So how do they differ? The Bug had a guidance system, developed by Sperry. http://www.vectorsite.net/twcruz_1.html Keep trying. The Federov is regarded as the first assault rifle. Gonna argue with (among others) Tony Williams? Ah yes, for the second time you provide a link and fail to read it. Here's some selections on the *cough* superiority of the 109. RAE assessment. A&AEE assessment. Jeffrey Quill. Bob Stanford Tuck "Dizzy" Allen. Edit: you should note that the RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment) and A&AEE (Aircraft & Armament Evaluation Establishment) assessments would be measured, scientific ones, as opposed to what could be a purely personal (subjective) response of the RAF and Luftwaffe pilots. Direct quotes above from the experts... So now you agree the Pzkpfw IV was in service (and action) from the very start of the war, including in France? What else is there to get? Very funny. No they didn't have the better technology. And your so-called better tech (Pzkpfw IV) was in action in France. For example Panzer Regiments 10 & 11 each had 15 Pzkpfw IV on strength in May '40, Panzer Regiment 25 had 10. (Panzer Divisions: The Blitzkrieg Years 1039-40, Battistelli, Osprey books. And also depends on overall size and volume. I think you'll find that the 80mm of armour on Pzkpfw IV was the late marks. (Oh, did you use the figures from Wiki? That, as it states, is the Ausf. H, from 1943. How dishonest of you.). Edit: From Wiki. Not quite the 47mm of S35 or the 78mm of Matilda. Check the muzzle velocities, killing power vs. tanks isn't simply a matter of calibre. Quite... Out of date information. A US court case (GE vs. P&W IIRC) established that the Germans did NOT invent the jet engine, and did NOT build the first one. As stated the first German models were externally powered and couldn't run without that external supply. Whittle's could. Wrong again: you claimed operational. A test unit isn't operational it's an evaluation unit (not a special forces unit). yeah, my mistake, I keep failing to link to sites that contradict my opinion, the way you do. Yeah let's take a random sample: How does that help you? One more time: the IV was in service from the very start of the war. That doesn't even come close to a rational reply. The word "superior" means of better quality. Therefore your cavilling about "firsts or better" is in error. I quoted some of those statements. Yet you don't pay much credence to Goddard, or Allied unused tech... This is the second time that you've provided a link to (supposedly) support your opinion only to have me provide direct quotes which contradict your position. I can only assume that you're either trolling or have problems of comprehension. That, coupled with the dishonesty (or failure to actually check your statements), means I'm done with you.
Simply the V1 was obviously more advanced. However, both remain simple devices which go one direction then drop. As I mentioned, the V2 was more complex. 1. You also claimed a rifle earlier than the Federov was an assault rifle, now you're posting something which goes against your own claim. 2. Yeah, he's stretching it immensely to call it an assault rifle, when it uses a battle rifle cartridge and is designed for a longer range. However, I don't screw around, so I've emailed him. Speaking of failing to read, here is what those experts actually say: As I said, the Me109 was the superior at the outset of WW2. Initially the Spitfire was crippled by negative G moves, and the Hurricane was fucked above a certain altitude. But by 1940 the Spitfire was being upgraded, especially the new engines, which evened the odds. That's when it got to swings and roundabouts. See? That's what happens when you take tiny out of context snippets without reading more. You miss the reality in an attempt to make points which fail miserably. I certainly hope it's just your ego making you pretend not to get this, rather than an actual mental deficiency. The Panzer IV existed before the war. The other tanks you mentioned were inferior (other tanks being inferior means the IV was superior). The Germans had the superior tank, the superior technology (the IV). However, they also had stupid leaders who chose to deploy crappy tanks instead of those superior tanks. Which I have stated several times. The Battle Of France has been used as a major example of this problem several times now. And yes, you have indeed been shown to be completely wrong about tanks as well. Truth can be funny sometimes, yes. This is getting sad and old. I said they had the better technology. You bitched about the S35 tank, the Matilda II tank, and various other things, for such reasons as armour and armaments. I showed you the super armour