Got into a discussion with a buddy over which weapons systems of WW2 accomplished the most with the least capability; that is,
He said the F4F Wildcat, the USN's early war carrier fighter that, 1 on 1, had its hands full with the Zero as totally outmatched, but adapted successful tactics to overcome its weaknesses.
I said the motherfucking mother of all biplanes, the motherfucking Swordfish. Not only assfucked the Italian Navy at Taranto, but made the torp hit that totally doomed the Bismark...all at a max of 150mph.
Notable runner-up: The Sherman tank. Shitty armor, shitty gun. Won the war in the west.
A couple honorable mentions:
Pz II. Helped assrape the Poles and frogs with a 20mm peashooter.
PIAT. A shitty antitank weapon powered by a spring that just kept going.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 03, 2009, 06:51:53 PM
PIAT. A shitty antitank weapon powered by a spring that just kept going.
Yes, Nerf technology. Good call.
M1 Garand.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2009, 06:47:22 PM
I said the motherfucking mother of all biplanes, the motherfucking Swordfish. Not only assfucked the Italian Navy at Taranto, but made the torp hit that totally doomed the Bismark...all at a max of 150mph.
Indeed. While the Bismarck was certainly a useful achievement, the operation at Taranto was absolutely enormous in terms of securing British victory.
Quote from: Siege on July 03, 2009, 06:59:21 PM
M1 Garand.
I dunno, Siegy. It had some flaws, but it was significantly more effective than bolt-actions at the time.
Maybe the P-39? The Soviets killed lots of Germans with that thing somehow, both in the air and on the ground. I don't think it had "less" of anything vs. the Swordfish though.
The German Hetzer was fairly effective for just being an outdated tank chassis with a medium gun stuck to the front. Actually the Panzer's III and IV did pretty well being used through out the conflict despite rapidedly becoming obsolete.
British Gladiator saw some good service at the begining of the war despite being badly outdated.
About everything the Japanese were equiped with.
I'll agree with CdM and say the Swordfish.
I gotta add
A) Indians with Matilda-1's in the desert against Italians outnumbering them 10-1
and
B) Soviet Partisans, without doubt the people with the least of everything, any achievement must rank given the premise of this question.
Any german tank is out of the question.
They outperformed everything the allies had.
What about the Stuka?
Or the Me 110?
Well, the russian PPSH is a piece of shit, but it seem to have been a very effective sub-machinegun.
Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2009, 09:47:06 PM
I gotta add
A) Indians with Matilda-1's in the desert against Italians outnumbering them 10-1
Meh, it was Italians. And there weren't any Matildas at the Little Bighorn, either.
Quoteand
B) Soviet Partisans, without doubt the people with the least of everything, any achievement must rank given the premise of this question.
I'd consider that a gay cop-out answer if I didn't sorta agree with it.
The 88.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 03, 2009, 11:33:20 PM
The 88.
Would be my guess, too. A flak cannon that could be used as tank killer.
Panzerfaust.
The 88; started out as a flack cannon, ended up as maybe the most flexible gun of the war. IIRC, one of the major tank's cannons (the Tiger II?) was basically an 88 with treds and supremely thick armor.
PPSh 41 was a great gun. Didn't jam as much, didn't break down. The Germans often ditched their over-designed POSes for it.
Maybe something like 40 year old Mosin Nagants in the hands of Russian Partisans. Red Orchestra was pretty goddamn important in the West, one of the crucial factors behind the eventual Western victory.
I was going to suggest the Browning .50 cal and the M1911, but I wouldn't call those pieces of shit.
The 81mm Stokes-Brandt mortar, the daddy of all modern mortars. Providing reliable fire support for infantry units on a company and battalion level. Used by all sides doing war...
Hitler accomplished the most with the least amount of sanity. Most victories and defeats.
I'm not sure which one offered the best bangs for bucks relationship, but I have some candidates:
- V-1. Cheap, crude, shitty, improvised... but the Allies had to use a disproportionate quantity of resources to fight them.
- All land mines, and up to a certain extent sea ones too. They just get no respect.
- Katyusha rockets? Not sure about this one, in fact.
- The first weapon in every infantryman's arsenal: the shovel.
And I'm against including the Garand. It was actually more advanced and expensive than most rifles 1939-1945 (by the way, I just love to read 'Infantry Weapons' by John Weeks. Good book in every sense of the word, informative and funny; I always get funny looks when I say I read it for his style... )
The Mosquito.
It was made with balsa wood, for God's sake.
The Pepeschka.
And, needless to say, the T-34. A simple, almost pedestrian tank, yet deadly effective against German armour.
But I also agree with Seedy on the Sherman. It won the war, despite its flaws.
