107 replies to this topic

[VertiGo-]

yeah, combined with good piloting skills and a russian, you're immortal in dogfights

[Whitey]

Well the LM F-22 is a lot more conventional and cheap aircraft compared the the Boeing F-23.

I prefer Lockheed Martin for the reliable aircraft and stealth tech.

[VertiGo-]

still, the YF23 was rejected because the technology being used for that beauty is too high and too "new" to be used/accepted for this time... it's because of spareparts... the USAF currently doesn't have spareparts for the YF23, while they have more than enough spareparts for the F22... and also.. the YF23 is more of a technology demostrator for future designs and flight systems IMO

[Foxhound]

there's also a MiG tech demonstrator and an F-15 TD. I just cant remember the F-15's, but the MiG's is the 1.44

[fjsgdfsdjgbsgkjfg]

dsgkjsdfnjfsdsdf

Edited by fjsgdfsdjgbsgkjfg, 01 July 2008 - 07:31.

[BillyChaka]

A10s don't always use depleted uranium, do they?

[Foxhound]

not always. globalsecurity has some of the weapon systems (for the A/OA-10, this has all the specs http://www.globalsec...a-10-specs.htm). they use the PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary [DU] (depleted uranium) rounds, the PGU-13/B HEI High Explosive Incendiary rounds, and the PGU-15/B TP Target Practice rounds

[VertiGo-]

i didn't know that A10s have DU rounds, i always thought that they only used AP and/or Incendiary rounds... but still.. the size of those rounds are as big as a champagne bottle... and it can smack an APC into dust

[AllStarZ]

BillyChaka, on 6 May 2006, 09:20, said:

AllStarZ, on 5 May 2006, 22:35, said:

B-17 was pretty crap. Lancasters were alot better.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

B17 was definetly not crap. One of the most reliable planes of the war. Don't get me wrong, the Lancasters were awesome too, but the B17 was not crap. We lost plenty of them, but they were ****ing awesome. It was only the American bombing strategy that was flawed, not the plane itself.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why carry so many damn guns when you simply plan to bomb the living daylights out of some cities? Take away some guns and ammunition and you can inflict alot more damage, although strategic bombing itself as a strategy is flawed unless the effects are instantaneously felt.

[Whitey]

remove the guns and you have no on-board defense

[AllStarZ]

But onboard defence was pretty much pointless, and even though it had 13 machine guns around itself, it had several blindspots. Besides, the better solution is to provide long range escorts for the bombers.

[Foxhound]

there was a heavy fighter varient of the B-17. I believe it was the B-40. it had 2 ball turrets, lots more ammo, and was mainly an escort plane for the heavy raids. like switchblade said, the planes, without the MGs, had no defense, until late 1944.

[Baal-Zebub]

Su-37 ftw!!!1111

[Foxhound]

not in service ftw!!!!!111!!!11!!

[Baal-Zebub]

Wait, I meant Su-37. My bad.

[Foxhound]

no but the SU-37 is more of a concept rather than an in service plane. like the F-35

[AllStarZ]

RustyDroid, on 7 May 2006, 02:10, said:

The planes, without the MGs, had no defense, until late 1944.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They were getting shot down in droves anyways, and combining this with flawed American bombing strategy, thousands of airmen died.

[Whitey]

Well hey, we weren't the only ones with flawed strategies.

[Foxhound]

yeah, look at the Germans. used the same tactics throughout the war and got annihilated. and the Japanese suicide tactics werent great either.

[AllStarZ]

But both of them worked quite effectively. The strategies of the Germans were what brought Hitler closest to his dream of a Europe under the dark banner of Nazism. It only failed because of "General Winter".

Also, the Japanese suicide attacks were very effective, accounting for most Allied sinkings.

[Foxhound]

still counterproductive if you ask me.

[AllStarZ]

Not if you have a population of 60 million mostly fanatical people willing to shed blood of their enemies and their own in the service of the Emperor (who in reality had little control over anything).

[Waris]

Oh get back on topic guys.

[Cattman2236]

Waris, on 9 May 2006, 18:10, said:

Oh get back on topic guys.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, I hate it when people go all historical *cough*google*cough*.

Favorite Fighter: Spitfire

Favourite Bomber: Lancaster....0wned

Edited by Cattman2236, 09 May 2006 - 18:19.

[AllStarZ]

Favourite Fighter plane (propeller) would probably be either the Sopwith Camel or the P-51 Mustang.