Germany's Weapons in WWII

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby Kyler » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:06 pm

yellowtail3 wrote:
Kyler wrote:Unfortunately the war ended before the P-47M entered into Europe in large numbers. It's improved low altitude handing would have put in on par at any altitude with the P-51.

well, unfortunate only in that Republic didn't get to sell a bunch o' them. If it had gone a bit longer - D-Day failed? - I wonder if we wouldn't have seen the P-47N there. Bye bye FW & Ta152...


I think you are confusing the N & M models, the P-47M was designed to improve low altitude handling over previous models like the P-47D. The P-47N was designed to be used in the Pacific theater by the addition longer wings so more internal fuel could be carried for longer range.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby yellowtail3 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:38 am

No, I'm thinking of the -47N... mostly because unlike the -47M they made it to production in quantity, & worked well - with longs legs and great speed, it might have been a helpful addition in 1945 in Europe, had the need been there (though the USAAF seemed pretty happy with the less expensive P-51s)
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby Kyler » Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:10 pm

The P-47N's only major improvement compared to the P-47D was is had a long range and better avionics. The P-47N was never intended on being a fighter in large numbers in Europe, since the P-51 was doing a great job anyways. It was to be used in the Pacific theater as a robust durable escort & fighter bomber.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby yellowtail3 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:06 pm

Kyler wrote:The P-47N's only major improvement compared to the P-47D was is had a long range and better avionics.

Well... it had a more advanced engine and was substantially faster, had a higher roll rate, and I think more firepower. It I were going to fight in a P-47, it's the one I'd want to be in...
Shift Colors... underway.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby lwd » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:12 pm

VeenenbergR wrote:To Iwd: you are apparently clearly better informed about Naval War topics than Air and Landwarfare!
It is disappointing that you did not approve the 4 major issues why Germans should not have reached so much effectiveness, were they in reality did!
....

And your point is? What major issues? Why do you think I'm better informed about naval as opposed to air and land warfare?

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby Kyler » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:05 pm

yellowtail3 wrote:
Kyler wrote:The P-47N's only major improvement compared to the P-47D was is had a long range and better avionics.

Well... it had a more advanced engine and was substantially faster, had a higher roll rate, and I think more firepower. It I were going to fight in a P-47, it's the one I'd want to be in...


Same with me, with the exception of range, there probably wasn't a better piston engine fighter out there at the end of the war. No wonder they made more of them than any other fighter.

To bad the USAF didn't keep them around during the Korean War, cause Mustangs didn't turn out to be as nearly as good mud movers as the Jug.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby hammy » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:51 pm

I thought it was the Corsair that was used as the pricipal U S tactical strike propeller fighter in Korea , or is that because there were a number of "Jeep" carriers doing cab-rank duty off the coast ?
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby Kyler » Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:08 pm

hammy wrote:I thought it was the Corsair that was used as the pricipal U S tactical strike propeller fighter in Korea , or is that because there were a number of "Jeep" carriers doing cab-rank duty off the coast ?


Hammy, you are correct intially during the start of the war, the Corsair was the USN principle fighter attack aircract. It is an excellent aircraft as well. With the radial engine like the Thunderbolt it could take much more battle damage then a liquid cool engine like in the Mustang. Unfortunately due to their popularity with pilots Mustang were kept in frontline fighter bombers units after WW2 instead of the Thunderbolt. When used in Korea the Mustangs took heavy losses from ground fire due to the fact their Merlin engines were not nearly as durable as the Thunderbolt's R-2800.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby lwd » Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:19 pm

Mustangs also cost ~$50K where P-47 ran ~$75K

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby Kyler » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:44 pm

I doubt it the cost was a factor since both the Mustang and Thunderbolt were no longer in production when the Korean war started.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby lwd » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:39 pm

Kyler wrote:I doubt it the cost was a factor since both the Mustang and Thunderbolt were no longer in production when the Korean war started.

But the decision on the Mustang vs Thunderbolt was made at the end or just after WWII, at least from what I remember reading. The Corsair was still around because it was a Navy/Marine aircraft.

