Between this and the Sherman America truly had the most pathetic looking weaponry in WW2.
>>30238860
Agreed for most part, B-designation bombers are pretty wizard
So ugly.
Fucking pathetic
So sad looking
>>30238860
I disagree
What a joke
Isn't there a premium brand of this stuff?
![North_American_XP-82_Twin_Mustang_44-83887.Color[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/k9q8QlW.jpg "North_American_XP-82_Twin_Mustang_44-83887.Color[1].jpg")
>>30238860
one mustang is good
two mustangs gooder
so pathetic amirite
>>30239058
>tfw the lead plane in this pic crashed with no survivors recently
;_;
>>30238860
>Comfy back seat
>Convertible
>Speed holes
Seems like a pretty nice ride to me.
>>30239045
Gorgeous, especially in that deep blue.
I see the IP ban on Russian has been removed
So embarrassing
>>30239145
shes a big girl
Shame to famiry
>>30238860
>looks matter
>>30239013
U wot
>>30239120
I really wish they had kept it. The quality improvement on 4chan was remarkable.
>>30238860
American tech looks rugged. You're not there to win ribbons for appearance, you're there to kill Krauts, Wops, and Japs.
The designs reflect the need for durability and range. I happen to think they look pretty in their practicality.
Wow. Ebic thread komrade :^).
Fuck you, asshole. You don't win wars with aesthetics.
>>30238860
Meanwhile, in glorious motherland
>>30238860
>Looking badass is more important than being functional
Aminu babby detected
>>30239193
Too rounded and bulbous for rugged. Fat is more like it.
>>30238860
>ripping on the dauntless
You best be joking nigger. Our shit doesn't need to look aesthetic to get shut done.
>>30239241
*get shit done.
>>30239239
It's called "armor", something Japanese aircraft manufacturers didn't believe in. It's why the A6M looks so sleek, but as history proved- looks don't save you from becoming a flaming wreck hurtling into the Pacific.
>>30239045
IDK if I'm being trolled or I've ran into literally the most retarded person of all time.
>>30239258
No aircraft was armored.
>>30239192
I didn't really mind actual Russian posters, but posters from other countries who constantly suck Russia's and Putin's dick are horrible. Then again a lot of them might have been proxyfags.
Soviets had ugly and inferior equipment. What
s their excuse?
>This whole thread
With the exception of the Zero, the japs and soviets had the ugliest equipment around.
>>30239347
pls
>>30239058
>>30239093
are you sure you got the right plane? the recent crash was a thunderbolt.
Quantity has a quality all it's own.
>>30239432
yeah it's a petty excuse
American quantity had quality.
>>30239052
wouldscalpnaziswith/10
>>30239193
look is important to airplane, since it affect aerodynamic and weight.
The spitfire and tempest were beautiful aircraft. the mustang is probably the best looking US air plane since it looked like a muscle car.
>>30239402
I love getting a little Panzer II and micro-ing the fuck out of an M10 with it. Such lulz
>>30239483
was it really necessary to use overlaping road wheel for such a small tank?
>>30239449
That was the whole point of the Sherman. The British, Germans, and Soviets all made tanks with much larger castings. Ther Sherman was designed for maximum production (and easy transport overseas) not to be the best tank.
>>30239164
For you
>>30239277
Many aircraft did have some form of armor, but it wasn't in the sense of a tank's.
Most cases involved armoring the pilot's seat and areas around the cockpit. Some had 'armor' in the form of bullet-resistant glass in the front of the canopy, and a few even had light armor around the engines.
>>30239493
Overlapping road wheels saved a ton of rubber. The Tiger 2 used less rubber than a M4 Sherman.
Germany had no access to natural rubber nor the industrial capacity like the US to synthesize it out of oil (since they didn't have much oil either).
The French copied this design decision for their post war tank prototypes without realizing why the Germans did it, and their tanks were maintenance nightmares.
>>30238860
back to world of warplanes, laddie.
