Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comparison to Most Significant/Influential Tank

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    The particular P-40 you built may have been one of the later models with entirely wing-mounted guns.
    Unfortunately (i.e. my memory sucks) I'm pretty sure it was the earlier model but I would have sworn they were .30's. Luckily got to sit in one a looong time ago.

    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    Yes, certainly by WW2 the wing mounting had become a very viable alternative and it had a couple of advantages vs fuselage mounting. One of the things that helped encourage this development - apart from structural and material changes in the way the planes were built - was the methods that were found to improve the reliability of MGs especially at higher altitudes, which meant that it became somewhat less imperative to have the guns within the pilot's reach. (One aspect of the fuselage mounting of guns in most WW1 fighters was having them within reach not only for re-loading but also, in many cases IIRC, for clearing jams.)
    On a different/similar note I read recently that the Spit (and probably other aircraft) had problems with the wing guns freezing up. I'm pretty sure this would **** me off tremendously. Heaters were the answer, of course.

    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    Absolutely!
    John

    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      Unfortunately (i.e. my memory sucks) I'm pretty sure it was the earlier model but I would have sworn they were .30's. Luckily got to sit in one a looong time ago.
      One of my main general reference books (Aircraft of WWII by Stewart Wilson) says 1 x .30 and 1 x .50 for the P-36, 2 x .50 for the P-40B and P-40C, and totally wing mounted .50 from P-40D onwards (the D has two per wing, E onwards three per wing). So according to that book at least, the standard fit for all the fuselage MGs in the P-40 was .50's; but the P-36 had a .30 and a .50.


      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      "On a different/similar note I read recently that the Spit (and probably other aircraft) had problems with the wing guns freezing up. I'm pretty sure this would **** me off tremendously. Heaters were the answer, of course.
      IIRC, another part of the answer was the types of lubricants that were being used, with earlier formulas ceasing to function properly below a certain temperature. As we know, at altitude the air temperatures drop well below freezing and generally speaking, fighter planes of the WW2 era were flying higher than ever before so this was an issue that urgently needed addressing.
      "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

      Comment


      • #63
        The P-36B-C ended up with 1 .50 and 1 .30 in the nose and 2 .30 in the wings.

        The French export versions had 6 7.5mm fitted. The British refitted theirs with 4 or 6 .303.
        2 are in the nose.

        The P-40A, B, C all have 2 .50 in the nose and 2 or 4 .30 in the wings. Only the XP-40 had a .30 and .50 in the nose.

        Another early war problem designers had was as altitude went up the propensity for electrical wiring to ground / short out increased. Insulation values fall off dramatically with altitude, especially above about 15,000 feet.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by JBark View Post
          I would disagree that my argument is flawed. I think you either don't understand my argument or you are simply focused on finding fault (where there is none in this case) because you think it fun (in some twisted way.)
          Your argument is that synchronisation of shot through propellers was of little significance post-WWI and you are claiming this was due to the preponderance of designs that had no guns firing through the propeller arc. If this is not your argument, then please clarify.
          You are saying that synchronization was necessary for all fighter aircraft with propellers? I think this statement is flawed because I can think of many fighters that fired their guns without synchronization...and they had propellers.
          So who's misconstruing the argument now, JBark? Your ability to parse a sentence seems to have declined the moment your proposition came under serious analysis.
          Well my mistake, I did not realize that any turbopropped aircraft
          had been produced as fighter aircraft with guns that fired through the propellers. Perhaps you can provide the names of these aircraft, I would like to know their operational record. Sic semper tyrannis.

          If it is your intention to be a troll and ruin the purpose of this thread know this, you are a troll but you will not ruin the discussion of this thread by your actions. I will gladly exchange with anyone with a legitimate point or question but people like yourself (you are not interested in a friendly, honest exchange) I will find it necessary to ignore.
          The statement made, by you, was
          Originally posted by JBark View Post
          I believe modern jets do not have propellers.
          You made no mention of jet fighters, only jets.

          Your ad hominem accusation of my being a troll because I'm raising points you don't like but can't refute is trollish. Vives in gladio morientur gladio.

          Comment


          • #65
            Oh dear. I have the feeling that this is becoming a nitpicking contest...
            Originally posted by JBark View Post
            I don't recall thinking this or writing it on this forum. Could you be so kind as to show me where I said vanished. I would think if I wrote this I would have possibly been under the influence of some mind altering drug since I am very aware of many of the planes that fire synchronized guns, some of which you mentioned, and many others.
            Agreed. You did not say vanish. My fault. Let's get back to the start. It was all about the influence/significance of the Eindecker and its new feature of a synchronized MG firing through the propeller. Our discussion began when i replied to the last two sentences of your post #36 where you stated:
            It should be pointed out, I think, that the advantage of synchronization of a fighter's guns to fire through its propeller is a concept that clearly died not long after this war. A good number of the successful aircraft of WWII had their guns mounted on the wings outside the arc of the propeller.
            (Emphsis added by me)
            Again: you are right, you did not write vanished. You wrote died not long after this war.
            This is simply wrong. That's all i wanted to say. It did not die after WW1. In fact it died after WW2.

