Author Topic: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread  (Read 57652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #165 on: February 07, 2015, 09:32:38 PM »
Upon request.

Feel free to post your other military historical pictures in my thread.

Some pictures taken in the WWII display hangar.

1) Teh olde enemy. Display of a "zero" flown by a Japanese elite pilot during the Pearl Harbor attack.
2) I hope I'm not wrong, but... a warhawk perhaps?
3) A "Dauntless" dive bomber.
4) I'll never be able to tell the difderence from a F4F Wildcat to a F6F Hellcat.
5) And a B25 "Mitchell" can't be missed in this list.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2015, 09:48:40 PM by Geo »

Offline Lord Avalon

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #166 on: February 07, 2015, 10:16:28 PM »
Side by side you would see that the Hellcat is bigger than the Wildcat: about 5' longer, about 5' more wingspan, and a little over a foot taller. Otherwise, check for how many guns: Wildcat, 4; Hellcat, 6. Then there's the wheels: narrow on the Wildcat, retracting into the fuselage; wider on the Hellcat, retracting into the wings.

At a distance, though, both Grumman planes look similar. Before I looked more closely (and read the sign), I was thinking of the more common Hellcat.
Your agonizer, please.

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #167 on: February 08, 2015, 03:23:57 AM »
Side by side you would see that the Hellcat is bigger than the Wildcat: about 5' longer, about 5' more wingspan, and a little over a foot taller. Otherwise, check for how many guns: Wildcat, 4; Hellcat, 6. Then there's the wheels: narrow on the Wildcat, retracting into the fuselage; wider on the Hellcat, retracting into the wings.

At a distance, though, both Grumman planes look similar. Before I looked more closely (and read the sign), I was thinking of the more common Hellcat.

I forgot about the guns. I was thinking it was a Wildcat because of the engine cowling. IIRC the Hellcat had a larger, more powerfull engine, like the Thunderbolt, so that the front end was blockier, and less streamlined than this one.  I'll go look it up...

That's a definite maybe.  I've never seen them side by side. Looking at pictures... hell if I know. And depending on the angle of the picture, I can't tell. Oh, they used the same engine in the Hellcat, Corsair, Thunderbolt, and Marauder, among others.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2015, 03:53:01 AM by Rusty Edge »

Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #168 on: February 09, 2015, 04:30:46 AM »
The Pacific Aviation Museum has 2 hangars. I almost missed the marker to the second one. I believe its named Hangar 79. Mostly postwar aircraft in it.

1) an 2) A "Flying Tiger" marked airplane. These plajes were flown by American volunteers in China  even before Japan and the United States were at war.
3) The MiG 15 and F86 'Sabre'. These aircraft will forever been connected to each other due to their service in the Korean War.
4) One of the first American jet fighters after WWII.
5) I'm ashamed to say I didn't recognize this one at first: the F100 Super Sabre. The first American jet that could fly supersonic in level flight.

Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #169 on: February 09, 2015, 04:33:06 AM »
Wow. BUncle's router uploads real fast. ;b;

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #170 on: February 09, 2015, 05:26:13 AM »
I didn't recognize 4 and 5 either.

You take nice pictures, as usual. 8)

Offline Lord Avalon

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #171 on: February 09, 2015, 06:03:30 PM »
#4 looks like a Lockheed T-33 (T-Bird) Shooting Star trainer (at least I think there's room for a second seat in the cockpit), a variant of the Lockheed P-80 (F-80) Shooting Star. Straight-wing design limits speed (as you approach Mach 1), so the Shooting Star was outclassed by the swept-wing MiG-15. Rough comparisons from Wikipedia specifications: P/F-80C version top speed 600 mph, Mach 0.78 vs MiG-15bis version 658 mph, Mach 0.86.


Though the Wikipedia page lists only the A version's speed at altitude - 492 mph, Mach 0.64 at 40,000 ft vs 558 mph, Mach 0.73 at sea level, the MiG loses less speed: 616 mph, Mach 0.80 @ 10,000 m (32,808 ft) vs 658 mph, Mach 0.86 at sea level.
Your agonizer, please.

