sandbags) was basically useless except for crew morale. Concrete and sandbags won't stop an AP shell, and not only were sandbags ineffective against panzerfausts, it's thought they may very well have made the tanks more vulnerable to HEAT charges. Patton actually banned sandbag armor in the Third Army entirely, from the belief that it was ineffective and put unnecessary wear and tear on tank transmissions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
That sort of improvised armor can actually make things worse, apparently. Here's WoT's Chieftain talking about it in a general tank info video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRves6Mhun8&t=2029s
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:25
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Oh look 20+ posts, Grey must have had a hell of a--IJN HENTAI WHAT? Come on people. Just... come on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Oh look 20+ posts, Grey must have had a hell of a--IJN HENTAI WHAT? Thank you for more white noise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Thank you for more white noise. I was either that or post more about panzerfausts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
... This is the Marinas Turkey Shoot. Admittedly with capital ships in transports. So I guess it's Leyte Gulf. So it looks like Rabaul is going to get some new scrap metal to help build fortifications. How many trnasports do the Allies have in the area!?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:... This is the Marinas Turkey Shoot. Admittedly with capital ships in transports. So I guess it's Leyte Gulf. So it looks like Rabaul is going to get some new scrap metal to help build fortifications. How many trnasports do the Allies have in the area!? It's Bismark Sea writ large. That was also a slaughter of transports and escorts by air power. Grey's just managed to get some surface ships into the action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Suppose so. Also doesn't Rabaul have a sizable air force that could be used for this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
So which one of those Sherman variants floats the best because the allies should start shipping that one to the pacific?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
I remember reading something like the amphibious shermans used at normandy were invaluable. In that when they broke down or were knocked out they were excellent cover for the infantry to hide behind. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Well, I removed the anime ship sunk hatepost (hatred for Kancolle and the IJN to be specific), then actually I spoilered it for convenience as it is probably reported and evidence. It is disturbing that some people read black as white (I even mentioned their war crimes). It does make the anthro ship fan fascists cry... but I can understand that it was a very bad idea to link it regardless. That's a beautiful P-40 there. My favorite is the P-38, it's just iconic. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:Well, I removed the anime ship sunk hatepost. Some people read black as white (and perhaps that says something about them), but I can understand that it was quite a bad idea to link it regardless. Never give up, never surrender. Grey needs to see what happens if he fails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:I remember reading something like the amphibious shermans used at normandy were invaluable. The DD Shermans were invaluable. They provided crucial direct fire support on the beaches, and one of the reasons why the landings at Omaha went as badly as they did was because the tanks were released too early and (mostly) sank before they could reach the shore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
They weren't very good at getting to land, could've been more amphibious so to say (foundered if they were a bit too far out and the seas were a bit rough), but their guns were definitely very welcome to the party. They did great on Juno. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
Amphibious tanks? I'm pretty sure that the Navy calls those 'Battleships'. Speaking of which where are they, this is hunting season and they seem to have slept in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:They weren't very good at getting to land, could've been more amphibious so to say (foundered if they were a bit too far out and the seas were a bit rough), but their guns were definitely very welcome to the party. To be fair though, they worked fine when launched from the intended distance of a couple hundred yards. It was launching them three miles out in a heavy current that caused them to founder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
whitewhale posted:Amphibious tanks? I'm pretty sure that the Navy calls those 'Battleships'. Speaking of which where are they, this is hunting season and they seem to have slept in. Yamato and Musashi are in the area sinking shipping, and the US has the Maryland nearby, hopefully they meet in honorable battle. Edit, wrong US BB, corrected CannonFodder fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Yamato and Musashi are in the area sinking shipping, and the US has the Maryland nearby, hopefully they meet in honorable battle. Btw I saw Kurita got dumped on a destroyer, is he dead now? RIP Draconis Combine
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:So which one of those Sherman variants floats the best because the allies should start shipping that one to the pacific? The DD ones
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Yamato and Musashi are in the area sinking shipping, and the US has the Maryland nearby, hopefully they meet in honorable battle. I hope Grey gets rid of that 18 knot joke of a CL from the TF. The wonders of the witp engine makes all ships in a TF as slow as the slowest in combat, so the BBs won't catch any warships that decides to evade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Think of it as on-the-job training for the crew of the training cruiser.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Caconym posted:I hope Grey gets rid of that 18 knot joke of a CL from the TF. The wonders of the witp engine makes all ships in a TF as slow as the slowest in combat, so the BBs won't catch any warships that decides to evade. Not just the warships, it wont be long before transport groups will start matching that speed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
   Dammit! That's a supply ship!   Another base taken!   Its gone quiet, that makes me suspicious.  Two ships sink.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Time to steal an effortpost regarding the P-40 Warhawk. It drives me a little twitchy when I see V-12 aircraft engines referred to as "inline." Otherwise a good post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Good job closing the Burma road!MrYenko posted:It drives me a little twitchy when I see V-12 aircraft engines referred to as "inline." Otherwise a good post. That's what they are called though?  Either way, it helps having effort posts I did for the last thread on standby!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:That's what they are called though? It's common when talking about aviation engines, because the alternative is a radial, but it still makes me twitchy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Good job closing the Burma road! I thought inline referred to all the cylinders in a single line as opposed to two lines in a V engine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
This is exciting as hell, well done Mr. Crocto.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I thought inline referred to all the cylinders in a single line as opposed to two lines in a V engine. That would be a straight inline, with inline signifying it has banks of cylinders rather than rows. Commonly, inline refers to non-radial engines or, more specifically, "any non-radial reciprocating cylinder engine".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:That would be a straight inline, with inline signifying it has banks of cylinders rather than rows. Commonly, inline refers to non-radial engines or, more specifically, "any non-radial reciprocating cylinder engine". Not to be confused with rotory engines. Other than the radial, rotory, and inline engines (which include straight, v, w, flat, and boxer engines), are there any other types? I'm assuming a turbine engine doesn't fit this category at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Not to be confused with rotory engines. In terms of non-jet engines, I don't* think so. Edit (Specifically for WW2 that is) Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Good job closing the Burma road! isnt this opening the burma road, since now Japan controls the entire length?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Not to be confused with rotory engines.  Wasp Major is a weird beast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:isnt this opening the burma road, since now Japan controls the entire length? In terms of historical talk or direct references, "closing" the Burma Road is what its referred to when the Japanese control it since it's primarily seen as a supply line to China, and not as a supply line out of it for the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
Dawncloack posted:What sound does a magnetic pistol that doesn't work make? Swoooosh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 00:39
|
|