User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:10:13 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:13:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And...so? Aircraft development between 1930 and 1950 was incredible. What has developed from 2003 and now? Not much in comparison. Now consider the B-52 is 71 years old and the CH-47 is 61 years old. The F-15 is as old as the P-26 was when the F-15 entered service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:15:35 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Using that logic, the Garand was not a WWII rifle. And WW-II vets were WW-I vets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:17:32 AM EDT
[#4]
Yeah, designed and built in the 30's. When it first appeared, it was the cats ass. It was still pretty damn good in WW2, somewhat outdated but effective nonetheless. Still as good or better than any bomber anyone else had.
Probably my favorite bomber, neck and neck with the B-52 and thats only due to longevity. When I was a kid I had to write a book report about something historical. I wrote it on the Schweinfurt raid. Book was called "Black Thursday". 77 B-17's lost out of a total of 291, 26.4% losses against some of the best luftwaffe fighters and pilots. The book was very graphic in detail for a grown man, let alone a middle school kid. Numbers that wouldn't be tolerated today. Still, a hell of a lot of came back missing parts of wings, tail sections, multiple engines and more importantly, crew members. The phrase "a wing and a prayer" was derived from that mission I believe. Also where bomber jackets became famous. Imagine being in freezing temps at altitude and facing not only accurate flak AA but bloodthirsty pilots with armored planes and multiple 30mm cannons and machineguns. Your only defense being the formation arrangement, escort fighters that couldn't go all the way, and the beloved AN-M2 .50 Browning machinegun. And if you're going down, good chance only a few of you are able to bail. Ball turret gunner least of all. Those dudes saw more combat than most Infantrymen of the Army or Marine corps. I believe I'm well versed and intellectually capable of having this conversation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:17:39 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The F-15 is as old as the P-26 was when the F-15 entered service. The last USAF F-15C model came off the production line in 1986. That makes me feel really fucking old. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:18:19 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a common misconception. The Russians spent more money developing the Tu-4 (even with assistance from the US) than they did on their own atomic weapons program. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wut? The Soviets did a straight-up, rivet-for-rivet COPY of the B-29, from interned examples that had made emergency landings on their territory before the Commies came in against Japan. Otherwise, they only had 1 4-engined bomber in service in all of WW2. Development of the B-29 started with a specification for a super-heavy payload, very-long-range, fast bomber being issued in 1939, before the US was in WW2 and before we were doing any Lend-Lease to the Soviets. Hell, the B-29 was ordered into serial production in about May-June of 1941, before Hitler even invaded Russia, also before the test program had really gotten underway. Plus, Lend-Lease was not exactly a transactional thing. It was us and Britain giving the Russkies supplies, vehicles, food, fuel, etc. to keep them in the War because they were on the brink. This is a common misconception. The Russians spent more money developing the Tu-4 (even with assistance from the US) than they did on their own atomic weapons program.  Go ahead and post up your alternative history. I’ll read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:22:04 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Bear is a Tu-95. The design bureau, led by Andrei Tupolev, designed the Soviet Union's first intercontinental bomber, the 1949 Tu-85, a scaled-up version of the Tu-4, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress copy. The Tu-4 showed that piston engines were not powerful enough for such a large aircraft, and the AM-3 jet engines for the proposed T-4 intercontinental jet bomber used too much fuel to give the required range. Turboprop engines were more powerful than piston engines and gave better range than the turbojets available at the time, and gave a top speed between the two. Turboprops were also initially selected for the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress to meet its long range requirement. Tupolev proposed a turboprop installation and a Tu-95 design with this configuration was officially approved by the government on 11 July 1951. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Tu-4 was made from interned B-29s. There was NO assistance from the USA. The B-29s were disassembled and copied and had to be converted from SAE to metric measurements Huh? The Soviets used a variation of Whitworth and Imperial measurements, mainly a throwback from the czarist days before the Russian Revolution. The variations in measurements are what took the Soviets so long to get the Bear flying, would have easily had it flying by '43 or '44 with more standardized units of measure. The Bear is a Tu-95. The design bureau, led by Andrei Tupolev, designed the Soviet Union's first intercontinental bomber, the 1949 Tu-85, a scaled-up version of the Tu-4, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress copy. The Tu-4 showed that piston engines were not powerful enough for such a large aircraft, and the AM-3 jet engines for the proposed T-4 intercontinental jet bomber used too much fuel to give the required range. Turboprop engines were more powerful than piston engines and gave better range than the turbojets available at the time, and gave a top speed between the two. Turboprops were also initially selected for the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress to meet its long range requirement. Tupolev proposed a turboprop installation and a Tu-95 design with this configuration was officially approved by the government on 11 July 1951. @Jason280 Stalin told Tupolev to duplicate the Superfortress in as short a time as possible instead of continuing with his own comparable ANT-64/Tu-10. The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, which finished the design work during the first year, and 105,000 drawings were made.