Jump to content
1_Robert_

109 guns

Recommended Posts

In my Experience 2 or 3 good Cannon Poofs on an enemy fighter will Force them to RTB. That's with 190, 110G and 109F and G. I had a number of Time where 1 or 2 hits into the Wing left a Yak or LaGG to Gravity, as the Wings went their seperate Ways. 

 

And then there are the 10% where you just pour into them and they continue flying, leaking out of a Million Holes but still on full control. 

 

I have flown enough Peshka to have Wings cut of by 1 Aircraft in 1 Pass, and I had times where 5 were making Pass after Pass on me, riddled me to swiss Cheese, everything leaking, shot me within an inch of my life, forcing me to ditch in the Wilderness to count my Bulletholes. The Truth is somewhere inbetween. 

 

What you have to remember with the Peshka is that it's structure is built to withstand 800kph Dives at twice the weight as a Stuka. It's built to withstand more Gs  than a Stuka as well. 

It probably has the strongest Structure of any ingame Aircraft, Destroying its Structure is not the Way to go. If you get it to smoke Black and White from both engines is your cue to leave it alone. 

 

Gunner Survivability is too high though probably. 

 

Il-2s are 1 Pass Kills most of the time, at least I as an Il-2 Pilot feel that way. 

P-40s are very tough, but Engine and Pilot are vulnerable. 

LaGGs and Yaks are very similar in sturdiness. 

 

 

On an Action and Duel Server People will never disengage and survival is unimportant, so even a half wrecked plane will remain fighting, and therefore still a threat. 

 

On a War Server however, Fights are different, more tactical and high speed, and diving and disengaging is a more attractive option if you have any kind of Engine or Radiator Damage and need to RTB. Following a wounded enemy is always a risk as he will pull you towards his Friends and force you to loose your Energy advantage by diving down low. 

And here neither side has any advantage. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it fair to say that firing from the target's 6 is probably the worst position as far as damage odds? I understand that all aircraft have different strengths and weakness locations, but as far as a general rule of thumb to be applied to all aircraft, is it better to avoid direct 6 oclock shooting?  

yea sort of. mg151 20 has trashy ap rounds much worse then even 12.7 and apparently they arent always enough to pk a fighter pilot from dead 6 o clock.

 

On the other hand 1 shot at high deflection angle hitting an engine is enough.

 

Generally speaking mg151 20 does ~20% more dps compared to a shvak. its special property is that it has a large splash damage potential. if you hit a fighter wing with HE the engine also gets damaged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 20-mm ammo belt of 109s  in BoS has lots of AP rounds, whereas in IL-2 1946, the 109s' 20-mm ammo belt has only HE rounds.

Which is more historically accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of a poll to find out what we virtual pilots think is a good idea. What is wrong with that?

I do not understand why some people get so aggressive and offensive every time this issue pops up. Making the easy joke or saying stuff like "Luftwhinner" does not win the discussion. It's just plain stupid.

Let the pilots express their ideas and support their arguments.

Edited by -=PHX=-Spartan-
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hands up if you think the pe2 video is realistic. Its ok to me, but i cant lie i think its realistic. Solty,did you rise your hand? :)

Read again what I said and then ask yourself if your sarcastic and omitting comments are necessary or even useful.

 

I have tackled the crew state in my post.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh Solty, good to see you branch out and spread your nonsense in other parts of the Internet than just the ED forum.

 

Don't bother Vessel, it's not worth it. In his eyes all 109s are flying Panzer Tiger and the only thing that stands a chance are mustangs with laser guided artillery shells and 1000 octane boost.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are biased. Part of our nature. Some just like to show that to the rest of the world. Look at Kurfurst, hes been pushing his agenda for the past 15 years among all possible flight sim and history forums. 

Also, you could make reverse that argument very nicely since there are plenty of 109/190 pilots who never flew any Red aircraft but seem to think they know exactly how they should perform. Plenty of anecdotes, coupled with wishful thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever wonder why modern jets have 20mms which fire at 6000 rounds per minute?