Quote from: Warspite on July 04, 2009, 05:42:09 AM
The Mosquito.
It was made with balsa wood, for God's sake.
Pretty much exactly what I wrote until I noticed you'd already said it.
Except I said plywood.
I'd say the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (aka Tomahawk).
It first flew in 1938 and was used until the end of the war. It lacked a lot of innovations of newer planes but was rugged enough that it begin as an air superiority fighter and ended up still being a functional close air support fighter by the end of the war. It was also used by over 25+ different nations.
Notable pilots of the plane were Claire Chennault, Gregory Boyington (before he went on to fly in the Black Sheep), and Nikolai Fyodorovich Kuznetsov (a Hero of the Soviet Union).
Quote from: Norgy on July 04, 2009, 05:53:35 AM
The Pepeschka.
And, needless to say, the T-34. A simple, almost pedestrian tank, yet deadly effective against German armour.
But I also agree with Seedy on the Sherman. It won the war, despite its flaws.
I don't know how effective it was against German armor. What do you suppose the kill ratios between the German tanks and Russian tanks were?
In my opinion the Sherman was a pretty good tank. When it was first produced it wasn't cutting edge but better then anything the British had and most of what Germany had.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2009, 11:34:34 AM
In my opinion the Sherman was a pretty good tank. When it was first produced it wasn't cutting edge but better then anything the British had and most of what Germany had.
In reguard to the british doesnt that say much, as the British armor at that time was pretty much a joke...
P-40. Followed by the Sten gun or grease gun.
Pz III variants. Conquered France and half of Russia with a 50 mm gun. No points for beating up the Brits in North Africa.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 04, 2009, 03:28:25 PM
Pz III variants. Conquered France and half of Russia with a 50 mm gun. No points for beating up the Brits in North Africa.
37mm for the most part.
Quote from: Warspite on July 04, 2009, 05:42:09 AM
The Mosquito.
It was made with balsa wood, for God's sake.
Yeah, but it was actually a pretty advanced design, with real good engines and a heck of an arms load.
Yeah, Swordfish was good for a supposedly outdated biplane; punched way above its weight.
I'll say P-40 as well, and also I can agree with the F4 Wildcat. Both those planes held their own or adapted, being up against much better opponents. P40 as a fighter bomber or such through the war. P-39 also perhaps, used by the Soviets as a decent ground attack plane, I believe.
T-34 would be about tops on the list, unless it would be considered an advanced design, though the argument can be made that it was simplicity yet uber effective.
Sherman tanks. Yeah, so many of them, I guess pretty versatile. But I'm not sure if they punched above their weight more than did well by sheer numbers and reliability. Later versions I think it could be argued punched about their weight, with the 76mm guns and better armor. Brit Firefly and the US variant.
If anybody is going to suggest the P-39 I gotta add the Hurricane. It also served the entire war changing roles as time passed and it's capabilities were surpassed. It started the war as a "B" team fighter next to the Spitfire but managed to win the Battle of Britain. It later served as a Tank Buster, Sub Hunter and Dive Bomber in Africa, The Atlantic and Burma.
Quote from: Strix on July 04, 2009, 10:22:23 AM
I'd say the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (aka Tomahawk).
It first flew in 1938 and was used until the end of the war. It lacked a lot of innovations of newer planes but was rugged enough that it begin as an air superiority fighter and ended up still being a functional close air support fighter by the end of the war. It was also used by over 25+ different nations.
Notable pilots of the plane were Claire Chennault, Gregory Boyington (before he went on to fly in the Black Sheep), and Nikolai Fyodorovich Kuznetsov (a Hero of the Soviet Union).
Good call.
Those little Soviet crop dusters that were used to harrass the Germans. The Po-2s.
Japanese knee mortars. I love those. Also the Japanese swords. Outdated for centuries and still in use! They played an important role in slowing down allied troops who took them as souvenirs.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2009, 07:19:38 AM
Also the Japanese swords. Outdated for centuries and still in use! They played an important role in slowing down allied troops who took them as souvenirs.
:D
I would argue that the P-40 and Hurricane were not "low capability" aircraft and so shouldn't really be considered. The Mosquito was very advanced - it was deliberately made out of plywood to use construction facilities unable to work in metal.
The Swordfish definitely punched above its weight. So did the WW1 RN battleships, Warspite in particular. I am pressed to think of a system that did more with less than the Swordsfish, though.
Good question.
It's hard to understate the value of wrecking the Italian surface fleet.
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2009, 09:22:44 AM
It's hard to understate the value of wrecking the Italian surface fleet.
Yeah, it convinced the Japs that they could do it to the Americans.
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2009, 09:22:44 AM
It's hard to understate the value of wrecking the Italian surface fleet.
