PDA

View Full Version : That's not a gun, THIS is a gun



RedNeckerson
05-06-2005, 12:22 PM
You've got to be kidding me, look at this thing!


http://tuku.military.china.com/military/pic/2005-05-03/1009390_124639917.jpg

RedNeckerson
05-06-2005, 12:22 PM
You've got to be kidding me, look at this thing!


http://tuku.military.china.com/military/pic/2005-05-03/1009390_124639917.jpg

Endrju
05-06-2005, 12:34 PM
Wow! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Is that the biggest gun ever built? I thought it was German Dora cannon cal.800mm

nearmiss
05-06-2005, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
You've got to be kidding me, look at this thing!

http://tuku.military.china.com/military/pic/2005-05-03/1009390_124639917.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny isn't it. The Nazi were first to have jets, rockets, self-propelled bombs, big @$$ guns and they still got their butts kicked.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

If the Nazi would have concentrated on winning the war instead of murdering everyone and committing atrocities as a consistent endeavor they might have won the war.

Evil works just makes you dumb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

skabbe
05-06-2005, 12:49 PM
isnt that big bertha?

jugent
05-06-2005, 01:00 PM
Germany lost the war because their industrial capacity was lower than USA, GB and others and Soviet union, that their population enabled them to put fewer soldiers under arms than USA, GB and others and Soviet Union.
One funny thing is the loop of money. Germany paid money to France and England, according to Versailles-threaty. France and England repaied their war-loans to USA.
USA loanded this money to Germany for rebuilding Germany.

Its not so hard to make unemployed people happy if you give them job and pay them with money thay you dont have.

This loans should have been repaid 1942 and Germany didnt have any chance to do this.

That Germany did lousy aircrafts is not true in real world only in this game

Kasdeya
05-06-2005, 01:06 PM
is that the 'Paris" gun?

FI-Aflak
05-06-2005, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Germany lost the war because their industrial capacity was lower than USA, GB and others and Soviet union, that their population enabled them to put fewer soldiers under arms than USA, GB and others and Soviet Union.
One funny thing is the loop of money. Germany paid money to France and England, according to Versailles-threaty. France and England repaied their war-loans to USA.
USA loanded this money to Germany for rebuilding Germany.

Its not so hard to make unemployed people happy if you give them job and pay them with money thay you dont have.

This loans should have been repaid 1942 and Germany didnt have any chance to do this.

That Germany did lousy aircrafts is not true in real world only in this game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are lots of interesting theories as to why the allies won.

One major factor is the axis didn't have a strategic airforce at all, only the british and the americans used them, devestating enemy industry and moral.

Another important thing I think is this . . the Nazis poured their resources into jet fighters, cruise missiles, rocket-submarines, rocket interceptors, flying wings and the like, you don't really see anything like that on the allied side. The allies spent their resources developing the largest-scale code-breaking project the world had ever seen up to that point. I have no doubt in my mind that without the code-breaking effort the war would have ended very differently. We knew where their subs were so we sunk them. We knew where their convoys were and what they were carrying so we sunk the important ones (if we had sunk all of them, the axis would have become suspicious and switched their codes). We knew Yamamoto's flight plan so we assasinated him. Maybe a few allied cyphers were broken, but nothing very important, and not on an industrial scale.

The battle's of Midway and the Coral Sea would have been lost had it not been for our ability to read their codes. The Japanese could have forced us to quick surender had we lost those engagements.

We won because we love our geeks.

BuzZz_WG
05-06-2005, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Another important thing I think is this . . the Nazis poured their resources into jet fighters, cruise missiles, rocket-submarines, rocket interceptors, flying wings and the like, you don't really see anything like that on the allied side.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The manhattan project was quite money thirsty. Innovation can lead to victory, but it's not the only way to achieve it.

major_setback
05-06-2005, 01:52 PM
This is a computer generated picture that I found on the net.