 

Because 20mm rounds are not howitzer shells, and to ensure a kill you need a lot of rounds on target...  Seems to me watching the video's that the 20mm is pretty damn effective...

 

I don't think that's correct.

 

Because modern jets fly very very fast. A low rate of fire (like 10 round/second of WWII cannons) has large gaps between shells fired, meaning that the target aircraft can very often fly through these gaps without being hit, even if the attacker's aim is perfect. So a modern jet is far more difficult to hit with a WWII rate of fire.

Edited by wonders9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at Kurfurst, hes been pushing his agenda for the past 15 years among all possible flight sim and history forums.

 

So, care to detail what is my 'agenda' exactly is, apart from - let me guess - resurrecting the Third Reich, cloning Hitler (and his dog Blondie) and perhaps sacrificing 10,000 souls daily to Satan himself? Oh. Occasionally correcting the incessant of posts from your buddy Solty/random allied fanboys for more boost, better guns, better everything for the P-51/random Allied plane, hmm...?

 

I guess I am also guilty providing historical resources to the many Developers of various flight sims, who BTW for some unfathomable reason seem to often listen to my 'agenda', and, uhm, basically anyone who visits my site where he can read the most of the stuff I have managed to transcribe in my free time.

 

Somehow I sense that of all things, I am most guilty on the latter account - that well documented historical sources trump fantasies. :)

  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure Vessel. The funny thing is that 190 doesn't have the problems I have written above.

 

I flew 109s and Spits almost exclusively in Il2 46.

 

I have read a lot of Kurfurst-mined propaganda of 109 beening "the best" fighter and how skilled pilot can easily out turn Spitfires and how MG151 is the best weapon and how if it wasn't for numerical superiority allies would have never won and how allies flew high altitude missions because they were cowards who didn't fly where true men fly and how 109 cockpit bars are placed in a way to be specific zones so that the pilot knows how much to pull and how lack of rudder trim was done to keep the pilots focused and how allies were dishonorable by shooting planes with gear down and how .50cal were ineffective against 109 because it was armored etc.

 

There are many more I have experienced from the other side. Don't tell me I am biased while you praise Kurfy. That's just dishonest to yourself.

 

What I said about DCS is true and it is experience talking. What I said about MG151 is backed by the video. If you still claim that it should mostly kill everything in 1-3 shots is your belief and not truth. If you hit well 1shot is enough.

 

Just as you choose to believe that Kurfurst has good intentions when creating a smear campaign against other people providing WW2 aircraft data.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's correct.

 

Because modern jets fly very very fast. A low rate of fire (like 10 round/second of WWII cannons) has large gaps between shells fired, meaning that the target aircraft can very often fly through these gaps without being hit, even if the attacker's aim is perfect. So a modern jet is far more difficult to hit with a WWII rate of fire.

Well some jets have lower rate of fire 30mm low ammo count cannons.

 

Like the Rafael with its 30mm cannon 2400 RPM and 125 shells. Which very much depends on gunnery compared to Vulcan 20mm

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some jets have lower rate of fire 30mm low ammo count cannons.

 

Like the Rafael with its 30mm cannon 2400 RPM and 125 shells. Which very much depends on gunnery compared to Vulcan 20mm

Maximum rate of fire is largely irrelevant. It just says how fast you are out of ammo. (Fast). What matters is how much you fire within the first (half) second you pull the trigger. Gattling type guns have significant speed up times compared to revolver cannons and deliver not nearly as many rounds in the initial half second than what is reflected in the max. fire rate. The Rafales GIAT 30 is indeed a very effective cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, care to detail what is my 'agenda' exactly is, apart from - let me guess - resurrecting the Third Reich, cloning Hitler (and his dog Blondie) and perhaps sacrificing 10,000 souls daily to Satan himself? Oh. Occasionally correcting the incessant of posts from your buddy Solty/random allied fanboys for more boost, better guns, better everything for the P-51/random Allied plane, hmm...?