QFFT
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2009, 07:19:38 AM
Those little Soviet crop dusters that were used to harrass the Germans. The Po-2s.
Japanese knee mortars. I love those. Also the Japanese swords. Outdated for centuries and still in use! They played an important role in slowing down allied troops who took them as souvenirs.
My Great Uncle has one of those swords. A Japanese officer jumped into his foxhole one night, demanding my uncle surrender. My uncle simply said he emptied his rifle into the officer. Still has the sword as a souvenir, I think anyway. Some years ago he returned some items to the Japanese Consul - papers, diary, what ever,of Japanese soldiers. He said one time he was keeping the sword but I don't know now. He's in a Veteran's nursing home now, in his 90s; I'll have to ask my cousin sometime about it.
Quote from: KRonn on July 05, 2009, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2009, 07:19:38 AM
Those little Soviet crop dusters that were used to harrass the Germans. The Po-2s.
Japanese knee mortars. I love those. Also the Japanese swords. Outdated for centuries and still in use! They played an important role in slowing down allied troops who took them as souvenirs.
My Great Uncle has one of those swords. A Japanese officer jumped into his foxhole one night, demanding my uncle surrender. My uncle simply said he emptied his rifle into the officer. Still has the sword as a souvenir, I think anyway. Some years ago he returned some items to the Japanese Consul - papers, diary, what ever,of Japanese soldiers. He said one time he was keeping the sword but I don't know now. He's in a Veteran's nursing home now, in his 90s; I'll have to ask my cousin sometime about it.
Did he sign a release form for his life story being used in a film?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc
Swords are worthless.
Oversized knives that you can't use to open MREs.
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2009, 04:18:49 AM
Swords are worthless.
Oversized knives that you can't use to open MREs.
Someday day Siegy will get a joke and not just state the fucking obvious.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2009, 06:06:49 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2009, 04:18:49 AM
Swords are worthless.
Oversized knives that you can't use to open MREs.
Someday day Siegy will get a joke and not just state the fucking obvious.
A Joke that Siegy gets.
Jarhead A: So I saw this Haji and, <comic timing pause>, I shot him!!!!
Siegy: JWHAJWHAJWHAJWHA!!
Quote from: Viking on July 05, 2009, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 05, 2009, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2009, 07:19:38 AM
Those little Soviet crop dusters that were used to harrass the Germans. The Po-2s.
Japanese knee mortars. I love those. Also the Japanese swords. Outdated for centuries and still in use! They played an important role in slowing down allied troops who took them as souvenirs.
My Great Uncle has one of those swords. A Japanese officer jumped into his foxhole one night, demanding my uncle surrender. My uncle simply said he emptied his rifle into the officer. Still has the sword as a souvenir, I think anyway. Some years ago he returned some items to the Japanese Consul - papers, diary, what ever,of Japanese soldiers. He said one time he was keeping the sword but I don't know now. He's in a Veteran's nursing home now, in his 90s; I'll have to ask my cousin sometime about it.
Did he sign a release form for his life story being used in a film?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc
He's been active in Veteran groups all his life. An author did interview him about ten years ago to get his stories on the war. The author was interviewing many vets for a book on WW2 Marines, a book on the Iwo Jima battle.
Quote from: Viking on July 06, 2009, 06:19:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2009, 06:06:49 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2009, 04:18:49 AM
Swords are worthless.
Oversized knives that you can't use to open MREs.
Someday day Siegy will get a joke and not just state the fucking obvious.
A Joke that Siegy gets.
Jarhead A: So I saw this Haji and, <comic timing pause>, I shot him!!!!
Siegy: You're an I shot him!!!
Fixed.
The divebombers were generally terrible planes that never saw action before or after the war but had a pretty big impact during it despite their deficiencies.
So I vote the divebomber poster child: the Stuka.
Probably already mentioned, but the Czech 38 tank. In service as a tank until 42 at least, served as a platform for AT, artillery...hell the Swiss used Hetzers after the war...
It was good enough at the start, outclassed by 41, but still plugged along.
What about the MG42? It's a very simple piece of technology and was so good that it is still in use with minor modifications almost 70 years later.
The MG42 is not that simple a piece of technology - it was the most advanced and effective MG of the war. It accomplished a lot, but hardly with the least.
Compared to it's effect on history, the amount of effort and material put into the atom bomb was negligable. I mean, when you think about it, the atom bomb brought the trends of the previous 200 years to a screeching halt.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2009, 03:30:51 PM
Compared to it's effect on history, the amount of effort and material put into the atom bomb was negligable.
Which is your first language?
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2009, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2009, 03:30:51 PM
Compared to it's effect on history, the amount of effort and material put into the atom bomb was negligable.
