Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

China & North Korea Vs. South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Philippines 2014

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

  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    You use the .308 and I the Barret at 500 m, both resting on a window sill in a brick house. You'll have to hit me in the head, I'll cut you in half if I hit you in the belly or blow your arm or leg away, even if you're standing behind a wall and I get 10 quick shots. 700 gr tend to be better than 150. Recoil is worse in my .300 Rem mag, which by the way is more accurate than my .223.
    The wind, temperature, etc, affect you more and your bullet loses speed much faster than mine.
    Wrong. You'd be dead. How do I know? Because I used to compete on the national level and body shots at 600yds were no problem. That was with iron sights and no stinking rest, just a tight sling. Give me and M24 and things would be even easier. Also, no one uses 150's in the 308, it's all 175gr SMK's. At 500 yds there's not enough difference in wind drift to matter. Besides, you'd be all out of breath from lugging that beast around.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    You use the .308 and I the Barret at 500 m, both resting on a window sill in a brick house. You'll have to hit me in the head, I'll cut you in half if I hit you in the belly or blow your arm or leg away, even if you're standing behind a wall and I get 10 quick shots. 700 gr tend to be better than 150. Recoil is worse in my .300 Rem mag, which by the way is more accurate than my .223 bolt action (despite being a cheap Savage).
    The wind, temperature, etc, affect you more and your bullet loses speed much faster than mine.
    German MG42 crews tended to shy away from .50 cal guns. Jerry could spit a lot of rounds per minute but just didn't have the range, penetration through walls or destructive power and they had to keep feeding miles of belts and replacing worn barrels very often. In contrast, they liked facing .30 cal MGs.

    I thought that MGs in a tank and Jeep were mainly antipersonnel (Audie Murphy held back quite a few men alone with it for quite a while, despite being wounded by 8mm bullets) and that landing craft and planes were vehicles.
    Last edited by Draco; 01 Mar 14, 16:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    I wonder why they came up with the Barret, if .30 cal is just as good.
    For 99% of the shots that snipers make, the .308/.300WM are just as good. Ever handled a Barrett? I didn't think so...
    BTW-Do you realize that antipersonnel and anti-vehicle weapons are two distinct types?

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Reinforcing my point that if a few small guns can cause damage in a while, many 8" to 18" shells can cause a lot more.
    After IJN battleships Kongo and Haruna bombarded Henderson Field, it only took a few hours to get one runway operational.

    "In spite of the heavy damage, Henderson personnel were able to restore one of the runways to operational condition within a few hours. Seventeen SBDs and 20 Wildcats at Espiritu Santo were quickly flown to Henderson and U.S. Army and Marine transport aircraft began to shuttle aviation gasoline from Espiritu Santo to Guadalcanal"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalc...enderson_Field

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    He wrote a book!

    Must have been a comedy

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    You can see what planes strafing with .50 cal guns did to landing craft carrying troops to the battle of Milne Bay.

    You can shoot at the craft 1 mile away and do a lot of damage to it, or wait until they debark and fire at them with .30 cal.
    Why put .50 cal guns on Shermans and even Jeeps?
    In my book, .30 cal guns are used when you have to transport them and the ammo on your shoulders, not when you defend a fixed position or a vehicle.

    I wonder why they came up with the Barret, if .30 cal is just as good.
    He wrote a book!

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    You are so full of shite. They didn't have explosive shells for the .50BMG. Also, I'd rather have a .30 for use against the troops getting off those landing craft.
    You can see what planes strafing with .50 cal guns did to landing craft carrying troops to the battle of Milne Bay.

    You can shoot at the craft 1 mile away and do a lot of damage to it, or wait until they debark and fire at them with .30 cal.
    Why put .50 cal guns on Shermans and even Jeeps?
    In my book, .30 cal guns are used when you have to transport them and the ammo on your shoulders, not when you defend a fixed position or a vehicle.

    I wonder why they came up with the Barret, if .30 cal is just as good.
    Last edited by Draco; 01 Mar 14, 14:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Please illuminate me with the vital information of the exact caliber they used.
    I thought that you were the IJN expert? BTW- they used 4.7" and 5".