>>30239045
Those 16 downed japs may disagree with you.
>>30238860
>Talking crap about the SBD.
Fuck you, it looked great AND it was a great plane.
>>30239429
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=09d2da5a-0aa3-46e9-8bec-aa59252ca8f6
how many carriers has your precious stuka kill huh?
>>30241781
>Overlapping road wheels saved a ton of rubber. The Tiger 2 used less rubber than a M4 Sherman.
Agreed, but...At a massive cost in weight and complexity.
The resultant suspension was a manufacturing and maintenance nightmare.
I'd also mention that a lot of the rubber used in U.S. designs was wrapped up in the superior turret traverse systems, the gyrostabilizer systems, and vehicle electrical systems.
Compared to the Oilgear or Logansport traverse systems mounted in the US and some allied armor , the power traverse in the German tanks of the era looks downright agricultural.
>>30238860
ITT: shit taste
>>30239184
>Enola Gay kill death ratio though
>>30241980
When the choice is between a complex tank that you can build with the materials you have vs no tank at all, it's not really a choice at all.
>>30242513
Save that a great deal of the German armor fielded at the time is needlessly complex.
The Soviets suffered a similar rubber shortage and simply reduced (or eliminated) the number of roadwheels shod with rubber.
Increasing a machine's complexity is rarely a logical choice when suffering a shortage of any material.
>>30239145
one of the most rugged planes of the war.
>tfw when your a /k/tard and a masochist
>tfw this thread makes you hard
try harder op pls
>>30239258
Not correct. Army and Navy design requirements both specified a very long range for their aircraft. The only way to supply the range while keeping the aircraft small enough to provide the speed and maneuverability the services required was weight savings in as many areas as possible. Despite these drawbacks, both the A6Ms and Ki-43s enjoyed great success in combat so long as experienced pilots were available to fly them. Not to mention, the lack of armor was not nearly as much of a detriment as self-sealing fuel tanks, which are difficult to mass produce when you have no rubber.
Ok
>>30242792
>all airplanes enjoyed great success in combat so long as experienced pilots were available to fly them.
FTFY
>>30242792
> when you have no rubber
By mid 1942 Japan had ALL THE RUBBER, but they still didn't put self sealing tanks on their planes.
By mid 1942 the US was forced to use 90% synthetic rubber, yet they never stopped giving their gas tanks thick layers of rubber protection.
>>30238860 Comie out
>>30239239
>Too rounded and bulbous
>Fat is more like it
19:1 Kill ratio over Japanese planes
2000 hp Pratt & Whitney
6 .50 cal machine guns
bombs and rockets too
644 aircraft produced in one month from a single production line-world record
MFW.
>>30242922
It's a good picture because gold is considered superior, and fishing with shinier lures is great.
>>30238860
>>30238987
>>30239045
>>30239048
>>30239052
>>30239058
>>30239060
>>30239073
>>30239145
>>30239165
Butthurt weeb/stormfag
>>30239193
function over flare
YES
>>30238860
Scoreboard you fucking pansy ass pinko.
>>30242858
Yes, and? That doesn't change the validity of my statement, and Japan ran out of experienced pilots quicker than the US due to far bigger issues than self-sealing fuel tanks.
>>30242887
Wrong in several respects. First, controlling rubber producing islands does not magically supply you with rubber. By late 1942/early 1943, the US submarine force was beginning to gut Japan's merchant marine. Raw rubber imports dropped from 68k tons in '41 to half that i '42-44, and then down to 18k '45. Not enough to go around, and their production efficiency certainly didn't help in that in regard.
Second, fighters were being tested by 1942 with self-sealing tanks. The Ki-61, one of the designs that did incorporate them, was introduced to the IJA in 1942. The Navy was developing the N1K in 1942, and A6M5s were being delivered with self-sealing fuel tanks by late 1943. The issue is that the IJN saw the A6M's primary deficiency at this point being speed, as it was easily outrun by the new F6Fs. So, the M3 incorporated changes to increase engine power, reduced control stiffening at higher speeds, and so on. The added weight of those fuel tanks would have increased the weight and reduced the range and performance of the plane and put the designers back at square one after those improvements.