[9] By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce twenty copies of the aircraft, ready for state acceptance trials. The Soviet Union used the metric system and so sheet aluminium in thicknesses matching the B-29's imperial measurements was unavailable. The corresponding metric-gauge metal was of different thicknesses. Alloys and other materials new to the Soviet Union had to be brought into production. Extensive re-engineering had to take place to compensate for the differences, and Soviet official strength margins had to be decreased to avoid further redesign. However despite those challenges, the prototype Tu-4 weighed only 340 kg (750 lb) more than the B-29, a difference of less than 1%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:35:12 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Bf-109 first flight occurred several months before the B-17. Lots of aircraft that flew frontline combat in 1945 started flying in the mid-1930's. WWII has a reputation for planes being obsolete in a matter of months, but quite a few were around for a decade, though in substantially evolved versions from their origin. (The last combat sorties of the Bf-109 and B-17 was Israeli Spanish license built Bf-109 copies escorting surplus US B-17's on a bombing mission in the the 1948 Arab-Israeli war) The Israeli 109s weren't Spanish. They were Czech Avia S-199s. Basically a 109G with a Junkers Jumo 211 bomber engine & propellor. Not as responsive as the DB605 and more torque made it difficult to handle.  The Israeli B-17s and 109s were intercepted by Egyptian AF Spitfires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:36:10 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote History4 weeks ago:  Attached File Attached File Attached File September 8, 2023  September 8, 2023  September 8, 2023 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:42:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No one should have been forced to suffer through Whitworth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:43:50 AM EDT
[#11]
 WWII vet Richard Peterson explains why you don't Shoot a Parachuting Soldier. You might even bail and still get killed on the way down. This fella really makes me proud. When anger turns to vengeance. Well he had it dialed in. Flak wasn't likely to kill you on the way down. Only some air pirate, this is the guy you want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:47:00 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Israeli 109s weren't Spanish. They were Czech Avia S-199s. Basically a 109G with a Junkers Jumo 211 bomber engine & propellor. Not as responsive as the DB605 and more torque made it difficult to handle. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Avia-S199-hatzerim-2.jpg The Israeli B-17s and 109s were intercepted by Egyptian AF Spitfires. Kinda ironic there. The Israelis used a lot of German stuff before they built their industrial base and started getting lots of American and French weapons. K-98s with German Army markings overstamped with the Star of David. The Me-109 was becoming a hard to handle aircraft by the time of the G model. Flying those things under those conditions must have been quite a headache. The Czechs tried to salvage other German aircraft including a Junkers Ju-90 heavy bomber. They took for a flight and if memory serves they couldn't find the aircraft's center of balance. Which must have been a pretty unnerving experience for those involved. That was the last recorded flight of a Ju-90 anywhere in the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:47:50 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). The russians designed the TU-4 after OUR B-29. Russia gained 4 B-29s during the war and Interned them and refused to give them back after the war, that is where the russians got the design for the TU_4. they did not give us the designs lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:49:02 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a common misconception. The Russians spent more money developing the Tu-4 (even with assistance from the US) than they did on their own atomic weapons program. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wut? The Soviets did a straight-up, rivet-for-rivet COPY of the B-29, from interned examples that had made emergency landings on their territory before the Commies came in against Japan. Otherwise, they only had 1 4-engined bomber in service in all of WW2. Development of the B-29 started with a specification for a super-heavy payload, very-long-range, fast bomber being issued in 1939, before the US was in WW2 and before we were doing any Lend-Lease to the Soviets. Hell, the B-29 was ordered into serial production in about May-June of 1941, before Hitler even invaded Russia, also before the test program had really gotten underway. Plus, Lend-Lease was not exactly a transactional thing. It was us and Britain giving the Russkies supplies, vehicles, food, fuel, etc. to keep them in the War because they were on the brink. This is a common misconception. The Russians spent more money developing the Tu-4 (even with assistance from the US) than they did on their own atomic weapons program. lol false! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:50:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The russians designed the TU-4 after OUR B-29. Russia gained 4 B-29s during the war and Interned them and refused to give them back after the war, that is where the russians got the design for the TU_4. they did not give us the designs lol How does anyone brave enough to speak on the topic not know that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:50:26 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Huh? The Soviets used a variation of Whitworth and Imperial measurements, mainly a throwback from the czarist days before the Russian Revolution. The variations in measurements are what took the Soviets so long to get the Bear flying, would have easily had it flying by '43 or '44 with more standardized units of measure. Quote HistoryQuoted: The Tu-4 was made from interned B-29s. There was NO assistance from the USA. The B-29s were disassembled and copied and had to be converted from SAE to metric measurements Huh? The Soviets used a variation of Whitworth and Imperial measurements, mainly a throwback from the czarist days before the Russian Revolution. The variations in measurements are what took the Soviets so long to get the Bear flying, would have easily had it flying by '43 or '44 with more standardized units of measure. got damn! why are you making shit up?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:52:23 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does anyone brave enough to speak on the topic not know that? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The russians designed the TU-4 after OUR B-29. Russia gained 4 B-29s during the war and Interned them and refused to give them back after the war, that is where the russians got the design for the TU_4. they did not give us the designs lol How does anyone brave enough to speak on the topic not know that? ya idk where he has learned that or imagined, but its false, and most obvious at that. so idk if hes just messing around and trolling or what. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:53:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly, that's what took them so long. Fuck em, feed em fish dicks. Wish it took em longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:56:14 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ya idk where he has learned that or imagined, but its false, and most obvious at that. so idk if hes just messing around and trolling or what. Who could say? Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:57:14 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ya idk where he has learned that or imagined, but its false, and most obvious at that. so idk if hes just messing around and trolling or what. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The russians designed the TU-4 after OUR B-29. Russia gained 4 B-29s during the war and Interned them and refused to give them back after the war, that is where the russians got the design for the TU_4. they did not give us the designs lol How does anyone brave enough to speak on the topic not know that? ya idk where he has learned that or imagined, but its false, and most obvious at that. so idk if hes just messing around and trolling or what. From the Soviet Times? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:58:35 AM EDT
[#21]
The Jeep was not a WWII vehicle, either.
Was the M16 a Vietnam weapon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:00:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:. Was it an interwar design? Yeah. So? Most aircraft were. On all sides. Not just aircraft. You mostly fight wars with stuff that entered service prior to the war for obvious reasons. If OP's point was that the B17 was designed interwar to fight a conflict like WW1 and was not suitable for WW2 then that would be a valid ww1.5 claim but it would incorrect in this case. (You could make a better argument for the A10A - it was designed for a battlefield that didn't exist by the time it entered service) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:09:47 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not just aircraft. You mostly fight wars with stuff that entered service prior to the war for obvious reasons. If OP's point was that the B17 was designed interwar to fight a conflict like WW1 and was not suitable for WW2 then that would be a valid ww1.5 claim but it would incorrect in this case. (You could make a better argument for the A10A - it was designed for a battlefield that didn't exist by the time it entered service) The A-10!?!  The Simpsons - “Now you’ve done it” |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:09:59 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Jeep was not a WWII vehicle, either. Was the M16 a Vietnam weapon? Yeah dude, totally also the m16 was so they could use our ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:27:08 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 4 weeks ago: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/2117/IMG_0635_jpeg-2981997.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/2117/IMG_0634_jpeg-2981999.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/2117/IMG_0679_jpeg-2982000.JPG  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ChJVzfD4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYIz7rlMxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh9nnDl6bE8Quote HistoryQuoted: 4 weeks ago: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/2117/IMG_0635_jpeg-2981997.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/2117/IMG_0634_jpeg-2981999.