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    British destroyers shelled Midway? Really? The IJN doesn't use 4.5" guns you know....
    Please illuminate me with the vital information of the exact caliber and weight of shells they used. Reinforcing my point that if a few small guns can cause damage in a while, many 8" to 18" shells can cause a lot more.
    Last edited by Draco; 01 Mar 14, 14:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    It can do a lot of damage to a landing strip, coastal guns, Catalinas, etc,
    Just 2 destroyers with 4.5" guns shelled Midway for a short while on their way back from the PH raid and caused some damage. They had to cut short the shelling, because they were within range of the coastal guns and had little fuel.
    Several BBs and CAs would cause a lot of damage in an hour. A lot more than 1 or 2 wimpy waves of flammable planes facing fighters and AAA.
    British destroyers shelled Midway? Really? The IJN doesn't use 4.5" guns you know....

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
    You have a habit of dramatically overestimating what naval gunfire can do.



    Can't test aircraft underground, can't train pilots underground and you can't build runways underground.
    It can do a lot of damage to a landing strip, coastal guns, Catalinas, etc,
    Just 2 destroyers with 4.5" guns shelled Midway for a short while on their way back from the PH raid and caused some damage. They had to cut short the shelling, because they were within range of the coastal guns and had little fuel.
    Several BBs and CAs would cause a lot of damage in an hour. A lot more than 1 or 2 wimpy waves of flammable planes facing fighters and AAA.

    You can train pilots on the surface with planes that everybody can see and with advanced simulators. You can test each system independently and the plane in a wind tunnel.
    Last edited by Draco; 01 Mar 14, 14:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    You can kill a person with a .22 short, but I would not arm my troops with that. Similarly, you can shoot down a plane with a .30 cal MG at short range with a hit in a critical part, but you can shoot one with a .50 cal gun with explosive, AP or incendiary rounds from farther away and cause a lot more damage on the pilot, engine, fuel tanks, etc, The same applies for a landing craft.
    Does it make sense to have .50 cal guns on B-17s or a SHerman tank and .30 cal guns in nests on the ground?
    You are so full of shite. They didn't have explosive shells for the .50BMG. Also, I'd rather have a .30 for use against the troops getting off those landing craft.

    Leave a comment:


  • frisco17
    replied
    You have a habit of dramatically overestimating what naval gunfire can do.

    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Right, Obama was cought overnight, so the Chinese stand no chance of building planes underground or in mountain caves in Tibet.
    The shoe bomber was also cought by satellite intelligence when he repeatedly tried lo light up his shoe with a match in an airplane.
    Can't test aircraft underground, can't train pilots underground and you can't build runways underground.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    In the Yamamoto vs Nimitz thread, you say that the Marines had mostly ineffective .30cal MG's.


    Yet here, you claim that Midway has "plenty of AA and MGs". Which one is it.
    PS-Cut out the tequila, it's affecting your cognitive thinking...
    They had .30 MGs guns an a lot of other weapons. I said that I would have had at least 100 0.50 cal MGs and no .30 MGs.
    They have a much longer range and more destructive power. I see no justifications for having any small caliber guns in an island that expects an invasion by a huge armada.
    You can kill a person with a .22 short, but I would not arm my troops with that. Similarly, you can shoot down a plane with a .30 cal MG at short range with a hit in a critical part, but you can shoot one with a .50 cal gun with explosive, AP or incendiary rounds from farther away and cause a lot more damage on the pilot, engine, fuel tanks, etc, The same applies for a landing craft.
    Does it make sense to have .50 cal guns on B-17s or a SHerman tank and .30 cal guns in nests on the ground?

    It simply makes no sense for Yamamoto to waste scarce pilots and planes when you have massive, idle ships. In this scenario it is irrelevant whether they have .50 or .30 cal MGs or 5" or 40 mm guns, they are blown to bits by shelling from 16 km away.
    Last edited by Draco; 01 Mar 14, 14:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Right, Obama was cought overnight, so the Chinese stand no chance of building planes underground or in mountain caves in Tibet.



    The shoe bomber was also cought by satellite intelligence when he repeatedly tried lo light up his shoe with a match in an airplane.

    You don't understand the whole concept of space-based surveillance do you ?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X