Not quite as big, but a good picture anyway.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Leopold.jpg

LStarosta
05-06-2005, 01:57 PM
My Fw-190 has a pair of those in the wings.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-06-2005, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My Fw-190 has a pair of those in the wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


At least concerning weight and rate of fire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEBillfish
05-06-2005, 03:03 PM
Well, that is a mighty big gun, question is however do they know how to use it?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

....btw, the paris gun was WWI....

Dora Page (http://www.aopt91.dsl.pipex.com/railgun/Content/Railwayguns/German/Dora%20index.htm)

Though a big gun,

BBB_Hyperion
05-06-2005, 03:04 PM
I am sorry FI-Aflak newest reports show that it is wrongly believed that allied codes were secure.TELWA was done. M-209 "Hag" was cracked with a almost similar maschine approach like turning did with enigma by german decoders. That is information that was only last year in press not sure if yet a english book is released on it.

Dr. Otto Leiberich: Vom diplomatischen Code zur Fallt├╝rfunktion. Spektrum der Wissenschaft, Juni 1999

Klaus Schmeh: Die Welt der geheimen Zeichen. Die faszinierende Geschichte der
Verschl├╝sselung. W3L Verlag, Bochum 2004

Are some intresting books that deal with the topic.

You can try this press article translated with altavista too.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2F tp%2Fr4%2Fartikel%2F18%2F18371%2F1.html&lp=de_en

That enigma code was broken was suspected but change wasnt ordered cause no one believed it could be done by others without having code books and working maschines as well as correct wiring. Without these it would have been a nearly impossible task.

Mostly codebreaking effects are underestimated cause it gives vital information about logistics and operations going on.

Strategic airforce was only a problem when it had a base within europe not to forget.

Btw 1 of the dora models of these trainguns were used in the krim area at the siege of sewastopol they were all but useless.

But the 14 days of active service it fired only 20 rounds effectivley. Problem was overall ineffective but positive for morale.

Here is a article about this gun

http://www.aopt91.dsl.pipex.com/railgun/Content/Railwayguns/German/Dora%20index.htm

pourshot
05-06-2005, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzZz_WG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Another important thing I think is this . . the Nazis poured their resources into jet fighters, cruise missiles, rocket-submarines, rocket interceptors, flying wings and the like, you don't really see anything like that on the allied side.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The manhattan project was quite money thirsty. Innovation can lead to victory, but it's not the only way to achieve it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I remember that the manhatton project costing around 1 billion dollars, not much at all if you consider the b-29 project cost close to 3 billion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
05-06-2005, 05:20 PM
&lt;?&gt;what do you mean, low bridge?

p1ngu666
05-06-2005, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzZz_WG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Another important thing I think is this . . the Nazis poured their resources into jet fighters, cruise missiles, rocket-submarines, rocket interceptors, flying wings and the like, you don't really see anything like that on the allied side.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The manhattan project was quite money thirsty. Innovation can lead to victory, but it's not the only way to achieve it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I remember that the manhatton project costing around 1 billion dollars, not much at all if you consider the b-29 project cost close to 3 billion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

u see all those things on allied side http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
russians had a statgic airforce, armed with tb3s and other aircraft, it got slaughtered http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
germany had way more industrial potential, than it ever realised, even more than russia http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ploughman
05-06-2005, 05:42 PM
There was a running gun duel over the Dover Strait/Pas de Calais from 1940 to 1944 when the Canadians cleaned the Nazis out of the Calais area, mostly featuring large calibre ex-naval guns. I have a synapse firing in the back of my mind alerting me to the possiblity that the Jerries were trying to install long range guns in the Pas de Calai area that might possibly fire on London...

p1ngu666
05-06-2005, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
There was a running gun duel over the Dover Strait/Pas de Calais from 1940 to 1944 when the Canadians cleaned the Nazis out of the Calais area, mostly featuring large calibre ex-naval guns. I have a synapse firing in the back of my mind alerting me to the possiblity that the Jerries were trying to install long range guns in the Pas de Calai area that might possibly fire on London... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they did...
617 visited that area and sprinkled it with tall boys and maybe grandslams. problem solved http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

LeadSpitter_
05-07-2005, 12:07 AM
I heard it was recoiless like 108 cannons shvaks and mg151.