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/2117/IMG_0679_jpeg-2982000.JPG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ChJVzfD4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYIz7rlMxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh9nnDl6bE8Damn. They were selling rides, but $500 is too rich for my blood. I'd love to do it though. This one is in Madras, Or. Erikson |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:30:00 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Israeli 109s weren't Spanish. They were Czech Avia S-199s. Basically a 109G with a Junkers Jumo 211 bomber engine & propellor. Not as responsive as the DB605 and more torque made it difficult to handle. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Avia-S199-hatzerim-2.jpg The Israeli B-17s and 109s were intercepted by Egyptian AF Spitfires. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Bf-109 first flight occurred several months before the B-17. Lots of aircraft that flew frontline combat in 1945 started flying in the mid-1930's. WWII has a reputation for planes being obsolete in a matter of months, but quite a few were around for a decade, though in substantially evolved versions from their origin. (The last combat sorties of the Bf-109 and B-17 was Israeli Spanish license built Bf-109 copies escorting surplus US B-17's on a bombing mission in the the 1948 Arab-Israeli war) The Israeli 109s weren't Spanish. They were Czech Avia S-199s. Basically a 109G with a Junkers Jumo 211 bomber engine & propellor. Not as responsive as the DB605 and more torque made it difficult to handle. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Avia-S199-hatzerim-2.jpg The Israeli B-17s and 109s were intercepted by Egyptian AF Spitfires. Spanish 109 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:39:16 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would this be considered a WW .62 bomber because it was such a failure? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQzviKvKO0gHow about this one because it predated the war by several years? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlX_blR_74IThat machine looked like it was doing everything it could to barely stay airborne
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:48:37 AM EDT
[#28]
However despite those challenges, the prototype Tu-4 weighed only 340 kg (750 lb) more than the B-29, a difference of less than 1%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 3:08:19 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More like "it's easier to develop 2 of your own CRAPPY aircraft than to copy one B-29." The B-29 was like finding an alien spacecraft to the Soviets. They had NOTHING like it and the technologies (pressurization, central fire control computerized guns, advanced turbosupercharger engines were all many years ahead of anything in the Soviet Union of that time. WWII Soviet Combat Aircraft were basically 'disposable' with a very limited life expectancy and the Soviets thought, well - we'll just replace it with another cheaply made mass produced one. Bigger_Hammer  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: LOL, which they also stole from the United States Quoted: Andrei Tupelov reportedly said, "it's easier to develop 2 of your own aircraft than to copy one B-29." I suppose we will never know because they were ripping off the B-29 right up until the Tu-95. I think even the Tu-144 airliner fuselage used technologies derived from the B-29. More like "it's easier to develop 2 of your own CRAPPY aircraft than to copy one B-29." The B-29 was like finding an alien spacecraft to the Soviets. They had NOTHING like it and the technologies (pressurization, central fire control computerized guns, advanced turbosupercharger engines were all many years ahead of anything in the Soviet Union of that time. WWII Soviet Combat Aircraft were basically 'disposable' with a very limited life expectancy and the Soviets thought, well - we'll just replace it with another cheaply made mass produced one. Bigger_Hammer Our sherman tank was the same kind of "disposable" piece of equipment. Not awesome at its job, so we will build lots of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 3:54:43 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). I'd love to hear the story behind that. I thought the Tupelov Tu-4 was an exact copy of interned B-29s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 3:57:51 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd love to hear the story behind that. I thought the Tupelov Tu-4 was an exact copy of interned B-29s. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). I'd love to hear the story behind that. I thought the Tupelov Tu-4 was an exact copy of interned B-29s. He is trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 3:59:39 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd love to hear the story behind that. I thought the Tupelov Tu-4 was an exact copy of interned B-29s. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). I'd love to hear the story behind that. I thought the Tupelov Tu-4 was an exact copy of interned B-29s. there is no story on it, its false and hes made that up. They copied the B-29. idk why hes trying to re-write history but hes so far from the truth. and honestly idk where he got that info from because you can google it and there is 100's if not thousands of historical papers on the B-29 and the history of russias Tu-4. There is nothing about what he is talking about, because its not true |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 3:59:58 AM EDT
[#33]
The 1911 was not a WWI pistol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 4:11:49 AM EDT
[#34]
All I know is that my grandfather flew in them time and again to figure out why the bomb doors weren't opening properly, and then fixed the problem..
