<engage pedant mode ;)>
But jets were not used in great numbers, only in low numbers, so, my post was indeed correct my friend.
But jets were not used in great numbers, only in low numbers, so, my post was indeed correct my friend.[/quote]
Ok, from “Aircraft in the Korean War” http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft/index.html
Not all at the same time, it would seem, but : Jet Aircraft in Theatre by type;
USA
365 F-80s
218 F-84s
165 F86s
132 F-86 Fighter/Bombers.
2 Squadrons of F94Bs
17 USN Sdns F9F
6USN Reserve Sqdns F9F
2 USMC Sqdns F9F
4 USN Sdns F2-H2
Communists
3 Soviet Divisions Mig-15
1 Chinese Division Mig-15
Communist losses are listed as 319 Russian Mig-15s
224 Chinese Mig-15s
I’m sure someone can advise me as to the number of aircraft likely to be in a Navy or USMC Squadron, as well as a Soviet Air Division, but the above strikes me as rather more than “low numbers”.
But jets were not used in great numbers, only in low numbers, so, my post was indeed correct my friend.[/quote]
Ok, from “Aircraft in the Korean War” http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft/index.html
Not all at the same time, it would seem, but : Jet Aircraft in Theatre by type;
USA
365 F-80s
218 F-84s
165 F86s
132 F-86 Fighter/Bombers.
2 Squadrons of F94Bs
17 USN Sdns F9F
6USN Reserve Sqdns F9F
2 USMC Sqdns F9F
4 USN Sdns F2-H2
Communists
3 Soviet Divisions Mig-15
1 Chinese Division Mig-15
Communist losses are listed as 319 Russian Mig-15s
224 Chinese Mig-15s
I’m sure someone can advise me as to the number of aircraft likely to be in a Navy or USMC Squadron, as well as a Soviet Air Division, but the above strikes me as rather more than “low numbers”.[/quote]
You blundered again. You are including all of the planes of those types that were on the aircraft carriers that went to Korea, not the number of those planes that were actually used in combat. By that measure:
45 F-51s
328 Corsairs
312 F4Us
…and hundreds of other piston engine planes were “used” as well.
So, no, all of those planes were not used in combat in Korea. Sorry.
Oh, and none of them were German.
No blunder.
According to the site quoted, those aircraft fought in Korea.
Where did the thread become restricted to land-based aircraft?
Also, communist losses amount to over 500 JET aircraft.
Again, hardly a small number.
Obviously there were hundreds of piston engined aircraft.
Did I suggest there weren’t?
No, no German planes, but then
“the planes used were mostly P-51 Mustangs and Corsairs, but jets used in low numbers (all American).”
…they weren’t all American either.
If you want to avoid the kind of reaction which you blame elsewhere to anti-Americanism, try reducing the level of your arrogance a couple of notches.
Blunder No. 1:
You misunderstood it. Those aircraft were on the carriers. That does not mean the US launched entire carrier after carrier of jets. :roll:
Blunder No. 2:
Truly, your reading comprehension is in need of improvement. You somehow thought that my statement that “none were German” meant that none of the planes used in the war were anything BUT American.
This is the subject of this thread my slow-minded friend:
“German Weapons in Korean War?”
…and the answer is that the American’s did not use German aircraft in Korea.
Blunder No. 3:
Allowing your despise of anyone who knows something you don’t to get the best of you and cause you to post your misunderstandings before taking the time to understand first.
Blunder No. 4:
Calling someone arrogant because you do not understand the post, and then alluding that they cause “anti-Americanism” when the one making that comment (you) is perpetuating the “anti-Americanism” through that very comment.
Ok, let’s overlook the USN jets that fought in Korea.
Let’s overlook the USMC jets that fought in Korea.
That still leaves over 1000 Allied and Communists jets in combat at one time or another.
Small number?
As for my reading comprehension, if I misunderstood you then I apologise, but perhaps some of the fault lies with your rather less than clear post?
Your statement was not “none were German” it was “all American”.
I do not despise you. (BTW despise is a verb, not a noun), I do, however despise your arrogance and misplaced condescension.
Point: I am not your friend. Those I choose rather more carefully.
I agree with the others. In Korea, the US used Sherman and Patton tanks (American), and the planes used were mostly P-51 Mustangs and Corsairs, but jets used in low numbers (all American).
No you clearly state that all jets used by the UN forces were US which is clearly not true. And as for numbers, it would appear quite a number were jets.
This is an official US navy site dealing with its history.
