Let's ignore the end of the world. Talk about ANYTHING else

bearmtnmartin said:

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

By 1945 the Americans were producing 250 aircraft per day, most of which were heavy bombers and fighters. No possible way that Russia could have matched that. They were lucky they got Berlin.

I thought that too, but consider this: What would we have bombed? They would have been moving into territory that had already been obliterated by 4 years of day and night bombing. The soviets factories and production were well beyond our reach even with the B-29. So all that air power can only be used against ground targets in motion.

Granted, the P-47, Corsair and P-38's were great ground attack planes but that was against a decimated enemy airforce. 

Just a thought experiment.

Ian F said:

bearmtnmartin said:

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

By 1945 the Americans were producing 250 aircraft per day, most of which were heavy bombers and fighters. No possible way that Russia could have matched that. They were lucky they got Berlin.

True... we were unloading the fighters we (arguably, for various reasons) didn't want to the Russians as war assistance - RE: the P39 Airacobra. 

Of which the Russians LOVED. They used them more as a ground attack plane rather than a front line fighter. That big cannon in the nose was good for that. 

Tri-toons have been the hot thing around our parts for the last few years or so.  They are mostly 25' rigs with 200-300HP outboards, a couple with 350s.  It's hard to argue with the utility of a boat that can handle rough water, carry a dozen people, and still go 50mph when empty.  The automotive equivalent would be a Hellcat powered AWD Caravan.

That said I'll still stick with my runabouts.  I still prefer the boat equivalent of a Miata over a Caravan, even if it's Hellcat powered.

ultraclyde said:

I've been really drooling over tritoon boats lately. I always thought the old 2-tube pontoons were boring, dull, and unfit for saltwater bay duty. The more I look into the modern three-tube boats, the more I want one.  On a 22' boat you can typically carry 12-14 people, run 150-200HP outboard, top out between 35 and 40mph, and only draw 8" of water. Plus they handle a 2-3' chop easily.

I never thought I'd be a pontoon owner, but I'll be damned if I'm not leaning that way. Maybe even buying new.

 

Shadeux said:

Pigs taste good.

Yes. Pigs are magical creatures. They take nasty things like fruit and vegetables .and turn it into wonderful things, like bacon, ham, and pork roast!

bobzilla said:

Ian F said:

bearmtnmartin said:

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

By 1945 the Americans were producing 250 aircraft per day, most of which were heavy bombers and fighters. No possible way that Russia could have matched that. They were lucky they got Berlin.

True... we were unloading the fighters we (arguably, for various reasons) didn't want to the Russians as war assistance - RE: the P39 Airacobra. 

Of which the Russians LOVED. They used them more as a ground attack plane rather than a front line fighter. That big cannon in the nose was good for that. 

Yes, I know.  It was a better low altitude attack plane than the high altitude escort fighter we typically needed.  In many ways, the ancestor to the A-10, which took the basic principles of the P-39 and refined them: Mid engine propulsion with a big gun in the nose. 

I thought we already had a thread that we weren't supposed to post in?  Maybe?  I've only heard second hand of it's possible existence.

bobzilla said:

I have one. Tim refused to play....

What would have happened had Stalin NOT stopped at Berlin. Could the allies have stopped the soviets from taking western Europe in 1945?

Don't list to the 'zilla... this is one of those Capitalist Lizzard Lies.

The truth is, a Buffalo's gotta graze when a Buffalo's gotta graze.

bobzilla said:

I thought that too, but consider this: What would we have bombed? They would have been moving into territory that had already been obliterated by 4 years of day and night bombing. The soviets factories and production were well beyond our reach even with the B-29. So all that air power can only be used against ground targets in motion.

Granted, the P-47, Corsair and P-38's were great ground attack planes but that was against a decimated enemy airforce. 

Just a thought experiment.

Best ground attack aircraft in the USAAF inventory was the B-25G/H... it was basically the precusor to the A-10

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

Hmm... maybe... take a B-25 and the P-39, add jet engines, stir vigorously and you get the A-10.

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

Evidently this is now the WWII thread. I tried to derail it with unicorn pigs but I'm pessimistic at this point. 

I think many of you will like this channel- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP1AejCL4DA7jYkZAELRhHQ

WWII in real time, just 79 years later.  You have a LOT of catching up to, since it's 1941, and the war has been going on for a year and a half.  They plan on doing Pearl Harbor in actual real time on site.  Fascinating to watch, and learn much more detail than I ever knew.  

Shadeux said:

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

Evidently this is now the WWII thread. I tried to derail it with unicorn pigs but I'm pessimistic at this point. 

Flying pigs?  Say no more...

I wish i had the explanation on why i have an attraction to the Pontiac Fiero Jalapeno kit car thingy

In reply to bobzilla :

Nyet.

DukeOfUndersteer said:

I wish i had the explanation on why i have an attraction to the Pontiac Fiero Jalapeno kit car thingy

Because it's AWESOME.

But not as awesome as this"

I think my breakfast diet of oat meal is making me gassier than normal. 

100% I'm going through.

Gas vs Charcoal grill? Only one answer is correct

When my dad was my age (57 years old) he drove Lincoln Town Cars with padded tops, over assisted steering, and fake wire wheels.  

At this same age I want to buy a WRX STi, an old GTi, or a fast Civic - all stick shift.  

What's that all about?

ChrisLS8 said:

Gas vs Charcoal grill? Only one answer is correct

Charcoal tastes better, but man gas is so much easier and faster to deal with.

The question of Stalin pushing beyond Berlin is less about military capability and more about the post-war future of the Soviet Union. Stalin was a student of history, especially Russian history, and was very much aware of the 1825 Decembrist Revolution begun by Russian officers who had gone as far west as Paris during the Napoleonic Wars. Having seen the West, and realizing just how far developed it was beyond Russia, sought to overthrow their archaic czarist system. They failed, but Stalin saw the writing on the wall. Soviet soldiers going too far into the advanced, developed West would have living proof of just how far behind the Soviets were. And Stalin feared internal unrest far more than external aggression.

Bacon is my Spirit Animal. 

Oreos or Chunky Chips ahoy? Cookie conundrum...

sleepyhead the buffalo said:

bobzilla said:

I thought that too, but consider this: What would we have bombed? They would have been moving into territory that had already been obliterated by 4 years of day and night bombing. The soviets factories and production were well beyond our reach even with the B-29. So all that air power can only be used against ground targets in motion.

Granted, the P-47, Corsair and P-38's were great ground attack planes but that was against a decimated enemy airforce. 

Just a thought experiment.

Best ground attack aircraft in the USAAF inventory was the B-25G/H... it was basically the precusor to the A-10

False. As much as I love the Mitchell, THIS was the best ground attack airframe in the Army Air Force.