What If...?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 04-29-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokey

5) The first day is crucial, for once 10s of 1000s of troops are on the ground with 100s of antitank guns and 100s of tanks, many with NV devices, there is not much the UK army can do without air assistance except fight a guerilla war.
Without the huge jungles of Vietnam, most troop movements could be seen from the air and Luftwaffe air strikes called.
If the German military had many NV devices this would mean many night battles which the UK army would not have a hope of winning.

The campaign would probably last a couple of weeks.

Tell that to the German troops who fought in Stalingrad and the US troops fighting over in Iraq right now. Sorry man but Urban Guerilla warfare as you call it is just as bad. You dont know you enemy and they get you when you least expect it. Trust me I know everyone of those bastards that fired at my helicopter in Iraq looked like a civilian to me. The same would have happened to the German troops. Plus you say the German planes land with there own fuel. Where are they going to carry that fuel and what are they going to do when they run out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokey

Piston engined helicopters were used in Korea and I think early in Vietnam. The Kolibri had a maximum speed of about 93 mph, the Huey couild reach about 127 mph. This is a significant speed increase, but not massive.
Turbines are essential for heavy loads, but 10 troops do not weigh that much.

Yes you are correct that piston engined hellicopters were used in Korea. Actually my friend piston engined rotary wing aircraft were into the late 70's. The last ones actually being retired from Fort Rucker at the US Army flight school.

10 Troops dont weigh that much? Here my friend you are wrong! My UH-60L Blackhawk helicopter carries 11 fully equiped troops. Each troop that we carry weighs about 300lb with there full rucksacks and weapons and ammo. I am actually probably being generous with the weight of each soldier here. So that is 3300lb. The aircraft already weighs in at about 14000lb (also being generous here) so that brings the weight up to 17000lb then you got the crew of 4 so we will say 200lb (that is what hour weight and balance forms have us weighed in for purposes of CG) and that is another 800lb, then we have our survival equipment and 2 M-60D machien guns with 1000 rounds of ammo. We will call all of this about 500lb. That makes a total of 18300lb. That is a lot of weight. Whenever we fly a combat mission with 11 troops our aircraft is straining, she becomes sluggish and we have to pull the guts out of her just to get her to fly, once she gets up to speed though she is fine.

Now all of this is with General Electric T-700-701C engines rated at 1800SHP per engine. Thats 3600SHP and we are struggling. Imagine a Kolibri doing this with 2 DB-601 pistons. I dont see it happening.

If you want to talk helicopters there is a thread in the modern section that I have started. It has been dead for a while now. I know my stuff about rotary wing aircraft I fly them and maintain them.

the lancaster kicks ass · 04-29-2005, 01:06 PM

gotta love them pics........

cheddar cheese · 04-29-2005, 03:13 PM

Traffic cone eh? I hope someone wasnt going on drunken binges while on duty

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 04-30-2005, 02:37 AM

Actually I need to rephrase what I said up there I said that the Blackhawk struggles to carry 11 passengers at 3600shp on 2 engines. It does not struggle it just is not easy. 10 passengers weigh more then he thinks, and a DB-601 or hell even 2 DB-601 would more then likely not have been possible.

the lancaster kicks ass · 04-30-2005, 05:17 AM

yes you can't help but wonder about the traffic cone.........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-01-2005, 12:17 PM

That is when we flew our aircraft to the Port in Kuwait to have them put on boats and they have these traffic cones secured to the ground so that the rotor wash does not blow them away. They put them there so that we would ground taxi the aircraft to the cone.

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-01-2005, 02:58 PM

man i'd be temped to run it over.......

cheddar cheese · 05-01-2005, 02:59 PM

What they need is some of them robotic cones that move by themselves...

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-01-2005, 03:18 PM

remote controlled!!

cheddar cheese · 05-01-2005, 03:20 PM

No actually I believe they have GPS which is programmed to a destination and then they move by theirselves...

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-01-2005, 03:44 PM

no i was saying how cool that'd be, to own a remote contolled traffic cone or two........

cheddar cheese · 05-01-2005, 03:46 PM

Kinda like Daleks working for the Highways agency?

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-01-2005, 03:48 PM

looking at some of the guys i thought they already did........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-02-2005, 03:49 PM

Lanc would cause havoc with one.

cls12vg30 · 05-13-2005, 03:16 PM

Haven't been here in awhile, guys, nice to see the place is still active.

To get this thread back on topic, here's a what if that I find intriguing:

What if the United States had remained divided after 1861, and was still divided in 1939? I know there has been a series of books written about how WWI might have gone had the US remained divided, but what about WWII? It's a really big question when you think about how history would be different from 1861 on, the whole geo-political situation in 1939 might be totally different, especially in the western hemisphere.

What do you think?

Would the USA and CSA fight on the same side or against each other? Would either or both even enter the war? If so, when? What other countries might have risen to prominence in the absence of a single united America? Would we be talking about things like the Mexican Campaign and the Caribbean Theatre of Operations?