Author Topic: Questions Thread  (Read 68939 times)

Offline Turkish007

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.047
  • Mini-mod necromancer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #120 on: 23-01-2013, 21:01:42 »
of course.  :) But I personally think I wouldnt do well with the no4 sights.  :-\

Offline Kading

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #121 on: 23-01-2013, 21:01:03 »



No 4 has a heavier more accurate barrel
No 4 has flip up, rear reciever mounted sights. These are vastly superior to tangent sights like the SMLE/Mauser
No 4 has a shorter action wich is also simpler and faster then the SMLE

True, but you are over-stating a bit. The No. 4 was slightly more accurate, but the SMLE can still hit group targets at 1200 yards. You have to remember that your range is limited by your line of sight.
I have seen the No-4 sights, and those of the SMLE. The No.4 again shows itself to be a superior target rifle, however open sights are still plenty accurate and often preferred by many soldiers (ref. Alvin York).
I have fired both, they cycle about the same speed. Any advantage in favor of the No.4 can be made up for in the SMLE with good maintenance and a well-practiced shooter.

In the end, the Australians didn't think the claimed advantages were worth spending millions of dollars to retool factories for a rifle that had not yet been proven in combat like the SMLE had been. They also did not trust the British to tell them what was good equipment.
Break your picks and crack your spades! Dig deep if you want to live!

Offline sheikyerbouti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.402
  • Yay, Rep feature is dead
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #122 on: 24-01-2013, 01:01:52 »
IIRC, wasn't the problem that the bolt could be assembled the wrong way and fail catastrophically?

 The original pre-war version of 1905-1909 had some retarded issues but they were ironed out well before 1914.
Wikipedia says the weapon was phased out by 1916 but Pierre Berton writes in Vimy, that some regiments allowed individual soldiers to keep the rifle as long as they maintained it well. Many Canadian volunteers of the war were very proficient at hunting and marksmanship, so there was use of the weapon until the declaration of Armistice. (the men who could shoot well were never reprimanded but British High Command had forbidden the weapons use very early on for other nations)

 Essentially, the Ross rifle was hindered by its' extreme reluctance to fire under normal trench conditions with all the resultant dirt and gunk that built up in the breech. Two other issues strained the weapons performance as well, the weapon would mis-fire when improperly assembled (driving the bolt straight back into the shooter's face) and the final concern was that the weapon had very little tolerance for dirty ammunition (a handful of filthy rounds was enough to render the rifle totally inoperable).
My Quebec includes Canada

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #123 on: 24-01-2013, 04:01:26 »
You should visit Lithgow mate, only several hours drive or train stations away from Sydney, NSW.

They have specific museum and the whole biased stories about why they didn't stray from SMLE.

Offline Born2Kill 007

  • Anytime, baby
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.809
  • Professional accountancy hater
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #124 on: 30-01-2013, 00:01:01 »

This picture made me wonder: What did the allied actually do with all the confiscated goods after WW2?
Firstly: they found a lot of Gold from jews, (under form of rings in concentration camps as for example here), art, but ofc mainly under form of nazi gold bars made from toothgold (and money of jews and nazis that's still blocked by the swiss, but they'll probably never give anything back and keep it for themselves) etc. But when they found it, did they keep it as money for their own state or did they use it to refund to survivors of the holocaust or did they take it to the US and use it to support the marshall aid funds (if last option: what with the USSR?)?
And secondly, what with the money they got from the posessions of executed nazi's? Did the family get the heritage? And there are nazi's who "didn't have family" after the war to protect the identity of the family members. Or did they just sell for example all the nazi castles and use the money for something?

(and yes, i know some will have disappeared with the soldiers, but most is probably recovered)
« Last Edit: 30-01-2013, 00:01:42 by Born2Kill 007 »
Ще ми се изпържи картофа
#FreeDamaso

Offline Korsakov829

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.751
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #125 on: 30-01-2013, 06:01:55 »
I'm willing to bet there is a soldier somewhere who pocketed some of those rings and got married! Can't take all that much though, its difficult to hide a box full of gold.

Offline Torenico

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.627
  • ¡Viva la Revolución!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #126 on: 30-01-2013, 07:01:23 »
I always wondered, where are the "guncams" located?

I mean, we all seen footage of i dunno, Bf-109 vs B24 Liberator or P-51 vs Fw190, but where is the camera?


Offline MaJ.P.Bouras

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 3.210
  • A Hellenic version of Jackie Chan.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #127 on: 30-01-2013, 07:01:43 »
On the nose cone of the propeller.

Offline Tuco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 423
  • FH lurker since 2005
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #128 on: 30-01-2013, 09:01:17 »
Mustangs was located on the left inner wing.



P47's camera and location



Me109F



Some model Hurricane.



« Last Edit: 30-01-2013, 09:01:43 by Tuco »
If you have to shoot, shoot, dont talk.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #129 on: 30-01-2013, 11:01:12 »
Is the gun cams has any other big purpose besides recording confirmed kills?

I kinda have the impression that the gun cams are there only to document the heroic action of the sky knights. Might sound ego-maniacal, when you compare it to the the troops at the ground were fighting for warm clothing, a loaf of bread and several sips of water (nevermind bullets), while these flyboys get fresh film rolls most of the times when they go to action, so they can claim the prize and add something to the paintjob.

Offline DLFReporter

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.727
  • Betatesting FH2 makes me edgy...
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #130 on: 30-01-2013, 11:01:57 »
They also needed proof that the pilots didn't just dick around in the air. ;)
As usual, a downed enemy plane is worth more than a soldier on the ground.
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #131 on: 30-01-2013, 11:01:51 »
IIRC, gun camera is only activated when the gun trigger is pressed. So, control around dicking pilots are just as good as knowing that they don't shoot friendly targets?

I actually kinda think of the enemy killing footage is more valuable as propaganda material than anything else.

In desperate Battle of The Britain times, when the whole British isles is under threat of starvation due to U-boot threat, and luftwaffe bombers, materials are in alarming shortage for the whole population. So I can't really imagine that the RAF dared to request film rolls to be imported from the US for all of its several hundred fighters, along with primary goods like food rations, raw materials, and other needs of those including the Royal family and the nobles.

But I heard that not all fighters are equipped with gun cams, is that true?

Offline hslan.Corvax

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.126
  • War photographer
    • View Profile
    • sebastiantoth.at
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #132 on: 30-01-2013, 13:01:32 »
Gun cam footage was also used to study enemy planes, tactics their maneuverability and such. Also not all gun cams where gun-triggered. In fact most weren't. They had to be activated by the pilot, otherwise you would only have some few seconds of random gunfire that made no sense, so cams where typically started before an engagement. Also, the extended 8mm rolls could hold quite a lot of footage, so that wasnt the problem either.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #133 on: 30-01-2013, 14:01:02 »
Gun cam footage was also used to study enemy planes, tactics their maneuverability and such. Also not all gun cams where gun-triggered. In fact most weren't. They had to be activated by the pilot, otherwise you would only have some few seconds of random gunfire that made no sense, so cams where typically started before an engagement. Also, the extended 8mm rolls could hold quite a lot of footage, so that wasnt the problem either.

That makes a lot of sense now. Thanks for the answer.

But anyway, did all fighters carry gun cams indefinitely?

Offline Torenico

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.627
  • ¡Viva la Revolución!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #134 on: 30-01-2013, 16:01:06 »
Thanks Tuco, that's what i wanted to see  ;D