Jump to content

Ol Paint

Members
  • Content Count

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ol Paint

  • Rank
    Wing-Nut

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wisconsin
  • Interests
    Tanks, Trucks, AFVs, Aircraft, Ships, Cars, Heavy Equipment, Engineering...
  1. The M100 trailer often towed by the jeeps appears to have had a payload capacity of 500lb offroad & 750lb on-road with a gross weight of 1065lb/1315lb, respectively. The G-529 trailer of similar capacity had a gross weight of 1550lb. I expect the railroad useage of the Jeep was for yard switching type operations with brakemen manning the hand brakes on the rail cars. Getting the load moving is not the issue--stopping it would be. And pulling loaded railcars uphill is probably not going to work very well. Likewise, towing AT guns would probably be an issue of both the gun pushing
  2. Sahara (1943) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036323/ Doug
  3. First ship, FFG-62, named Constellation: https://news.usni.org/2020/10/07/secnav-braithwaite-names-first-ffgx-uss-constellation Douglas
  4. Per Defense.gov: Contract issued, so here's the thread to discuss, complain, and prognosticate. Douglas
  5. To a certain extent, you could probably say that the M-Gator also fills the Jeep role. One of the neat things about the original WWII jeep is just how small the vehicle is. Every time I see one of the old flatfenders, that's one of the things that strikes me--especially compared to the '97 Wrangler TJ I drive on a daily basis. One of the projects I'd like to take on sometime, would be building a new MB/GPW/CJ2A from the mail-order catalogs. Think model kit writ large. I checked the dimensions several years ago and reached the conclusion that a stock WWII jeep would only be approximately
  6. I assume you looked through Friedman's US Destroyers for similar proposals on the OHP and DE classes? Sometimes there's weight impact information on the various trade studies that might be useful to you. It's been quite a while since I read through his work, so I don't know if there's any useful information in there. Otherwise, you'd have to make some guesses as to the construction of the hangar and contents and make up a weight. The easiest part of the guess is the hangar structural weight, but there's a lot of other stuff associated with helo operations that don't show up as structural w
  7. The CVF is often quoted as being designed to be fitted "for but not with" catapults to support future CATOBAR operations. Unless they are relying on EMALS to fit a curved catapult track to the ski-jump, I'd have presumed the design features to build the ship without the ski-jump would have already been worked in? Regardless, I think it would be silly* to build the ship without the ski-jump since it would confer the ability to fill in for the QE during availability periods. *Since it's a silly idea, though, I wouldn't bet against it. Douglas
  8. It sounds like they just aren't buying the JSFs to form an air wing for the second carrier? I haven't seen anything since this news came out that says whether the second ship will be equipped with the ski-jump, so it is possible the article is making the situation out to be more dire than it is? Still, I have to wonder about the F-35B unit cost with the reduction from 138 to 50. To be sure, the USN and USAF buys will still be large, but those numbers have been dropping, too. Although I have never been the greatest fan of the JSF, I am continually frustrated by the budget officials that ke
  9. Whichever design is selected, the "loser" will still be a two-ship class. Both LCS-3 (Fort Worth) and LCS-4 (Coronado) are under contract and LCS-3 had her keel laid back in July. Douglas
  10. The downselect will occur before the early deployment could have any effect on the competition. And, even if it didn't, using the deployment as a selection factor would be a guaranteed protest & probable lawsuit. As can be seen from the article, the possibility of a split buy of both designs is not on the table at this time. According to this announcement, there will be one design with two yards building the ship, with the prime having a 5-year, multi-ship procurement deal for 10 hulls awarded sometime in FY10 and running through FY14, followed by a second multi-year, multi-ship pro
  11. Of course, there's always the patchwork method: Douglas
  12. GHQ has sets and also sells stuff in singles. I assume the other manufacturers do the same. I've purchased a few GHQ items in 1/160 (for N-scale train layout that I haven't built, yet), and they were all single packs. Douglas
  13. You didn't mention what scale you were looking for. If you want really small ones, there's GHQ Miniatures: http://www.ghqmodels.com/ They've got quite a few different military models in 1/160 and 1/285 scales. They run around $16/each and are metal. For the same amount of money, you can probably get larger plastic kits, but it depends on what you want to do. I think they have 1/87 scale military vehicles, but the selection is more limited than the smaller scales. Douglas
  14. For the 57mm and 75mm on Okinawa, Typhoon of Steel by James H. Belote mentioned their use. It's been several years since I read the book, but I recall that the book stated that there were (2) 57mm and (2) 75mm guns used and 300 rds of ammunition (not sure if this is per gun or total) used in the last stage of the battle. The book is generally footnoted, so it may be possible to determine where the information came from. Again, it's been a long time since the last time I read the book, so the numbers above may be mis-remembered. The battles where the guns were used were probably the action
×
×
  • Create New...