It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How would the US fare in the next world war?

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientistSo you still doin't understand
Can't make it any simpler than I already have. Keep going, I know you don't mid making yourself look foolish.


Retraction


Most jet fighters had a greater wing surface area than propr fighters
What's your point.


Modern fighters?. Arent we comparing Mig-15 to a Yak-9 or La-11?. Because it wasn't a greater wing area



Once again you don't understand. Once a jet is up to speed, the air is compressed into the jet engine, however when it isn't at speed the air density makes a huge difference.


After I explained it to you now your telling me im wrong. Well knowing you it doesn't take a rocket scientist to point out the obvious so no point in trying to repeat the obvious.....Thinner air




jets are far more efficient than prop planes, gawd this is getting laughable.


Why dont you do a comparison, say between a Yak and a Mig?


Ahem, please provide a link to where you got this.


A link?

How about some books.

"riding the iron rooster"
"The nationalist era in China"
"Understanding Asia"

And for people which cant afford books


And ? Railways are easily repared especially with all the labour manpower CHina has. Just look at Germany in WW2, they were almost bombbed flat, yet teh trains kept running.


And you dont have a clue what your talking about

Building a railroad does not require manpower only. You need organisation, materials and the last one, expertise. All of them china lacked at 1950-53. When the first five year planned was made thats when china began re-building her country. China had a non-existant steel/iron industry let alone have one making tracks. On paper the PRC has many people but none of them knew how to make a railroad let alone operate a train or make steel

Germany is a non-comparison. One bomb attack there one over here. In chinas case it was a 5 year war and concentrated attack. When a rail line is bent, it says bent. Germany had the third biggest steel industry and a large trained military/milita reparing the roads at night. They were never bombed flat. Even at the height of the bombing production increase two fold


Oh pluhease, there are plenty of reports of dogfights with US Sabres and China/Russian Migs. Not only was the Mig quicker, it carried a heavier armament, yet the US still managed to blow them away in large numbers.


Please give me 379 of them

The Mig-15 had heavier armament that is true, But it was slow to fire and had a crap gun sight. The Sabre had quick firing machine guns that could be more weight of munitions than the mig. Combine that with a radar gun sight and you have a better dog fighter.

Speed is not essential in a dog fight. Manuverbility is, which the sabre was superior


US pilots were just too superior, especially to the Chinese.


Apart from the fact that there were 1300 UN/US losses. you tell me thats superior



Erm no the attacking force usually out numbered the defending force. Especailly as you refer to Germay in 1943-1945. Chinese pilots were just undertrained at best.


This is not ground combat. Vietnam war, World war II, Korean war all saw the defending force being larger than the attacking force. If germany could have put more planes up they would. It was not part of their strategy not to


Bollocks, where did you get this ? provide a link.


You seem to enjoy the internet so much. Search aircraft losses korean war. You might like to include ground fire or AA


As for Vietnam, almost all major AAA was radar guided, so bugger all planes were shot down using manual guns.


Can you even name one that was?.



LOL, I waited a few weeks for this - not even worth teh effort.


And i waited a few weeks to reply. Your right, your not worth the effort

[edit on 5-6-2006 by chinawhite]




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
CHINAWHITE :

your reference to bernoullis theorem is a red herring - the page you cite and the formula within , has nothing to do with lift calculations or wing loadings

further more - your assertion that air density is unimportant is also wholly false

air density is vitaly important when calculating lift

this is why A/C payloads and maximum take off weights are calculated for altitude

at sea level -- the maximum permited take off weight is far higher than @ 5ooom

why do you think that is ?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
If air density has nothing to do with lift, then why do planes need longer runways in Africa? Why do planes flying in high mountain regions have to be weight limited?

Hmm, what's this?

Lift and drag depend linearly on the density of the fluid. Halving the density halves the lift, halving the density halves the drag. The fluid density depends on the type of fluid and the depth of the fluid. In the atmosphere, air density decreases as altitude increases. This explains why airplanes have a flight ceiling, an altitude above which it cannot fly. As an airplane ascends, a point is eventually reached where there just isn't enough air mass to generate enough lift to overcome the airplane's weight. The relation between altitude and density is a fairly complex exponential that has been determined by measurements in the atmosphere.

www.grc.nasa.gov...

I guess you know better than NASA though huh?

Or wait, how about this?
selair.selkirk.bc.ca...

Or maybe this?

For example, the lift of an aircraft wing, the aerodynamic drag and the thrust of a propeller blade are all directly proportional to the air density

wahiduddin.net...


In summation, the decrease in air density that occurs as an airplane climbs to higher altitudes has three effects: 1) reduces lift, 2) reduces drag, and 3) reduces thrust

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Air density is affected by the air pressure, temperature and humidity. The density of the air is reduced by decreased air pressure, increased temperatures and increased moisture. A reduction in air density reduces the engine horsepower, reduces aerodynamic lift and reduces drag.

www.nawcwpns.navy.mil...

You were saying?

[edit on 6/5/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I was calculating the right thing with the wrong formula. I was using Bernoulli's theorem to calulate how the wing moved up and around the wing. I did mine on cars instead of aircraft so there was a mis-calulation

Though i did answer today i was basing his reply on the thrust of the engine instead of the aircraft lift because like im saying, would only effected the intial take-off of the chinese fighters because the inidan fighters would be under the same effect



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Yeah, it would affect their take off. They couldn't take off with a full load. They'd either have to take off some weapons, or some fuel to be able to take off before they ran out of runway.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If air density has nothing to do with lift, then why do planes need longer runways in Africa? Why do planes flying in high mountain regions have to be weight limited?


Its a no brainer how much sites there are with lift, If i didn't know a little bit about motion i would have justed googled my own results up.

How simple



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, it would affect their take off. They couldn't take off with a full load. They'd either have to take off some weapons, or some fuel to be able to take off before they ran out of runway.


Madscientist has put words in my mouth.

I have said in the intial post that the planes would be in a clean confriguration doing air intercepts and not getting involved in CAS or as a bomb truck. And in the picture i made i showed the range of the Mig-15s leaving out more than a third of their range


---
The Mig-15 has about a range of 800km. Here is a map i made showing the distances

- The green line is 500km so 800km is obviously longer.
- The red dot is Lhasa and the red box is where one of the two major battles were taking place in NEFA
- The blue dot is hotan where their is a airbase/air field. and the blue box is askin chin where the other big battle took place




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   
What don't you get about this chinawhite? The thinner the air the less lift. The less lift the more runway, and more speed you need to get airborne. It's that simple. The hotter the air, the thinner the air, the less lift. The higher the altitude, the thinner the air, the less lift. It's really very very simple.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What don't you get about this chinawhite? The thinner the air the less lift. The less lift the more runway, and more speed you need to get airborne. It's that simple. The hotter the air, the thinner the air, the less lift. The higher the altitude, the thinner the air, the less lift. It's really very very simple.


The question is what didn't you get?

Where am i questing lift at at higher altitude in my post above?

You said:They couldn't take off with a full load

I said:the planes would be in a clean confriguration doing air intercepts and not getting involved in CAS or as a bomb truck



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   
CHINAWHITE :

a plane in ` clean config ` -- has very poor range / endurance . esp when taking off from hi altitude

its actually better to take off with tanks -- from a longer runway -- littereally clawing your way into the sky burning fuel like crazy

then onve you are actually airborne -- drop the tanks -- to get a clean profile and complete your CAP mission

that way -- you are in the air with full internal tanks -- and max manuverability / endurance



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I was thinking that but didn't known whether chinas Mig-15s or 17s were drop tank compatible. I dont think i ever saw one fitted with one



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
MIGs with tanks :

MIG-15


China did not produce the type locally, but operated Soviet-built aircraft as the J-2 or JJ-2 (MiG-15UTI).



2x 100 kg (220 kg) bombs, drop tanks, or unguided rockets on underwing hardpoints.


MIG-17


and it usually carried additional fuel tanks instead of bombs.



All variants could carry 100 kg bombs on two underwing pylons (some could cary 250 kg bombs), but usually they were used for 400 l fuel tanks


there ya go -- all types had hard points , and drop tanks were the ` prefered ` loadout



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
I knew they could carry one but never saw one in chinese service with one



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
here , is a mig-17 of chinese extraction , with tanks



and at the risk of quoting myself :


Originally posted by ignorant_ape


China did not produce the type locally, but operated Soviet-built aircraft as the J-2 or JJ-2 (MiG-15UTI).



referes to the chinese operated mig-15s

one assumes they came fitted for tanks [ ie pipes / connectors / valves / pumps etc ] to the same spec as soviet issue

so althoigh a quick search of my korean conflict websites , doesnt produce a picture of a chinese mig-15 with tanks

but i presume they did -- and will look for a pic



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
I was calculating the right thing with the wrong formula. I was using Bernoulli's theorem to calulate how the wing moved up and around the wing. I did mine on cars instead of aircraft so there was a mis-calulation

Though i did answer today i was basing his reply on the thrust of the engine instead of the aircraft lift because like im saying, would only effected the intial take-off of the chinese fighters because the inidan fighters would be under the same effect



Complete load of BS, once again you are completely wrong ( as usual ), don'y try and deflect attention saying you calculated it with cars. How stupid do you have to be
I told you several times in plain english you were wrong yet you persisted. It's only because other members tell you how stupid tyou are that you are trying to calim you made a mistake LMAO.

Like I said, you look foolish as always.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
So can anyone tell me again what this has to do with anything?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
How stupid do you have to be
I told you several times in plain english you were wrong yet you persisted.


You mean like this

"Your Wrong"
"nah , Im right"
"take it back, that wasn't fair"

Very childish.....I wouldn't expect more from you.

Now lets make a list of all the BS you made up

1# Where is the PLAAF orbat?. BS from you again

2# Manchuria had better infrastructure and was heavily populated region. More BS

3# China could make railways very fast because they had a lot of people. This one was the funniest statment yet, keep it up

4# Korean war fighter ratio. Only after i provided you with an american source you kept quiet. Again the BS flows like beer on a friday night

5# Vietnams AA guns were radar operated

6# There was no AA screen on the yalu.

7# AA couldn't kill a jet

Lucky you only made 7 points or the list would go on and on and on....



[edit on 5-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
You mean like this

"Your Wrong"
"nah , Im right"
"take it back, that wasn't fair"

Very childish.....I wouldn't expect more from you.


Haha, ou mean like you. Kinda funny a kid calling me childish - so y freely admit your last cuple of posts about aerodynamics were completely wrong - good about time, wasn't sure how long you were going to live in this fantasy land for.



1# Where is the PLAAF orbat?. BS from you again


There was no PLAAF orbat because teh PLAAF wasn't involved in the 1962 operation



2# Manchuria had better infrastructure and was heavily populated region. More BS


Tha Tibet in teh 1960's, of course Manchuria was, the Japanese had spent a reat deal of time developing it



China could make railways very fast because they had a lot of people. This one was the funniest statment yet, keep it up


Duh, you love to misrepresent what people say, when you're wrong. I said railways are easy to repair and with CHina's manpower, it wouldn't be a problem for them



4# Korean war fighter ratio. Only after i provided you with an american source you kept quiet. Again the BS flows like beer on a friday night


And what, I've have already provided sources stating your figures are wrong - nothing new here - I just couldn't be bothered going round in circles. Even by your own sources a 4:1 ratio is an arse kicking by anyines standards



5# Vietnams AA guns were radar operated


Erm, you're saying they weren't, someone needs to do some reading.


6# There was no AA screen on the yalu.


Must have been invisible then LOL


7# AA couldn't kill a jet


Once again you know you're worng so you purposel misrepresented what I said. I said
tht AAA is very ineffective against jets, especially if it isn't radar guided
Why do't you show me how many sabres were killed by AAA - NONE, and they were crossing teh Yalu all the time.

Well, this has been fun - but your credibility has already been shot to bits.

Lucky you only made 7 points or the list would go on and on and on....



[edit on 5-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Rogue1 and Mad scientist are the same person...........


Originally posted by rogue1
Haha, ou mean like you. Kinda funny a kid calling me childish - so y freely admit your last cuple of posts about aerodynamics were completely wrong - good about time, wasn't sure how long you were going to live in this fantasy land for.


..........Who are you?


Are you sure in your the right thread here grandpa?

mad scientist and rogue1 all in one. no wonder you guys sounded the same, same BS, same childish replies.

But all this time, why did you need to have two accounts?



There was no PLAAF orbat because teh PLAAF wasn't involved in the 1962 operation


..........The orbat is for the positioning of PLA units. Which ever person you are claimed that he had to PLAAF orbat for '62 to prove it wasn't there.



Tha Tibet in teh 1960's, of course Manchuria was, the Japanese had spent a reat deal of time developing it


Like I am saying provide a reason and proof

Quote from me
They might have built railways when they were administraing it but they built narrow gauge tracks with 700mm compared to the standard russian and chinese 1000mm -1050mm. Big difference in length. And at the time there were no carriages which could go on them because the japanese carriages were either unservicable due to lack of spare parts because they went out of production in '45 (and there already but serice record) or they were destroyed in the russian offensive.

Most of the tracks were relaid in the first five year plan

But you are talking about a gap of 5 years between japanese surrender and the korean war. Manchuria saw the most intensive fighting of the chinese civil war. If you had a idea of how the war was fought you would know how badly the rail network was in 1949. The KMT by 1947 was using cities as fortesses while the cmmunsit were in the country side. The only connection those forteses had were by air and rail. They couldn't target the air network so the only option was to target the rail network.