Lewicide
05-07-2005, 01:14 AM
That original photo, is of either "Gustav" or "Dora", they were 800mm cal. and were dissasembled for transport.

They were reassembled on four sets of parrallel tracks. They had a special AAA regiment to travel with them.

They fired 4800kg or 7100kg shells to ranges between 47 and 38KM.

Gustav was used in the seige of Sebastopol, where it destroyed the concrete turreted batteries ("Maxim Gorki" I think).
Both were destroyed by the Germans before the end of the war.

Impressive tube artillery.

1.JaVA_Hornet
05-07-2005, 05:17 AM
And did you know that the germans almost
had finished their first atom bomb?

We have to be glad that the war had finished
in time.

BBB_Hyperion
05-07-2005, 06:08 AM
Thats is more a rhetorical question than a real one cause proofs are not available only indications. Calculations reveal that it needs at least 2 years to enrich PB that way needed and refine it later would take some time too. So almost finnished could be some years too late.

KG26_Alpha
05-07-2005, 06:20 AM
Why do think Stalin rushed into Berlin killing thousands of his own troops needlessly ?
There was 300 tons of Uranium Oxide up for grabs and he got there first too.

stathem
05-07-2005, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
There was a running gun duel over the Dover Strait/Pas de Calais from 1940 to 1944 when the Canadians cleaned the Nazis out of the Calais area, mostly featuring large calibre ex-naval guns. I have a synapse firing in the back of my mind alerting me to the possiblity that the Jerries were trying to install long range guns in the Pas de Calai area that might possibly fire on London... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they did...
617 visited that area and sprinkled it with tall boys and maybe grandslams. problem solved http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The V3.

Tallboys buried it before it was finished, which was good 'cos it would've made quite a mess of London. GrandSlams didn't go operational till '45 at the Bielefeld Viaduct

Monson74
05-07-2005, 06:56 AM
They had one too outside of Stalingrad if I'm not wrong. It's pretty big...

Cajun76
05-07-2005, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Hornet:
And did you know that the germans almost
had finished their first atom bomb?

We have to be glad that the war had finished
in time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would they have delivered it with? And if they held out long enough to build one, would a B-29 or Lanc have dropped one before Germany's was ready?

For example, the US dropped many advanced projects that were demonstrated as being sound and worthy, but canceled them as the war wound down. P-47M's and N's could have been seen earlier, as well as P-72's to name some. Desperation breeds innovation. A few (conventional) wonder weapons that can't be produced in quantity doesn't win wars of attrition.

One other thing that sometimes is forgotten, is that by the end of the US ground war in the ETO, the US air forces were largely tactical, with even the heavies performing some tactical work. In a branch of service that had tried vehemently to be it's own master and it's sometimes blind faith in benefits of strategic bombardment governing much of it's early war years doctrine, they found that there was and still is an important need for tactical air power.

CUJO_1970
05-07-2005, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
What would they have delivered it with? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


An ICBM probably.

jugent
05-07-2005, 09:35 AM
Strategic airforce, spending money on wrong things are details in the big scenario.

Churchills refusal to accept peace with Hitler in 1940 was a major event.

But Soviet Union by itself would have beaten Germany. The resources allokated on the west- and southfront couldnt have turned the fulcrum to Adolf favour. If Moscow was captured wouldnt have made Soviet Union to capitulate. Adolf goal was to nihiliate the Soviet Union and to make the people slaves, Stalin had no other option than to fight on.
Nazi-Germany was far from develope a A-bomb. Their greatest scientist Heizenberg? was far from the solution.