            Originally posted by JBark View Post
            I never called it a short term solution. I recalled reading, probably in the voting section here, that posters here thought the Eindecker significant because it brought synchronized guns to aerial combat in WWI, something which many planes would use. I was pointing out that this technology was short lived in importance as many very successful fighter planes of WWII used wing mounted guns. I did not say that no planes used synchronized guns or combinations of cowl and wing guns. I didn't say most of which you try to say I did say. I brought this up because this thread is supposed to be about a comparison to the similar tank thread and one of the interesting aspects of the final voting is that the final voting went to vehicle with a turret, i.e., the layout of modern tanks to this day. It was my hope to point out that the technology of synchronized guns did not last as the turret technology did. My guess is that you will now say that it is my belief that all fighter planes in WWII with turrets were superior?
            AGAIN you are right that you never called it a short term solution. But you said that the concept died not long after WW1, which is wrong.

            Originally posted by JBark View Post
            I think the fact that you still believe you are negating a statement I never made shows that you clearly not reading carefully enough. You have negated nothing.
            For the last time: i negate your statement that the concept died not long after WW1. No need to insinuate that i would not read carefully enough.
            This is


            Originally posted by JBark View Post
            Really? You want to go back to your first post? Okay, here it is.

            "Is that so?
            What about Fighters like the Me-109, Fw-190, Mig1/3? Just those add up to some 80,000 produced and they still fired through the propeller until 1945, some 30 years after the Eindecker made its debut.
            Hell, i dare to say that even modern Jets would still fire through their propellers if they had any...
            "
            Maybe you misunderstood my intentions. I simply tried to point out that the concept did not die or vanish shortly or not long after WW1. I tried to prove you wrong by naming just 3 Fighter Aircraft of WW2 that featured the concept of synchronized MGs firing through the propeller.

            Originally posted by JBark View Post
            You clearly did not understand what I wrote and you clearly do not understand it now. Brod has helped to confuse it more.
            Well done to you both.
            Maybe i did not and still do not understand what you wanted to say or had in mind but i do can read English. I re-read all the posts before i wrote this. I still don't read it differently. IMHO you tried to 'diminish' the influence factor of the synchronized MG by making your statement that this concept died not long after WW1.
            One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Hanov View Post
              Oh dear. I have the feeling that this is becoming a nitpicking contest...
              Well to be honest I felt the same. You and Brod twisted my words and attacked what I did not say and have not let up since. I would like this to be a nice pleasant discussion but I don't like to be misrepresented and my words twisted to mean something I did not say.

              Originally posted by Hanov View Post
              Agreed. You did not say vanish. My fault. Let's get back to the start. It was all about the influence/significance of the Eindecker and its new feature of a synchronized MG firing through the propeller. Our discussion began when i replied to the last two sentences of your post #36 where you stated:
              "It should be pointed out, I think, that the advantage of synchronization of a fighter's guns to fire through its propeller is a concept that clearly died not long after this war. A good number of the successful aircraft of WWII had their guns mounted on the wings outside the arc of the propeller." (Emphasis added 16Apr2015-JTB)

              Again: you are right, you did not write vanished. You wrote died not long after this war.
              Here we have the problem. Do you see it? I added emphasis to my quote so you can see how you misrepresented what I said. You can not take a portion of a quote out of context and represent it as the meaning of the quote. CAN NOT. It is wrong. It is disingenuous. I hope you see the difference between saying the concept died and the advantage of the concept died. To be perfectly honest I don't see how you could post them above and not see the difference between what I wrote and what you responded to.

              Originally posted by Hanov View Post
              For the last time: i negate your statement that the concept died not long after WW1. No need to insinuate that i would not read carefully enough.
              This is
              I hope you now see that you did not negate my statement and that you do indeed need to read more carefully. It seems that your interest in negating my statement is your only interest here, I could be wrong. I hope I am.

