dark light
Airliner World
Combat Aircraft
AeroPlane
Flypast
Airforces
Aviation
Pcpilot
Air

hawkdriver05

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 1,012 total)
1 2 3 … 54 55 56 … 66 67 68
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 17, 2005 at 2:02 am in reply to: Battleship Questions #2094558
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    It is not really healthy to be on the wrong end of 14in gunfire…………Saw a docu on Military chan the other day………Brit team dove the Wrecks of Queen Mary, Indefatigable, Invincibe, Deffence, and Lutzow………VERY interesting stuff…….The Brit battlecruisers are in “pieces”……Deffence and Lutzow are reletivly intact……

    July 17, 2005 at 1:15 am in reply to: Battleship Questions #2094600
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    Other than sampans, I would image main batteries were used……..and sampans could be left to escorts……….except the Germans didn’t like escorting their battleships too much. I understand the Japanese actualy tried to use main guns in an antiaircraft role from time to time…….

    July 16, 2005 at 6:45 pm in reply to: Battleship Questions #2094683
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    So…what was more effective for anti surface fire……..secondary batteries? Or main batteries? I’m thinking the main guns. By ww2 the secondaries were pretty much only useful for antiaircraft work………..and possibly shore bombardment.

    July 16, 2005 at 1:38 am in reply to: Battleship Questions #2094897
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    Just finished a book on fortifications in America……..two of USS Arizona’s triple 14in turrets were salvaged after the attack and emplaced as shore batteries…..Battery Arizona and Battery Pennsylvania…….guarded Pearl Harbor from suface attack. Not as extensive as the “concrete battleship” Fort Drum at entrance to Manila Bay.

    July 16, 2005 at 12:45 am in reply to: Battleship Questions #2094936
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    Did they have a 5in/25?

    July 15, 2005 at 1:35 am in reply to: Battleship Questions #2095168
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    I agree…..but how many times was a BBs secondary armament used (in ww2) against surface craft? As opposed to its main battery? Off topic a bit, but Military chan has a FASCINATING docu on called “Jutland:Clash of Dreadnaughts”…..British team diving the wrecks of Jutland…..

    July 14, 2005 at 10:48 am in reply to: Battleship Questions #2095400
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    Bismarck’s secondary armament was behind the times……..seperate high angle and low angle weapons.

    July 12, 2005 at 11:48 pm in reply to: Worst looking aircraft #2617896
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    F-107………..inlets on top?!

    July 12, 2005 at 11:43 pm in reply to: Japan buys Stirling AIP for future subs #2095701
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    In many ways….better than a “nuke”……

    July 9, 2005 at 11:55 pm in reply to: F-15C Eagle: Today's best Fighter. #2619618
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    The only operational Rafales right now are with the French Navy……and they are pure air superiority machines………Typhoon is not really operational yet either……give it a few more months.

    July 8, 2005 at 2:27 am in reply to: SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT!!!! #2620332
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    People do the same here. (NAS Oceana) They dont seem to realize that base has been here since the 40s………..and airplanes have allways been LOUD!

    July 5, 2005 at 10:37 am in reply to: Top Gun -The Movie Versus Reality #2622142
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    What about an F-14 unable to “shake” an A-4? Ever heard of afterburners? Slight speed differential tween the two…….

    July 4, 2005 at 2:46 am in reply to: Export Orders???? #2622550
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    My opinion is the Lockheed Martin has made so many F-16s that they are the most inexpensive fighters around (and in the Block 50/52 form, pretty darn capable) and LM seems to be willing to sell them to just about ANYBODY!!! Parts/support isnt a problem……..so why would anyone buy anything else? It will be a long time befor F-35 out sells F-16.

    June 28, 2005 at 10:59 am in reply to: F-5E vs Mirage III/V #2624502
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    Thats kinda like saying the F-16A isnt related to the F-16C….other than airframe…..or the Tornado GR.1 isnt related to the GR.4……other than airframe. Concidering that the Cheetah C is actuly a Kfir airframe……and Israel basicaly gave the South Africans the design, I’d say that qualifies the statement that the Cheetah C/Kfir C.10 are pretty much the same aircraft.

    June 28, 2005 at 3:25 am in reply to: F-5E vs Mirage III/V #2624625
    hawkdriver05
    Participant

    All the Cheetah C airframes came from Israel!! That whole program has IAI all over it. They use the same radar. If you can get a copy of International Airpower Review vol15….it has a big section on the Kfir…….it describes how the South Africans were deep into Israel for aid with the Cheetah program.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 1,012 total)
1 2 3 … 54 55 56 … 66 67 68