Popular False rumors about war


PDA






brigadier
August 17, 2008, 07:38 AM
Here is a thread for false rumors about war.


* The Handgun is strictly an offensive weapon.

If this were true, then police officers would leave their handgun in the glove compartment and in stead shoulder their AR-15 or shotgun when they pull you over. The whole pint in a handgun is that they are small and light weight weapons that can be drawn and fired at close range with reasonable accuracy. These are features that are most valuable in RESPONSE to an attack. There ARE some handguns that are made for very specific offensive purposes such as hunting or kicking in doors, but they are specialized weapons that are highly limited in numbers.

* War heros usually make good national leaders.

Though war heros tend to make either very good or very bad national leaders, they usually make bad ones. The reasons vary but may include these factors:
* Warriors are exposed to massive killing and often brutality which can have negative affects on their ability to have respect for life.
* Warriors, particularly the ones who become heros, tend to have a very strong sense of conviction, which may serve good or bad purposes.
* The battlefield is full of harmful and bad feelings that can also hurt someones regard for life.

In modern America, we often strive for a leader who is a fearless warrior as if it's a rare commodity while the rest of the world has seen almost nothing but that throughout history and is sick and tired of it. Again, there ARE good leaders who were once war heros, and the ones who become leaders tend to become unusually good leaders (George Washington for instance) but these guys get their mystic reputation partially because of their scarcity.
Below is a list of war heros who became national leaders AND had a major impact on the world. It's a random list containing good, bad and in between, but you will notice that the vast majority of them were not only bads leaders, they were outright monsters.

George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Adaulph Hitler, Janos Hunyadi, Nikita Khrushchev, Istvan III of Moldavia (Stephan the Great) Vladislav III of Wallachia (Vlad the Impaler), Edward I of England (Edward the Longshanks) Julius Cesar, Harold Hardrata, Temujin of Mongolia (Genghis Kahn), and the list goes on and on.


* The 20th century would have been allot better had nuclear weapons NOT been invented.

The exact opposite is true. Here are some things that almost definitely would have happened had nuclear weapons NOT been invented:

* The war with Japan might have gone on for a few more years in which possibly hundreds of thousands of Americans would have perished, along with as many as two thirds of the entire Japanese population.

* The United States and the Soviet Union would have gone to war.

* Our Energy problems would have been much worse.

* We'd be spending a fortune on our Aircraft Carriers.

* Nations would be settling their differences to this day the way they did before and during WW II and Who knows who else might have tried their luck with us.

To this day, there have only been 2 nuclear strikes against any country, and that was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapons have demonstrated to the world a level of destructive and killing power that no one wants to face. Now that many nations around the world have them, nations are forced to settle their differences in ways that do not provoke the use of such weapons. One good example that I already mentioned, The USSR wouldn't have been very restraint about going to war with the US if they didn't fear American ICBMs, and there is a possibility that the US wouldn't have worked as hard as we did to settle things peacefully of the Soviet Union didn't have ICBMs as well.

* The adoption of the Beretta M-9 was the first time the US incorporated foreign weapons in to our military.

Here is a list of just a few foreign weapons that we were using BEFORE the Beretta M-9 came in to service. Yes, some were made in the US, but I noticed that my Beretta has: "Made in USA" stamped on the slide:

* V-8 Harrier (British)
* DHC-4 Caribou (Canada)
* B-57 Canberra (British)
* M-72 LAW (Norway)
* Beretta M-12 (Italy)
* Walther MP (German)
* STEN (British)

* The B-2 is the first American aircraft that can carry and fire Nuclear Weapons.

A common rumor despite the fact that even amateurs in military aircraft no is not true. Here are just a few aircraft that everyone and their grandma knows about that can carry AND fire nukes:

* B-1 Lancer
* F-14 Tomcat
* B-52 Stratafortress
* XB-70

That's just well known American aircraft. That's not ALL American aircraft that carried nukes. To broaden it further, don't think for a minute that the Soviet Union never made any aircraft that could carry and fire nukes.

* Only America and the UK have ever made stealth aircraft.

Technically, the Russian S-37A is a stealth aircraft.


* The SR-71 is the fastest non-secret aircraft in the world.

It's the fastest "non secret" JET POWERED aircraft in the world. The X-15 for instance was around before the SR-71 and was almost twice as fast, moving at Mach 6.7! The Challenger space shuttle was moving at around 18,000mph (in the Mach 20s) when it blew up. Today we can get stuff moving at much faster speeds, though we generally choose not to for lack of purpose.

* The F-14 cannot go as fast as the SR-71 because it's not built strong enough to handle the speed.

Close but no cigar. While it MAY or may not be tough enough to handle the speed, the real primary reason it for it's slower speed is the weight and shape of the aircraft. The sheer capabilities of the F-14s engine are not as significant as they sound. Many fighter jets come with engines that will outrun an SR-71 if put in the right torso. The SR-71s own engines will outrun the SR-71 if put in the right torso.

* Special computer guided anti-tank, anti-aircraft weapons cost millions each because of all the extreme high quality mechanics and state-of-the-art computer technology in them.

Not true. Other then maybe some of the destructive materials in the warhead, they don't have anything in them that is any more spectacular then stuff you can buy at Wal Mart or your local outdoor sporting goods store.
The high price is because of the cost of development VS how many are to ever be made. When the Military orders them, they usually order everything that is to ever be made all at once. If it costs $70 Million to design, develop and TEST (remember that you are doing major $ in damage testing these things) and the military only orders 100 of them, then then you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have to go for close to, if not over a million dollars each. The price per unit wouldn't be as high if the military ordered 1000, though the military would still be spending more money which is why they tend to go with higher price, smaller quantity with specialized equipment like that.


* The Harriers and Raptors are the only plains that can take-off and land on aircraft carriers without assistance.

The Russian SU-27 and American C-130 can take-of AND land on the deck of an aircraft carrier without assistance.

* It's against the Geneva convention for the military to use Hollow points.

It's against the Hague convention of 1899 to use hollow points and is arguably no longer in affect, though military forces tend to avoid using hollow points for tactical reasons.

* The far right started WW II.

WW II was started by the Axis and it is universally known that the Axis were National Socialists (the far left) as they have repeatedly admitted in their own words. The far right social motto is: "If you're not bothering anyone, then whatever you do is your business." Can you even imagine Hitler and Mussolini thinking or talking like that?

* Flamethrowers were never used until WW II.

Conventional flame throwers as we think of them, were first incorporated by the Byzantine Empire around the time of it's birth. They were a large role of paper, leather or other type of material that was filled with flammable material. They were very large and used primarily for naval combat. The popular 4th of July firework: "Roman Candle" is named after them.

* The USS Nimitz is the largest aircraft carrier in the world.

The Nimitz class carriers are the largest group of carriers in the world, but when it comes to the largest individual aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise still holds the gold.

* The DKM Bismark was the largest and most heavily armed battleship ever made.

There may have been a battleship named after your state that was both larger and more heavily armed then the Bismark. Even so, that title doesn't belong to any American or German ship. The largest and most heavily armed and armored battleship ever completed was the Japanese IJN Yamato, which used 18 inch main guns and had a keel of similar size to Forestall class AIRCRAFT CARRIERS! The IJN Yamato was twice the size of the DKM Bismark and comparably more armed.

* The Russian revolution of 1917 did not happen in a city called: Petrograd. Petrograd was a made up city for the Rasputin and Anastasia story. You won't find a "Petrograd" anywhere on a map of Russia.

People who say this do so out of ignorance of the Russian language. Since most Americans don't understand Russian, this is understandable. While we usually use Russian names to refer to Russian cities, Petrograd is a common exception. "grad" is put at the end of a name in Russian to establish the name as that of a city or place. "Petro" is the Russian name for "Peter." You will sometimes here Russians refer to it as: "San Petrograd" in which they borrow the word "San" (Saint) from other languages since their is no Russian word for Saint.
So, translated to English, "San Petrograd" means: "St. Petersburg."
Again, Americans usually use Russian names to refer to Russian cities, which would probably give you just as much confusion if you heard the name in English. A couple examples:

Visburg (Visgrad)
Stalinsburg (Stalingrad)

If you enjoyed reading about "Popular False rumors about war" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Crunker1337
August 17, 2008, 07:43 AM
A really good read, IMO.
For the first entry, I might note that the only offensive handgun, meaning, a handgun purpose-built for offensive combat, that I'm aware of is the HK Mark 23. All others are, to my knowledge, sidearms or personal-defense weapons.

brigadier
August 17, 2008, 07:53 AM
For the first entry, I might note that the only offensive handgun, meaning, a handgun purpose-built for offensive combat, that I'm aware of is the HK Mark 23. All others are, to my knowledge, sidearms or personal-defense weapons.

Same here. The reason I mentioned "offensive" handguns as multiple makes and models is because it includes hunting handguns (like Thompson single shot pistols for instance) as well. I grouped them because there may be an offensive handgun besides the MARK 23 that I don't know of. In other words, I am keeping from saying something that's untrue.

divemedic
August 17, 2008, 08:24 AM
Leaders:

You forgot Andrew Jackson, US Grant, Theodore Roosevelt

Nuclear Capable Aircraft:

B-29 Liberator
B- 36 Peacemaker
B-47 Stratojet
B-50 Superfortress
B-58 Hustler
A-6 Intruder
S-3 Viking
P-3 Orion
F/A-18 Hornet
F-16 Fighting Falcon
FB-111
H-3 Sea King Helicopter
Mig 27
Tu-95 Bear
Tu-16 Badger
Tu-22 Blinder
Tu-22M Backfire

ranger335v
August 17, 2008, 08:41 AM
"To this day, there have only been 2 nuclear strikes against any country, and that was Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

I think it's interesting that all the bleeding hearts worry about deaths by nuclear weapons and have little concern for deaths by other means. The bombing of Toyko alone had already cost them more lives than were lost to nukes! Even the Japs agree that the total death toll FOR THEM would have been much greater if the war had continued as it was going at the time.

Of course, the bombs saved not only a couple or three million Japs but many more Allies too, there were more nations involved than just us, you know. But our whiners have ONLY experssed concerned about the Japs!

Without the bombs, a large part of Japan would have been taken over by the USSR, much to Japan's detriment and the rest of the world's.

Ah, well, the full depths of our liberal's ignorance is yet to be determined!

Double Naught Spy
August 17, 2008, 09:12 AM
A really good read, IMO.
Yes, a really good read if you can get by the errors and misrepresentations.

Okay, I am at a loss. Popular rumors? Honestly, I have only heard of one of them.

War rumors? Many of these are simply technical rumors, not war rumors. Others are simply opinions, not facts.

Of the 'corrected' information presented, some of what I checked is in error as well. So the rumors are being replaced with, well, rumors.

The USS Enterprise is the largest aircraft carrier ever? No. It is the longest, but the Nimitz class have a much larger displacement.

The C130 cannot takeoff from any of our aircraft carriers unassisted. The C130 requires some 1500 feet minimum takeoff distance and the flightdecks on US carriers aren't more than about 1100 feet. In order to takeoff, the C130 requires the carrier to be in motion, ideally into the wind, and a minimal loading. Only then is it taking off going to happen without JATO or catapults. Harriers and Raptors can takeoff from the flight deck of a stationary carrier at anchor or in dock.

Whether or not we would have been better off without nuclear weapons is an opinion, not a fact, and as such, a rumor.

I really liked the one about war heroes usually making good leaders and then your list of war hero leaders that were good, bad, and monsters. Here, you have used a play on words. It isn't that war heroes make morally good leaders, but that war heroes have to skills to lead well. Hitler was a fine leader, a monster, but he really did some amazing things from a military perspective as a leader.

[QUOTE]* The SR-71 is the fastest non-secret aircraft in the world.

It's the fastest "non secret" JET POWERED aircraft in the world. The X-15 for instance was around before the SR-71 and was almost twice as fast, moving at Mach 6.7! The Challenger space shuttle was moving at around 18,000mph (in the Mach 20s) when it blew up. Today we can get stuff moving at much faster speeds, though we generally choose not to for lack of purpose./QUOTE]

Dude, the Challenger and the X-15 were both rocket powered, not jet powered.

Schutzen
August 17, 2008, 09:44 AM
Very interesting, but you missed on more than a few.

The M9 Berretta was not the first foreign made/designed weapon in the US arsenal.

I would have started with the Brown Bess Musket issued to the Continental Army.

TexasRifleman
August 17, 2008, 10:09 AM
Nuclear Capable Aircraft:

B-29 Liberator
B- 36 Peacemaker
B-47 Stratojet
B-50 Superfortress
B-58 Hustler
A-6 Intruder
S-3 Viking
P-3 Orion
F/A-18 Hornet
F-16 Fighting Falcon
FB-111
H-3 Sea King Helicopter
Mig 27
Tu-95 Bear
Tu-16 Badger
Tu-22 Blinder
Tu-22M Backfire


Also the Douglas AD4/A1E Skyraider was nuclear capable. It carried a single nuke under the belly and the launch involved a half loop (Immelman turn).

As the aircraft reached vertical a system would "toss" the bomb away from the aircraft as the pilot continued his half loop. The pilot would roll out from inverted at the top half of the loop and fly the opposite direction hoping that he'd get far enough away to avoid the blast.

Never actually used, the system was however tested and approved.

Drgong
August 17, 2008, 10:20 AM
http://www.geocities.com/eepohsan/a-1skyraider.jpg

Indeed, this plane, one of the most useful planes in its era (Including Veitnam) had a nuclear launch abilty... not that I wanted to be the pilot ;)

TexasRifleman
August 17, 2008, 10:22 AM
not that I wanted to be the pilot

I have lots of hours in one though it was doing the air show circuit, not with someone shooting at me thank Goodness.

I have the flight manual for the nuke launch maneuvers. Quite a bizarre idea.

brigadier
August 17, 2008, 10:43 AM
The USS Enterprise is the largest aircraft carrier ever? No. It is the longest, but the Nimitz class have a much larger displacement.

The Nimitz class has a SLIGHTLY larger displacement because they are carrying a little more weight (mostly equipment) and have larger keels at the water.

The C130 cannot takeoff from any of our aircraft carriers unassisted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjNyQvhsQE8&feature=related

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml

Whether or not we would have been better off without nuclear weapons is an opinion, not a fact, and as such, a rumor.

In a sense you could say you are right, though the base of this is the available evidence, and the evidence suggests what I said.

I really liked the one about war heroes usually making good leaders and then your list of war hero leaders that were good, bad, and monsters. Here, you have used a play on words. It isn't that war heroes make morally good leaders, but that war heroes have to skills to lead well. Hitler was a fine leader, a monster, but he really did some amazing things from a military perspective as a leader.

I don't fully get what you are saying but it sounds like you missed it.

Dude, the Challenger and the X-15 were both rocket powered, not jet powered.

Yes. And how does that at all contradict what I said?

dalepres
August 17, 2008, 10:55 AM
I've never heard almost all of those "rumors". Those might be trick questions that, if asked of someone graduating their GED class with honors, you might get some of the answers that you provided or selections on a multiple choice question for same GED with honors grad, but otherwise, I don't think those are popular rumors at all.

Dude, the Challenger and the X-15 were both rocket powered, not jet powered.

Good point. And the SR-71 is a lot faster than the OP seems to think. For decades, any time the Russians came close to beating the speed of the SR-71, the US Government simply declassified a higher actual number for the SR-71. When I was in the Navy, we had a fly over from a SR-71 as it was coming out of Soviet airspace. Believe me, the SR-71 could fly faster than you think it could fly.

Navy joe
August 17, 2008, 11:03 AM
Nuclear Capable Aircraft:

B-29 Liberator
B- 36 Peacemaker
B-47 Stratojet
B-50 Superfortress
B-58 Hustler
A-6 Intruder
S-3 Viking
P-3 Orion
F/A-18 Hornet
F-16 Fighting Falcon
FB-111
H-3 Sea King Helicopter
Mig 27
Tu-95 Bear
Tu-16 Badger
Tu-22 Blinder
Tu-22M Backfire

I think at the height of the cold war anything was nuke capable. As mentioned the A-1 and A-4 were. Here's a fun one. One day I was working on our antiquated H-3 helicopters, UH-3s that had formerly been SH-3s. I wanted to write a gripe on a small cockpit box and didn't know what it was. After much research I discovered it to be the control box for a nuclear weapon carried on the pilot's hardpoint, as in right below his window. SH-3 nuke bomber! Fun mission!

Harve Curry
August 17, 2008, 11:06 AM
Add the French LeMAt revolver, Enfield rifled muskets, some artillery pieces. Actually quite a few weapons from the 19th century, I cannot name without looking up in some books.

bcp
August 17, 2008, 11:10 AM
The Challenger space shuttle was moving at around 18,000mph (in the Mach 20s) when it blew up.

Dude, the Challenger and the X-15 were both rocket powered, not jet powered.


The space shuttle reaches that speed as a glider.

:D:D:D

Picard
August 17, 2008, 11:13 AM
The Nimitz class carriers are the largest group of carriers in the world, but when it comes to the largest individual aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise still holds the gold.

Ah, she was a fine ship.

Sorry, but I had to say it, with my name and all...

SDC
August 17, 2008, 11:13 AM
For small arms alone, you can add things like the Benet-Mercie machine rifle (a light machine gun issued to the cavalry in the early 1900s), the Vickers 11mm "balloon gun", and even the current-issue M240 and M249 machine guns.

Double Naught Spy
August 17, 2008, 11:17 AM
The Nimitz class has a SLIGHTLY larger displacement because they are carrying a little more weight (mostly equipment) and have larger keels at the water.

Right, your claim that Nimitz was the LARGEST is in error. It is the LONGEST, but not the LARGEST.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjNyQ...eature=related

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ry/q0097.shtml/QUOTE]

Thanks, both of your examples demo that the C130 cannot take off from carriers unassisted. For takeoff to happen, the carriers must be in forward motion and ideally into the wind. This provides the assistance needed for the C130s to be able to take off. Otherwise, they do not have the capability to take off by themselves in a distance as short as the length of the flight deck. In other words, the assistance isn't from the catapults or from JATO, but from the engines of the carrier itself.

[QUOTE]In a sense you could say you are right, though the base of this is the available evidence, and the evidence suggests what I said.

So you are offering an opinion, not a fact. Opinions are no more valid than rumors.

I don't fully get what you are saying but it sounds like you missed it.

Hitler was a very good leader. You indicated that he was not. You said he wasn't a good leader. He may not have been good, but he was a good leader.


Okay, let's this from another perspective. Just where are you getting these supposed popular rumors of war? Just who exactly is making these supposed claims that you are refuting?

jdh
August 17, 2008, 11:33 AM
Add the U2 to carrier capable aircraft. Down near the bottom of the second link in brigadier's post is a link to the U2 carrier test.

AND, the real top speed of the SR-71 is still classified. We may never know how fast the sucker can go.

Drgong
August 17, 2008, 11:52 AM
the SR-71 was SUPERFAST...

The Mig-25 was one of the fastest jets the russians ever made, and the syrans used theres for observations as for a long time Israel didn't have anything fast enough to shoot down a Mig-25, and the SR-71 makes the mig-25 look like a snail...

BruceRDucer
August 17, 2008, 11:59 AM
Hey Brigadier,

I didn't WANT to read all that; but I couldn't stop either! LOL:D

Lady with a Gun
August 17, 2008, 12:24 PM
What I remember, as a quotes about handguns:

1. A handgun is what you use, when you don't have time to get a rifle or a shotgun.

2. Only a fool uses a handgun, when he/she could be using a rifle or a shotgun. Rifles have much longer effective range. Shotguns are much faster and more positive for taking down close quarters targets.

Tommygunn
August 17, 2008, 12:31 PM
As for nuclear capable aircraft, there either is, or used to be (it's pretty old in any case) a "Genie" rocket that could be launched from a variety of fighter/interceptor jets. It was a "dumb" rocket, IIRC, and just headed straight toward a preprogrammed point.
I have never heard the B-2 being refered to as the first American aircraft that could fire nuclear weapons. It may be out there ... but I just never heard it.

Wes Janson
August 17, 2008, 12:38 PM
I think at the height of the cold war anything was nuke capable.

Hell, there were nuclear-equipped Jeeps, so I'd say most anything capable of locomotion was nuclear-capable at that point in time.

Close but no cigar. While it MAY or may not be tough enough to handle the speed, the real primary reason it for it's slower speed is the weight and shape of the aircraft

No "may or may not" about it-the F-14 wouldn't stand a chance at Mach 3+. Read up on the design history of the RS-71, and the material developments necessary just to keep the thing from falling apart in midair.

redbone
August 17, 2008, 12:48 PM
My take is that it's pretty much all BS.

bogie
August 17, 2008, 12:59 PM
You know, I'm kinda surprised that nobody has done a catamaran aircraft carrier yet...

On the nuke airplane bit - heck, you could cram a small one into a C172...

rondog
August 17, 2008, 01:16 PM
Quote:
The C130 cannot takeoff from any of our aircraft carriers unassisted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjNyQ...eature=related

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ry/q0097.shtml

WOW! That's freakin' amazing! I would have NEVER thought that would be possible.

So, although the Navy doesn't do this, in theory they actually COULD, if an emergency need to do so arose? Since nobody's trained to do that in 40+ years, think of the stones it would take to volunteer for that mission.

Joshua C
August 17, 2008, 01:36 PM
No "may or may not" about it-the F-14 wouldn't stand a chance at Mach 3+.

Hell, it had trouble keeping the panels on at mach 2.

basicblur
August 17, 2008, 01:59 PM
As a chap whenever I heard the argument about how terrible it was that nuclear weapons were dropped on Japan, I used to think if it was so horrible (and ain’t nothing pretty about it), why did it take two?

If you can believe the history channel, I saw a program a few years back that said Japanese leaders were not going to surrender after the second bomb was dropped, but after it was, Stalin realized it was going to be over pretty quickly and finally declared war against Japan. He then prepared to launch massive invasions from the north, hoping to grab as much of Japan as possible. When the Japanese leaders realized this, they quickly decided (like the Germans) that it would be much better to surrender to the USA than Russia!

There was also a program on Japan’s secret nuclear test. They reported that Japan had a group of scientists on a shoestring budget that managed to make a nuclear bomb and set it off on an island off the coast of Japan, but I think this was after the first US bomb was dropped, so it was a bit late in the game.
Even if they did have workable versions, delivery was their main problem. I think ‘bout the only plans they had to possibly deliver one to the US was by using one of their submarine carriers, figuring it was the only way they would get close enough to the US undetected in order to launch a nuclear air strike. ‘Course, I don’t remember if they got into the problems or size limitations involved in launching a submarine carrier plane with a nuclear device-I’m sure it wouldn’t be anything like Fat Man or Little Boy AFA size/yield?

dalepres
August 17, 2008, 02:06 PM
when the message is mis-spelled, the content is suspect.

For once we agree. The word is misspelled.

MIL-DOT
August 17, 2008, 02:13 PM
(quote)"Nuclear Capable Aircraft:

B-29 Liberator
B- 36 Peacemaker
B-47 Stratojet
B-50 Superfortress
B-58 Hustler
A-6 Intruder
S-3 Viking
P-3 Orion
F/A-18 Hornet
F-16 Fighting Falcon
FB-111
H-3 Sea King Helicopter
Mig 27
Tu-95 Bear
Tu-16 Badger
Tu-22 Blinder
Tu-22M Backfire "

I believe the Boeing B-29 was the "super fortress", the Cosolidated B-24 was the "Liberator". :)

Wolfman_556
August 17, 2008, 03:43 PM
Some other foreign weapons the US has used:

the French Charleville musket - used during the Revolutionary War and the 1795 Springfield musket is based on it
the Krag Jorgensen (Norwegian in origin but about half a million of them were made by Springfield)
the Enfield (British in origin, but some were made in the USA; some US troops used them in WW1)
1853 Enfield Rifled Musket - used by both sides in The Civil War
Chauchat Light Machine Gun - French, also used by USA, Belgium, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Greece, and Poland in WW1
M249 SAW - a variant of the Belgian FN Minimi

green country shooter
August 17, 2008, 03:53 PM
Who says those are common rumors?

86thecat
August 17, 2008, 04:02 PM
And I thought the list was just to hide a sleight on McCain.

sacp81170a
August 17, 2008, 04:02 PM
Yes, a really good read if you can get by the errors and misrepresentations.

Okay, I am at a loss. Popular rumors? Honestly, I have only heard of one of them.

War rumors? Many of these are simply technical rumors, not war rumors. Others are simply opinions, not facts.

All I saw was someone setting up a bunch of straw men, knocking them down and proclaiming victory. I wish I had the time back I spent reading this thread. Hey, brigadier, if you're such a military historian, what bomber preceded the SR-71 in development?

As for "false" "rumors", why don't you just admit that you're trying to "stir" "the pot"? Smells like troll soup to me.

Weezy
August 17, 2008, 04:07 PM
Another common rumor:
Soldiers have been known to eat babies.
Status: FALSE
Soldiers have never been recorded in any act of eating babies.

See, this is easy!

Shung
August 17, 2008, 04:38 PM
I read much BS here and there, and also a lot of forgotten things..

for example, if you mention Russian airplanes as nuclear capable, don't forget the many French, British, and most probably Israeli airplanes that do the same.. (not to speak about Pakistani or Indians, or chinese..)

The Harriers and Raptors are the only plains that can take-off and land on aircraft carriers without assistance

as for that..

I'd really like to see a F-22 Raptor operated from an aircraft carrier.. with our without assistance.. show me one doing that, and I will post a picture of me flying with my ears only...

TexasRifleman
August 17, 2008, 04:39 PM
The Harriers and Raptors are the only plains that can take-off and land on aircraft carriers without assistance

Hmm, seems like Jimmy Doolittle took off in 1942 with some B-25's........ :)

Shung
August 17, 2008, 04:43 PM
Only taking off... with most of the armour and defensive guns removed..

actually, any aircraft could take off from a carrier if the speed of the ship +the speed he can reach on the deck is high enough to lift her...

but it's much harder to make an airplane able to sustain a catapult, or even worse, a trapped landing (catchin' the wires)..

TexasRifleman
August 17, 2008, 04:46 PM
Only taking off... with most of the armour and defensive guns removed..


2 B25's landed on carriers in Norfolk during planning stages for the Doolittle raid but it was decided it was too risky to attempt for the actual mission.
I saw some photos on a website once, I'll see if I can find it again. They painted the outline of the deck on a runway and it worked so they tried the real thing.

B25's took off and landed both from the USS Shangri-La in November, 1944 but they did use the catapult and hook if I remember.

C130 did it too....No cat, no hook.

http://www.cgaux.com/C-130carrierlanding.htm

Shung
August 17, 2008, 04:58 PM
Yep, for the Hercules,I know it was done, I saw the video..

But considering the size of US AC , the speed of the carrier, the wind at sea , + the landing speed and the possible reverse of it's engines, it's not so astonishing.. Sure, it requires guts, but it's far too complicated and dangerous to be used in real, and large scale operations.

As I said : any aircraft could take off from a carrier if the speed of the ship +the speed he can reach on the deck is high enough to lift her...

Same goes for landing, (lifting speed = approx landing speed) , and if the airplane as a good breaking capabilty.. Maybe it was done in Norfolk..

B25's took off and landed both from the USS Shangri-La in November, 1944 but they did use the catapult if I remember.

Never heard about that, thx for the info. I will look for more precision about that. they must have used wires, cause as far as I know B-25 breakes were not that strong, and it had no "reverse" capabilities.

Bear2000
August 17, 2008, 05:03 PM
My favorite war rumor is the one that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" (how the poll question was phrased) in the 9/11 attacks. More than 2/3 of Americans believed that falsehood before the war and, according to the most recent polling, some 30-40% still do.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13081

Not true, never was, and yet, 40% still believe! Now that's an effective rumor, and one with much bigger consequences than whether the USS Enterprises displaces a few more thousand tons than the Nimitz.

TexasRifleman
August 17, 2008, 05:06 PM
ever heard about that, thx for the info. I will look for more precision about that. they must have used wires, cause as far as I know B-25 breakes were not that strong, and it had no "reverse" capabilities.

Yeah, its some interesting stuff. They did testing of P51's and F7F Tigercats too.

B-25 brakes are pretty stout actually you just couldn't apply them heavily and evenly both with any regularity.
I've got a couple hundred hours in B25s but mostly in the right seat.

bobbarker
August 17, 2008, 05:37 PM
* War heros usually make good national leaders.

Though war heros tend to make either very good or very bad national leaders, they usually make bad ones. The reasons vary but may include these factors:
* Warriors are exposed to massive killing and often brutality which can have negative affects on their ability to have respect for life.
* Warriors, particularly the ones who become heros, tend to have a very strong sense of conviction, which may serve good or bad purposes.
* The battlefield is full of harmful and bad feelings that can also hurt someones regard for life.

1. Adolph Hitler was a terrible man, and a great leader. He brought Germany out of a depression, and was smart enough to realize, if you feed people at your rallies, they will come and listen.

2. Losing respect for life, is NOT one of the things commonly brought on by killing people and the brutality that goes along with it. To the contrary, it increases your respect for life. It's not just the enemy being killed.

3. The Battlefield is full of harmful and bad feelings. So are any number of places outside of a battlefield. Being exposed to these "harmful and bad feelings" makes no one any better or worse of a leader because of it.

4. That sense of conviction you speak of, that goes along with War Heroes, can be found in any walk of life, not just in the Military. There are any number of people with a serious sense of conviction, and to suggest that a military War Hero is at a higher risk of being an extremist seems a bit, well, extreme, to me.

I'm fairly offended at, what I feel, is an insinuation that those that go into battle are a bunch of bloodthirsty killers with no regard for life. I don't know if that was your actual intent or not, or if it came across that way to anyone other than me, but that's how I saw it. Maybe I'm out of line here, I don't know.

DougDubya
August 17, 2008, 05:47 PM
Ibtl.

grilledcheese
August 17, 2008, 05:49 PM
Me too.




Jeffrey

Shung
August 17, 2008, 05:49 PM
I've got a couple hundred hours in B25s but mostly in the right seat.

wow, impressive ! congrats.

I never flew one, but visited one. We have one flying near here, in Sion. (their website http://www.jaf.ch/jaf/index.php ) .

Navy pilots have guts, anyway.

If you want to laugh a bit, listen to that Dos Gringos song (They are USAF pilots and part time singers)

http://www.dosgringosrocks.com/audio/DOS_GRINGOS-I_Want_to_From_a.m3u

wanna take off from a carrier some day before I die
Strap that Viper to a catapult and watch that sucker fly
200 knots in under 2 seconds
That's my kinda fun
Do a barrel roll just after takeoff
Just like in Top Gun
But I don't wanna land
Allow me to explain and you'll understand
'Cause it ain't about the landing
Why would I care?
You never have a crosswind and you never have to flare
You got 4 ****ing wires, how could you miss?
I can't think of anything that's easier than this
But once you're on the deck my friend you'll never be the same
'Cause you're stuck on a boat in the middle of nowhere with five thousand other men
Join the navy? I don't think so
Living on a boat? I don't think so
Hot bunking? I don't think so
Doing night traps? **** that! I don't think so

Sure I thought about the Navy but decided to pass
I love my five star hotels and per diem out the ass
I do all of my fighting well within the shore
Cable TV and cappacinos - that's the way that you fight a war
This spoiled life - it can grow old
When the coffee ain't fresh, the sheets ain't soft and the beer is only somewhat cold

and if you like them, listen their whole album here

http://www.dosgringosrocks.com/music.html

be aware-- explicit language..

ps: this one is a special for THR !

http://www.dosgringosrocks.com/audio/DOS_GRINGOS-Going_In_For.m3u

(LOTS of fighter pilot slang... so look for a lexical if you dont get all..)

TexasRifleman
August 17, 2008, 05:49 PM
Ibtl.

I'm actually surprised it lasted this long.

Mods must be enjoying their Sunday doing something real :)

ETA:

If you want to laugh a bit, listen to that Dos Gringos song (They are USAF pilots and part time singers)


OK that's the funniest thing I ever heard LOL

TallPine
August 17, 2008, 06:05 PM
William Henry Harrison

divemedic
August 17, 2008, 06:05 PM
The F-35 JSF has VTOL capability and will be able to operate on carriers.

Oh, yeah- I was incorrect about the B-24 Liberator, the B-29 Superfortress, and B-50 Superfortress. The B24 was not nuclear capable, the B29 and B50 were.

Shung
August 17, 2008, 06:07 PM
The F-35 JSF has VTOL capability and will be able to operate on carriers

Only the Navy (STOL) and the USMC (VTOL) versions will... not the USAF version..

and ps: don't belive what you saw in the last Die Hard movie.. ;)

OK that's the funniest thing I ever heard LOL

did you really listen to their songs, or do you laugh about them being USAF pilots and part time singers ;) ?

Nolo
August 17, 2008, 06:10 PM
IBTL.
However, I think the "myth" that the B-2 is the first nuclear-capable bomber is a myth.
Yes, I think the existence of the myth is a myth.
I've never heard even the most ignorant people say anything of the sort.

TexasRifleman
August 17, 2008, 06:12 PM
did you really listen to their songs, or do you laugh about them being USAF pilots and part time singers

No man... too funny. "Don't want to land on a carrier because it's only 5000 men"...... hilarious.

Shung
August 17, 2008, 06:13 PM
yeah, they are great ;) when you have time, listen their other songs.. they are very funny, all of them.

hksw
August 17, 2008, 07:38 PM
* The Harriers and Raptors are the only plains that can take-off and land on aircraft carriers without assistance.

The Russian SU-27 and American C-130 can take-of AND land on the deck of an aircraft carrier without assistance.

What about the Yaks?

Nuclear Capable Aircraft:

B-29 Liberator
B- 36 Peacemaker
B-47 Stratojet
B-50 Superfortress
B-58 Hustler
A-6 Intruder
S-3 Viking
P-3 Orion
F/A-18 Hornet
F-16 Fighting Falcon
FB-111
H-3 Sea King Helicopter
Mig 27
Tu-95 Bear
Tu-16 Badger
Tu-22 Blinder
Tu-22M Backfire "

I believe the Boeing B-29 was the "super fortress", the Cosolidated B-24 was the "Liberator".

And the F-101 Voodoo.

highorder
August 17, 2008, 08:07 PM
what bomber preceded the SR-71 in development?


are you thinking of the A-12, or the B-58 Hustler? err, I was thinking aircraft, not "bomber" because the SR-71 was not a bomber.

or am I just waaaay off?


also the OP's list was full of stuff. Thats about it. Stuff.

Robby
August 17, 2008, 08:09 PM
The early U-2 ac, took off and landed on American aircraft carriers in the 60's. I know because I was on the carrier when it happened.

The takeoff and landings were without tail hooks or cat's

dalepres
August 17, 2008, 08:32 PM
However, I think the "myth" that the B-2 is the first nuclear-capable bomber is a myth.
Yes, I think the existence of the myth is a myth.
I've never heard even the most ignorant people say anything of the sort.

That's what I say about the whole list of "myths". Their existence as myths is a myth created by the OP.


what bomber preceded the SR-71 in development?

Someone really asked that? Ok, maybe there really is someone who thought the B2 was the first nuclear bomber.

Marlin 45 carbine
August 17, 2008, 08:35 PM
Hitler was a dictator with the SS and Gestapo to do his bidding. a 'leader' by force mostly. Saddam comes to mind, as Mao.

dalepres
August 17, 2008, 08:39 PM
mis-spelled:
One entry found.

misspell

Main Entry: mis·spell
Pronunciation: \ˌmis-ˈspel\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1655
: to spell incorrectly

Nope. The word is "misspell".

akodo
August 17, 2008, 09:25 PM
* Flamethrowers were never used until WW II.

Conventional flame throwers as we think of them, were first incorporated by the Byzantine Empire around the time of it's birth. They were a large role of paper, leather or other type of material that was filled with flammable material. They were very large and used primarily for naval combat. The popular 4th of July firework: "Roman Candle" is named after them.

umm, how is that a rebuttal of any kind? I know flamethrowers were used in WW2, and that the bolded statement is false, but anyone ignorant on the subject of flamethrower use in the modern era would continue to be ignorant, and not any better informed

* The Handgun is strictly an offensive weapon.

If this were true, then police officers would leave their handgun in the glove compartment and in stead shoulder their AR-15 or shotgun when they pull you over.

Huh? how can you disprove somethign is 'strictly an offensive weapon' by bringing up the use, or nonuse, of a more effective offensive weapon.

I agree that the handgun is mostly defensive, but your methodology of explaining this is terribly confusing.

Of all these so-called false rumors, the ONLY one I have heard before was
* It's against the Geneva convention for the military to use Hollow points.

Maybe you have heard a few lone idiots raving about some of these "oh the F-14 can go faster than an SR-71 except it will fall apart!"...."The Bismark was the biggest battleship ever!"

but even people just peripherally aware of these things are going to know that while an F-14 engine's horsepower or thrust rating or whatever you want to say is greater than many other engines, plane weight, areodynamic design, and many other factors are what determine speed.

If you want to go dispelling false rumors, fine, but maybe pick rumors that more than 7 people believe

divemedic
August 17, 2008, 09:30 PM
Hitler was a dictator with the SS and Gestapo to do his bidding. a 'leader' by force mostly. Saddam comes to mind, as Mao.

Like him or not, he took over nearly all of Europe, and all with a country smaller than the State of Georgia. Sure, he was evil, but he darned near won the war. If the Axis had waited on attacking the US and Russia, things would have been different.

SSN Vet
August 17, 2008, 09:35 PM
AND, the real top speed of the SR-71 is still classified. We may never know how fast the sucker can go.

I don't think anyone knows it's "real" top speed, nor ever will. My understanding is that the plane has never been maxed out. Whenever they want to break the record, they just bump the throttle ~1/8" further than the last scratch mark.

this aircraft is truely amazing.

STW
August 17, 2008, 09:59 PM
Just one fact tells me allI need to know about usng nukes on Japan - Only in the recent past has the US needed to order new purple hearts. Those awarded during Korea, Vietnam, and other actions up to at least 10 years ago were ordered for the invasion of Japan.

rcnixon
August 17, 2008, 10:05 PM
The F-105 was nuclear-capable; the M-240 GPMG is a version of the FN MAG-58 (Mitrailleuse d`Appui Général).

I'm surprised at the misaprehension of the OPs intent. The statements are posited as wrong and to be corrected. The OP does make some factual, spelling and grammatical errors however.

Freedomv
August 17, 2008, 10:11 PM
* The Harriers and Raptors are the only plains that can take-off and land on aircraft carriers without assistance.

There are Great Planes and there is the Great Plains. Not to be confused with one another.
Just had to mention it.

Vern

JohnBT
August 17, 2008, 10:15 PM
"And I thought the list was just to hide a sleight on McCain."

So did I.

John

JohnBT
August 17, 2008, 10:22 PM
And FWIW, I thought everybody knew both sides used flamethrowers in WWI.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/graphics/frenchflamethrowers.jpg

www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/flamethrowers.htm

Tommygunn
August 17, 2008, 10:25 PM
I don't think anyone knows it's "real" top speed, nor ever will. My understanding is that the plane has never been maxed out. Whenever they want to break the record, they just bump the throttle ~1/8" further than the last scratch mark.

this aircraft is truely amazing

A man I knew who was a range officer in Connecticut was an SR-71 pilot. When I found this out I got to talking about it, and I mentioned I'd heard it was capable of hitting Mach 3.3 (I'd read THAT in a book so it must be true {ha ha}). He just smiled so I figured I'd been misinformed. But he wouldn't be drawn out any farther on the subject .....

streakr
August 17, 2008, 10:50 PM
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

National Socialism was a nationalistic fascist state and a manifestation of the rights of the state (and corporations) over the individuals (workers). RIGHT, Not leftist.

KM Bismark was a poor rework of a WW1 German design (Baden) and was reported by the Nazis to be within Washington/London Treaty limits (35,000 tons) but displaced about 50,000 and full load of 57,000. Her defeat of Hood was due to the "Golden Twinkie", sheer luck.

The Japanese built IJN Yamato class in secret displacing 64,000 with full load of 75,000. Not twice Bismark's displacement. These ships carried 18.1" (46cm) guns and contributed NOTHING to the Japanese war effort.

Iowa class BBs were built to 45,000 tons to carry 55,000 full load, were far better than either Axis ship and gave better service for nearly 6 decades.

streakr

basicblur
August 17, 2008, 10:56 PM
Went to school with a fella that had just gotten outta the Air Force. He said he knew of an SR-71 that took off from California, quickly had both engines go out, and it landed in Florida. Don't know if it's true or not...

BTW...he was a radar technician? Said his job required he be in the back seat of an F-111 and perform checks on the system to tag for work/repair. He said he looked outside the cockpit one time when the pilot had it in terrain following mode-said that was the last time he looked out the cockpit!
After that, he said he just kept his head buried in his work.

Wes Janson
August 17, 2008, 11:19 PM
Quote:
what bomber preceded the SR-71 in development?

Someone really asked that? Ok, maybe there really is someone who thought the B2 was the first nuclear bomber.

To be fair, IIRC there was some discussion about arming the A-12/RS-71 or something similar, back before it "became" the SR-71.

benEzra
August 17, 2008, 11:20 PM
* The Harriers and Raptors are the only plains that can take-off and land on aircraft carriers without assistance.
Not Raptors, which are land-based, long-runway air superiority fighters. You're probably thinking of the F-35B Lightning II (the B-model is the STOVL version, with the lift fan and swivel tail nozzle).

http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/_GjrPvSBGXE/default.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjrPvSBGXE

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/f35_schem_02.jpg

jhansman
August 17, 2008, 11:27 PM
Really? Popular rumors? Among whom, exactly? Sound like straw men the OP used to so he could knock them down.

Cosmoline
August 17, 2008, 11:32 PM
By rumors do you mean myths? A rumor of war would be something you heard from a neighbor that we were going to war with Russia. You have listed a number of myths (I guess)

Jeff White
August 17, 2008, 11:49 PM
The myth that this thread is on topic here is officially busted.

Jeff

If you enjoyed reading about "Popular False rumors about war" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!