ITT: I will answer questions about military equipment/history.
- Thread starter Kurayami
- Start date
This is still going?
And your second argument really doesn't make sense.
The F6F was a far better design than the A6M, yet they were built to employ entirely different combat tactics.
Overall, the MiG was the better design.
Not by much, but I would give it a slight nod.
(In Korea.)
*What constitutes a valid target really depends upon a conflict's RoE. Using the past half century's conflicts as a template, no, "the economy" is not a valid target. However, in a total war scenario, anything tied to the economy would absolutely be a valid target.
A total war scenario is unlikely, however, because it would result in a nuclear exchange.
*There's a line, but it's pretty fine and is more ideological than literal.
A man that bombs a train yard in order to prevent the movement of men and materiel is a guerrilla.
A man that bombs a cafe in order to inspire general fear in the hopes of prompting political change is a terrorist.
I think that to truly be a guerrilla, your actions must be directed directly against a military or political entity (or something directly related.) Terrorists try to enact military/political change via the general population. There's a layer of separation, but it can be very thin.
The USSR declared war on Japan on 8/8 and began the offensive that day.
Nagasaki was bombed on the 9th and Japan surrendered on the 15th.
Beyond that, the Soviets always intended to war with Japan. As was mentioned earlier, they were already at war in '39 (Khalkin-Gol.) Japanese expansion in Manchuria was unacceptable to the USSR.
There's no question that everyone knew war was coming.
Beyond that, certain aspects of the 23 were never finished, so its true performance capabilities were never developed. The 22 has the advantage of years of added development.
Agility also really isn't all that important at this point. LRMs can engage a 60+ miles.
Modern IR-guided missiles (Archer, AIM-9X, Python-4, etc.) can all literally turn on a dime and outmaneuver any manned aircraft.
I'm tired of typing now.
The kill ratio really doesn't matter. The Finns had a much higher kill ratio than the Soviets. That doesn't mean that the D.XXI is better than the LaGG-3.
And your second argument really doesn't make sense.
The F6F was a far better design than the A6M, yet they were built to employ entirely different combat tactics.
Overall, the MiG was the better design.
Not by much, but I would give it a slight nod.
(In Korea.)
*The Tirpitz plan was a perfectly reasonable course of action. It certainly was one of the precipitating factors of WW1, but Germany had every right to attempt to position itself as a world power.
*What constitutes a valid target really depends upon a conflict's RoE. Using the past half century's conflicts as a template, no, "the economy" is not a valid target. However, in a total war scenario, anything tied to the economy would absolutely be a valid target.
A total war scenario is unlikely, however, because it would result in a nuclear exchange.
*There's a line, but it's pretty fine and is more ideological than literal.
A man that bombs a train yard in order to prevent the movement of men and materiel is a guerrilla.
A man that bombs a cafe in order to inspire general fear in the hopes of prompting political change is a terrorist.
I think that to truly be a guerrilla, your actions must be directed directly against a military or political entity (or something directly related.) Terrorists try to enact military/political change via the general population. There's a layer of separation, but it can be very thin.
That's not true at all.
The USSR declared war on Japan on 8/8 and began the offensive that day.
Nagasaki was bombed on the 9th and Japan surrendered on the 15th.
Beyond that, the Soviets always intended to war with Japan. As was mentioned earlier, they were already at war in '39 (Khalkin-Gol.) Japanese expansion in Manchuria was unacceptable to the USSR.
I don't know.
There's no question that everyone knew war was coming.
Because it would have been far cheaper in the long run. Lockheed grossly underquoted the procurement costs for the 22.
Beyond that, certain aspects of the 23 were never finished, so its true performance capabilities were never developed. The 22 has the advantage of years of added development.
Agility also really isn't all that important at this point. LRMs can engage a 60+ miles.
Modern IR-guided missiles (Archer, AIM-9X, Python-4, etc.) can all literally turn on a dime and outmaneuver any manned aircraft.
I'm tired of typing now.
i would enjoy reading books that support this theory, post some
panzer leader was a great book and while self serving (though I imagine had rommel survived nazi germany he would have written a far better job of self promoting memoirs) i found it to be rather informative of behind the scenes looks at german (or any military really) intellectual isolationism. The bit where to old guard cavalary general scoffs and informs guderian that trucks are only good for taking bread to soldiers still makes me grin
This is one written by old mentor (British Master) he will continually bash Guderian left and right. However, you have to understand that bashing Guderian goes against the grain, and the falsehood which established itself in modern armor culture in the 1960s.
Russell Hart - Guderian: Panzer Pioneer or Myth Maker?
It's a good place to start, I'll ask him for some other ones.
I debated it, but I decided not to. It was easier to let others do the work.
And I used HSR in HoI2.
Probably not HoI 3.
Possibly Arma2. It really depends upon whether or not I feel anything is missing and just how much the scripting language has changed (I doubt it has changed much. Arma is pretty much the same as OFP. I went through and got up to date on the new functions a year or so ago and found myself right at home.)
So I may.
But I don't have any definite plans.
Automatic Jack
Veteran X
Battlemechs: yes/no?
Read dude! I never said the majority of our aircraft were subcontracted, I said a "lot of our military systems". It's already been shown that there is equal amount of US industry involved in both contracts. Regardless though, I could give a damn less if it's going to be the better system. We really need to stop this, LOLOLFUCKTHISCOUNTRY attitude when it comes to manufacturing things, unless ofcourse you don't mind our budgets exploding and taxes going up
Even if specs where changed years into dev, NG didn't have any "SUPERSECRETSQUIRREL" knowledge that led them to have some sort of advantage, a more flexible system was developed that happened to meet the needs of the USAF. Boeing is being Boeing, they pull a lot of stunts when it comes to military contracts.
I havent heard that.. at least not for US forces; I do know the Canadians picked it up for Shipboard Ops and that the USAF was still looking at it for SAR, but thats still in open competition with Boeing and AgustaWestland.
Sorry I was responding to an earlier post regarding the fact that the Canadians still fielded them, they have however been replaced
It was quantified "since WW2" and my comeback was "wtf, what about DS?" or Korea for that matter? The Inchon landing was a pretty big deal.
Wait, you trot out how the russians had the top #s, yet dismiss kill ratios? either #s count or they fucking don't.
In direct head to head fights, the F-86 killed MORE MiGs than MiGs killed F-86s. To me, that pretty much ends the debate. You can analyze turn rates, climb rates, max ceiling, speed, yada yada yada until you're blue in the face, but you're comparing two different approaches to a2a combat, and in the end, it comes down to who had the higher kill ratio. Period.
My argument in my first post made perfect sense to anyone familiar with a2a combat instead of someone looking at a spec sheet.
We need to get you a job at Jane's Defense Weekly or some strategy driven think tank
Are you aware of any unusually decorated or otherwise historically significant C-47 Dakotas? I am building a 1/14th scale model to fly , and haven't selected a final scheme. D-Day or Vietnam Era Gunship (Spooky) are obvious choices.
Thanks, and please right back! Love the show!
Thanks, and please right back! Love the show!
They have a Dakota at the Hamilton Warplane heritage Museum near where I live, If I recall its the most flown Dakota in the world with over 80,000 hours though its not historically significant in any way
edit on second though I think I was confusing DC-3 and C-47, the one they have a is a DC-3
edit: edit: NM apparently it is a c-47
http://www.warplane.com/pages/aircraft_dakota.html
edit on second though I think I was confusing DC-3 and C-47, the one they have a is a DC-3
edit: edit: NM apparently it is a c-47
http://www.warplane.com/pages/aircraft_dakota.html
Last edited:
