Best War Film Part 2

[HawkerTempest5]

Anzacs was an Aust production and starred among others, Paul Hogan. I think the bloke you're thinking of is "Jon Blake". He was very popular and was well on his way to Hollywood and was touted as being the next "Mel Gibson".
Unfortunately, not long after this series, he had a car accident and is a virtual vegetable. Got a payout of $10 million because of his almost sure prospects in world films.

A great series which follows the entire war career of a platoon of Aussies from join up to Egypt, Gallipoli and France and Belgium.

That's right now I remember him! Thanks bresec! I can remeber the series quite well and always remembered Paul Hogan, but could never place the name of the other guy. I remember him being quite well known here in the UK.

[Professor Brensec]

If I may go back to the subject of History Channel "Battle Stations". I have seen a few more of the series recently. The 2 that are worthy of mention are "the Mulberry Harbours" and "the MiG15".
The Mulberrys - such an undertaking, involving so many hundreds of thousands of men, each only knowing except about there particular bit. The fact that it worked and lasted well beyond expectations is amazing.

More interesting was the MiG 15. Firstly the history of the two designers who during WWII combined their names to form MiG. The majority of the show was obviosly about the Korean conflict and the matching and comparison against the F86. So many points to refer to and so many unknowns. For instance, it is still not known how many of each fell victim to the other. To this day both sides claim victory by huge margins?

My main area of interest is the armaments. MiG =2 x 20mm and 1 x 37mm cannon versus F86 = 6 x 50cal MG.

What do you think is the better to have (in the traditional amount of ammo available in each) in fighter to fighter dogfight.
I think (as pointed out by both sides' pilots, the MiG was best armed for bomber dropping.

But what about the dogfight?? - opinions.

Personally I am in 2 minds. I'll explain why after a few opinions.  ;D

[BFMF]

Hi Brensec, was wondering what happened to you!

Hope you're doing ok....

The F86 verses the Mig 15. That's an interesting  question. I've flown both on the simulator with all settings 100% and if they even fly close to the real thing, and from my limited experience on the simulator, it seemed that the Mig15 stalled in a turn to easily opposed to the F86 that could handle turns better.

That's my 2 cents worth, maybe someone who knows what their talking about could give us a better opinion!

[Professor Brensec]

Andrew,

The Russian pilots did make a point of the stall characteristic. They said it took a very experienced pilot to recover.
Apparently the North Koreans, who had very little training lost quite a few men and planes this way.

P.S. They're training consisted of 2 weeks training in prop plane (not necessarily a fighter!). Then straight into the MiG. The Russian instructors said they just had to close they're eyes while the Koreans took off and hope the MiG came back, if it got up 1st time at all !!

Most kills were made by Russian WWII aces during the Korean War, as with the Yanks in the F86.

[HawkerTempest5]

I missed the Mig 15 show when it was on and I don't think it's been repeated yet but I'll keep an eye open for it. I think the Mig had a slightly better all round performace than the F-86. Certainly it had a hight advantage. I've seen other shows and read where pilots said that the Mig was better armed and that the F-86 was under armed for the time and a cannon would have been better. Someone will correct me here, but I think some later Sabres had a couple of 20mm cannon instead of the six .50's. Might be wrong about that though.
I think I'm right also that the Mig had a Rolls Royce engine, or at least a copy of one.
Saw the Mulberry show when it was first on. The Mulberry is a great example of British engineering. Certainly it made a massive contribution to victory in Normandy. Without a secured port to unload supplies, the Allies would have ground to a hault.
You can still see a couple of the concrete structures from the British Mulberry today off the Normandy coast.

[BFMF]

I know this is kinda off topic from the current conversation, but I just found and picked up a copy of 'Wargames' on DVD

[Professor Brensec]

HAWKER WROTE:
I think I'm right also that the Mig had a Rolls Royce engine, or at least a copy of one.

I forgot to mention that. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
The Russian engineers from MiG were invited to tour the Rolls Royce jet engine facility.
One problem they were having was the turbines in their engine would break up at high speeds so they needed to know what the Rolls one was made of. Thinking that it would be impossible to get any info as sensitive as that, one of the  party wore a special sole on his shoe that would pick up and hold onto particles from the lathe where they were turning the turbines and fins.

Later in the visit the head of Rolls had both of the MiG blokes at his home for dinner (both M & G)....lol.
They got to playing billiards and the plans to the Rolls jet engine were won over a bet on a billiard game. This is no S***, it is 100% true.
They even showed film of the Rolls blokes crating the engine and labeling it for shipment to Moscow, smiling for the camera. The Russians copied it down to every screw and nut!
Maybe a new topic? "Beat this, for all-time stupidity".

Performance wise I think pretty much everyone said the MiG had a slightly better overall performance, it could out climb the F86 especially.

As for my opinion of MG versus Cannon in a dogfight: Obviously the combination of mainly MG plus one or two cannon for short bursts after bore-sighting is best, but I like alot of ammo because I tend to bore-sight most of the time, so cannon aren't much good for me as there is nowhere near enough ammo.

[BFMF]

but I like alot of ammo because I tend to bore-sight most of the time, so cannon aren't much good for me as there is nowhere near enough ammo.

Lol, I know what you mean. Once at the end of a mission in CFS3, I looked at the stats and it said I had fired over 25,000 rounds of ammo!!!

For some reason I have a hard time completing missions with limited ammo

[Woodlouse2002]

I find it easy to use limited ammo... I just need enough if it!

And the Mulberry harbours, Well. they lasted so well because the were british!!! Simple as that isn't it!

[Professor Brensec]

I find it easy to use limited ammo... I just need enough if it!

Can you explain exactly what this means? Sounds like an old "Turtles" assertion................lol

And the Mulberry harbours, Well. they lasted so well because the were british!!! Simple as that isn't it!

A very bold quote so soon after the story of the Roll Royce fiasco....................lol.  ;D

[Professor Brensec]

Lol, I know what you mean. Once at the end of a mission in CFS3, I looked at the stats and it said I had fired over 25,000 rounds of ammo!!!

For some reason I have a hard time completing missions with limited ammo

A problem I've always had since the beginning of CFS. I don't know how (admittedly on rare occasions) that during the war some pilots managed to shoot down three or four planes in one mission. Especially in Europe. The German planes took a bit of punishment.
It would be easier in the Pacific as the Jap plane's fuel tanks exploded pretty easily.

I notice that one of the almost certain improvements in the later models of any plane was 1. Higher powered engine, 2. more ammo.

For this reason, I find the Jap and German gun/ammo setups better for me, with two guns and 1000 rounds which can equal almost a minute of firing, and two cannon.
Apparently, the standard load of Spitfire MK1 ammo (1400) would only give about 17 seconds of firing. Not very much to shoot down more than one or maybe two planes, given that it's only .30 cal, unless your opponent likes flying straight and level.

[Professor Brensec]

Hot off the press!!

Saw the History Channel latest installment of "Battle Stations". It was titled "RAF Fighter Command".
Can you imagine the excitement when I saw the title come to screen?

Much of the same old stuff, BoB, Spit, Hurri, 109, 190 etc.

But a few "new to my knowledge" items. Not the least of which is:
The Meteor first flew on 12th July 1944 in order to be used as a V1 shooter downer. Didn't know that. I thought it didn't fly (or was available for service) until well into 1945. Just goes to show you.
Based on the stats that they gave ie. speed, performance etc, if it ever met the Me262, I don't think it would have fared very well.

Anyway...............

Hey..................I just noticed. 1013 posts. When did that happen. Yehhhhhhh!

[BFMF]

Wish I got the discovery channell

[Professor Brensec]

Wish I got the discovery channell

It's the History channel, mate, in case you ever get the opportunity to grab it.

I call it the WWII channel, because that's what 50% of the programs are about. Depending on your level of knowledge of WWII generally or on particular battles or events, will dictate how much you get from each of the doco's. Any little tidbit that I wasn't aware of excites me.
There has been alot of colour film, mainly from the Soviet Union, that has become available in the last few years and we're beginning to see alot of this. So it's not always the same old pictures.

I've seen some shots depicting one thing or another that have taken place in different theatres.....lol

[BFMF]

It's the History channel, mate, in case you ever get the opportunity to grab it.

ok, whatever it is I would love to have it, but we can't afford cable so we put up our own antenna today and we now can recieve about 5 channels

One of the stations we do get sometimes has history shows on. I was looking at the schedule online and there's going to a Nova "Last Flight of Bomber 31" which is about The effort to recover the remains of a U.S. World War II plane and its crew lying along the edge of a volcano on the Kamchatka Peninsula in Siberia, so that might be interesting.