This give all the aircrafts and the location, date of arrival, date of departure and who used them for all navy aircrafts in KW.
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/app25.pdf
this give an indepth list of aircraft by type used in KW.
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/ac-korea.htm
and this has a number of after action reports
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-7.htm
and if you have the deluded view that the US navy would put on board a ship with limited space aircraft that are not to be used or do not have a role, your stupidity knows no bounds. Aircraft are moves on and off ship as the tactical situation dictates they do not have space for passengers.
No. I said the planes used by the US. I did not say UN. Get it right.
Let me post the 1st post in the thread one more time for you. Maybe you will begin to slowly, slowly comprehend:
Think about it first before babbling. Take your time. No hurry. Just make sure that you comprehend the subject of the thread 1st, becaus, you see, it’s critical to understanding what is going on here. It’s only slightly less complex than a Nancy Drew mystery novel.
Slow down now. No hurry. Take your time.
Can we please ascertain which threads we feel FRIONPAN, IRONINGMAN, TINWALT, KCOC! has left unanswered.
Post all of these questions elsewhere and give him 24 hours to find interent sources with URL’s that support his standpoint.
I would like to see him answer.
All assault rifles are Carbines.
Assault rifles cannot engage targets at 600 metres.
The M1 Carbine was an assault rifle.
When you verify the first of these claims we will ask you one more question and you may ask us one.
This process will continue until you have shamed the British infantry for their lack of soldierly Knowledge.
in your own time carry on, preferably in this thread, alternatively you can use this thread which I feel should be resurrected.http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1894&highlight=#1894
especially as your tin soldiers make such lovely reading.
I wait for your corroboration, any lack of evidence will be taken as your accepting defeat.
you are in the right, arent you FRIONPAN so lets prove it.
in your own time carry on!
Blunder No. 1:
You misunderstood it. Those aircraft were on the carriers. That does not mean the US launched entire carrier after carrier of jets. :roll:
Blunder No. 2:
Truly, your reading comprehension is in need of improvement. You somehow thought that my statement that “none were German” meant that none of the planes used in the war were anything BUT American.
This is the subject of this thread my slow-minded friend:
“German Weapons in Korean War?”
…and the answer is that the American’s did not use German aircraft in Korea.
Blunder No. 3:
Allowing your despise of anyone who knows something you don’t to get the best of you and cause you to post your misunderstandings before taking the time to understand first.
Blunder No. 4:
Calling someone arrogant because you do not understand the post, and then alluding that they cause “anti-Americanism” when the one making that comment (you) is perpetuating the “anti-Americanism” through that very comment.[/quote]
In reverse order (roughly).
I did not call you arrogant because I misunderstood the post. I called you arrogant because of your manner, which is arrogant.
I did not say you caused anti-Americanism. Your reading comprehension skills need improvement.
I suggested that you got a reaction which you attributed elsewhere to anti-Americanism.
I can’t actually recall seeing any anti-American postings on the site, merely anti-Ironman ones.
There were two aspects to your original post, whether you like it or not.
One, which, while ambiguous, I would accept you may have meant in a particular way, despite it also causing the same “confusion” in the minds of FW-190 Pilot, pdf27, Preatorian, Gen. Sandworm and 2nd of foot
Presumably you feel all their reading comprehension skills need improving also?
This concerned the origins of the jets in combat in Korea.
you then replied to them “But jets were not used in great numbers, only in low numbers, so, my post was indeed correct my friend.”
I replied to this latter point; the numbers involved, and I stand by the figures quoted.
As for misunderstandings, you have made several statements on various threads which were quite simply factually incorrect, and when shown your error have chosen not to reply.
I have never resorted to name calling or insults in my replies to you, yet you feel it neccesary to utilise rather clumsy condescension and insults with every post.
Why?
That and that alone is why you receive the general reactions you do, not because of your nationality.
[i]"When the ceasefire was signed the US Fifth Air Force had two wings of interceptors, the 4th and 51st Fighter-Interceptor Groups, equipped with 165 F-86 interceptors, and two wings of fighter-bombers, the 8th and 18th Fighter-Bomber Groups, equipped with 132 F-86 fighter-bombers. In addition to its service as a fighter, six F-86As were modified for photo-reconnaissance in October 1951, and they were used throughout the remainder of the war.
According to the US Air Force’s official history only 78 F-86s were lost in aerial combat during the Korean War, and they scored 810 air-to-air victories, including 792 versus MiG-15s. The F-86 Sabre proved to be a very successful fighter and served with NATO, British Commonwealth , and many other air forces during the 1950s"
" At the end of the Korean War there were three F-84 groups, with 218 operational aircraft, serving with the Fifth Air Force – the 49th, 58th, and 474th Fighter-Bomber Groups."