and armament of the Panzer IV. Now you've completely ignored that and gone back to "nah-ah!". Congratulations. During the Battle Of France, which is the action under discussion, 10 had almost all PIIIs, not PIVs. Division 11 was not even created until August of 1940. After the BOF. Regiment 25 was part of Division 7. This was Rommel. He had a very small number of IVs; the vast majority were IIIs. Division 10 was actually in the BOF, so congratulations, you got one right. Like Rommel's bunch, they had a tiny number of IVs, most of their tanks being IIIs. I used the late models of all three for comparison. No shit, Batman. PIV's main gun versions range from 450 to 1000 m/s, and that's a 75mm. The MII was 40mm at 800 m/s. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/jet_engines/Tech24.htm http://transport-inventions.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_invention_of_the_jet_engine http://www.scientistsandfriends.com/jets1.html http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/courses/ww2/projects/jet-airplanes/planes.html http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/custom.html3.html Whittle's first jet engine: 1937. http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/whittle_first_engine.JPG Ohain's first jet engine: 1935. http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/MaxHahnsm.GIF Dude, whine about operational vs test vs deployed vs various other terms all you want. The Me262 was deployed with an operational commando unit for operational testing in real combat operations, which is how and why they shot down Allies aircraft. From the definitions linked at http://onelook.com/?w=technology&ls=a That's just the first five, taken from the top of the list. Easy. One more time: The BOF (and others) shows that it was not deployed. Or not beyond a very tiny number in a few places. Actually it was developed in the 30s and mostly ignored. Why? Because of bad orders from the top, the guys wanted masses of IIIs. Actually it was in response to your claims about Britain, not my claims. You took a few tiny snippets very obviously with the intent of misrepresenting what they said, which is why I provided full quotes in this post. So you and anyone else interested know what you're pulling. If you want to make a thread about the Allied forces and their science, go right ahead. I do not need to mention every scientist and every development. How about that cavilling? You took a few tiny snippets very obviously with the intent of misrepresenting what they said, which is why I provided full quotes in this post. So you and anyone else interested know what you're pulling.
Obviously? In other words: much the same. Wrong again: I stated the Cei-Rogotti didn't count since it didn't see service. Good luck. You're wrong and it isn't just him that makes the claim (as shown). As noted: subjective opinions, as opposed to RAE and A&AEE assessments. It was always swings and roundabouts. As previously noted, since the IV had a worse gun and thinner armour how was it superior? And you have still failed to show that it was an active decision to NOT field Pzkpfw IV (which actually was fielded). Nope you compared a 1943 tank against a pair of pre-war tanks. Wrong: I've given my source. REGIMENT not Division...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 11th Pz. Rgt. was part of 6. Pz. Div. So they did have IVs. Bullshit: the S35 and Matilda were obsolescent and not produced by 1943. The Pzkpfw IV's 75mm only achieved ~1000m/ sec when it was the long barrelled version - fitted from the Ausf. F2 onwards which dates from '42. Ohain's was as stated several times externally powered and wouldn't run without that external power: it wasn't a complete jet engine. As noted: incorrect it was an evaluation unit, not regular service pilots. And not an operational unit. Yep: not one of which supports experiment as technology. So was it or wasn't it? Photos: - 1: Pzkpfw IV in France 2: Pzkpfw IV in France The Pzkpfw IV was in use from the very start of the war, including the annexation of Czechoslovakia. Evidence? Actually you're wrong: at the start of the war (September '39) the German inventory of 2,983 tanks include 103 Pzkpfw III and 211 Pzkpfw IV: Battistelli again, as is that following: Try these figures for 1 Sep '39 1. Pz. Div. - 26 Pzkpfw III & 56 Pzkpfw IV 2. Pz. Div. - 6 Pzkpfw III & 17 Pzkpfw IV 3. Pz. Div. - 6 Pzkpfw III & 18 Pzkpfw IV 4. Pz. Div. - 0 Pzkpfw III & 12 Pzkpfw IV 5. Pz. Div. - 3 Pzkpfw III & 14 Pzkpfw IV Non-divisional units - 46 Pzkpfw III & 81 Pzkpfw IV. Post #69, by you: Keep going... You failed the first time and your quotes generally use the word superior for particular aspects of performance. Not an overall superiority.
Yes, obviously. Like an arrow and a bullet. This post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2449342&postcount=74 Where I said Germany had the first assault rifle, you claimed it was instead the Federov. But awesome work on that backflipping. Actually that guy's claim is the only one you've shown which supports your assertion (now abandoned) about the Federov. So some were British air force, and some were German air force, and all were experts, but only those you think agree with you can be included? Even when I've shown how you misrepresented those quotes by taking out the smallest pieces you could anyway? No. the Me109 was superior at the outset of the war. It took until 1940 for Britain to begin a major upgrading programme which got them up to speed, and that's when they started leapfrogging each other. This is also mentioned on that website. More details (including armour): http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-medium/pzkpfw-iv-ausf-d.asp http://www.wwiivehicles.com/france/tanks-cavalry/s-35.asp http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/infantry/matilda.asp As you can see, and as I discussed earlier, the PIV had a better gun. The one area in which the Matilda II excelled was in the thick armour, which still wasn't enough to defend it against German guns. A very few were fielded. The vast majority were (on orders) PIIIs. This has been said and shown many times now. See above. No, you've made unsupported claims. They had a small few PIVs, nearly all PIIIs. Sorry, misread. The 10th was part of the 6th division, which was almost all PIs, PIIs, and PIIIs. The 8th was in the same situation. Even until Barbarossa, about a quarter of all fielded Panzers were P1s and PIIs. They had the PIV, but weren't producing or deploying enough. Always said they did. If you can read (and that is doubtful at this point), I've been saying again and again that they had the better tanks but did not field them due to shitty orders. (Beyond fielding one or two here and there.) 1. The word is "obsolete". 2. Incorrect. The Matilda was being produced in 1943. The S35 stopped in 1040 due to the S35 factories being taken over by superior German tanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually they fitted the long barrel to earlier models as well. The PAK40 was developed from 1939. It wasn't the usual though, which is why I gave a range of velocities for the PIV. I know, now you wish to screw around with terminology again because I showed you the actual engines dating from 1935 and 1937. Bad luck. Get over it. Again with the getting all precious about terminology. The guys who first flew the Me262 in combat and actually shot down Allied aircraft were a group of pilots whose task was specifically to test new toys in real operational conditions, by participating in real live combat. Either way, you're being unbelievably retarded to bitch about things being real or not based solely on whether they were used by the left hand or the right hand, with orange decals or green decals. Ohain had the first turbojet engine. I even showed the pictures. The Germans had the first turbojet plane. The Germans had the first turbojet fighter. The Germans had the first turbojet fighter in combat. Ok, you win the prize for today. I know you are being deliberately ignorant and pretending to be incapable of reading so you can make points which everyone knows are really silly. So let me quote myself again: Panzer III was used. Panzer IV already existed. Easy. As demonstrated already. They had the Panzer IV but did not deploy it. (Yes, I should have said "They only deployed a couple of them, while the vast majority were PIs, PIIs, and PIIIs.") The Battle Of France was from May 1940. The T34 was fielded in September 1940. The Panzer IV was simply superior to the S-35, the Matilda II, and the B1 (which the Germans used as a training vehicle since they were useless as tanks). You're going to need better reading and comprehension skills. The Battle Of France was the example used. The Germans had the Panzer IV, which as I said was better technology, but due to shitty orders deployed the Panzer III, which was a shitty tank. Et cetera... The evidence is its lack of presence in major battles and campaigns. As I said before, even as late as Barbarossa, around a quarter of the Panzers were still Is and IIs. yeah. That must be why I provided actual pictures of the actual jet engines, details of tanks, and so on, where as you have provided 'Nope". Good work there pal.
Honestly he's got a point - Hitler would have been laughed at as bad as any wingnut on this very site for stuff he thought was true or might be true. While primarily directed by Himmler, the Nazi's DID in fact try to chase down all kinds of religious artifacts and mythical objects. The Spear of Longinus being the most significant (for it's reputed military value). They were a VERY superstitious coterie and really wasted a lot of resources in these en devours.
Nope. Both guided, both powered (although differently) and both for roughly the same task. Learn to read: it is the Federov. the Cei-Rigotti didn't enter service. Apart from my very first link to the Russian guns site, post #79, you mean? Still getting things wrong aren't you? Or maybe this one: Wiki. As I have now stated TWICE: the subjective reports were from pilots and are personal opinions. RAE and A&AEE aren't subjective. Wrong again: as also stated the quotes you gave claim superiority for one or the other on single aspects, not an overall superiority. Still cherry picking and taking single aspects as an indicator of overall superiority? Gun followed by range in metres/ penetration in mm 7,5cm Kw.K.37 L/24 100m/41mm 500m/38mm 1,000m/32mm 2,000m/30mm OQF 2 pr MkIX 91m/55mm 457m/47mm 914m/37mm SA mle 1937 47mm 100m/57mm 500m/50mm 1,000m/42mm 1,500m/36mm http://gva.freeweb.hu/ Wrong: Wiki on the Matilda II. The Matilda achieved a reputation for being highly resistant to German guns. Wrong. You've claimed it (without a single supporting link) but not shown it. I on the other hand have given on-strength figures. I see, you've now gone from "Pzkpfw IV wasn't fielded" to, "they were but far fewer than Pzkfpw III". Also shown to be wrong in my last post. Nope: post #80: you state they didn't have the Pzkfpw IV deployed in France. And they didn't have better tanks, and you STILL haven't shown any evidence of these "orders". No, it's obsolescent. And used as mine-clearing vehicles, not combat tanks. An uncaptioned photo shows... what exactly? Wiki again... PaK is German for anti-tank gun: they weren't fitted to Pzkpfw IV at that time, and the first of them wasn't delivered until Nov 1941.. A photo: no description, no date nothing else... Wrong: your claim, specifically, was operational. Funny how you quote yourself and not an actual source that supports you. Since you clearly ARE trolling and posting little but bare photos or your own opinion I'm having nothing further to do with you. Welcome to my ignore list.
The Bug and V1 both had direction and range systems, but one being later than the other, the later model had more advanced (newer) systems. Systems tend to improve over time. 1. What I said: "So... first jet fighters, first rocket fighters, first guided missiles, first assault rifles, best fighters at the start of the war, first nerve gas...?" 2. What you said: "In order: Built but not in service - He 178, No - Soviet BI-1, No - Kettering Bug, No - Soviet Federov Avtomat, No - Hurricane, Spitfire, Germany had Bf 109 Yes." 3. What you said: "Wrong again: I stated it didn't count since it didn't see service." 3 directly contradicts 2. Yes, you quoted Wikipedia. Congratulations. One lot of quotes are from air force personnel. The RAE and A&AEE quotes are from air force personnel. Indeed, the cropped quotes you used earlier were from air force personnel. Simply claiming that the quotes you cropped and used were objective and the full quotes I used were subjective is meaningless drivel. So...? 1. Me: "Even when I've shown how you misrepresented those quotes by taking out the smallest pieces you could anyway?" 2. You: "Wrong again: as also stated the quotes you gave claim superiority for one or the other on single aspects, not an overall superiority." How exactly is 2 an answer to 1? The statement that the Me109 was superior until the British started a massive upgrading campaign in 1940 involves no "cherry picking". If it does, perhaps you could show how, and support your assertion. Try it. My god that is sad. It's a games website. But it's what I expect really. Most folks who are obsessed with war and such are just gamers who get their information from games and have never actually had anything to do with anything even slightly related to military stuff. Try here: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/penetration-tables.asp#2pdr http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/75-mm.asp And remember that picture of the model D with the long barrel. Yay Wikipedia. Matilda II tank.s front armour: 78mm or 3.1". Pak 40 penetration at 500 yards: 4.43". The Pak 38 needed to be at close range to get through a Matilda II's front (heaviest) armour, but as shown, they had access to the Pak 40s as early as 1939. More information regarding German anti-tank weapons: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....erman-anti-tank-guns&Itemid=58&layout=default http://www.lonesentry.com/german_antitank/index.html http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Vehicles/german/germantankdestroyers.htm http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzerfaust.htm Wiki tank production numbers. Rough numbers. 