Remember the Brewster Buffalo for an Allied example. It was originally a very nimble aircraft, because originally it shared a lot of the same design decisions with the early Japanese fighters. But after numerous improvements to add armor, weapons, and self sealing fuel tanks, it went from being nimble to brick-like.
>>30243677
>The added weight of those fuel tanks would have increased the weight and reduced the range and performance of the plane and put the designers back at square one after those improvements.
did the IJN actually put the range to use? I remember them trying to range the USN at Philippine Sea but it still turned out very poorly for the IJN. Ironically the Japanese ran out of good pilot long before they ran out of good carrier.
Despite the USN's carrier losses during the pacific, their pilot death were actually light by comparison.
>>30239193
What in the world is "Wops"?
>>30244047
Italian
>>30244047
Spaghetti-Ameriicans
>>30238860
Except the Sherman was cool as fuck and with the exception of the spitfire and 262 we had the best looking aircraft too.
Stay mad nazi / gook
>>30239058
I count 36 jokes on the first plane alone.
>>30239093
The fire rises
Appearance in world war two
Germany gets the top, which I think is fair to say because their country is pretty much the birthplace of the automobile as well as the power house, their armour and vehicles were impressive in appearance, their navy like wise but their airforce was the two ugly sisters and one looker.
Britian gets a high place mainly because of their tanks and navy, aeroplane is on the same level of nazi germany.
Japan's navy and airforce was rather diverse in the field, defintiely unique and had it's own looks. But pretty much the most memorable thing about their tanks is the little light tank.
America's tanks were unremarkably ugly, but somehwhat useful, vehicles were pretty decent, airforce has to be one of the most memorable pars of world war two and their navy was much like the americans.
Russia was had a generally decent looking tank range, vehicles were at the level of most other countries and weren't exactly impressive and their navy and airforce were nowhere to be seen in terms of appearance.
I've got to say, commonwealth probably had to be some of the most ugly contributors to the world war, mainly because of their tanks, they weren't remarkable.
>>30244235
Oops, I mean like the japanese.
>>30243980
To my knowledge no, at least in 1942, for several reasons. Range came in very handy patrolling Japan's island bases, but the extreme range their planes had wasn't incrediby useful in carrier battles. All of their carrier aircraft through 1942 outranged a US carrier strike by at least double until the old TBDs were completely replaced.
>>30239082
Jew bomb
>>30239193
I love the look of the TBM avenger but I think it should have been a heavy fighter
>6 20mm cannons in wings
>2 m2s in the turret
>waist gunner
>Pratt & Whitney wasp 3800
Would've been a monster to shoot at while it protects bombers
>>30238860
turns out if you dress pretty but lose a war, you still lost a fucking war.
>>30244345
>>>6 20mm cannons in wings
no, the US never got their hispano to work properly during the war, and I don't think they actually got them to work before moving on to the revolver cannon.
the black widow and p-38 is closest to what you're asking.
>>30243677
>Japan ran out of experienced pilots quicker than the US due to far bigger issues than self-sealing fuel tanks.
Yeah, because their experienced pilots kept getting shot down and dying. So much for their great success.
>>30243980
>did the IJN actually put the range to use?
Jap aircraft range allowed the Japs to have fighter escort for attacks on Malaya and Philippines.
>>30239060
>gunpod to add 8 more .50 cals
>total of 14 MGs
>1200 RPM each
>BRRRRT
>>30239226
Science
>commie/nazi/spaghetti butthurt
lmao
How can other aircraft even compete?
Not to mention our Stuarts were the most adorable thing of the war.
>>30241883
god fucking dammit
I really fucking hate it when these aircraft crash
fucking fuck
>>30239193
function over flair is my fetish
>>30239402
>>30239073
M10 Wolverines were gorgeous.
