Author Topic: Questions Thread  (Read 82725 times)

Offline Sgt.KAR98

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #90 on: 14-01-2013, 21:01:14 »
Like in Jarhead?

Was dismissed from the army because there was already enough people on it.

You were from the VDV,Korsakov?

Offline Steel_Lion_FIN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.475
  • Mostly drunk.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #91 on: 14-01-2013, 22:01:11 »
I was looking into some weaponry the US used in WW2 and came up with a few questions that I couldn't find a straight answer:
1. Is it true that neither of the Airborne divisions used BARs, but M1919s instead? Or that if the only portion of Airborne that used BAR's were glider infantry?
2. Did the Army use M1917 .30cal watercooled LMGs or M1919 air-cooled ones?

Then a couple for the British North Africa campaign:
1. Why did they use Thompsons instead of Stens? Or was it a bit of both? Could the reason be the longer engagement ranges where the .45 carried more stopping power than the 9mm?
2. When did the Sten guns take over, and when specifically the Sten mk.V?
I'd rather play Kimble with my ass!


Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #92 on: 14-01-2013, 22:01:19 »
Belgium is finnaly investing again its land forces! And we ordered nothing but german quality.

66 Spike-MR missile systems ordered. To replace the Milan ATGM

Aswel as 111 Panzerfaust 3.

Any Germans here who have experience with these weapons?
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #93 on: 14-01-2013, 23:01:59 »
I was looking into some weaponry the US used in WW2 and came up with a few questions that I couldn't find a straight answer:
1. Is it true that neither of the Airborne divisions used BARs, but M1919s instead? Or that if the only portion of Airborne that used BAR's were glider infantry?
2. Did the Army use M1917 .30cal watercooled LMGs or M1919 air-cooled ones?

Then a couple for the British North Africa campaign:
1. Why did they use Thompsons instead of Stens? Or was it a bit of both? Could the reason be the longer engagement ranges where the .45 carried more stopping power than the 9mm?
2. When did the Sten guns take over, and when specifically the Sten mk.V?

BARs were fully used by the airbourne.

The army did use the watercooled 30cals as our heavy machine gun platoon weapon, in the same role as the MG42 lafette or british vickers.

Brits used thompsons in north africa because it is what they had.  As Thompson wore out or were lost in combat, stens slowly replaced them.

Offline Sgt.KAR98

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #94 on: 14-01-2013, 23:01:58 »
Why the americans used Spitfires at the North African campaign?I thought after WWI they never used foreign aircraft again.

And what does some tail stripes on axis planes standed for?I saw that a yellow one indicated the aircraft acted on the eastern front,but I saw white strpes on italian planes and a red one on a Zero.Was that custom for all axis planes,like the invasion stripes of the allied planes?

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #95 on: 15-01-2013, 00:01:20 »
Colour bands on the fuselage tail generally indicated theater of operation.  It was also used as a unit marking.

Americans used Spitfires because we needed modern fighter planes, and the British had far superior ones to us. :P

Offline Sgt.KAR98

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #96 on: 15-01-2013, 02:01:23 »
Strange,US had planes for all kind of tastes on early war...

Offline Torenico

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.632
  • ┬íViva la Revoluci├│n!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #97 on: 15-01-2013, 02:01:08 »
Yet but none of them was better than the mighty Spitfire.



Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #98 on: 16-01-2013, 08:01:13 »
The Warhawk should be good enough in North Africa. But it can't do better than Spitfire in higher altitudes.

Offline hslan.Corvax

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.126
  • War photographer
    • View Profile
    • sebastiantoth.at
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #99 on: 17-01-2013, 09:01:23 »
If i remember correctly the Spitfire also was a lot less prone to sand and dust. It simply needed less maintenance. I think i've read somewhere that 20 minutes of flight time needed 2 hours of cleaning on the P-40.

Offline Kading

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #100 on: 19-01-2013, 20:01:58 »
Alright, guys. I got a pretty good question.
So, for the first year or so of the war, German tank crews wore crash helmets with black berets over them. These were disliked because they looked stupid and were eventually not used at all in favor of soft caps. This raises the question: did this action result in more timid off-road driving among panzer crews for fear of head injury?
Break your picks and crack your spades! Dig deep if you want to live!

Offline CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.448
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #101 on: 21-01-2013, 05:01:18 »
What rifles were used by Canada in WW2? I heard they didn't get many No4s but used a lot of SMLEs but I have no idea.
Quote from: TASSER1
you suck. noone likes you. and your mother isn't pretty

Quote from: Eightball1182
Andrew.Drunk.Drive...I love u man. You get it...u get it 100%. Stay cool Canada brother.

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #102 on: 21-01-2013, 05:01:25 »
SMLE and No4.  That's about it.  In WW1 they had a homegrown rifle, the Ross, but it was very very finicky and prone to damage, and so became hated by all but snipers.

Offline sheikyerbouti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.402
  • Yay, Rep feature is dead
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #103 on: 23-01-2013, 14:01:15 »
SMLE and No4.  That's about it.  In WW1 they had a homegrown rifle, the Ross, but it was very very finicky and prone to damage, and so became hated by all but snipers.

 The whole Ross rifle myth has become almost legend nowadays.

 The rifle was not hated but due to its' intricacy, the men in the trenches came to prefer weapons that were more resilient to being dirty. Snipers, who had more time to clean on their hands, did almost exclusively deploy the rifle as it has crazy good accuracy. (anecdotal: a friend wrote a memoir of his time in the forces and as a young cadet, (ca. 1930) he could reliably put groupings the size of a silver dollar on a target at 250 yards)

 The Ross rifle was also issued in WW2 to some of the first Canadian units to deploy to Britain but it was soon replaced as the supply built up of standard pattern rifles.

My Quebec includes Canada

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #104 on: 23-01-2013, 17:01:22 »
IIRC, wasn't the problem that the bolt could be assembled the wrong way and fail catastrophically?