“An F9F of VF-51 flew the Korean War’s first jet sortie from an aircraft carrier on 3 July 1950, and Panthers served throughout the entire Korean War. The F9F Panther was the most widely used naval jet fighter of the Korean War, equipping seventeen US Navy fighter squadrons, six US Navy reserve fighter squadrons, and two US Marine Corps fighter squadrons.”[/i]
Add in something over 500 acknowledged losses by Communist forces.
None of them German, I quite agree.
But I would repeat, not a “small number”.
And once more, I am not your friend any more than I am your enemy. Please dispense with this manner of address.
That is incorrect. How is it arrogant to post a bit of information which is irrefutable historical fact, such as my listing of reasons for Germany’s demise in WWII or the fact that the M1 Carbine was used as an assult rifle countless times and in such a role, because it fits the charactersictics of such a weapon circa WWII, that is was in fact an assult rifle when used as one, on another thread, without using the name calling and snide remarks that you and a few others here use by rote, and then have the information attacked and to be called names, as if it were not cotrrect, simply because you for some reason dislike the author?
THAT is arrogance, among other things. You cannot disprove any of those things in that post, yet you whole-hoggedly attack the information for some bizarre reason.
No, you said that I illicit anti-American responses because I am arrogant:
Not true. Of the many posts I have made on this site, there have been one or two which provided incorrect information, and to those, I owed up to my error, unlike those (and yourself on other subjects) who simply cannot stand the idea of being proven incorrect - so much so that they will argue that grass is not green for the sake of avoiding an admission of error. Keep reading… I have a treat for you.
With your other account, Gen. Sandworm, you certainly have. Yes, by process of elimination using an account search I quickly determined that “reiver” is another of your accounts (guess you didn’t think I was smart enough to determine that). However, I have on rare occasion resorted, after considerable propting, to the same name calling that has been used against me, but only against those who have been using name calling toward me first. If someone had not called me names, I would have not been coaxed into doing it myself.
Good. So that is cleared up.
You are essentially correct. I was in error. My thinking was that jets were used in small numbers by comparing in my mind the number of jets used in more recent conflicts of the jet era. This was a falable method.
In Korea, jets were used somewhat more than prop engine planes. I would like to point out however, that in comparison to the number of piston engine planes, the number of jets used was not so great, as hundreds of both jets and prop planes were used, and the number of jets did not outnumber the prop planes by a large factor, from what I have learned:
“All told, 365 F-80 fighters, 32 F-82 fighters, 26 B-26 bombers, and 22 B-29 bombers were mustered for action on the Korean peninsula. As events unfolded, many F-51s were also called into service to serve as fighter-bombers, the first 145 coming from Air National Guard stocks.”
http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2000/0600korea.asp
Nonetheless, because the number of jet planes did by some measure outnumber the number of prop planes in that war, I was in error, and like a man, I admit it. You were correct.
Thank you for pointing out the error. However, I must say in my own defense lest someone mistakeny thinks my admission of this error gives them liscence to attack my other posts - my posts about other subjects in this thread, such as the M1 Carbine, the reasons for germany’s demise, etc, are absolutely and irrefutably correct, and are supported by a tremendous volume of historical, factual information.
Your idea of objective fact is rather…um… loose.
Again: by definition, nothing which is not select-fire is an assault rifle.
Hmm. So the M2 Carbine is not an assult rifle? I have stated that it was a WWII era AR and dummies argued that it was not - as if modern AR’s were around in those days to compare them to!
However, as WWII era weaponry goes, the M1 Carbine was an AR because:
It fit the characteristics of one for the times.
It was used countless times as an AR BECAUSE is fit the role by characteristics. Once more, just because it was not intended for that role does not make it such.
Deisel train engines were not intended to be tow boat engines either, although that is exactly what they became in the early history of internal combution powered tow boats. Does that mean that those early tow boat’s deisel engines were not tow boat engines?
Paranoid schizophrenic!
reiver is Gen. Sandworm?
possibly its intertesting I have still only seen you offer one retraction, and you have still not been good enough to put anyone in their place by providing evidence to quash these lies we tell.
The Wikipedia definition is pretty much bang-on (pun intended):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
And there’s a list of articles in the category “assault rifles”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assault_rifles - no M1 or even M2 carbine in there.