3379 German tanks. Or I could quote Dywyddyr: "Panzer Regiments 10 & 11 each had 15 Pzkpfw IV on strength in May '40, Panzer Regiment 25 had 10." But I don't think he's a credible source. Well, it wasn't fielded to any effect, there were so few. Out of over three thousand tanks, Germany only sent in a couple of dozen PIVs, when they'd had them in production for years. Did they do that due to some lieutenant rolling some dice? Or was it orders? That's right: it was orders. Wow. Where was that? Point it out for me, because I don't see it anywhere. Well, it wasn't fielded to any effect, there were so few. Out of over three thousand tanks, Germany only sent in a couple of dozen PIVs, when they'd had them in production for years. Did they do that due to some lieutenant rolling some dice? Or was it orders? That's right: it was orders. Did they do that due to some lieutenant rolling some dice? Or was it orders? That's right: it was orders. Was the army organised based on the outcome of a Twister tournament? Or was it orders? http://onelook.com/?w=obsolescent&ls=a http://onelook.com/?w=obsolete&ls=a They were obsolete. That's why they got their arses handed to them. So what? You stated they weren't being made then. They were. It's a model D with the long barrel. Obviously. Panzerabwehrkanone is German for anti-tank cannon. You can see it's a model D with a long barrel. First line from your favoured website. You were talking about what I'd posted, so those were links to what I'd posted. Simple. Is this because of those photographs and the other evidence? Geez, grow a pair.
Learn to read: the Cei Rigotti didn't see service, the Federov did. Post #79. RAE and A&AEE are scientific establishments. Even ignoring those if there are dissenting views how does that link confirm superiority? You claimed the 109 was superior: the quotes don't support that it was superior overall (and is in fact stated to be inferior all round in the RAE and A&AEE comments). No it's an information site using hard historical data that happens to be used by, and caters for, gamers. Fail, that also shows the 2 pr being superior to the 75 (except for Gr.39 HEAT round which was used by artillery/ StuG units). Upgraded at what date? So you missed the word "resistant"? I didn't say "immune". The Pak 40 was first delivered in '42, and it wasn't fitted to tanks. Most of which is irrelevant to period under discussion. Fail again: that wasn't simply me, I stated the source. Not production figures but on-strength (i.e. in use). And fewer Pzkpfw IIIs. One more time: Post #83. And fewer Pzkpfw IIIs. Or was it production capacity? Or budget considerations? Wrong again. It was the use not technology that let them get their arses handed to them. French use particularly was in penny packets. But not as tanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Upgraded at what date? Yup, test and evaluation units. Still failing I note.
Your statement was that it was an assault rifle. Here's what you stated: "Or if you want to really push the boat out, the Italian Cei-Rigotti of 1890, but that wasn't taken into service." Ie. you're saying it was an assault rifle, but you were excluding it because of its service history. 1. RAE and A&AEE were MOD research and development institutions. Staffed and operated by air force and other military personnel. Test pilots, fighter pilots, and so on. The same folks who gave those quotes. But feel free to explain how one air force guy's evaluation of those planes is subjective while another air force guy's evaluation is objective. 2. You posted snipped quotes from pilots. It's a games website. I think you should actually read those pages. Even the Kwk37 at a thousand yards is listed as higher than the 2pdr, although it depends on the ammo type. But as I've said, the Pak40 was available as early as 1939 anyway, and that's even nicer. Even the 1937 Pak38 could take out a T34. Look at it. So now you want yet another condition added to prevent reality from interfering with your silly arguments? Marder II. (That's a tank carrying the Pak40.) I figured it would be beneficial for you to read up. Hey, you can make claims all you want about being a credible source, but we both know better by now. Anyway, that's correct. You were talking about the numbers fielded. As was I. So...? Source please. At the start of the war: PI: 1,867. PII: 1,223. PIII: 98. PIV: 211. By the end of the war: PI: 1,893. PII: 3,404. PIII: 16,409. PIV: 13,522. Are you asking what were the reasons for the orders? Source? You stated they weren't being made then. They were. Your complaint, your extra condition you added so you could persist with that silly idea that the Me262 wasn't before the Meteor, was that it wasn't operational. Despite the fact that it was flying around, in combat, shooting down Allied aircraft. So here's that first line from your favourite website: "An Erprobungskommando (EKdo) was a Luftwaffe unit tasked with the testing of new aircraft and weaponry under operational conditions." Maybe if you're going to argue based solely on semantics, you should be a little more careful.