By the time in the korean war, china had seen war for almost 100 years. In 1962 china was centrally controlled and better organized than during the korean war and able to supply a army offnsive beter. Not to mention that Chengdu was more developed than Manchuria if we have a 1950 comaprison to a 1962 comparison


Duh, you love to misrepresent what people say, when you're wrong. I said railways are easy to repair and with CHina's manpower, it wouldn't be a problem for them


Building a railroad does not require manpower only. You need organisation, materials and the last one, expertise. All of them china lacked at 1950-53. When the first five year planned was made thats when china began re-building her country. China had a non-existant steel/iron industry let alone have one making tracks. On paper the PRC has many people but none of them knew how to make a railroad let alone operate a train or make steel

Germany is a non-comparison. One bomb attack there one over here. In chinas case it was a 5 year war and concentrated attack. When a rail line is bent, it says bent. Germany had the third biggest steel industry and a large trained military/milita reparing the roads at night. They were never bombed flat. Even at the height of the bombing production increase two fold

You cannot repair bent railways unless you have more tracks to use.


And what, I've have already provided sources stating your figures are wrong


No you haven't.

And i stated reasons why

The Mig-15 had heavier armament that is true, But it was slow to fire and had a crap gun sight. The Sabre had quick firing machine guns that could be more weight of munitions than the mig. Combine that with a radar gun sight and you have a better dog fighter.

Speed is not essential in a dog fight. Manuverbility is, which the sabre was superior

The Mig-15 was developed as a interceptor and was deployed as a interceptor, hence its heavy armament. The Mig-15s in the korean war were used to target bombers and attacks which meant it wouldn't be there dog fighting sabres. Hence the Mig-15s were trying to kill B-29s while the sabre was trying to kill the Mig-15s.


Erm, you're saying they weren't, someone needs to do some reading.


Im very sure. I know for a fact that china SUPPILED and OPERATED most if not all the AA guns in vietnam


Must have been invisible then


That was a point you made


7# AA couldn't kill a jet


Once again you know you're worng so you purposel misrepresented what I said. I said
tht AAA is very ineffective against jets, especially if it isn't radar guided
Why do't you show me how many sabres were killed by AAA - NONE, and they were crossing teh Yalu all the time.

your exact quote

""Even if theire had been AA guns, especially manual ones are useless against jet fighters""

Here is a story you might like to read
www.acepilots.com...


Well, this has been fun - but your credibility has already been shot to bits.


Im laughing now. You made two accounts and used them at the same time. very sad


[edit on 5-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I don't know why you guys are upto.. but its totally pointless..

There was no PLAAF in and around Aksai Chin/ Arunachal in 62'. If the IAF had been operationally deployed in this conflict, there was no way the PLAAF could have raised infrastructural and logistic support for any air craft based there in time and unchallenged.
Continuous raids by Canberras which had ranges that could stem any such attempts in ALL of Tibet would have made it impossible to raise anything in time (if at all) that would enable the MiG 15s the fly effective CAS for PLA troops. By then the IAF would have done enough damage to them with Hunters, Ouragons, Mysteres, Vampires etc. etc.

Also I can now respond to how incorrect your similarities to Kargil were:

1). The Kargil conflict was not about invading which sizeable divisions. The enemy had dug into strategic bunker locations which overlooked a vital supply line(Srinagar Highway) and their sole objective was to hold position to winter set in after which the Indians couldn't have dont much to oust them. They had taken such strategically sound positions that even artillery fire (BOFORS) were unable to dislodge them completely.
This bears no similarity whatsoever with the PLA objectives and postions in 62'.

2). The usage of the IAF in Kargil was not as simple as it would've been in 62'.
Officially the Indians were fighting on their own soil and hence there wasn't a state of open war declared. So it wasn't possible to cross the border. Hence all CAS had to be meticulously executed with proper guidelines. The IAF still lost 2 planes (one to a flame out and the other to a MANPAD) due to border problems. Also the IAF was introduced 26 days too late into the conflict. Otherwise the insurgency could have been stopped, crippled and repelled very early.
Also one had to keep in mind here that the foe was a conventionally inferior and any such violations of Pak airspace could/would have lead to a full fledged war. And nobody wants a war with a cornered nuclear weapons state.
Still the IAF was used optimally though a little tardily in Kargil. The MiG 21s flew escort for the Mig-27s and the MiG 29s flew the same for the Mirage - 2000. The former groups mostly used dumbfire rockets and iron bombs while the latter used LGB munitions.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join