 |
| |
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:18
|
|
quote:
Well that, yes, but mainly makers of crummy aircraft. |
What is it a joke or you want a round 9... or 10?
Ah and one more thing:
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
I'm sure."Maybe you interviewed Cadets"
"When were you ever iN Russia"
Calling me a liar is an insult, and I wasn't saying anything about Russia, but about Soviets.
Big difference.
Not only that, by saying I can't tell a cadet from an active duty officer is akin to calling me a moron.
Little boy got what he gave, same as always. |
First it was after you called me an ass and second compare this to what I've exactly said: And I'm curious, in 1991 was it already allowed for active duty frontal aviation pilots to gave interviews? Are you sure was not tricked by cadets?
Were is a word LIER in my post. I've asked to you to tell me more about people you interviewed and when it happent. Because I'm sure that in times of SU it was impossible for Russian pilots to gave interview for foreigners about our planes.
You become mad and said that I'm a son of the B1tch of the first category for you. And continued your insults later without any reasons.
So, stop this BS, I did not insulted you.
quote:
And for the record, the date we conducted interviews was december of 1991, and most of the pilots were quite forthright, as are all military personel when dealing with other military personel, no matter what uniform they wear. |
This is what I've wanted to hear- an answer to my question, not your insults.
Last edited by Serb on 27-03-2002 at 15:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Because I'm sure that in times of SU it was imopossible thing that Russian pilots were interviewed by foreigners about our planes. |
How can you be so sure? Soviet Union was near breaking apart, their economy was near collapsing so maybe they were seeking for good relations with the wealthy West. So maybe they did permited a single interview, don't be so negative about it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
What is it a joke or you want a round 9... or 10? |
Relax, my mistake was treating you like anyone else.
If I had known you were so sensitive, I never would have bothered with you.
quote:
Ah and one more thing:
First it was after you called me an ass and second compare this to what I've exactly said: And I'm curious, in 1991 was it already allowed for active duty frontal aviation pilots to gave interviews? Are you sure was not tricked by cadets? |
That is an insulting comment, what I sad was treating you like a regular guy, but that was a mistake.
quote:
Were is a word LIER in my post. I've asked to you to tell me more about people you interviewed and when it happent. Because I'm sure that in times of SU it was impossible for Russian pilots to gave interview for foreigners about our planes. |
What you don't understand, is that people say things off the record, because they don't want to look like fools.
I never printed what they said, the offical word was what military life is like above the artic circle (something I have done on Nato excercises, it's why I got the assignment)
quote:
You become mad and said that I'm a son of the B1tch of the first category for you. And continued your insults later without any reasons.
So, stop this BS, I did not insulted you. |
You continued flag waving, maybe now you understand what you did and why it angered me, and why you deserve what you got.
I said simple SOB, something along those lines, american slang.
quote:
This is what I've wanted to hear- an answer to my question, not your insults. |
Then next time, ask without insults and you will get it.
The world is quite different from what many people believe, we talked with our Soviet couterparts quite ofetn in the past.
KGB wasn't popular with military organizations.
quote:
In 1961 on the crisis of the missiles in Cuba when the Russians tried to put some nuclear missiles in Cuba the Americans had threatened with war Soviet Union if they wouldn't take them off the island. A fair demand in my opinion. |
Keygan, did you know that the real reason the Soviets backed down?
Kennedy made a secret deal with Kruschef to remove American missles from Turkey in exchange for Cuba, under the provision that it remain secret. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's not a fighting aircraft. How can it be *dominating*? |
It was able to fly anywhere in the World and nobody could stop it. Even the best SAM could not shoot it down. It flew to fast and to high. All anyone could do is watch it on their radar scope and then ask the U.S. please do not fly over our country.
BTW we had another plane the was very fast. It flew up to 4,000 MPH plus and to a height of 348,000 feet. Anybody? Not the Shuttle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The X-15? |
Yes you are correct.
I saw one in San Diego in 1962. They put in on display. It was the first X-15 that flew.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
It's insider stuff, Chris. He was a long time worker at the shipyard where both my boats (Drum and Guitarro) were constructed. I was also at that shipyard in the early 90's when Guitarro was decomissioned. 65 is short for SSN665 (Guitarro). It is famous for sinking at the pier during construction at MINSY. |
I wish I was still at MI. Sept. 90 to July 92 Code 970 Electrical Group Training. July 92 to May 94 Shop 11 Test Supervisor on Los Angeles SSN 688. May 94 to Nov 95 Base Closure. The small group (about 10 guy) that I worked with during base closure close more building then the other two group together. We received a $500. award for it. I will try to forget how many Ballest tanks I have closed in 30 years.