Correct because it was more of an experimental model. Because, as stated RAE and A&AEE actually do measured tests and evaluations, not just a flight and a comment. I posted portions that directly disagreed with your statement that the link showed the 109 to be superior. Wrong. Only using HEAT ammo which was issued in limited numbers to artillery and StuG units. The PaK 40 was not issued for service until '42. Actually it was upgraded at a later date: not available for France. No it's a panzerjaeger. A tank destroyer. Used for a different role. Still misreading? I am not the source: I quoted title, author and publisher. No you gave production figures among other things I gave TO&E figures. Already given in posts #81 and 83: (Panzer Divisions: The Blitzkrieg Years 1939-40, Battistelli, Osprey books). Oh look more IVs than IIIs. WTF? Did you read ANY of the links you've given me about the battles? You told me to read some history in a previous post. You're evidently not following your own advice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_warfare They were not being manufactured as tanks. Wrong again. Your original claim was first operational jet fighter. Yes note the wording: testing of new aircraft and weaponry under operational conditions. Not as part of operations. There's a difference.
The world's first assault rifle. From Tony Williams, long time writer for Janes: Well, I'm content that his reply settles the matter of the assault rifle. I go with the first option he gave. He goes with the second. There is no official criteria. Therefore I choose to go with the actual name from the actual creation.
I've decided to just knock one subject out of the park at a time, to silence the stupidity. First up, the Me262. Me262: The world's first jet fighter. He178: First flown in 1939. Did not enter service. Me262: Development began in 1939. First flew in April 1941. First saw combat in July 1944 (flown by the Erprobungskommando). Meteor: Development began in 1940. First prototype flew in May 1941 (a month after the 262). Entered service July 1944. Hans von Ohain's first jet engine, 1935: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sir Frank Whittle's first jet engine, 1937: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! More information: http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/custom.html3.html http://www.scientistsandfriends.com/jets1.html http://transport-inventions.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_invention_of_the_jet_engine http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/jet_engines/Tech24.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm
The world's first guided missiles. Guided missile definitions: http://www.onelook.com/?w=guided missile&ls=a First five definitions from that list: More information. The Kettering Aerial Torpedo.
Right, so the Federov fits all the criteria but it isn't really an assault rifle because you don't want to call it one. So that would make the He 178 the world's first jet. Agreed. The first jet fighter would be the He 280. The first operational jet fighter was the Meteor. The first jet to see combat was the Me 262. Re-quoted from post #86. Er, your own quote: So the Bug was guided as much as was the V-1. http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Cruise_missile_-_Concise_history/id/4956559 http://www.spacearium.com/special/spaceline/spaceline.org/history/3.html http://www.draganfly.com/news/2009/03/04/a-short-history-of-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uavs/
How banal: Post #74 Originally Posted by Scaramouche first nerve gas...? My reply: Yes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Federov used a 6.5x50mm Ariska Cartridge, which was developed for the Japanese bolt action Ariska Rifle, and does not meet the definition of a intermediate cartridge, such as the 8x33mm StG 44, the 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov, or the 5.56x45mm ArmaLite.
Oh dear... it actually only developed the power of an intermediate cartridge, rather than the equivalent of most full-power rounds of the period. Like Tony Williams states on the link I gave: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm Link given again since you appear not to have bothered with it from previous posts. Oh, and the StG 44 was 7.92 x 33, not 8mm.
WTF. "One by one, Nazi.....". If they would have, then, they would have. Theydidn't. That means that they wouldn't have.