Which is your first language?
French.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2009, 03:39:39 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2009, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2009, 03:30:51 PM
Compared to it's effect on history, the amount of effort and material put into the atom bomb was negligable.
Which is your first language?
French.
I don't speak French.
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2009, 03:40:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2009, 03:39:39 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2009, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2009, 03:30:51 PM
Compared to it's effect on history, the amount of effort and material put into the atom bomb was negligable.
Which is your first language?
French.
I don't speak French.
That's too bad. It's a fine language, if totally outdated. It's sort of like how kids used to get educated in Greek and Latin.
I dunno it took alot of people, time, and money to put together the atomic bomb.
It cost about $2 billion, IIRC.
Quote from: Kleves on July 06, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
It cost about $2 billion, IIRC.
Inflation-adjusted?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2009, 03:47:26 PM
I dunno it took alot of people, time, and money to put together the atomic bomb.
Indeed, but it had as much of a military, social and economic effect as the rest of the war combined. Everything else was just a bunch of toys. The atom bomb was history, and the only achievements that can match it are the development of gunpowder, the forging of metal and the invention of agriculture. And maybe the steam engine.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2009, 09:31:46 AM
The divebombers were generally terrible planes that never saw action before or after the war but had a pretty big impact during it despite their deficiencies.
So I vote the divebomber poster child: the Stuka.
Actually, the Stuka would be high on my list of "did the least with the most."
Dive bombers were significant in naval warfare for quite a while, but in land warfare they were obsolescent by 1941.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2009, 09:03:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2009, 09:31:46 AM
The divebombers were generally terrible planes that never saw action before or after the war but had a pretty big impact during it despite their deficiencies.
So I vote the divebomber poster child: the Stuka.
Actually, the Stuka would be high on my list of "did the least with the most."
Dive bombers were significant in naval warfare for quite a while, but in land warfare they were obsolescent by 1941.
Did the Stuka see all that much action later on? I know it was rather useful earlier on, but I was under the impression that they got massacred at Dunkirk, and anywhere on the Eastern Front where there was any kind of air cover, and that by the mid-war period, they were pretty much gone.
Of course, up until the guided missile came along, the dive bomber was the ultimate weapon in naval warfare. Except for the dreadnought battleship, of course.
I'll throw out another "least that got the most" contender: the AIM-9 sidewinder. Still in frontline use 50 years after IOC, and widely copied. It was an utterly simple missile in most of its iterations, and yet so reliable and potent that pilots actually preferred to use it rather than longer-ranged radar missiles.
How about the Jeep carriers?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg62.imageshack.us%2Fimg62%2F3642%2Fpicccszn30kv8.jpg&hash=16fd15c4073680b020dd6e5c98219eefd083752c)
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2009, 09:17:57 PM
Did the Stuka see all that much action later on? I know it was rather useful earlier on, but I was under the impression that they got massacred at Dunkirk, and anywhere on the Eastern Front where there was any kind of air cover, and that by the mid-war period, they were pretty much gone.
Didn't that german dude that had like 500 tank kills use an Stuka?
QuoteOf course, up until the guided missile came along, the dive bomber was the ultimate weapon in naval warfare. Except for the dreadnought battleship, of course.
In your dreams. After the italians sunk that austrian battleship with a torpedo boat back in WW1, the battleship became hopelessly obsolete.
Hint: Not the tank.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy110%2Fheadwideopen%2FDog_mine.jpg&hash=0f04231da0b7271fa69e255bec6b0ca0a27c133e)
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2009, 09:24:47 PM
I'll throw out another "least that got the most" contender: the AIM-9 sidewinder. Still in frontline use 50 years after IOC, and widely copied. It was an utterly simple missile in most of its iterations, and yet so reliable and potent that pilots actually preferred to use it rather than longer-ranged radar missiles.
Have you seen a sidewinder lately?
They have full sphere engagement capability these days.
A lot of high tech toys inside those little fuckers.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 06, 2009, 10:02:00 PM
Hint: Not the tank.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy110%2Fheadwideopen%2FDog_mine.jpg&hash=0f04231da0b7271fa69e255bec6b0ca0a27c133e)
How inhumane. :mad:
I laughed my ass off with the land-mine dog.
Its so funny how he goes straight for the tank wagging his tail...
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2009, 10:01:54 PM
In your dreams. After the italians sunk that austrian battleship with a torpedo boat back in WW1, the battleship became hopelessly obsolete.
And yet obviously not, as they continued to build useful and new battleships for three decades after that.
Dreadnoughts are far more useful than infantry.
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2009, 10:21:24 PM
I laughed my ass off with the land-mine dog.