Online Buster's Uncle

  • Through art, I
  • Transcend
  • *
  • Posts: 45765
  • €1187
  • View Inventory
  • Send /Gift
  • Someone thinks a Winrar is You!  Because there are times when people just need a cute puppy  Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur  
  • AC2 is my instrument, my heart, as I play my song.
  • Planet tales writer Smilie Artist Custom Faction Modder Downloads Contributor AC2 Wiki contributor
    • View Profile
    • My Custom Factions
    • Awards
Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #172 on: February 16, 2015, 01:54:50 AM »

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #173 on: February 16, 2015, 06:22:50 AM »
I've seen that before, it's hard to forget, but only knew that it was a French Cuirass from Waterloo. I didn't know the particulars. Thanks!

Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #174 on: February 16, 2015, 06:23:23 PM »
#4 looks like a Lockheed T-33 (T-Bird) Shooting Star trainer (at least I think there's room for a second seat in the cockpit), a variant of the Lockheed P-80 (F-80) Shooting Star. Straight-wing design limits speed (as you approach Mach 1), so the Shooting Star was outclassed by the swept-wing MiG-15. Rough comparisons from Wikipedia specifications: P/F-80C version top speed 600 mph, Mach 0.78 vs MiG-15bis version 658 mph, Mach 0.86.

Yeah, that's the one. Thanks. :)
And the MiG 15 was only one year later introduced.

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #175 on: February 20, 2015, 04:39:13 AM »
I just finished the novel "Winged Victory" by V.M. Yeates.

It's a semi-autobiographical account of a Sopwith Camel pilot in 1918, and it reads like a journal, which was essentially the source material. It's supposed to be very realistic in all of it's day to day details. It tied in with autobiographies I've read by Brit, German and American fighter pilots.

It's also a cynical look at war, sometimes describing the "War to end War" as the war between the Industrialists(Germans) and the Userers ( British ). He didn't care too much for the contractors that put them in planes with unreliable engines.  They had two signals in the air 1) enemy in sight 2) dud engine. The main character "Tom" was struggling to maintain his sanity in the face of the daily murder of the inexperienced. Sometimes he saw the enemy as the colonels and generals on both sides - gathering glory as they gambled with the lives of other men. Majors were a mixed lot, sometimes sharing personal risks. He liked to buzz them whenever he saw their staff cars.

His original title was "Wingless Victor", but the publisher wanted something more patriotic. Camels were hard to learn. Sometimes trained pilots died on their first flight in one. With the life expectancy of 3 weeks on the front for a WWI fighter pilot, the tour of duty was 6 months, then rotation home. Tom survived, only to see most everyone he knew killed. He and his roommate made it past the 6 month mark, but the brass  wanted experienced pilots around to help finish the war, so it stretched into about 8 months, then the roommate died.
Without  him, Tom couldn't handle his battle fatigue anymore, and was shipped home.

Anyway, with further insight from this book I have a few facts and observations. They talk a lot about luck, and I think they are discrediting skill.

 I believe the key survival skill in this contest is seeing the enemy before he sees you. Most pilots died before they learned how, because it takes around a month. Some guys like Billy Bishop (72 planes career) gained the skill in a two seater before flying scout planes.. The author's character gained it flying alongside a guy who shot down 48 planes and several balloons. Other skills follow, like learning enemy tactics, how to shoot a moving plane from a moving plane,  and what to do when your guns jam, or your engine fails, or you fuel tank gets a hole in it, or how to recover control in a spin.

Another thing. In World War I, engines, aircraft, and instruments were essentially experimental, or obsolete.  They seldom seemed to be both effective and reliable under good conditions, let alone when you're exceeding performance limits to save your life, or when your equipment has bullet holes in it. By the time an engine was reliable, it was underpowered.  And they might strangle flying upside down, or through soggy clouds. Or your compass might get screwed up doing dogfighting maneuvers, or your fuel gauge might jam, or your oil pressure gauge  might fail, and you'll find yourself too far from base when your engine stops working for whatever reason.

