Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Great Kit From the Non Big 4.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by Javaman View Post
    Almost forgot to mention the Swedish Ljungman rifle:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag_m/42

    10 rd detatchable magazine, semi-auto Infantry rifle. Outstanding weapon.
    The American love for things that go 'BANG'. lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • Javaman
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    How did you reach that conclusion?
    The conclusion that the Ljungman was outstanding for it's day?
    1) Very reliable
    2) Very durable
    3) Great round
    4) had a long career
    5) Had one and it compared well to the SVT-40, Garand and G43 at the range.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Javaman View Post
    Almost forgot to mention the Swedish Ljungman rifle:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag_m/42

    10 rd detatchable magazine, semi-auto Infantry rifle. Outstanding weapon.
    How did you reach that conclusion?

    Leave a comment:


  • Javaman
    replied
    Almost forgot to mention the Swedish Ljungman rifle:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag_m/42

    10 rd detatchable magazine, semi-auto Infantry rifle. Outstanding weapon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Javaman
    replied
    I would put forward most of the modern Italian designs of 1940-42, they didn't have the industrial base to produce them but many of them were on par with what the "big four" were fielding.

    Pi 108 four engined bomber
    CANT Z.1018 “Leone”
    Several fighters- Reggiane RE.2002 Ariete II, RE 2005, Machi 205

    The Italians had excellent sea planes, torpedo planes, torpedos, submarines, torpedo boats, etc. as you might expect from a maritime nation.

    The Italians also had excellent AA/AT guns (90mm, 105mm) with great self propelled examples. They also had some excellent heavy artillery pieces.

    The lack of an industrial base to efficiently provide these weapons is why they aren't more well known.

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    BCR It ain't over till it's over (hey, sounds like a title for a pop song)

    Originally posted by the ace View Post
    Mainly Edinburgh, but Alan lives in Stirling and Woody lectures part-time at Stow College, Glasgow.
    I'll deal with them in good time.

    Regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    Ram Kangaroo, Canada


    Kangaroos were originally converted from M7 Priests when these were replaced by 25 lb guns in the Cdn arty rgts. These were first used in Op Totalize.
    After the "defrocked" priests were returned to the US, Canada adapted their Ram tanks as Kangaroos; which were used for the remainder of the war.
    They were operated by the 1st Canadian Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron and the 49th Armoured Personnel Carrier Regiment under the 79th British Armoured Division.


    Leave a comment:


  • the ace
    replied
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    Galigula, Ghandi, Dickens, Trotsky, Lincoln, Attila, The Bay City Rollers, Attlee, Nelson, Xerxes, Winnie the Pooh, Monet, Hannibal, Bonaparte, Woody Woodpecker and George Formby; just a few who messed with the lode and tried to get him to pipe down and let someone else get a word in once in a while.

    Ask yourself, where are they now?

    I rest my case.

    Regards lodestar
    Mainly Edinburgh, but Alan lives in Stirling and Woody lectures part-time at Stow College, Glasgow.

    Leave a comment:


  • the ace
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    THe Dewoitine had some issues with stability and was by even 1940 standards about average as a fighter plane. The tour-de-force in French fighters was the Bloch MB 157. This was essetially a French P-47 Thunderbolt without the turbo-supercharger. The one prototype that flew made 441 mph and like the rest of the Bloch MB 150 series had good handling characteristics.
    The MB 157 was around 441mph faster than the MB 150 - which actually failed to fly. The MB 151 and 152 were adequate, and just made it into service.

    The D520 was the finest French fighter of the time, actually a match for the Bf109 - I'll concede that it could be tricky to fly, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Von Richter
    replied
    Originally posted by RichardS View Post
    You are, of course, have the right to agree or disagree. But at the beginning of the war I'd rate it as the finest medium bomber available.

    Yeh, right... never heard of the Vickers Wellington?

    Leave a comment:


  • llkinak
    replied
    Originally posted by RichardS View Post
    You are, of course, have the right to agree or disagree. But at the beginning of the war I'd rate it as the finest medium bomber available. Was it perfect? No, but show me ANY plane right off the drawing board that was. The defensive armament was on par for what was then considered normal, but the 20mm in the tail was a shocker to all. I bolded a key statement in yours; which I think is important. As the war progressed it got long in tooth and the Japanese trade offs became a major disadvantage. But no bomber could be expected to fly into what the Allies could throw at it and survive. But still it soldiered on till the end of the war. In fact Bettys carried the Japanese surrender negotiators. A far better ending then a lot of Axis aircraft.

    I've read that the 20mm in the tail was widely derided by Betty crews, and allied pilots did not seem to have an inordinate fear of it. Light bomb load, poor armament, great tendency to burn, weakly build for a bomber.

    Leave a comment:


  • RichardS
    replied
    Originally posted by llkinak View Post
    I'm going to respectfully poo poo the Betty as meeting the definition of great kit. It had great range, but like all bombers it was unwise to operate it outside the range of escorting fighters, so really what mattered was the range of the escorting Zeros. It was fast, but not fast enough to avoid being intercepted by early war US fighters. It was lightly armored and was very easy to destroy for a bomber once it was intercepted. Defenseive armament was poor at best. It carried a light bomb load. Apart from a few successes I don't think it accmonlished much of value during its WWII career.
    You are, of course, have the right to agree or disagree. But at the beginning of the war I'd rate it as the finest medium bomber available. Was it perfect? No, but show me ANY plane right off the drawing board that was. The defensive armament was on par for what was then considered normal, but the 20mm in the tail was a shocker to all. I bolded a key statement in yours; which I think is important. As the war progressed it got long in tooth and the Japanese trade offs became a major disadvantage. But no bomber could be expected to fly into what the Allies could throw at it and survive. But still it soldiered on till the end of the war. In fact Bettys carried the Japanese surrender negotiators. A far better ending then a lot of Axis aircraft.

    Leave a comment:


  • llkinak
    replied
    Originally posted by RichardS View Post
    Another Japanese plane that gave great service, but grew long in the tooth.


    Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" Bomber.
    I'm going to respectfully poo poo the Betty as meeting the definition of great kit. It had great range, but like all bombers it was unwise to operate it outside the range of escorting fighters, so really what mattered was the range of the escorting Zeros. It was fast, but not fast enough to avoid being intercepted by early war US fighters. It was lightly armored and was very easy to destroy for a bomber once it was intercepted. Defenseive armament was poor at best. It carried a light bomb load. Apart from a few successes I don't think it accmonlished much of value during its WWII career.

    Leave a comment:


  • CarpeDiem
    replied
    Originally posted by Gorque View Post
    Were there any complaints/concerns regarding the top-mounted ammunition clip and sighting or was there a work around?
    Not that I've ever read.
    From the wiki article:
    It is easily recognisable, owing to its unconventional appearance, including the top-mounted magazine, and the side-mounted sight required to allow the firer to aim past it. The placement of the magazine allows gravity to assist the magazine spring in pushing cartridges down to the breech, which improves feeding reliability.
    More details on the Owen here:
    http://www.militaryfactory.com/small...allarms_id=479

    Note in the final paragraph the Owen's replacement, the F1 also had a vertical magazine so it was obviously considered a successful enough design feature to continue with.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_submachine_gun

    I've also read in some histories of the Australian battles in the SW Pacific that the vertical magazine hung up a lot less on the jungle growth.
    The main complaint about the Owen seems to be its weight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gorque
    replied
    Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
    Continuing the Australian theme:
    Were there any complaints/concerns regarding the top-mounted ammunition clip and sighting or was there a work around?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X