>>30238860
Sad that it could out maneuver and shoot down multiple zeros by itself, isn't it.
>>30238860
>>30245490
>>30241868
I love how they have a rear seat gunner. I don't know why I find them cool as hell. Plus I love that F-4 Phantom-like curve going up from the wings on the fuselage.
>>30245319
Nah, the M22 Locust was the cutest
>>30245567
Nah M24 Chaffee a cutest.
>>30245607
You sure? Cause the post war ASU 57 is pretty cute
Or can I not bring the Russians into this?
>>30243980
>>30244293
Actually yes.
The Japanese refused to put their Carriers in range of Henderson field on Guadalcanal during the day, so instead, they launched air attacks against Guadalcanal from Rabaul, outside the range of the airfield.
The A6M had enough range to escort G4M's all the way from Rabaul, which was about 900 (!) km away.
The 6 hour round trip severely taxed the stamina of the Zero pilots. The G4M has a copilot so the two pilots take turns and some get rest. The P-51 had much more material comforts than the Zero (because those things were heavy) and much better planning to reduce fatigue (the early legs of the escort were handled by P-47's, which allowed the P-51's to take off an hour later than the bombers and catch up, on the return leg, the P-51's would hand off to the P-47's again so they can land early. The US was very considerate of it's pilots).
This meant that the superior pilots and nominally superior Zeros did much worse against cactus air force than they should have, and Japan pissed away even more of their irreplaceable pilots on a fool's errand.
>>30246468
>This meant that the superior pilots and nominally superior Zeros did much worse against cactus air force than they should have
There is no evidence whatsoever that Japs had superior pilots or that long travel was the reason their supposed superiority did not help them. In fact, considering their early victories were scored thanks in large part to surprise gained by A6M's tremendous range, you might say they did better than they should have only thanks to this range advantage.
>>30246489
There's plenty of evidence that that specific stage of the war that the IJN pilots they were throwing at Cactus air force were more skilled than the ramshackle group at Henderson field. They had on average much more flight hours, and better unit cohesion due to being an unit since pre-war and not a mishmash of Army, Marines, and orphaned Carrier pilots.
As for the "fatigue factor" we have the diaries of some of the Japanese pilots. They said that keeping formation with the G4M's was exhausting since they had to slow down their Zeros, that they were cold (A6M2 does not come with heaters standard, so the pilots wore heavy clothing, but not enough to keep their fingers warm), that by the time they landed at Rabaul, they were so tired that they had to be carried out of their cockpits.
You can't say that doesn't have an effect on pilot efficiency. Even the much more comfortable Mustang pilots were complaining of stiff necks and fatigue during the trip over Germany.
>>30246541
>They had on average much more flight hours,
This is evidence of more training, not better skill.
>and better unit cohesion due to being an unit since pre-war
Again, not evidence of unit cohesion itself, but evidence of some structural factor from which one could infer unit cohesion.
>You can't say that doesn't have an effect on pilot efficiency
Never said it didn't. But you also can't say that use fatigue to explain away IJN's poor performance without also taking external factors into account in explaining IJN's successes, which were almost always accompanied by tactical and operational surprise in meticulously planned offensives against unprepared enemies.
>>30246468
Thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking specifically about carrier strikes, which were usually launched well within the range of US fighters and dive bombers.
>>30245002
Yes. Because Japan had a very small pool of experienced pilots to begin with, which flew until they died and never had a chance to pass on their knowledge to the new pilots. The Japanese philosophy was "Those that can't fight, teach", so their trainees never got the wisdom and advice of the combat veterans. That doesn't even begin to go into how small their pilot training programs to begin with, and attempts to enlarge it diluted the new pilots' skill even further.
WWII was a war of attrition in this aspect, and even had they inflicted greater losses on the USA than they took the US pilots were still coming into the fight with a higher average skill level and more in total quantity, with the aircraft production to actually keep that quantity flying.