They certainly had flight training, and machine gun training.  But it seems to me that getting trained and then thrown into aerial combat is a lot like learning to drive , and then getting caught in a winter storm- you could find yourself wrecked or dead before you understand what's going on. As for machine gun training, according to the author, there were only two things you could try to make the gun work while flying the plane, and training on the ground with machine guns was useless, because in the air you have to aim the plane.

The Camels had interesting qualities, they were basically unstable. They had a tendency to crab or slide to the right. They could make a 3/4 turn to the right in the same time it took to turn a 1/4 to the left.  They could turn inside anything to the right. So they could resort to this in a dogfight with a better plane. They could take evasive action in a hurry.

Also, they were devilishly difficult to hit with anti-aircraft guns. The reason for this was that the direction the aircraft was facing wasn't necessarily the direction it was heading, and it was just as difficult to judge their speed for the same reason. It was a mixed blessing, because they were often given orders for low-level attacks. They were often summoned to support or thwart an advance. The trouble is that the enemy trenches were full of protected machine guns, and when you got to where you could shoot at  them, they could shoot back.

Of course there was also the Spanish Flu, or as the fledgling RAF called it - Pyroxia of Unknown Origin. Since they were flying in the open -sometimes at high altitudes without oxygen , they developed respiratory problems ( the author died at age 37 as a result).

It's a long read.



Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #176 on: February 20, 2015, 06:51:31 PM »
Wow.
Makes me wonder if any WWI pilot ever saw combat in WWII.

Online Buster's Uncle

  • Through art, I
  • Transcend
  • *
  • Posts: 45765
  • €1187
  • View Inventory
  • Send /Gift
  • Someone thinks a Winrar is You!  Because there are times when people just need a cute puppy  Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur  
  • AC2 is my instrument, my heart, as I play my song.
  • Planet tales writer Smilie Artist Custom Faction Modder Downloads Contributor AC2 Wiki contributor
    • View Profile
    • My Custom Factions
    • Awards
Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #177 on: February 20, 2015, 07:00:27 PM »
Being a fighter-jockey is a young man's game, and I think pilots will be the first to say so...

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #178 on: February 20, 2015, 07:10:28 PM »
I believe the key survival skill in this contest is seeing the enemy before he sees you.


Right now I'm wondering if that isn't the key survival skill in most kinds of combat, not just early biplanes.

The one who sees the enemy first has the options to plan, attack, maneuver, or flee.

Online Buster's Uncle

  • Through art, I
  • Transcend
  • *
  • Posts: 45765
  • €1187
  • View Inventory
  • Send /Gift
  • Someone thinks a Winrar is You!  Because there are times when people just need a cute puppy  Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur  
  • AC2 is my instrument, my heart, as I play my song.
  • Planet tales writer Smilie Artist Custom Faction Modder Downloads Contributor AC2 Wiki contributor
    • View Profile
    • My Custom Factions
    • Awards
Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #179 on: February 20, 2015, 07:13:36 PM »
Stands to reason. ;nod

 

* User

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?


Login with username, password and session length

Select language:

* Community poll

SMAC v.4 SMAX v.2 (or previous versions)
-=-
18 (6%)
XP Compatibility patch
-=-
9 (3%)
Gog version for Windows
-=-
76 (29%)
Scient (unofficial) patch
-=-
28 (10%)
Kyrub's latest patch
-=-
14 (5%)
Yitzi's latest patch
-=-
85 (32%)
AC for Mac
-=-
2 (0%)
AC for Linux
-=-
5 (1%)
Gog version for Mac
-=-
10 (3%)
No patch
-=-
12 (4%)
Total Members Voted: 259
AC2 Wiki Logo

* Random quote

Learn to overcome the crass demands of flesh and bone, for they warp the matrix through which we perceive the world. Extend your awareness outward, beyond the self of body, to embrace the self of group and the self of humanity. The goals of the group and the greater race are transcendent, and to embrace them is to achieve enlightenment.
~Chairman Sheng-ji Yang 'Essays on Mind and Matter'

* Select your theme

*