Its so funny how he goes straight for the tank wagging his tail...
It would've been nice if that Soviet dog didn't head for a Soviet tank, but no weapon system is perfect, I guess.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2009, 10:27:57 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2009, 10:21:24 PM
I laughed my ass off with the land-mine dog.
Its so funny how he goes straight for the tank wagging his tail...
It would've been nice if that Soviet dog didn't head for a Soviet tank, but no weapon system is perfect, I guess.
That was a friendly fire incident?
By the cloud of dust, it looks as if the T34 is backing up, running away from the dog...
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2009, 09:42:37 PM
How about the Jeep carriers?
Kubelwagons! :menace:
Yeah, looks like T-34 to me.
Also:
NOT AMUSED! DOGS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
Most likely a training secion where the dog is trained in running under enemy tanks, so proberly no expolsives. Ofcourse rumor has it that Anti-tank dogs had one important fault, the dog had only learn to run under russian tanks not german ones, so at the front did the dogs go after the wrong tanks... :P
Also its a T-43 prototype with a dummy gun... :nerd:
Quote from: Norgy on July 06, 2009, 11:41:51 PM
Yeah, looks like T-34 to me.
Also:
NOT AMUSED! DOGS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
Are you serious?
Of course it is a T34, early version with the 76mm main gun.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on July 07, 2009, 12:49:52 AM
Most likely a training secion where the dog is trained in running under enemy tanks, so proberly no expolsives. Ofcourse rumor has it that Anti-tank dogs had one important fault, the dog had only learn to run under russian tanks not german ones, so at the front did the dogs go after the wrong tanks... :P
Also its a T-43 prototype with a dummy gun... :nerd:
:o Are you saying that I cannot ID a WW2 era soviet tank? :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 06, 2009, 10:02:00 PM
Hint: Not the tank.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy110%2Fheadwideopen%2FDog_mine.jpg&hash=0f04231da0b7271fa69e255bec6b0ca0a27c133e)
The problem with the dog bombs is that the Soviets trained the dogs to go under the tanks, feeling safe there. What they didn't realize is that the German tanks ran on different fuel, which naturally smelled different, to the dogs. So the dogs didn't go after german tanks, but rather the soviet ones. This was one of the weapons with "least" it just didn't accomplish anything.
Ok, that's a T34, but I agree that the gun looks smaller than 76mm.
Quote from: Viking on July 07, 2009, 12:59:22 AM
This was one of the weapons with "least" it just didn't accomplish anything.
Kinda like the Jap balloon bombs.
Quote from: Siege on July 07, 2009, 12:59:38 AM
Ok, that's a T34, but I agree that the gun looks smaller than 76mm.
The T-43 is a T-34/76 with a 3 man turret, a project started in 1940 after the russians learn about the success of the german pzkfw III and its 3 turret in france. The T-43 never saw action becourse the intrudution of the T-34/85 made it obsolete...
Quote from: Syt on July 07, 2009, 01:04:03 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 07, 2009, 12:59:22 AM
This was one of the weapons with "least" it just didn't accomplish anything.
Kinda like the Jap balloon bombs.
At least the balloon bombs burned down some trees in the pacific north west :contract:
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2009, 10:06:30 PM
Have you seen a sidewinder lately?
They have full sphere engagement capability these days.
A lot of high tech toys inside those little fuckers.
Have you actually read any of my posts lately?
I stated specifically that the AIM-9 was simple "in most of its iterations." The post-2000 joint misile project got away from the "simple as a washing machine" concept, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the simple AIM-9 was a great system, with well over half of all AAM kills to its credit (even more overwhelmingly if one includes its identical twin, \the AA-2 Atoll - coped so slavishly the Soviets used the exact same component numbers on the parts).
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2009, 05:09:09 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2009, 10:06:30 PM
Have you seen a sidewinder lately?
They have full sphere engagement capability these days.
A lot of high tech toys inside those little fuckers.
Have you actually read any of my posts lately?
I stated specifically that the AIM-9 was simple "in most of its iterations." The post-2000 joint misile project got away from the "simple as a washing machine" concept, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the simple AIM-9 was a great system, with well over half of all AAM kills to its credit (even more overwhelmingly if one includes its identical twin, \the AA-2 Atoll - coped so slavishly the Soviets used the exact same component numbers on the parts).
I don't really think the missile of today has anything to do with the Vietnam era original, the Falklands war version or the modern missile. I would presume that the only component still "similar" is the missile housing.
Quote from: Viking on July 07, 2009, 05:26:16 AM
I don't really think the missile of today has anything to do with the Vietnam era original, the Falklands war version or the modern missile. I would presume that the only component still "similar" is the missile housing.