 

I guess I am also guilty providing historical resources to the many Developers of various flight sims, who BTW for some unfathomable reason seem to often listen to my 'agenda', and, uhm, basically anyone who visits my site where he can read the most of the stuff I have managed to transcribe in my free time.

 

Somehow I sense that of all things, I am most guilty on the latter account - that well documented historical sources trump fantasies. :)

I would, but it would take more time for me then it really deserves, to bring all your posts from the last 15+ years on all kind of forums you were present - starting with old Il-2 forums and ending on DCS ones, not forgetting about ww2aircraft, axishistory and so on.

You are only guilty of twisting facts to your own liking and pretending the "result" of that is true. Threads like this will stick to your name for a long time: https://forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=99259

 

You may call Solty an allied fanboy, you may call others that way. But it usually takes one to know one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said about DCS is true and it is experience talking. What I said about MG151 is backed by the video. If you still claim that it should mostly kill everything in 1-3 shots is your belief and not truth. If you hit well 1shot is enough.

 

Except, as usual, it's not. Once again you make ridiculous claims about aircraft that you do not own, and do not fly. Anyone who has flown DCS knows that the current state of the damage models for WWII is a flaming heap of trash and it affects all aircraft. Unlike you, I have actually flown both the P-51 and the 109 in DCS and can tell you that both of them suffer from the silly thing that is DCS DM. I have seen P-51s absorb 3 or 4 or 5 Mk108 shells and fly on unharmed. I have killed 109s in 1 quick burst of 50 calibre fire. I have seen the opposite as well. Quit spreading nonsense and anecdotal evidence.

 

As you can see in Velcros post you can find 'video evidence' of whatever you want if you select the right footage to post.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://imgur.com/6f9sY6K

 

...Déjà vu...

Amazing guncam. German guncams usually do not have this quality. Nice!

 

But it stills proves my point, the Yak gets hit 8 times and small chunks fly away and the pilot probably got hit as he straightened out slowly from that turn, but the plane was continuing (nothing flew of just by hitting the plane) and then the last hit that one proper accurate hit to the fuel tank ignited the Yak.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, as usual, it's not. Once again you make ridiculous claims about aircraft that you do not own, and do not fly. Anyone who has flown DCS knows that the current state of the damage models for WWII is a flaming heap of trash and it affects all aircraft. Unlike you, I have actually flown both the P-51 and the 109 in DCS and can tell you that both of them suffer from the silly thing that is DCS DM. I have seen P-51s absorb 3 or 4 or 5 Mk108 shells and fly on unharmed. I have killed 109s in 1 quick burst of 50 calibre fire. I have seen the opposite as well. Quit spreading nonsense and anecdotal evidence.

 

As you can see in Velcros post you can find 'video evidence' of whatever you want if you select the right footage to post.

Thats the problem with your reasoning. You think that your every shot from 30mm should kill a P-51 and you get upset because of it. Damage model is realy, realy bad. I agree, but there are more and less egregious planes. I do not need to pay for the 109 to know how much time it takes to shoot it down.

 

Sure there is no difference by getting by Mk108 if it doesn't do full 100 damage (HP doesn't go down to 0) except the fact that your splash damage is so big that you can hit the Mustang into its elevator and the engine goes down. The 109 is just so small and it parts are scaled down that hitting those parts is repeatebly is very hard and that makes the 190 noticibly easier to destroy with .50cals comparably. Which is just plain sad. A short concentrated MG131 burst can easily destroy a Mustang wing because it has HE and that transfers to damage to nearby parts, while AP hits that one single part of the plane and it has to be precise.

 

I want to point out that I have used DCS as a point of reference to people to who claim that MG151 in BOX is bad. Compared to the way that DCS works and compared to real life data, the BOS DM seems to be very close and amazing. I wish there was a bit more detail like hydraulics, it is still 100x better than DCS DM.