Nobody is maintaining that the M1 carbine is an assault rifle except you, ironpan, and yet you think that this is objective historical fact. We’ve conceded that the M2 falls in the description, but is not really powerful enough to be considered an assault rifle since it doesn’t have the range. The M1 is still only semi-auto, so doesn’t even fall within the broad definition!
What is objective historical fact, however, is that the purpose of an assault rifle is to replace both the SMG and the rifle with something that can do the job of both adequately, and this is what almost all armies have done - the US replaced the Garand & Thompson/M3 with the M14 (breifly - also not an assault rifle since it fires a full-power cartridge) & then M16. The UK replaced the L1A1 SLR & L2A3 SMG with the SA-80.
The use in the assault is not a defining characteristic of an assault rifle - they don’t immediately become “defence rifles” when used in the defence. In patent law terminology, what you’re trying to do is “define in terms of intended use”.
To quote Hatcher, 3rd Edition, 1966, page 177:
During 1940 the Ordnance decided to produce a very light semi-automatic rifle to take the place of the pistol in the armament of company officers, non-comissioned officers, communication units, engineers, tank units, artilliery, etc.
There you have it - Hatcher is the dog’s dusters when it comes to US weapons - he was involved in the machinegun trials before and after the 1st world war and in the self-loading rifle trials in the 1930s. Note that he says to take the place of the pistol and not to replace rifle and SMG.
I think that we should also ask the membership of Arrse this question. Once it’s up, I’ll post the link.
Ironman,
Firstly, I am NOT General Sandworm; sorry to disillusion you.
I’m a Scot, living in Scotland. He, so far as I know, is an American living in Indiana.
Secondly, I think you’ll find I said you elicited a response which another of your posts, the one in “Hi All”, seemed to attribute to anti-Americanism.
I was pointing out, as politely as I could, that this was not the cause.
I have not resorted to name calling or insults, and I have one account and one only.
Thirdly, I did not, if I recall, get involved in arguing with you over the M1 carbine beyond a fairly reasoned response to the meaning of the term “desired result”, since I do not consider myself qualified so to do.
There are many members of the forum who are currently serving or past members of HM forces, who can argue ballistics etc far better than I ever could, as my information would have to be web-based and second-hand.
Fourthly, of the threads I referred to where you had posted inaccurately, two spring to mind for which I have seen no retraction.
One concerns the Commonwealth in WWII.
Your errors in this regard were catalogued, not by me, but fairly politely and factually, and continued in the Commonwealth thread, where to the best of my knowledge you declined to post.
In addition, if you go to the “Propaganda” thread, you will find a rather good poster illustrating Commonwealth troops.
The second was a statement you made in defence of your attitude to the British Gurkhas, to the effect that America had never enlisted a foreign citizen, “not one”.
Quotations below from the San Francisco Chronicle:
“Latinos comprise more than a third of the 41,000 foreign citizens in the U.S. fighting force, according to the Defense Department, with the largest number – 8,539 – from California. Immigrant troops are most visible in the Army and Marines, the services with the highest casualty rates in Iraq, but barely present in the Navy and Air Force, Pentagon records show.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNGQ2CSURU1.DTL
Fifthly, for your apology I thank you and salute you.
Lastly, arrogance.
Posting facts do not make you arrogant.
Even posting inaccurate facts do not make you arrogant.
However, heavy, clumsy sarcasm, and inappropriate condescension does.
A brief postscript.
I could not care one whit less if the M1 is a carbine, a rifle, a cannon or a bloody ballista, but PLEASE, the word is assault, not assult.
Fits the role by characteristics.
Let’s just say that most of my working life is spent by characterising things by their characteristics.
There are 3 major characteristics of an assault rifle:
- It’s a rifled arm designed to be fired from the shoulder
- It fires ammunition intermediate in power between pistol and rifle ammunition
- It is capable of being fired in either semi- or fully-automatic modes.
The M1 carbine does not fulfil all 3 charateristics.
There were modern ARs around at the time to compare them to - the MP43/Stg44 is no less a modern assault rifle than the AK47, and was used until the 80s by East German border guards and Yugolsavian paratroopers.
Your problem is that the M1 carbine is a unique wpn, sitting in a class of its own - a pistol replacement, and yet you want to fit it into a category in which it does not belong.
If you want to go down the categorised by use thing, it was never designed to replace the rifle and SMG, whereas the MP43/Stg44 and later assault rifles categorically were.
His username is C_O_D.
should be easy to spot unless he re-subscribe under another title