>>30238860
>inb4 this is one of the most beautiful planes of ww2>>30238987
>>30246864
>which flew until they died and never had a chance to pass on their knowledge to the new pilots.
Most of them died within one or two missions. Even under the US system these Jap super pilots wouldn't have had the opportunity to return and train new pilots.
Face it, Jap pilots were subpar, and got their reputation by beating up on overweight F2A with altitude advantage and element of surprise while outnumbering them 5-1.
>>30239506
and yet it was the best medium of the war. They weren't even trying
>>30245310
Ok, engineer here, but I need some help with the Mustang. Why is the air scoop so far back on the plane? Why not have it at the front like so many other planes did?
I have to think that routing air through curved piping back towards the engine reduced air-flow efficiency (turbulence and whatnot).
Be kind, I'm just a poor metallurgist and cannot into aerospace design.
>>30246918
liquid cooled engine, so they can just put the radiator and oil cooler near the air scoop and pump the coolant and oil back to the engine, not the fresh air.
I don't know what the benefits would be, but i doubt the drawbacks would be severe.
>>30247008
this
benefit would be not trying to jam a big radiator in the front of the plane making the nose even longer
put it where there's space behind the pilot
drawbacks could be weight of piping and extra coolant needed to fill the system but based on the planes performance it seems like it wasn't a big deal
>>30246897
>Most of them died within one or two missions.
Source?
>Face it, Jap pilots were subpar, and got their reputation by beating up on overweight F2A with altitude advantage and element of surprise while outnumbering them 5-1.
And the few that did survive past 1942 were killing F6Fs, F4Us, and so on. Japan did start the war with good pilots. Attrition was as high as it was as much due to the terrible disease ridden airfields and poor maintenance capacity in the south pacific as it was due to combat with US squadrons. Slapping a self-sealing fuel tank onto aircraft already near the limit of their engines does nothing to change the underlying training and logistical issues.
>>30247055
1940s American machinery is pretty badass famalam.
>>30247066
agreed
although we have to thanks the brits for designing this glorious engine, once we started making them and slapping them in the P51 it became a beast
>>30246918
The placement and design of the highest drag component in liquid cooled aircraft engines at the time rendered the P-51 airframe one of the lowest drag airframes used in ww2, plus the so-called laminar wing profile, but that part usually starts an argument. Overall a prety good engineering package, and lower cost construction
>>30244144
>and with the exception of the spitfire and 262
and the lancaster, and the mossie and the typhoon and the tempest and the beaufighter,.
lancaster was definitely the prettiest bomber as well as one of the most effective, and the british single engined fighters were all very very good looking
>>30247507
>lancaster was definitely the prettiest bomber
lolno
>>30238860
Butthurt Jap detected
I guess people think the F6F is ugly. I really like it.
Some of the stories from Japanese pilots first encountering them are pretty funny.
Thinking it's an F4F, dumping their 7.7 into it with no effect, F6F dives away and cannot be caught.
My favorite propeller-driven fighter.
>>30247525
Only thing sexier then a b17 is a b17 with v12 engines. A shame I'm on mobile.
Totally pathetic, look at this loser-mobile
>>30239527
I chuckled fiercely
>>30246864
>WWII was a war of attrition in this aspect, and even had they inflicted greater losses on the USA than they took
>and even had they inflicted greater losses on the USA than they took
If you count Pearl Harbor as combat losses maybe, but Japan never really had a chance. They were too traditional and too antiquated to ever really put up a fight. Their only advantages were that they swept all of the US' bases immediately in surprise attacks or completely cut them off because they were in their own backyard and the American military was an ocean away.
>>30248528
>They were too traditional and too antiquated to ever really put up a fight
Plus they were heavily dependent on conquered lands for their resources, which dried up and went downhill fast once we fucked their navy and started taking islands back
>>30248528
You and I are agreeing that Japan had no chance. Read the rest of the paragraph you quoted. They did not have the population, the instructors, the fuel, or the logistics to sustain the air war against the US no matter how well they fought.
