America's Army Sucks, Fact

In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:22:23 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
The Matilda II went on to create havoc with the Italians
in North Africa were it tore through Italian tank and
anti-tank formations and also served with some
distinction in Russia which received over a 1000
of them at a critical period when their own tank production was
being relocated beyond the Urals.

Shame about the idiots who insisted that such a fine tank be armed with a
gun which had no HE round.

No insisting - the two-pound AT was a very good gun for its time and
could handily kill any Panzer that met it in 1940. And at this point,
tanks either used MGs for anti-infantry work or put howitzers in hull
mounts (M3 Grant/Lee, Char B, early Churchills) or else armed a
proportion of the fleet with low-velocity large bore HE guns (early
Panzer IVs, late Panzer IIIs).

One wonders how many needless deaths were caused by that oversight.

It wasn't a contingency foreseen by that many, as shown by policy of the
time.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 03:12:31 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:



No insisting - the two-pound AT was a very good gun for its time and
could handily kill any Panzer that met it in 1940.

Of course.

Still doesn't excuse the lack of a HE round.

IIRC the kiwis worked around this by putting a US 37mm shell into a 2
pounder case.

And at this point,
tanks either used MGs for anti-infantry work or

Not much use against anti tank guns or their crews.

put howitzers in hull
mounts (M3 Grant/Lee, Char B, early Churchills)

Which of course meant one to be there at that moment in time to deal with a
threat which required HE rather than solid shot.

or else armed a
proportion of the fleet with low-velocity large bore HE guns

Which AIR carried 30 odd smoke shells and 2 HE.

It wasn't a contingency foreseen by that many, as shown by policy of the
time.

It was a silly decision, one which didn't take hindsight to see it for what
it was.


greg


--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 03:12:31 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
No insisting - the two-pound AT was a very good gun for its time and
could handily kill any Panzer that met it in 1940.

Of course.

Still doesn't excuse the lack of a HE round.

How much use was the 37mm HE, by the way?

IIRC the kiwis worked around this by putting a US 37mm shell into a 2
pounder case.

40mm Bofors. Wasn't much use as an area-effect round, though.

And at this point,
tanks either used MGs for anti-infantry work or

Not much use against anti tank guns or their crews.

Depends on the range. Worked fine against 37mm and 50mm PAKs - but not
against 88mm FlaK, which weren't particularly expected..

put howitzers in hull
mounts (M3 Grant/Lee, Char B, early Churchills)

Which of course meant one to be there at that moment in time to deal with a
threat which required HE rather than solid shot.

Interesting that if it was such a poor solution, it was so widespread.

or else armed a
proportion of the fleet with low-velocity large bore HE guns

Which AIR carried 30 odd smoke shells and 2 HE.

Think of the Panzer III / Panzer IV mix as originally planned. 37mm guns
firing solid shot for tank killing, 75mm L/24s for low-velocity HE.

It wasn't a contingency foreseen by that many, as shown by policy of the
time.

It was a silly decision, one which didn't take hindsight to see it for what
it was.

So why was it so widespread, if it was so obviously erroneous?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
WHAT wind tunnel data?

Do you know why ALL F111s were produced WITH a major design flaw ?

And what flaw would that be pray tell?

The CO

And what flaw would that be pray tell?

If you check out and compare the locations of wing pivot points on F111 and
F14,you can see easily figure out the that.

As a Brit who has just "dropped in" while surfing I find this
discussion US v UK very interesting.
Forgive me for mentioning this - but aren't we supposed to be on the
same side?
All this argument is giving succour to our joint enemies,present and
potential.
All parties in war make mistakes,mistakes cost lives. Rather than
castigate individuals we should try not to make the same mistakes
again.
We should also remember that politicians make war and soldiers have to
fight them - and a high proportion of casualties are caused by
politicians asking the generals to strive for unachievable targets.
Politicians not the military also hold the purse strings - and
failures of military equipment are almost always rooted in finance and
not design. A classic example is the plight of British troops in Iraq
who are notoriously ill equipped. Troops putting their lives on the
line of any nationality are entitled to the best quality and quantity
equipment that money can buy.
As far as torture in Iraq is concerned it is a matter of leadership
and morale,and not necessarily of policy,and while regrettable is
inevitable. War brutalises people and anyone who thinks otherwise is
living in cloud cuckoo land




John Mullen" wrote in message et...
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , John Mullen
writes
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us
how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to
what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst
recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it
actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of
any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not
to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John


So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.

'Normal' wars are not that common these days. Have you come upon the term
'asymmetric warfare' at all?

The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.

I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. I said that incarcerating,
torturing and murdering people on suspicion of support for a guerilla enemy
didn't work awfully well for us in NI. It hasn't done the US many favours in
Iraq either.

Pragmatism, not morality or law. Though obviously, the three tend often to
overlap.

IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.

No indeed.

John

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
And what flaw would that be pray tell?

If you check out and compare the locations of wing pivot points on
F111 and
F14,you can see easily figure out the that.

I'm aware of an issue (fatigue susceptibility?) with the wing carry
through box that was present at the beginning of production.
IIRC, it required the box to be replaced at some point in the first few
years of the aircrafts life. Don't recall
the exact time span now, heck I was in primary school when we bought
them.
AFAIK, all the wing carry through boxes were replaced or refurbished
long ago.

Any supposed 'design problems' with the F111 have failed to be an
*operational* problem. We've been operating the type
very successfully for around 30 years with no losses or even incidents
attributable to the wing carry through box.
IIRC virtually all F111 losses have been due to the hazards of operating
at low altitude, pilot error or other non mechanical
causes. I vaguely remember that one F111 was lost after catching fire
during a fuel 'dump and burn' but I'm not aware of
the wings coming off any. There has been the odd engine failure, but
apart from FOD (bird strikes) no doubles. Naturally neither
is attributable to an airframe design issue.

So I'm not really sure what your point is. I don't have a doctorate in
aerodynamics so perhaps you could spell
out exactly what the supposed issue is with the location of the wing
pivot points?

Regards

The CO

So I'm not really sure what your point is. I don't have a doctorate in
aerodynamics so perhaps you could spell
out exactly what the supposed issue is with the location of the wing
pivot points?

F111 only modern fighter in history with significant (supersonic) trim drag
problems and the cause of problem is the pivot point,which somehow? transmuted
from german original design.
What GD designers did not know was that the German swing wing research was
limited to subsonic regime and consequently all german swing wing designs were
inherently subsonic designs.
This flaw was corrected in f14 design and f14 has none of the f111 drag
problems.
Of course the apperance of significant supersonic drag problems in an aircraft
designed as long range supersonic interdictor was a major design problem.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
So I'm not really sure what your point is. I don't have a doctorate
in
aerodynamics so perhaps you could spell
out exactly what the supposed issue is with the location of the wing
pivot points?

F111 only modern fighter in history with significant (supersonic)
trim drag
problems and the cause of problem is the pivot point,which somehow?
transmuted
from german original design.

Ok, I vaguely remember hearing some mention of this.

What GD designers did not know was that the German swing wing research
was
limited to subsonic regime and consequently all german swing wing
designs were
inherently subsonic designs.

Ok.

This flaw was corrected in f14 design and f14 has none of the f111
drag
problems.
Of course the apperance of significant supersonic drag problems in an
aircraft
designed as long range supersonic interdictor was a major design
problem.

Doesn't seem to have had much impact in our useage of it. Long range
strike is the
aircrafts forte and it's still tasked for that now. There was talk at
the time that we
should have bought the F4's (which we leased whilst waiting for the
F111's to get
into full production) but considering the value we have gotten from the
F111 it's
pretty obvious that would have been the wrong choice. The govt of the
day copped
a lot of flak over the F111, but 30 years in service seems to have
justified their decision
to buy it. I hope we are half as lucky with the F35 if/when we
eventually get it.
It's possible they changed the F111 mission profile slightly to
accomodate the drag issue,
but I'm not in a position to give an authoritative answer.
As a matter of interest I will ask someone that would know and see if I
can find out.
In short, with our without the drag issue you mention, it doesn't seem
to have bothered
us much if at all.