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby hammy » Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:59 pm

Didnt the USN also operate the Douglas Skyraider in Korea ?
I think this design was in prototype at the end of WW2 as a combined fighter+bomber+torpedo bomber , which you could also use for carrying a couple of passengers and a bit of cargo in a compartment in the fuselage if you wanted .
I remember them being extensively used in tactical ground attack roles in Vietnam .

It was in British Fleet air arm service too for a while , Victorious operated some , which means our Westland Wyvern and Blackburn Firebrand weren't very successful designs -- or we ran out of money , as usual .

Its a pity there aren't still a few Skyraiders about today , because with all that payload carrying ability , I would think they would be still quite capable of making a Bang in the world / spoiling your day for you .
I remember seeing four together at Duxford Air Show some years ago now , and thought them very formidable and impressive . Just the thing for drug smugglers and Somali pirates and similar low-tech ops .

Rather like the jet F8 Corsair , still (noisily) operated in Greek service , tough as old boots and hang what you like on them .

Like the Buccaneers and Phantoms in RN , later RAF service , a lot of these ex-naval aircraft seem to go on for years in second careers ashore , later on .
Perhaps it is because they are fairly strongly built , to take the wack of deck landings and arrested stop induced G forces , which gives them a bit more longevity ? And the extra airframe protection of anti-salt-water-corrosion treatments , I expect .
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby Bgile » Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:22 pm

Yes, the Skyraider was used extensively in Korea and was far superior to the fighters used as bombers. It was a very effective aircraft and was used by the USN until it began to be phased out in the '60s.

I think the F-8 was our best fighter in Vietnam, especially early on before Air Combat training was reestablished for the F-4, which had previously emphasized bomber intercept as their primary role. The F-8 pilots were still pure fighter jocks and it showed. They also guns, which had not been included in the F-4 design as they were mistakenly considered obsolete at the time.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby Kyler » Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:40 pm

Skyraider, an excellent CAS aircraft, probably the best during that period of history. Considerably better mud mover than Mustangs and even the jet fighters of the period. Many downed pilots owe their lives to CH-53's and Skyraiders.

The F-8 was an excellent fighter, it having the best Air Air Kill Ratio of any American aircraft during the Vietnam War.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

madmike
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: Germany's Weapons in WWII

Postby madmike » Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:47 am

hello eveyone, just a small coment on the FN slr rifle(l1a1).in answer to Vic Dale,I personally like the FN,(I admit to a little bias here i carried one while in the Aus army before the steyr ) it had bloody good hitting power,better than the soviet ak 47(7.62mmx39mm),or the US m16(5.56mm) a aimed range out to 600m(best of luck at trying to hit a man size target at that range with those iron sights)carried 20 rounds(7.62mmx51mm standard NATO round)per mag,was easy to maintain,and bloody reliable, i never had any probs with the recoil.holding the weapon properly helps.the rotating recoil you talk about is what happens with every rifle its to do with the human bodys layout if you fire a rifle right handed then the recoil with cause your body to pivot at the shoulders away to the right the same thing happens if you fire left handed but the pivot is to the left.it was not a problem with the weapon. and i will say this about the 7.62mm nato round.IT was a hell of a man stopper(most hits proved fatal)from the bullets impact or by system shock to a human body.the old smle lee enfield 303 was a great rifle,but it was bolt action,10 shot and out of date by the time the British and Commonwealth countries took the FN into service.just like the old bren gun,great weapon but,mag fed not belt,and that was replaced in the Australian army at the time by the US GPMG M-60 about the same rate of fire 500-550 rpm each,same weight about 23 lbs.but with the advantage for the M-60 of having every man in a infantry section carrying 200 rounds(in 100 rd belts)for the M-60.(standard ten man infantry section ammo load for the M-60 was 100rd belt loaded on the 60, plus 300 rounds in the golf bag(bag used for keeping the spare barrel,asbestos mitten,cleaning kit)plus 2x100rd belts carried by everyone for a total of 2400 rnds.I dont know what the ammo load was for the bren in a 10 man inf section,but being mag fed i dont think it was as much as the belt fed M-60.the Australian army did look at the German MG 3 machine gun,but its rate of fire was to high(950rpm) to use in a infantry section.(to much bloody weight carrying the ammo for the MG3)life is tough enough as a grunt without having to carry extra weight.


Return to “World War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest