Jump to content

Bloodsplatter

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

68 Excellent

About Bloodsplatter

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

426 profile views
  1. Mr Williams, Customers always complain. It's expected in every business. The British Museum has a complaint from a trader called Ea-nasir from 3750 years ago so this is definately nothing new. What is unusual is having the business owner then call his customers 'jerks' or telling them they are ', so self-righteous it's nauseating'. If dealing with the customers is upsetting you so much, maybe it's time appoint someone as your customer representative.
  2. Back to the original topic. When it comes to the effectiveness of RP3's against German tanks, there's two completely opposing views taken by the people of the time. On one side, we have... The Allied Generals, who wouldn't have kept sending Typhoons against German Armour if they didn't think it was effective. The German Generals, who claimed Typhoons did a lot of damage to their tanks The Typhoon pilots, who (while certainly overclaiming) felt their attacks were having results The German tankers, who feared the Rocket-Phoons The Allied Ground forces, who believed the Typhoons were effective when called in to take out 'Tanks or 88's' on the other hand, we have The Allied post-battle damage assessors, who believed the Typhoons had almost no effect on German Armour. Only one of these two groups can be right and one must be mistaken. While now-a-days, most tend to believe it's the damage assessors who are right, and all the Combatants mistaken, back when most of the Combatants were still alive, it was the Combatants who were believed. I think both sides have valid arguments and I respect the opinion of those who believe in the damage assessors, but I personally believe the damage assessors were confusing rocket damage with artillery damage and that the Combatant knew what they were talking about. Having said all that, I don't think Typhoons were slaughtering Tanks all over the place. During WW1, the machine gun was the dominant weapon. Troops caught in the open were slaughtered by machine guns so the troops were forced to dig in, completely changing the battlefield. Once they were stationary, they became easy targets for artillery which did most of the killing in WW1, but it was the machine gun that created this environment. For most of the war, machine guns didn't do a lot of killing as they lacked targets but they were always a Threat-in-being, waiting for an opportunity to strike, and troops lived in dread of having to go Over-the-top and face them. IMHO, the Rocket Typhoon was the dominant Anti-Armour weapon of the Western Front. German tanks caught stationary and in the open were going to take casualties. It may have taken 21 rockets per hit, but the Typhoons could keep coming all day. This caused the Germans to take measures not to be caught stationary and in the open with their tanks, changing how they used their tanks and the battlefield in the process. Like the machine gun, the Typhoon never took as heavy a toll on the enemy as it could for lack of clear targets, but it was the weapon the enemy dreaded to face.
  3. AP RP3's were used on most of the Anti-Sub aircraft flown by the allies Grumman Avengers Fairey Swordfish Vickers Wellington Lockheed Hudson And even the Consolidated Liberator The allies wouldn't have wasted their time if rockets were ineffective.
  4. RP3's were carried by Coastal Command aircraft. Typhoons never hunted subs. The first U-Boat destroyed with the assistance of a rocket attack was U-752 (Kapitän-Leutnant Schroeter), on 23 May 1943, by a Swordfish of 819 NAS.
  5. As for accuracy, it's true that an experiment in England with two flights of Typhoons firing 64 RP3 rockets only resulted in 3 hits, but that's 3 tanks out of the battle from 8 sorties. At Mortain, the Tiffies flew over 500 sorties. Using the same ratio, that's 188hits! The RP3 was admitted by the Kriegsmarine as the reason they stopped using Flak Subs. The RP3 was too effective in sinking Uboats if they tried to stay topside and fight. If you can hit a sub that's mostly underwater while flying into the subs flak with absolutely no cover, surely hitting the lines of tanks caught in the traffic jams at Mortain must have been equally possible. Picture of the target Panther during the British RP3 test. The 8 Tiffies hit it 3 times.
  6. In defence of the 60lb HE RP3 During WW2, Soviet SU152 & ISU152 found that their most effective round for destroying German tanks was the APHE round for their 152mm ML20 Gun-Howitzer. Hits from a APHE shell on anything but the front armour of the heaviest German tanks resulted in the complete destruction of the vehicle and death of the crew. However, as a typical loadout was 8 rounds of APHE & 12 rounds of HE, it wasn't uncommon to find themselves facing German armour with only HE left in their racks. This wasn't a problem as Soviet crews found that a single round of HE almost always put an enemy tank out of action. While a single HE hit rarely destroyed a enemy tank, hits from a 152mm HE would cause enough concussion to kill or wound crew members close to the impact point. Hits would jam turrets & escape hatches, knock out main guns, destroy machine guns, destroy or miss align sights, smash vision devices, wipe out radio antennas, break tracks & smash suspensions. Unlike tanks hit by APHE, tanks hit by HE could be repaired and fight again, but they were out of the battle, often for some considerable time. As the RP3 has almost the same velocity, weight and explosive content as a 152mm ML20 HE round, this is exactly the same type of damage that Typhoons would have been inflicting. Lots of badly damaged & tactically useless tanks but few destroyed ones. The big difference is that ISU152 fought on the front line where a disabled & defenseless German tank could possibly be captured. Typhoons were generally shooting at tanks well behind the lines. The Germans were known to have a efficient battlefield recovery service to collect damaged but not destroyed tanks and get them back for repairs. That the investigators found very few tanks damaged by Typhoon attack on the Mortain battlefield doesn't surprise me at all. It's exactly what you would expect. That doesn't mean the Typhoons weren't being effective though. Soldiers quickly become accustomed to their environments. Soldiers learn what's dangerous and what they need to fear and ignore the rest. We've all heard the story's of the newbie next to vets when coming under arty fire. Of how the vet ignores the shells until he hears one that is going to land close. Only then does he take cover. Soldiers only fear that which can hurt them. German tanks didn't fear the Tiffy just because it made a loud scary noise. They feared it because it killed German crews. It took the highly experienced 2nd SS Panzer almost two weeks to drive across France after the D-Day landings. Two weeks wasted when they were desperately need because they feared Typhoon attack.
  7. Typhoons were produced beside the Tempest right to the end of the war. There's a doco online where one of the Typhoon designers explains the reason why. Apparently, the Typhoons thick wing, while not great for high speed flight, was absolutely fantastic for lifting a heavy load of bombs or rockets off a short dirt airstrip, and just as importantly, landing with them if not used. This was the reason that it was the Typhoons squadrons which were rushed into France after D-Day. Typhoons could take off in marginal conditions and if unable to find targets, could return and use their ordnance another day. Tempests, P51's & P47's operating off grass couldn't safely carry full weapon loads and then had to jettison bombs & rockets that were always in short supply in Normandy if targets couldn't be found before RTB'ing. The Typhoons ability to operate safely on shorter improvised strips allowed the Allies to reserve captured airfields with proper runways for those aircraft that need them. The battles in the west of 1944 & 45 would have been much bloodier and drawn out without the magnificent & under appreciated Typhoon.
  8. You miss understand. In 1918, the German were worried about lossing honor, so to make the fighting more challenging and the wins more honorable, they decided to phase out their best fighters. The Pfalz (just like in ROF) is the best so it was first out. The Albie is better than the D.VII so it was next to go. You can see an example of this in the genuine combat film, 'Blue Max'. You can see how upset Stachel is when he's told he'll be flying the vastly superior Pfalz and hence winning no honor with it's easy kills while Kluger wins all the glory in the hopeless Fokker! /s
  9. This year will be my 23rd year as a professional firefighter at a city station. I've been to a lot of car fires. If I had to guess, I'd say I've been to over 50. In that time I've seen shock absorbers pop, gas struts blow & tires burst. I've seen jets of flames coming out of petrol fillers. I've had plastic tanks give way dumping their contents. What I've never ever had is a fuel tank explode. Why? Because fuel is not an explosive. An explosive must have a self contained supply of oxygen. Fuel doesn't. It can burn if given oxygen & an ignition source. It can even detonate if fuel vapours are mixed with air but liquid fuel will never explode. Ever. Full stop. I once attended an incident where a gent was cutting the top off an empty 44 gallon drum with oxy acetylene. He'd rinsed out the drum before hand but there was still enough residue fuel vapour to cause a detonation and rip half the lid off. He was pretty badly concussed. But on an explosive scale, it was pathetic. The amount of fuel found as a vapour within the drum would have only been grams. Grams will not blow a fighter apart. If this had been the fuel air mixture in a partially empty aircraft fuel tank, my guess is it would have burst the tank dumping the now burning remaining fuel into the fuselage, turning the aircraft into a massive fireball. On a side note, while fuel won't explode because it lacks oxygen, hitting the oxygen bottle of a burning fighter must have caused a massive boom!
  10. Tests by Rolls Royce showed early Merlin 66 tended to die after 27hrs of continuous WEP. Modifications were made until RR was getting 100hrs with one engine doing 100hrs continuous WEP on a bench before doing another 100 hrs WEP flying without servicing. It's the height of silliness now where a DB605DC can do 45 minutes of continuous ADI/WEP at boost pressures we're not sure it even used, and yet the Merlin 66 will blow in 6 minutes.
  11. Dogfighting AI K4's in the P47 at 25,000ft. My target rolled over and dived for the deck (never seen AI do this before), so I followed. I thought for sure that I'd easily catch him in the dive, or at least get an easy kill with my better high-speed control on the pull-out. But no, the K4 (1.8 ata) actually seemed to pull away from me in a dive and then pulled out of it much faster than I was able to at 10,000ft, my controls being pretty much frozen. I didn't even come close to blacking out and even though the 109 was going as fast or faster than me, he pulled out of the dive easily while I was struggling to level out. Wasn't lack of high speed control supposed to me an issue with the 109?
  12. Does anyone know where the undercarriage indicator is on the P47. I had a bloke look but can't find it.
  13. I've been flying the new American fighter against the new German fighter! The P47 won't turn with the Pfalz D.III at all! This game is PORKED! PORKED!!! 😄
  14. In the 'Typhoon at War' documentary which can be found on youtube, a Tiffie pilot talks about how they cruised at almost 400mph and how the Bf109's & Fw190's needed to be well above them for a chance to catch them. The Tempest should be even better.
  15. Bzc3lk, I agree with you, I think there's a lot more single players than multiplayer, but the single players tend to be more casual. Very few of the single players play with the consistency of the multiplayer crowd. The multiplayers are the diehards who will buy every version and every custom plane. Let me give you two examples of Jason's focus. In Jason's first game, ROF, there was over $300 USD of aircraft and mods you could buy which made multiplayer awesome, but they NEVER finished the single player campaign. Never! It's still in beta now! In this, Jason's second game (BoX), the single player campaign for the first two installments (BoS & BoM) was a just a mission generator that gave you a campaign 'win' if you did enough missions. Seriously, that's not a focus on single player. That's the bare minimum to to be able to put 'Has a single player campaign!' on the box!
×
×
  • Create New...