Up thorough the AIM-9L/M, the missile was essentially the same, with simply improved seeker components and more efficient engines/control surfaces/fuel to boost range. After that, the versions got a lot more complex, and at that point became not "the least" any more (in fact, it was ASRAAM, just called the Sidewinder).
And the missile IOCed in 1952, so even the "vietnam Era original" wasn't original in Vietnam.
Quote from: Viking on July 07, 2009, 04:52:26 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 07, 2009, 01:04:03 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 07, 2009, 12:59:22 AM
This was one of the weapons with "least" it just didn't accomplish anything.
Kinda like the Jap balloon bombs.
At least the balloon bombs burned down some trees in the pacific north west :contract:
Some civilians were actually killed. People on a picnic who found one of them.
And the Hanford (sp? in Washington state I think) nuclear site had its electricity interrupted briefly by a ballon coming down on the wires, shorting the lines or something like that. I kind of found that ironic, given that the plant was probably working on nuke tech which would be used on Japan.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2009, 05:09:09 AM
Have you actually read any of my posts lately?
I ussually don't read your posts. They are too long and with too many technical details.
I ussually read one-liners only, unless it is a post thrashing moonslims.
Can grumbler please get back on topic: WW2? :mad:
Nobody liked my escort carrier suggestion?
Quote from: Siege on July 07, 2009, 09:58:24 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2009, 05:09:09 AM
Have you actually read any of my posts lately?
I ussually don't read your posts. They are too long and with too many technical details.
I ussually read one-liners only, unless it is a post thrashing moonslims.
How do they give you orders in the military?
"That Israeli sergeant, yeah he's a pretty good soldier. You just have to speak very slowly to him and show alot of pictures before he catches on."
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
Nobody liked my escort carrier suggestion?
Why are they called Jeep carriers anyway?
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
Nobody liked my escort carrier suggestion?
Hmm... that is probably a decent idea, now that I think about it. Those carriers were cheap, easily built or adapted on to other hulls. Small and just carried a few aircraft but that was enough for patrols alongside convoys, or to provide air support for ground troops during island invasions, or what ever. And many of carriers were easily/quickly produced.
liberty ships?
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
Nobody liked my escort carrier suggestion?
While good for morale developing specially designed vehicles for the transport of prostitutes is probably wasteful.
Quote from: Norgy on July 06, 2009, 11:41:51 PM
NOT AMUSED! DOGS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
Uh, it's not a joke, Norgy. The Soviets actually did use mine dogs. Or tried them, at least.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2009, 12:57:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
Nobody liked my escort carrier suggestion?
While good for morale developing specially designed vehicles for the transport of prostitutes is probably wasteful.
Nice :lol:
Quote from: dps on July 07, 2009, 12:58:18 PM
Quote from: Norgy on July 06, 2009, 11:41:51 PM
NOT AMUSED! DOGS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
Uh, it's not a joke, Norgy. The Soviets actually did use mine dogs. Or tried them, at least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata3.primeportal.net%2Farmory%2Fyuri_pasholok%2Fanti-tank_dog%2Fimages%2Fanti-tank_dog_05_of_17.jpg&hash=eb01018c5f94f9dd2819aa008ed0131f64feed8a)
Quote from: Viking on July 07, 2009, 12:43:06 PM
liberty ships?
Oh yeah, Liberty ships were a huge factor! They certainly could do a lot with the least - very cheaply and quickly built. Shipyards had contests on building them in record time. A few days or so in many cases. Used pre-fab parts. Astonished the allies with the speed of building and how important a factor it was to obtain all that shipping space, let alone the axis who could only look on in disappointment. Those huge numbers of ships meant that much more war material getting to the fronts.
That's a well trained dog to just stand there in a glass case all day.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 04, 2009, 03:28:25 PM
Pz III variants. Conquered France and half of Russia with a 50 mm gun. No points for beating up the Brits in North Africa.
The Pzkw III's in the 1940 France campaign had 37mm guns :nerd:
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
Nobody liked my escort carrier suggestion?
Not all that much. I have yet to read anything that suggests that close air support was as important a factor in the Pacific as it was in Europe.
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2009, 01:41:03 PM
The Pzkw III's in the 1940 France campaign had 37mm guns :nerd:
Not if you amass enough victory points in the Polish campaign to upgrade.:nerd:
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
Nobody liked my escort carrier suggestion?
They are not a bad suggestion, though the Brits had a lot less luck with them in their primary role (convoy escort) than the US did in the Pacific.
I think it pretty easy to overestimate their effectiveness, though; after building half a dozen on an oiler hull, the US decided that building the ships as oilers was the better option.