              Originally posted by Hanov View Post
              Maybe i did not and still do not understand what you wanted to say or had in mind but i do can read English. I re-read all the posts before i wrote this. I still don't read it differently. IMHO you tried to 'diminish' the influence factor of the synchronized MG by making your statement that this concept died not long after WW1.
              I suggest you re-read again and understand that you can not take a portion of a sentence and represent it as the entire thought being communicated. I was trying to diminish the importance of synchronized guns, a thought which seemed natural since this thread was started with the notion of comparing the tank poll to the fighter poll. The Ft-17's turret is a technological feature that we see on tanks today, I meant to compare, and as you say diminish, the turret to synchronized guns. While synchronized guns were seen as a huge advantage in WWI this was not the case in WWII as many very successful planes did not possess them. This is not to say that they were not used. This is not to say that they did not offer aiming advantages. I am simply offering that the technology introduced with the Eindecker that so many planes used in WWI was not required for a successful fighter post war. I hope you understand this. I hope you understand that you can not quote a portion of what a person writes and represent it as the whole thought.
              John

              Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                Your argument is that synchronisation of shot through propellers was of little significance post-WWI and you are claiming this was due to the preponderance of designs that had no guns firing through the propeller arc. If this is not your argument, then please clarify.
                Read what I said. That is my claim. If you disagree I can do nothing about that. Hanov made the mistake of dissecting out a portion of my initial statement and thus came away with a meaning that was not mine. It seems you have no better understanding of what I wrote than he; this is too bad. Read what I shared with Hanov and if you understand me there you will see that you have been pursuing a dead end here. If you still do not understand what I initially wrote I can't help you.

                Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                You made no mention of jet fighters, only jets.
                I can't speak for you but I have only been speaking of fighters here. We have been discussing synchronized guns on fighter aircraft. To discuss synchronized guns on anything but a fighter is ridiculous. Carry on if you like.

                Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                Your ad hominem accusation of my being a troll because I'm raising points you don't like but can't refute is trollish.
                Your remarks here have not been an attempt to have a pleasant exchange or even a good spirited debate. You joined in with Hanov in attempting to negate a statement I never made; if this is not one of the marks of a troll I don't know what is. This discussion of jets, turbojets and the like is a childish sidetrack that should not be a part of this discussion.

                I do not want to continue along these lines.
                John

                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by JBark View Post
                  Well to be honest I felt the same. You and Brod twisted my words and attacked what I did not say and have not let up since. I would like this to be a nice pleasant discussion but I don't like to be misrepresented and my words twisted to mean something I did not say.
                  At least we agree on something.
                  I don't think that we twisted your words, at least that was not my intention. I think we just have a misunderstanding...

                  Originally posted by JBark View Post
                  Here we have the problem. Do you see it? I added emphasis to my quote so you can see how you misrepresented what I said. You can not take a portion of a quote out of context and represent it as the meaning of the quote. CAN NOT. It is wrong. It is disingenuous. I hope you see the difference between saying the concept died and the advantage of the concept died. To be perfectly honest I don't see how you could post them above and not see the difference between what I wrote and what you responded to.
                  Now that you point to it, i do see a difference. If you would have highlighted the word advantage, or i would have asked for a clarification, we probably would not have had this discussion/argument. It's true that the concept had found an alternative in WW2 when many Western Allied Fighters had their weapons mounted in the wings. But i still think that your choice of words was at least unfortunate.

                  Originally posted by JBark View Post
                  I hope you now see that you did not negate my statement and that you do indeed need to read more carefully. It seems that your interest in negating my statement is your only interest here, I could be wrong. I hope I am.
                  You are wrong.
                  I simply read it differently than you meant it.

                  Originally posted by JBark View Post
                  I suggest you re-read again and understand that you can not take a portion of a sentence and represent it as the entire thought being communicated. I was trying to diminish the importance of synchronized guns, a thought which seemed natural since this thread was started with the notion of comparing the tank poll to the fighter poll. The Ft-17's turret is a technological feature that we see on tanks today, I meant to compare, and as you say diminish, the turret to synchronized guns. While synchronized guns were seen as a huge advantage in WWI this was not the case in WWII as many very successful planes did not possess them. This is not to say that they were not used. This is not to say that they did not offer aiming advantages. I am simply offering that the technology introduced with the Eindecker that so many planes used in WWI was not required for a successful fighter post war. I hope you understand this. I hope you understand that you can not quote a portion of what a person writes and represent it as the whole thought.
                  I think that i understand your point now. Next time i'll ask for a clarification.
                  I agree that the turret of the FT-17 may be seen as more influential than the synchronized MG, because there was an alternative to the sync MG. But i still rate the Eindecker as one of the most influential Fighters in history. Simply because it (at least similar to the FT-17) showed the future of Aerial combat. That being said i hope we can bury our 'quarrels'.
                  One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Hanov View Post
                    Now that you point to it, i do see a difference. If you would have highlighted the word advantage, or i would have asked for a clarification, we probably would not have had this discussion/argument. It's true that the concept had found an alternative in WW2 when many Western Allied Fighters had their weapons mounted in the wings. But i still think that your choice of words was at least unfortunate.
                    I wrote what I wrote and you misread it. I will take no blame for your error.