 

The claim that Bf109 MG151 is bad at shooting down Soviet planes are overblown and down right ridiculous. It is as if I started saying that everytime I hit a wing with .50cals it should explode because I saw this:

 

Again, one good hit/burst with the proper weapon into a vulrable part can result with the part failing and allowing you to get a kill. Whether it is luck or accuracy if you hit it just right, it can go down quickly. If you just spray and pray everytime, don't be suprised that your target is still flying.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a LaGG-3 however.

The name of the recording is called "The devastating effects of 20mm Minengeschoss on a Yak-1"..

But you might be right it looks more like a LaGG, especially the wing profile. I didn't pay attention before. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.T.

Why are you talking about DCS that's does NOT have DM? Just to know.

Edited by 150GCT_Veltro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.T.

Why are you talking about DCS that's does NOT have DM? Just to know.

Because I wanted to use it as a reference point for people who claim that it is impossible to shoot accurately into a specific part of the plane, while it is the only way of shooting down a plane with some efficiency in DCS. That was basically my point before Default Face started tackling the subject  of DM on its own again.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall I really start posting pictures/video of what the Mk108 did to aircraft during WWII? Or any number of quotes from Mustang pilots who said that while they loved the aircraft, the one thing that almost all of them complain about is how little damage it could take?

 

Should a hit in the wingtip destroy the whole plane? No probably not, but 2 or 3 center mass hits should be more than enough.

 

I've actually done exactly what you posted in that video to 109s in DCS many times. I've also seen 109s have the whole rudder fall off and enter unrecoverable flat spins from 1 single hit by a 50. cal bullet at 800m in DCS, or the engine fail randomly 10 minutes after taking a single round in the elevators as well. As I said the DM sucks, and it is not only the Mustang that is disadvantaged by it.

 

 

O.T.

Why are you talking about DCS that's does NOT have DM? Just to know.

Because Solty likes to spread nonsense based on his personal love of the P-51. He does it in other forums and most certainly does it here in regards to BOS as well. Go ahead and call people Luftwhiner or whatever else you can think of, but don't pretend to be any better yourself.

Edited by 9./JG27DefaultFace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, but DCS is the last sim we need to considere for any sort of DM evaluations.

True, but I was pointing at both the game and IRL footage to come up with conclusions. I still think MG151 is great at killing planes, there are always some bugs and ping in the game that create a feedback problem, but overall the 20mm seems to be one of the most effective weapons.

 

DCS comparison was done only to provide a proof that one can shoot accurately at an airplane and not simply spray and pray and further evaluation was done on request read LST 2 pages pls because so far I am repeating my points just for you.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as people will "feel" those Pe-2 video, nobody here will never accept these MG151/20 as a definitive simulation of the German MG151/20. That's it, dead horse or not, even if we all agree that this one is the best sim ever, first of all because of its incredibile physic engine. There's still however some space for improvements.

 

About Bondenplatte ecc. ecc., wooden has ben stated as a better material for the 20mm than duraluminium, so we could expect a better effect on P-47 and P-51 structures, as for Yak-9, or now the Allied duraluminium was better than the Axis's one? In this thread i read something like a justification in advance about the unbreakable "American birds" coming in the next sim.

 

However we don't need to wait so much times. The next test about MG151/20 will be the A20B.

 

I agree about the aim, this is a very important aspect in this sim.

Edited by 150GCT_Veltro
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as people will "feel" those Pe-2 video, nobody here will never accept these MG151/20 as a definitive simulation of the German MG151/20. That's it, dead horse or not, even if we all agree that this one is the best sim ever, first of all because of its incredibile physic engine. There's still however some space for improvements.

 

About Bondenplatte ecc. ecc., wooden has ben stated as a better material for the 20mm than duraluminium, so we could expect a better effect on P-47 and P-51 structures, as for Yak-9, or now the Allied duraluminium was better than the Axis's one? In this thread i read something like a justification in advance about the unbreakable "American birds" coming in the next sim.

 

However we don't need to wait so much times. The next test about MG151/20 will be the A20B.

 

I agree about the aim, this is a very important aspect in this sim.

It's not wood vs aluminum. It's heavy structure (Fw190) vs weak structure (109).

 

The 109 is not only made from a very thin layer of aluminum (I suspect everybody knows that Messershmit always wanted evething to be as light as possible) and with only one wing spaar that is support for the whole construction of the wing.

 

The Fw190 though has around 4 of thicker spars, so when one is hit, the wing will not be completely compromised.

 

You can definitely expect the P-47 to take a lot of punishment, especially from 6 o'clock and to its wings due to the construction beeing so heavy. P-51D is not on the same level as P-47 but it is still sturdier than the 109. P-47 and Fw190A are going to be hard to kill with just few random hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not wood vs aluminum. It's heavy structure (Fw190) vs weak structure (109).

 

The 109 is not only made from a very thin layer of aluminum (I suspect everybody knows that Messershmit always wanted evething to be as light as possible) and with only one wing spaar that is support for the whole construction of the wing.

 

The Fw190 though has around 4 of thicker spars, so when one is hit, the wing will not be completely compromised.

 

You can definitely expect the P-47 to take a lot of punishment, especially from 6 o'clock and to its wings due to the construction beeing so heavy. P-51D is not on the same level as P-47 but it is still sturdier than the 109. P-47 and Fw190A are going to be hard to kill with just few random hits.

 

This shows that you have very little idea at all how these aircraft's structures actually look like.

 

FOUR spars on the 190, no less and 'very thin' cover plates on the 109... I presume you have never seen that wing or the I-beam spar in it from close otherwise you'd never say such thing. The wing's cover plates on the 109 are VERY thick, cc. 1.5-2 mm in thickness. They form a large torsion box and essentially the whole wing is a composite load bearing element in which the central I-beam is merely for providing rigidity and as force transition element to the fuselage joint. The fuselage joint is actually a rather massive forged steel part. Those 'thin' plates are the same plate thickness as the D-shaped leading edge on the Spitfire, and about the double or triple thickness as elsewhere on which so much was written about, expect this thickness is on the whole wing on 109.

 

Pretty neat illustration of the above, courtesy of MeierMotors (109E under restoration. Maybe worth noting that on the 109G the thickness of sheets and structural elements was increased)

 

Bf109%206-88%202012-09-14%289%29.jpg

 

In any case, there is way more to structural engineering than just counting spars and thickness of the layer of aluminium on it.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Shall I really start posting pictures/video of what the Mk108 did to aircraft during WWII? Or any number of quotes from Mustang pilots who said that while they loved the aircraft, the one thing that almost all of them complain about is how little damage it could take?

 

What is the context of this statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my memory is playing tricks on me. Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that 109 is less durable than the 190. Even now in BOX you can definitely feel the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not wood vs aluminum. It's heavy structure (Fw190) vs weak structure (109).

 

The 109 is not only made from a very thin layer of aluminum (I suspect everybody knows that Messershmit always wanted evething to be as light as possible) and with only one wing spaar that is support for the whole construction of the wing.

 

The Fw190 though has around 4 of thicker spars, so when one is hit, the wing will not be completely compromised.

 

You can definitely expect the P-47 to take a lot of punishment, especially from 6 o'clock and to its wings due to the construction beeing so heavy. P-51D is not on the same level as P-47 but it is still sturdier than the 109. P-47 and Fw190A are going to be hard to kill with just few random hits.

 

There is another one, the Macchi: wings with two longerons and duraluminiun reinforced everywhere, a sort of flying tank. So?

 

No wood but a very strong structure in duraluminiun.

Edited by 150GCT_Veltro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This shows that you have very little idea at all how these aircraft's structures actually look like.

 

FOUR spars on the 190, no less and 'very thin' cover plates on the 109... I presume you have never seen that wing or the I-beam spar in it from close otherwise you'd never say such thing. The wing's cover plates on the 109 are VERY thick, cc. 1.5-2 mm in thickness. They form a large torsion box and essentially the whole wing is a composite load bearing element in which the central I-beam is merely for providing rigidity and as force transition element to the fuselage joint. The fuselage joint is actually a rather massive forged steel part. Those 'thin' plates are the same plate thickness as the D-shaped leading edge on the Spitfire, and about the double or triple thickness as elsewhere on which so much was written about, expect this thickness is on the whole wing on 109.

 

In any case, there is way more to structural engineering than just counting spars and thickness of the layer of aluminium on it.

It's like a Monocoque and a Body on Frame Car. 

 

Single and Multispar Wings are two approaches to the same problem of torsional rigidity. Sturdiness then is only a question of how heavy you are willing to go. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an ignorant SoB he is. It's like a Monocoque and a Body on Frame Car. 

 

Single and Multispar Wings are two approaches to the same problem of torsional rigidity. Sturdiness then is only a question of how heavy you are willing to go. 

First of all, thats an insult and that goes to reports.

 

Secondly, if you have one wing spar and it falls of, nothing is holding the thing realy. If you have two and loose one another one is still there to hold it, barely, but still. And yes it depends on "how thick you are going to go" and as you can see with the P-40 one can go for more and thick and that creates a very sturdy wing.

 

Do you realy want to tell me that you think that one small 109 spar is just as good at holding the structure together after sustaining damage as the P-47's structure? I am talking only about COMBAT DAMAGE.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, do you own or fly in Il2:BOS, Solty?

Same question as always right Kurfy? Thats like your main thing, asking people about their money and what they own right?

 

I do and I prefer P-40E to every plane in the game. At least those .50cals do something compared to the other game :3

For the 109 guns. Is it possible to make any final conclusion? Is it ( in-game) too weak, just perfect, or too strong?

I think it is too weak. It should be about the same as the Hispano, right? But Hispano is much more poverfull cannon in-game. Or is it?

 

Solty i believe you try to be truthfull too. Interesting is why we all make so fifferent conclusions about the same thing. Can we solve this mystery?  No one did complaint the 109 guns before the change about 2015. Now it seems that there are very few happy 109 Gunners.

There were a lot of people saying that MG151 was too weak from the begining and Pe2 is actually a bit easier to kill than before.

 

I today shot down a Yak with a burst into his wing and with 2 hits broke his wing. I don't find the MG151 any weaker than Shvak. I can't say much about Hispano in this game as I do not have the Spit.

 

But I would say with confidence that MG151 does much better damage than Shvak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would know your Source with technical Background Solty? after you know exactly 1 Wing Spar can not take that amount of Damage? Diameter of the Wing Spar Bending and Lift Forces? Seems more like Pub Stories?

Would claim also Yak with only one Wing Spar could not even fly and take the bending force from normal Flight Conditions because its a complete different Wing Design?

 

And something for you British Report of the Wing from 1942 cheers...

 

This light and exceptionally rigid construction of the monospar wing was supposed to be inferior to the two-spar wing with regard to resistance to bullets. Experience gained from many operational flights, even under the most intense fire, does not, however, in any way confirm this view.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say they don't but I do not like the velocity and whenever I hit I seem to do very little. Its just my preference I do not like the Shvak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We agree to disagree. I think that you are currently focusing more on attacking me than creating any arguments. If you have anything to say that would prove otherwise and show how the 109 wing structure compares with 190,47 and 51 go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We agree to disagree. I think that you are currently focusing more on attacking me than creating any arguments. If you have anything to say that would prove otherwise and show how the 109 wing structure compares with 190,47 and 51 go ahead.

 

This is the problem, not you don't worry.

 

Everytime the same statement: "Prove that bla, bla, bla, etc. etc."  but what about this one: "Prove that one only Shvak could destroy a 109?"; "Prove that Pe-2 was so strong", "Prove that the 109 tail section was so weak and fragile that 2x12,7 could rip it" etc. etc.. What about this?

 

In all these years and months always the same song, but this song could be also inverted, please don't forget about it.

Edited by 150GCT_Veltro
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...