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 01:05:14 PM
Oh yeah, Liberty ships were a huge factor! They certainly could do a lot with the least - very cheaply and quickly built. Shipyards had contests on building them in record time. A few days or so in many cases. Used pre-fab parts. Astonished the allies with the speed of building and how important a factor it was to obtain all that shipping space, let alone the axis who could only look on in disappointment. Those huge numbers of ships meant that much more war material getting to the fronts.
Disagree that Liberty ships were ships with "the least." They were not cheap (in fact, they were more expensive on a tonnage basis than standard ships) and their sole real edge was that they could be made quickly. Other than that, they were just slow, medium-sized freighters remarkable for numbers more than capabilities.
Had the Victory design been adopted instead (as it later was), then maybe an argument could be made. As it was, I think the LST design was more important among the "less capable" ship designs than was the Liberty ship (and would note for our Anglophiles that both were British conceptions).
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2009, 01:41:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 04, 2009, 03:28:25 PM
Pz III variants. Conquered France and half of Russia with a 50 mm gun. No points for beating up the Brits in North Africa.
The Pzkw III's in the 1940 France campaign had 37mm guns :nerd:
I totally beat you to it. Alot of them used the old 37s in Russia as well.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2009, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 01:05:14 PM
Oh yeah, Liberty ships were a huge factor! They certainly could do a lot with the least - very cheaply and quickly built. Shipyards had contests on building them in record time. A few days or so in many cases. Used pre-fab parts. Astonished the allies with the speed of building and how important a factor it was to obtain all that shipping space, let alone the axis who could only look on in disappointment. Those huge numbers of ships meant that much more war material getting to the fronts.
Disagree that Liberty ships were ships with "the least." They were not cheap (in fact, they were more expensive on a tonnage basis than standard ships) and their sole real edge was that they could be made quickly. Other than that, they were just slow, medium-sized freighters remarkable for numbers more than capabilities.
Had the Victory design been adopted instead (as it later was), then maybe an argument could be made. As it was, I think the LST design was more important among the "less capable" ship designs than was the Liberty ship (and would note for our Anglophiles that both were British conceptions).
They were remarkable in that they had a very short expected life.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2009, 02:37:41 PM
They were remarkable in that they had a very short expected life.
Also that almost half of them developed stress fractures during their life.
Ironic that the Hog Islanders (the WW1 equivelents of the Liberty ships) actually out-performed their WW2 counterparts in almost every way.
I like motor torpedo boats.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 07, 2009, 02:53:55 PM
I like motor torpedo boats.
You're wrong to feel that way. People who idolize JFK are freaks.
Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2009, 03:01:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 07, 2009, 02:53:55 PM
I like motor torpedo boats.
You're wrong to feel that way. People who idolize JFK are freaks.
Not JFK, the skirmishing in the channel between the MTB's and the S-boats was always interesting to me.
Johnny boy is an overrated dickhead.
Some of the pictures of Italian interceptors in HOI2 lead me to think they may have been pretty. :wub:
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2009, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 01:05:14 PM
Oh yeah, Liberty ships were a huge factor! They certainly could do a lot with the least - very cheaply and quickly built. Shipyards had contests on building them in record time. A few days or so in many cases. Used pre-fab parts. Astonished the allies with the speed of building and how important a factor it was to obtain all that shipping space, let alone the axis who could only look on in disappointment. Those huge numbers of ships meant that much more war material getting to the fronts.
Disagree that Liberty ships were ships with "the least." They were not cheap (in fact, they were more expensive on a tonnage basis than standard ships) and their sole real edge was that they could be made quickly. Other than that, they were just slow, medium-sized freighters remarkable for numbers more than capabilities.
Also kind of a stretch to call them "weapons platforms.
Quote from: dps on July 07, 2009, 10:39:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2009, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 01:05:14 PM
Oh yeah, Liberty ships were a huge factor! They certainly could do a lot with the least - very cheaply and quickly built. Shipyards had contests on building them in record time. A few days or so in many cases. Used pre-fab parts. Astonished the allies with the speed of building and how important a factor it was to obtain all that shipping space, let alone the axis who could only look on in disappointment. Those huge numbers of ships meant that much more war material getting to the fronts.
Disagree that Liberty ships were ships with "the least." They were not cheap (in fact, they were more expensive on a tonnage basis than standard ships) and their sole real edge was that they could be made quickly. Other than that, they were just slow, medium-sized freighters remarkable for numbers more than capabilities.
Also kind of a stretch to call them "weapons platforms.