                    Originally posted by Hanov View Post
                    I think that i understand your point now. Next time i'll ask for a clarification.
                    I agree that the turret of the FT-17 may be seen as more influential than the synchronized MG, because there was an alternative to the sync MG. But i still rate the Eindecker as one of the most influential Fighters in history. Simply because it (at least similar to the FT-17) showed the future of Aerial combat. That being said i hope we can bury our 'quarrels'.
                    I'm glad this is behind us.
                    John

                    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      The order of some of your points has been changed to allow for a better debate. Feel free to disagree as much as you like.
                      Originally posted by JBark View Post
                      Read what I said. That is my claim. If you disagree I can do nothing about that. Hanov made the mistake of dissecting out a portion of my initial statement and thus came away with a meaning that was not mine. It seems you have no better understanding of what I wrote than he; this is too bad. Read what I shared with Hanov and if you understand me there you will see that you have been pursuing a dead end here. If you still do not understand what I initially wrote I can't help you.
                      Having carefully re-read your argument - The concept of the advantage etc. - I can agree we have been arguing different points. I will continue the thrust of discussion below.
                      Your remarks here have not been an attempt to have a pleasant exchange or even a good spirited debate. You joined in with Hanov in attempting to negate a statement I never made; if this is not one of the marks of a troll I don't know what is. This discussion of jets, turbojets and the like is a childish sidetrack that should not be a part of this discussion.

                      I do not want to continue along these lines.
                      Agreed on not wanting to continue on unprofitable and spurious lines.
                      I can't speak for you but I have only been speaking of fighters here. We have been discussing synchronized guns on fighter aircraft. To discuss synchronized guns on anything but a fighter is ridiculous. Carry on if you like.
                      Going back to the very early arguments advanced as what is and isn't significant, the primary question facing aircraft designers was: What is the best design for a fighter aircraft given our technological limitations? That rider, "given our technological limitations", is the key. Prior to the Eindecker, the answer to "how do we continuously fire directly ahead without fear of mechanical derangement?" was answered by either "a crew of two" or "metal plates on the propeller". Neither was satisfactory. Given the limitations of weaponry, synchronisation was a good answer. Please note - it was an answer - there were other answers. But until machine guns became sufficiently light and reliable it was the best of a limited range of options.

                      Once the pilot doesn't have to worry about clearing jams or reloading, the question of placement of weapons is raised. At this point the question "is there an advantage to firing through the propeller arc?" can be answered - with a resounding "maybe". And the best answer to that particular question was "eliminate the propeller."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        On the subject of gunfire from aircraft the progression is:

                        Get a gun mounted you fire at the enemy. (hand held weapons like a rifle or pistol)

                        Get a rapid firing gun mounted that you can fire at the enemy. (a machinegun like the Gunbus has)

                        Get a machinegun mounted that can fire forward in the direction of flight eliminating the double deflection error of the previous guns. (The Fokker E III)

                        Increase the fire power to several guns.

                        Improve the gun sight to make hitting more likely.

                        Add bigger guns that are more destructive.

                        Add guided missiles that can home in on the target at longer ranges or outside the flight path.

                        That is where we are right now. Things will get even more dangerous in the future.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          On the subject of gunfire from aircraft the progression is:

                          Get a gun mounted you fire at the enemy. (hand held weapons like a rifle or pistol)

                          Get a rapid firing gun mounted that you can fire at the enemy. (a machinegun like the Gunbus has)

                          Get a machinegun mounted that can fire forward in the direction of flight eliminating the double deflection error of the previous guns. (The Fokker E III)

                          Increase the fire power to several guns.

                          Improve the gun sight to make hitting more likely.

                          Add bigger guns that are more destructive.

                          Add guided missiles that can home in on the target at longer ranges or outside the flight path.

                          That is where we are right now. Things will get even more dangerous in the future.
                          I think you missed target assistance to the guided missiles...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                            I think you missed target assistance to the guided missiles...
                            Just a variant of "gun sight" really. But, today many are "fire and forget." Most IR missiles, even early ones, were "fire and forget."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Just a variant of "gun sight" really. But, today many are "fire and forget." Most IR missiles, even early ones, were "fire and forget."
                              Like bullets, only more expensive. Sometimes just as dumb.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X