I dont think that eaven the A-bomb would have change anything. What options did Soviet and Great Britain have after a peace with Nazi-Germany?
Britain should as only soverign greatpower in Europe beside Germany, live together with them.
Soviet Union should have been forced to accept that the european part should come under Nazi-juristiction.

Kasdeya
05-07-2005, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Well, that is a mighty big gun, question is however do they know how to use it?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

....btw, the paris gun was WWI....

Dora Page (http://www.aopt91.dsl.pipex.com/railgun/Content/Railwayguns/German/Dora%20index.htm)

Though a big gun, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah ty BF, couldnt remember which war it was from. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

nearmiss
05-07-2005, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Germany lost the war because their industrial capacity was lower than USA, GB and others and Soviet union, that their population enabled them to put fewer soldiers under arms than USA, GB and others and Soviet Union.
One funny thing is the loop of money. Germany paid money to France and England, according to Versailles-threaty. France and England repaied their war-loans to USA.
USA loanded this money to Germany for rebuilding Germany.

Its not so hard to make unemployed people happy if you give them job and pay them with money thay you dont have.

This loans should have been repaid 1942 and Germany didnt have any chance to do this.

That Germany did lousy aircrafts is not true in real world only in this game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to read a little more history.

There were a myriad of reasons Germany lost and most of it was the evil doers running the darned country making all the decisions.

What kind of world would this be if they had won? My gosh it's inconceivable what Hitler http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif would have done, the guy hated everything and everybody.

LOL - Repayment of loans wouldn't have even been a consideration, especially since the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif Nazi killed or made slaves out of everyone.

Aaron_GT
05-07-2005, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> jet fighters, cruise missiles, rocket-submarines, rocket interceptors, flying wings and the like, you don't really see anything like that on the allied side. The allies spent their resources developing the largest-scale code-breaking project the world had ever seen up to that point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Allies worked on all of these (apart from rocket subs AFAIK).

pourshot:
The Manhattan project was a three country project (US, Canada, UK, all nominally required to agree before use) with thousands of people employed, mining operations in far off countries to extract the uranium, etc. If it cost 1/3 of what the B29 project did then I'd be immensely surprised. Are you sure that isn't the cost of the B29 development and the cost of production of all B29s?

ploughman
05-07-2005, 02:15 PM
I think the bulk of allied resources were spent smashing the Axis on land, sea and air rather than on signals intelligence.

Wasn't the big gun at Sebastapol the Karl mega-mortar? The one that'll be an artillery object in the 4.0 patch.

Lucius_Esox
05-07-2005, 02:58 PM
Look excuse the spelling here please. I read in Paul Brickhills book The Dambusters that they bombed a gun site in Mimmeyques. Lol I know that is not the right spelling sorry, might not even be the right place lol.

But if I remember right (and I probably don't) these things were built into a mountain cave and were 300FT LONG. They were a bit like the one's being built by some clever tw*t in Britain for So**** Insane a few years back labelled "Supergun"

Anyone shed any light on this and prove to everyone what a bad memory I got http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

stathem
05-07-2005, 04:09 PM
Yep, Lucius, that's what I alluded to, the so-called V3, sunk 500ft under the ground, scheduled to fire 600 tons of explosive A DAY at London. The original Supergun. Thank God for Barnes Wallis.

It was at Mimoyecques, so you were pretty close with that spelling. (I have the book here)

"One "tallboy" had ripped a corner off the 20 foot thick concrete roof and completely blocked the left-hand gun shaft. A near miss had collapsed the right-hand shaft and shaken the remaining shaft out of plumb. Five hundred feet down when the bombers came, 300 workers had been sheltering in what they must have thought was complete safety....."

When they hit that target, they didn't even know what was there, just that it was a secret weapon. Probably got it off an ULTRA decrypt.

pourshot
05-07-2005, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">pourshot:
The Manhattan project was a three country project (US, Canada, UK, all nominally required to agree before use) with thousands of people employed, mining operations in far off countries to extract the uranium, etc. If it cost 1/3 of what the B29 project did then I'd be immensely surprised. Are you sure that isn't the cost of the B29 development and the cost of production of all B29s? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I am correct, however I got this information from a discovery channel show so who knows what the real truth is (shrugs). What I do know is that the b-29 project did not run smoothly as it was a radical change in aircraft design that needed huge industrial input. I will see if can find out more.

Edit; I found THIS (http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/MANHATTN.HTM) link, at the top it gives the total cost in todays money, at the bottom it gives a brake down. So in all less than 2 billon dollars at 1945 money values.

darkhorizon11
05-08-2005, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nearmiss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
You've got to be kidding me, look at this thing!

http://tuku.military.china.com/military/pic/2005-05-03/1009390_124639917.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny isn't it. The Nazi were first to have jets, rockets, self-propelled bombs, big @$$ guns and they still got their butts kicked.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

If the Nazi would have concentrated on winning the war instead of murdering everyone and committing atrocities as a consistent endeavor they might have won the war.

Evil works just makes you dumb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah we got lucky in that war.

A lot of people however try to say oh well what if the Germans never invaded Russia or never commited the atrocities that they did? But the whole point of the Nazis taking power in Germany was that Hitler rode the Communists and Jews for their "betrayal" of Germany in WWI and desecration of German heritage. For the USSR and Jews to exist was a blatant disrespect to the Third Reich, they were really obligated to do these things from the beginning.

Just goes to show you that the indifference of good men can be just as bad as evil itself.

Oh yeah back to the gun. Isn't it the Dora railroad gun?

darkhorizon11
05-08-2005, 01:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> jet fighters, cruise missiles, rocket-submarines, rocket interceptors, flying wings and the like, you don't really see anything like that on the allied side. The allies spent their resources developing the largest-scale code-breaking project the world had ever seen up to that point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The Allies worked on all of these (apart from rocket subs AFAIK).

pourshot:
The Manhattan project was a three country project (US, Canada, UK, all nominally required to agree before use) with thousands of people employed, mining operations in far off countries to extract the uranium, etc. If it cost 1/3 of what the B29 project did then I'd be immensely surprised. Are you sure that isn't the cost of the B29 development and the cost of production of all B29s? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't post a source right now but the Manhattan project literally cost 2.0 billion dollars which at the time was about the entire net worth of the Automobile industry in Detriot. Not to get off topic here but this explains one of the biggest reasons that we dropped the bomb. Besides all the circumstances of wanting to win the war etc. a lot of people argued well we spent this much on building it? Why not use it?

Inflate 2.0 billion to modern money and imagine what would happen if the American people found out that we spent that much money on a weapon we weren't planning on using. There would be H E double hockey sticks to pay for sure!

Aaron_GT
05-08-2005, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And did you know that the germans almost
had finished their first atom bomb? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germany was nowhere near creating an atom bomb. The project had been badly funded and they scientists may not have been entirely keen on creating it. Previously people poured scorn on Heisenberg's claims to be stalling and supported Bohr's view, but some new evidence turned up in the last couple of years or so in terms of diaries has lent weight to at least Heisenberg's account of his famous meeting with Bohr, so who knows who is to be believed any more.

Aaron_GT
05-08-2005, 02:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So in all less than 2 billon dollars at 1945 money values. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this include the Canadian and British contributions?

major_setback
05-08-2005, 09:26 AM
Here's a couple of films, one showing the Dora IN ACTION.

Those are BIG shells!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif



http://tanxheaven.com/movie/dora.mpeg


http://tanxheaven.com/movie/dora2.mpeg

major_setback
05-09-2005, 07:58 AM
I thought I'd let everyone know. You can get to destroy 2 Dora cannons in this modified bombing mission for 'Wings of War'.



http://fakeoutdoorsman.com/wow/index.php?&direction=0&order=&directory=Missions


http://www.polovski.com/WoW.htm



http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/WowDoracanon.jpg