WWII Equipment - Vics, Aircraft and Kit

[C-Mag]

I wonder if British aircraft carriers had quirky little idiosyncrasies like their tanks and aircraft.

Here's an update on the restoration of a P-47 Thunderbolt in Minnesota.

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-restora ... -2018.html

I'm sure they did. Probably a lot of hangover traditions from the Age of Sail were still on a boat built in the 30s. They had steel decks, as opposed to Americans wood decks, much more resilient to attacks.


Working on that P47 must be quite the club. Guys just slowly bringing something back, it's awesome. That's a Razorback P47 too. Just Awesome.

[de officiis]

Yeah, it’s a massive fighter. I never realized it had all that plumbing.

[C-Mag]

It's pretty incredible how far the US advanced their aircraft design and production between 1939 and 1945

[TheReal_ND]

[C-Mag]

+1 Good Stuff

Modern Revisionists who claim the US didn't really fight WWII really piss me off. They will brag about the geographical expanse of the Eastern Front, while ignoring the geographical expanse the US fought on in WWII which was far greater than any other nation and it's not even close. An equal geographic area for Russia would be from Stalingrad to French Guyana(south america) and from Leningrad to the Congo (africa). Not even talking about the US involvement in the Atlantic war, Africa, the Mediterranean, Western Europe and the Air War. All theatres that Russia was not involved in.

[heydaralon]

Russians had better belief system though

[C-Mag]

Russians had better belief system though

Yes, too bad we didn't treat our Soldiers as expendable one use tools. The Ostfront was a shit show from start to finish. I'm not sure how people think the generals were so good in that front. I think they get stunned by the numbers of humans killed, but look at all the costly mistakes each side made over and over again, the massive loss of men and material...…………….. losing the most men and material is not typically the standard for great leadership.

[heydaralon]

Russians had better belief system though

Yes, too bad we didn't treat our Soldiers as expendable one use tools. The Ostfront was a shit show from start to finish. I'm not sure how people think the generals were so good in that front. I think they get stunned by the numbers of humans killed, but look at all the costly mistakes each side made over and over again, the massive loss of men and material...…………….. losing the most men and material is not typically the standard for great leadership.

I remember Flipowitz getting really nasty at me when I brought up disparity between men, aircraft, tanks, and equipment the soviets lost vs the Germans lost in Kursk (not just that battle btw) and questioning every historical source I showed him proving this, saying that the Soviets were the best. I also remember a few brutal fights on DCF where Dan also defended Zhukov and Soviet tactics. In fact, I think he mentioned some of this in his podcast, so commie worship has spread to WW2 buffs... I'm glad they aren't in charge of the US military.

[C-Mag]

I remember Flipowitz getting really nasty at me when I brought up disparity between men, aircraft, tanks, and equipment the soviets lost vs the Germans lost in Kursk (not just that battle btw) and questioning every historical source I showed him proving this, saying that the Soviets were the best. I also remember a few brutal fights on DCF where Dan also defended Zhukov and Soviet tactics. In fact, I think he mentioned some of this in his podcast, so commie worship has spread to WW2 buffs... I'm glad they aren't in charge of the US military.

I have to admit I was pretty much AWOL during those debates. It took me a while to formulate my own opinion on the matter. I trusted the narrator of the story very much at that point. But after studying the issue, WWII more and listening to the series again nothing struck me as very good in terms of leadership on either side of the Eastern Front.

First of all there was no reason for Germany not to knock out Moscow the first year. Then the second year the Krauts try to outsmart everyone and go for Stalingrad, stupid. There was nothing particularly inventive or impressive about the Russian defense or Counteroffensive all the way to Berlin. Pretty much, we are just going to keep throwing troops at the problem until it goes away.

Now, the US had some major fuck ups. The entire Battle of the Huertegen was shameful, but it wasn't even on par with wasting lives like Soviet small battles in futility.

[heydaralon]

I remember Flipowitz getting really nasty at me when I brought up disparity between men, aircraft, tanks, and equipment the soviets lost vs the Germans lost in Kursk (not just that battle btw) and questioning every historical source I showed him proving this, saying that the Soviets were the best. I also remember a few brutal fights on DCF where Dan also defended Zhukov and Soviet tactics. In fact, I think he mentioned some of this in his podcast, so commie worship has spread to WW2 buffs... I'm glad they aren't in charge of the US military.

I have to admit I was pretty much AWOL during those debates. It took me a while to formulate my own opinion on the matter. I trusted the narrator of the story very much at that point. But after studying the issue, WWII more and listening to the series again nothing struck me as very good in terms of leadership on either side of the Eastern Front.

First of all there was no reason for Germany not to knock out Moscow the first year. Then the second year the Krauts try to outsmart everyone and go for Stalingrad, stupid. There was nothing particularly inventive or impressive about the Russian defense or Counteroffensive all the way to Berlin. Pretty much, we are just going to keep throwing troops at the problem until it goes away.

Now, the US had some major fuck ups. The entire Battle of the Huertegen was shameful, but it wasn't even on par with wasting lives like Soviet small battles in futility.

In Victor Davis Hanson's The Soul of Battle, he praises general Sherman over Grant and McClellan because of the way that Sherman's tactics fucked up the South and struck it at its heart while simultaneously minimizing the casualties of his own men. When you contrast this with the meatgrinder battles of Cold Harbor or Antietam, it causes you to respect Sherman quite a bit. In my mind, that is the hallmark of a great general. One who both achieves significant objectives, but also views his men as more than expendable resources. I could never be a general, but I would hope to be under a general like that if the shit hits the fan. No commie Russian or Chinese or even Vietnamese general gave a shit about their men that way, and the battlefield stats attest to this fact.