They had platforms. They carried weapons.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2009, 11:02:09 PM
Quote from: dps on July 07, 2009, 10:39:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2009, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 01:05:14 PM
Oh yeah, Liberty ships were a huge factor! They certainly could do a lot with the least - very cheaply and quickly built. Shipyards had contests on building them in record time. A few days or so in many cases. Used pre-fab parts. Astonished the allies with the speed of building and how important a factor it was to obtain all that shipping space, let alone the axis who could only look on in disappointment. Those huge numbers of ships meant that much more war material getting to the fronts.
Disagree that Liberty ships were ships with "the least." They were not cheap (in fact, they were more expensive on a tonnage basis than standard ships) and their sole real edge was that they could be made quickly. Other than that, they were just slow, medium-sized freighters remarkable for numbers more than capabilities.
Also kind of a stretch to call them "weapons platforms.
They had platforms. They carried weapons.
:lol:
Quote from: dps on July 07, 2009, 10:39:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2009, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 01:05:14 PM
Oh yeah, Liberty ships were a huge factor! They certainly could do a lot with the least - very cheaply and quickly built. Shipyards had contests on building them in record time. A few days or so in many cases. Used pre-fab parts. Astonished the allies with the speed of building and how important a factor it was to obtain all that shipping space, let alone the axis who could only look on in disappointment. Those huge numbers of ships meant that much more war material getting to the fronts.
Disagree that Liberty ships were ships with "the least." They were not cheap (in fact, they were more expensive on a tonnage basis than standard ships) and their sole real edge was that they could be made quickly. Other than that, they were just slow, medium-sized freighters remarkable for numbers more than capabilities.
Also kind of a stretch to call them "weapons platforms.
They had platforms called decks and cargo holds and on those platforms there were weapons... lots of weapons....
Think of the liberty ship as part of every weapons system. To drop a bomb on berlin you need to transport the bomb first to the airfield.
Destroyers were used for that.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2009, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 01:05:14 PM
Oh yeah, Liberty ships were a huge factor! They certainly could do a lot with the least - very cheaply and quickly built. Shipyards had contests on building them in record time. A few days or so in many cases. Used pre-fab parts. Astonished the allies with the speed of building and how important a factor it was to obtain all that shipping space, let alone the axis who could only look on in disappointment. Those huge numbers of ships meant that much more war material getting to the fronts.
Disagree that Liberty ships were ships with "the least." They were not cheap (in fact, they were more expensive on a tonnage basis than standard ships) and their sole real edge was that they could be made quickly. Other than that, they were just slow, medium-sized freighters remarkable for numbers more than capabilities.
Had the Victory design been adopted instead (as it later was), then maybe an argument could be made. As it was, I think the LST design was more important among the "less capable" ship designs than was the Liberty ship (and would note for our Anglophiles that both were British conceptions).
Good points. I was thinking about the costs too, the prefab parts, and wondering if they were more expensive to build. Apparently they were, so weren't all that cheap as I said. But getting the ships needed was probably more important than the costs at the time. I can't disagree that it might have been better to build Victory ships sooner.
And I think the thing was that as unremarkable as the Liberty ships were, the sheer numbers allowed the allies to keep up the wartime shipping needs. And that was the big factor in keeping the military forces and civilian needs supplied. Especially after U-Boats had sunk so much tonnage earlier in the war.
The ships weren't really built to last, though a few are running today, or as war memorials. I think one of those memorials still goes on cruises for visitors.
Quote from: KRonn on July 08, 2009, 07:51:49 AM
The ships weren't really built to last, though a few are running today, or as war memorials. I think one of those memorials still goes on cruises for visitors.
Its in Baltimore, and if I was ever in the area with $140 I didn't need I'd probably go on it.
http://www.liberty-ship.com/
Quote from: vonmoltke on July 08, 2009, 08:47:13 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 08, 2009, 07:51:49 AM
The ships weren't really built to last, though a few are running today, or as war memorials. I think one of those memorials still goes on cruises for visitors.
Its in Baltimore, and if I was ever in the area with $140 I didn't need I'd probably go on it.
http://www.liberty-ship.com/
:cool:
Quote from: vonmoltke on July 08, 2009, 08:47:13 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 08, 2009, 07:51:49 AM
The ships weren't really built to last, though a few are running today, or as war memorials. I think one of those memorials still goes on cruises for visitors.
Its in Baltimore, and if I was ever in the area with $140 I didn't need I'd probably go on it.
http://www.liberty-ship.com/
OK, now there is one reason to go to Baltimore.
Quote from: vonmoltke on July 08, 2009, 08:47:13 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 08, 2009, 07:51:49 AM
The ships weren't really built to last, though a few are running today, or as war memorials. I think one of those memorials still goes on cruises for visitors.
Its in Baltimore, and if I was ever in the area with $140 I didn't need I'd probably go on it.
http://www.liberty-ship.com/
Yup, they dock it right next to the USNS Comfort.