A punk who only graduated 8th grade, taught himself calculus, and went on to engineer for Douglas. I wish I'd been ahead of my years, and picked everything I could have from that man. I've learned from my mistakes and spend every moment i can with my father. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 4:17:42 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our sherman tank was the same kind of "disposable" piece of equipment. Not awesome at its job, so we will build lots of them. Well, apparently nobody read what I said but that's free will. In a tank I'd violate orders. Fuckem, I'd not have shown any mercy, nor would I expect any.. There was a luftwaffe pilot that basically escorted one B-17 home once he emptied his guns. He must have thought, if they survived that who am I to take them. Same as the Christmas exchange in WW1. Friend's can can be enemies, and enemies can be friends. I'm only trained, many more have had to put that theory into practice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 4:36:34 AM EDT
[#36]
because you can google it and there is 100's if not thousands of historical papers |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 5:03:18 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Google also tells me 81m voted for Biden, global warming is killing the planet, and all the COVID vaccines are perfectly safe....doesn't mean its true. Quote HistoryQuoted: because you can google it and there is 100's if not thousands of historical papers Google also tells me 81m voted for Biden, global warming is killing the planet, and all the COVID vaccines are perfectly safe....doesn't mean its true. official historical records.. not articles. facts. FACTS. not myths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 5:59:26 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not just aircraft. You mostly fight wars with stuff that entered service prior to the war for obvious reasons. If OP's point was that the B17 was designed interwar to fight a conflict like WW1 and was not suitable for WW2 then that would be a valid ww1.5 claim but it would incorrect in this case. (You could make a better argument for the A10A - it was designed for a battlefield that didn't exist by the time it entered service) The A-10!?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9N-1HpxTtAYes. But note that I said the A10A. As it was entering service MBTs were being armoured to the point that it's gun was no longer effective and surface to air missiles (especially manpads) were proliferating and then the soviet union collapsed. The fight it was designed for was gone. It had to change tactics substantially to stay relevant and we see that in the C upgrade package's capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:03:33 AM EDT
[#39]
Rated troll
OP hasn’t posted since OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:07:57 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Was it a bomber? Was it used in WWII? This. JFC, the dumb shit people come up with... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:17:05 AM EDT
[#41]
If that's the case most aircraft used during WWII were not WWII aircraft same with most ships and tanks. Most everything was designed pre WWII. That's how it works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:22:09 AM EDT
[#42]
My thinking is that with all war items design and production of items for testing and evaluation is not haw I choose to label those items but rather significant production that allows use at or near front lines .
In the 1930 to 1945 time period the USA had pitiful little production of any item from buttons to battleships . Pretty much the same pitiful levels when looking at men and training bases . The buildup and conversion of a peacetime economy and peacetime military to wartime is the real story of WWII |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:24:14 AM EDT
[#43]
The P-38 was not a WWII aircraft either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:26:18 AM EDT
[#44]
The A-10, F14/15/16/18 B1 B52 weren’t Desert Storm aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:26:23 AM EDT
[#45]
With that logic the P38 wasn’t a WWII aircraft either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:32:43 AM EDT
[#46]
I had read where someone inspecting a Russian copy of the B29 saw they all had patch panels on a rear portion of the fuselage. Then later discovered that one on the B29s they copied had been damaged and patched in the same spot prior to in landing in the Soviet union.
They even copied a patch panel lol. Stalin ordered an exact copy and that's what they did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:53:46 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Bf-109 first flight occurred several months before the B-17. Lots of aircraft that flew frontline combat in 1945 started flying in the mid-1930's. WWII has a reputation for planes being obsolete in a matter of months, but quite a few were around for a decade, though in substantially evolved versions from their origin. (The last combat sorties of the Bf-109 and B-17 was Israeli Spanish license built Bf-109 copies escorting surplus US B-17's on a bombing mission in the the 1948 Arab-Israeli war) Quite a bit of wrongness in this post. 1. WW ONE had a reputation of planes being obsolete in a matter of months, not WW TWO 2. Last combat sorties of the Bf 109 were indeed spanish 1109's, but in North Africa in the late 50/60's! 3. Israel never had spanish 109s, they used CZECH Avia S-199s. Difference? The spanish 109s were G2/4 with a RR Merlin, the Czech were Diana G10 with Jumo 211 engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:58:29 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a common misconception. The Russians spent more money developing the Tu-4 (even with assistance from the US) than they did on their own atomic weapons program.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 7:01:22 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Using that logic, the Garand was not a WWII rifle. Or my Father wasn’t a WWII aviator because he was born in 1926 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 7:10:37 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). The B-29 was not a Soviet design lol |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
