Author Topic: Which aircraft would you use?  (Read 1752 times)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Hornet
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2005, 09:32:42 PM »
There were no torpedos used in the sinking of the Ostfriedland.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline syncrII

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Which aircraft would you use?
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2005, 05:48:13 AM »
moin

i always use the ju 88 with his full bomb load for killing a cv
im going 6-8k over target and start a 45degree dive from behind.
the cv is 80% dead and you have very god survive chance.


ju88 with only 20kgs bombs at 17k for strat targets (she is fast nearly 300mph)
ki87 with 8*100kgs at 20k for strattargets (nearly untachable and god armed 330mph).
ju88 at 13-14k with full bombload for killing a fild (had enought bombs for 6 FHs)

What's your least favourite fighter? Why?
i use the 109g10 with singel 30mm. she is fast and built up realy fast speed
thats the main reason for that plan.

109f4 with 3*20mm is realy funny not so fast but she turns realy good with the spits and has good fire power.

190a5 i like it, it is a plan for mans :-) but it is hard to fight against all the late war models but it is posible if you gat some practice in it. She has no radiator thats a good reason for this 190 because were you have nothing you cant get a hit ;-). As i was new here in game it was mi first plan were i started to be with for a long periode.

ta152. the most people didnt like it but i think it is one of the best plans here in game but you need alot of training with it and experience in the main arena.

cu chris3

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Hornet
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2005, 11:58:09 AM »
Wasn't the Tirpitz sunk by Lancs from 617 sqn dropping those freackin big bombs?
If I remember correctly from Guy Gibsons (617 sqn leader) book, they landed close and tore the bottom off it.
Although the Navy claimed it was never really sunk by the RAF as it settled on the bottom with the decks still above water.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Hornet
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2005, 12:18:58 PM »
Kev,

Yes, but she wasn't at sea, moving and dodging.  She was motionless, moored in a known location.  In addition 617 Squadron was an elite squadron.

The B-17s at Midway did not land a single bomb on a Japanese ship of any kind.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Fencer51

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Hornet
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2005, 12:54:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
Wasn't the Tirpitz sunk by Lancs from 617 sqn dropping those freackin big bombs?
If I remember correctly from Guy Gibsons (617 sqn leader) book, they landed close and tore the bottom off it.
Although the Navy claimed it was never really sunk by the RAF as it settled on the bottom with the decks still above water.


The Tirpitz capsized after taking a blockbuster bomb hit near its forward turrets.

Quote
On November 12th, 1944, the Tirpitz was attacked by 29 Lancaster's - including some from 617 Dambuster Squadron. Flying at 14,000 feet, their new Mark XIV bombsight gave them an excellent target to aim at. 'Blockbuster' bombs ripped into the ship and a 100 feet hole was ripped open. Her magazines exploded and the Tirpitz rolled over trapping over 1000 men in her as she turned turtle. A few - 80 men - managed to get to the bottom of the hull where a hole was cut through it and the men escaped. Many others were not so lucky.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2005, 12:56:47 PM by Fencer51 »
Fencer
The names of the irrelevant have been changed to protect their irrelevance.
The names of the innocent and the guilty have not been changed.
As for the innocent, everyone needs to know they are innocent –
As for the guilty… they can suck it.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Hornet
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2005, 02:33:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Kev,

Yes, but she wasn't at sea, moving and dodging.  She was motionless, moored in a known location.  In addition 617 Squadron was an elite squadron.

The B-17s at Midway did not land a single bomb on a Japanese ship of any kind.


Guess you could say 617 sqn were 'da bomb' (groan)

Fencer - Thanks been a lot of years (too many than I care to remember) since I read his book.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Hornet
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2005, 03:39:57 PM »
Sorry to be the correction nazi here, but they weren't blockbusters that sank the Tirpitz, they were 12,000lb 'Tallboy' bombs designed by Barnes Wallis.

'Blockbuster' bombs were the high capacity 4,000lb 8,000lb and 12,000lb bombs.



Quote
1) W. J. Lawrence wrote about the Tallboy bomb in his book, No 5 Bomber Group (1951)

It was an extraordinary weapon, an apparent contradiction in terms, since it had at one and the same time the explosive force of a large high-capacity blast bomb and the penetrating power of an armour-piercing bomb. On the ground it was capable of displacing a million cubic feet of earth and made a crater which it would have taken 5,000 tons of earth to fill. It was ballistically perfect and in consequence had a very high terminal velocity, variously estimated at 3,600 and 3,700 feet a second, which was, of course, a good deal faster than sound so that, as with the V-2 rocket, the noise of its fall would be heard after that of the explosion
« Last Edit: October 27, 2005, 03:42:08 PM by Furball »
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline MOSQ

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Hornet
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2005, 01:24:35 AM »
Everyone always forgets the Arizona was sunk at Pearl harbor by a level bombing B5N at high alt. One 800-kilogram bomb was all it took.

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Hornet
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2005, 09:58:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by MOSQ
Everyone always forgets the Arizona was sunk at Pearl harbor by a level bombing B5N at high alt. One 800-kilogram bomb was all it took.


Against a stationary and completely unsuspecting target, with watertight doors presumably all open, no damage control crews in place, the bombers undisturbed by AA fire or defending fighters....

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Offline MOSQ

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Hornet
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2005, 11:47:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tony Williams
Against a stationary and completely unsuspecting target, with watertight doors presumably all open, no damage control crews in place, the bombers undisturbed by AA fire or defending fighters....

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


The stationary part is relevant, true. However the rest would not have mattered. The bomb went off in the forward powder magazine, blowing the bottom out of the ship. Nothing could have saved her.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Hornet
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2005, 01:41:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MOSQ
Everyone always forgets the Arizona was sunk at Pearl harbor by a level bombing B5N at high alt. One 800-kilogram bomb was all it took.

Keep in mind that was done by stupidly, intensive training of the Japanese aircrews for that one mission.  Their accuracy on that mission was phenominal for WWII.

Point of interest, the 800kg "bomb" was actually a shell for the 14" guns on Kirishima (or was it a 16" shell for Nagato, can't quite recall).  I presume they added stabilizing fins to it though.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Hornet
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2005, 02:19:26 PM »
I dont' think it was a shell. I think the bomb was designed off the idea of the shells, but it was in fact built as a bomb.

Offline WarRaidr

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Hornet
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2005, 03:18:16 PM »
USS Hornet (CV-8) was sunk at the Battle of Santa Cruz Island on October 26, 1942

USS Hornet (CV-12) served in many raids and battles from June 1944 to the end of the war and served in the fleet until finally being decommissioned in  June 1970

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Hornet
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2005, 03:43:53 AM »
Well, the ships at Pearl were, - like the Tirpiz, - stationary.
And if it was a shell it would be a 14". The 15" weights about 950 kg's the 16" more than a ton. The biggest I've seen was a WWI 18".
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
Hornet
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2005, 08:20:23 AM »
Hornet is close for a WW2 aircraft