Hey a little fact. The keel plaque on the SSN 677, I had to cut it away from the keel shortly after the keel laying ceremoney. I was told it may be in LB Johnson library.
Another little fact. I was the only person who did not serve on a Sub. during my Naval Service to be assigned to Code 290 Test Engineering Group Training Dept. in 1986
Sorry Chris did not mean to put anyone in the dark. Those who rode the Sub. (Boats) and those of us who built, repaired and overhaul them sometime forgets that.
Last edited by on 29-03-2002 at 07:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
A lot of interesting posts, and a dull mudfight thrown in for padding. I'm surprised that so many people chose the Zero as the most dominant aircraft without touching on it's most important advantage over Allied aircraft during it's period of dominance, which was it's range. Range was especially important in the Pacific theatre where suitable airbases were few and far between in most areas. Range allows aircraft to concentrate in greater numbers at a critical point, and it allows aircraft to disperse to exploit diverse targets as well. It allows aircaft to strike deep into enemy rear areas, and it allows aircraft to operate from bases which shorter range aircraft cannot strike while retaining the ability to attack the enemy's bases. It is a huge advantage, and one of the main reasons planes like the Zero, the P-38, P-47, P-51 etc. were so important strategically.
Another important thing to note which has been mentioned already tangentially is that this thread supports an idea that is at best an exageration and at worst misleading, namely the idea that a particular airframe can in and of itself dominate. It is important to note that airframes do not fight each other, air forces fight each other, and airframes are only a part of that. Doctrine, logistics, strategy, pilot quality, numbers etc. can make up for fairly large qualitative disadvantages in airframes.
This is why the U.S. Air Force is so good, because it excels in many areas. It's airframes are not necessarily the best in every aspect across the board, but they are amongst the best in almost every area, there are a lot of them, their crews are very well-trained, the aircraft are well-maintained, their tactical and strategic doctrines are sound, and the organization has combat experience at every level of command. This leads to success.
The Japanese in WWII started with a good fighter (the Zero) which had superlative range, and of course superlative pilot quality. However this plane was designed for a tactical doctrine which was already outmoded at the beginning of the war (dogfighting, ie maneuver stressed over speed, hardiness and performance at altitude). Though the Allies were a bit slow on the uptake, Japanese success goaded them into adapting to the situation by adjusting their tactics to their own strengths and to Japanese weaknesses just as Japanese success led them to become somewhat complacent.
This process was aided by the fact that the European theatre was already pointing out what worked well and what didn't, and the rather sanguine attitude of the Japanese in regards to the safety of their pilots meant that often the first mistake was a pilot's last, while the Allied doctrine of spending a good deal more effort protecting and rescuing pilots meant that the qualitative advantage of the Japanese was fairly short-lived. By the time the Japanese realized that there was a problem (or more correctly a number of them) it was too late. The Allies were training masses of pilots, and retraining the pilots that they already had to use improved tactics. By the time newer airframes were introduced the weight of greater Allied numbers, improved pilot skills, improved tactics, radar, theatre-wide air doctrine etc. was already to the point where the Japanese stood very little chance of recovering the initiative or closing the gap.
Ironically, this led a lot of people to overstate the degree to which the mid-war airframes (like the F4U and F6F) were improvements over their predecessors. Though the improved range of these planes was important, none of them had the range of the Zero. Their improvements in powerplant, firepower, performance at altitude, speed etc. were good, but the truly large advances in quality wouldn't come until the late phases of the war with planes like the P-47 and P-51 which were dominant not only in the aggregate but in almost every category. The Japanese lost the air war at the highest level, and were defeated in detail every step down the line until they couldn't even stand up in a fight where they were able to align most of the factors to their own advantage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
This must be on the front page.
The F-15 is still the best because of its record over the last 20 years. No other plane in history has performed as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Keygen
Sikander,
That was a exellent post and very informative 
Joseph,
Altough I believe that F-15 was the best fighter for the past 20 years it has not been fully tested on the battle field.
Even in the Gulf War its use was not as extensive as F-16's or F-18's and it was reasonable since it is a very expencive aircraft and couldn't be risked to get shooted down. |
Most of the kills were made by the F-15. One of my books show every single Kill made by the American. I will look for it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-03-2002 11:18
a sink hole that has long been a blot on human freedom, right??? 
Did any other superpower ever acted differently?
|