Regards

The CO

The CO wrote:

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
So I'm not really sure what your point is. I don't have a doctorate
in
aerodynamics so perhaps you could spell
out exactly what the supposed issue is with the location of the wing
pivot points?

F111 only modern fighter in history with significant (supersonic)
trim drag
problems and the cause of problem is the pivot point,which somehow?
transmuted
from german original design.

Ok, I vaguely remember hearing some mention of this.

IIRC the prime cause of extra drag on the F-111 was base drag of the rear
fuselage. I've never read any reputable source that blames the wing or the
location of its pivots. In addition, there was probably some extra trim
drag owing to the close-coupled talieron having a small moment-arm.

What GD designers did not know was that the German swing wing research
was
limited to subsonic regime and consequently all german swing wing
designs were
inherently subsonic designs.

Ok.

This flaw was corrected in f14 design and f14 has none of the f111
drag
problems.
Of course the apperance of significant supersonic drag problems in an
aircraft
designed as long range supersonic interdictor was a major design
problem.

Doesn't seem to have had much impact in our useage of it. Long range
strike is the
aircrafts forte and it's still tasked for that now. There was talk at
the time that we
should have bought the F4's (which we leased whilst waiting for the
F111's to get
into full production) but considering the value we have gotten from the
F111 it's
pretty obvious that would have been the wrong choice. The govt of the
day copped
a lot of flak over the F111, but 30 years in service seems to have
justified their decision
to buy it. I hope we are half as lucky with the F35 if/when we
eventually get it.
It's possible they changed the F111 mission profile slightly to
accomodate the drag issue,
but I'm not in a position to give an authoritative answer.

This is from a post of a couple of years back (and not surprisingly, also
involved one of Denyav's claims re the F-111). I'm the first poster, and
Pete Stickney is replying with the SAC chart data:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't know for sure what he's referring too, but IIRR the F-111 design
spec
mission called for an 800 nm radius (internal nuke) with the last 200nm
inbound
to the target at M1.2 on the deck, and owing to massive amounts of excess
base
drag it fell well short of that. Possibly it was as little as 30nm as
Denyav
claims, but I forget the figure, if I've ever even seen it. Tony
Thornborough's
F-111 books may give it.

From the F-111A Standard Aircraft Characteristics chart, dated
Feb. 71, based on Flight testing:
Lo-Lo-Hi mission, internal fuel + 2 600 gal tanks, 2000# Special
Weapon and 2 AIM-9B

Radius 800 NM,
Cruise out at 455 kts 706 miles at SL. Tanks dropped when empty.
Dash 70 NM at 800 kts @ SL (The difference is space/time used to accelerate)

Cruise in 703 NM at 432 kts at 36,000'.

So, with 2 tanks, we've got 140 NM sustaining Mach 1.2 on the deck,
reaching out a total of 800 NM. The tanks, btw, account for 20% total
fuel, so without tanks, let's say we've got a 570+ NM cruise out, a 55
NM dash, and a bit better acceleration for being 8,000# lighter
througout the flight, so you're looking at roughly a 650 NM radius.

Not quite as optimistic as the initial specs, but damned good none the
less.

There are some people who, if they told me the sky was blue, I'd
demand independant verification.
------------------------------------------------

I think Pete may have overstated the M1.2 (800kn) cruise distance on the
deck, as the a/c would need to climb on the way back, and the profile is
given as Lo-Lo-Hi rather than the Lo-Lo-Lo-Hi implied by his 140nm @ M1.2 @
SL. Hopefully Pete will clarify.

Guy