送交者: 揍汉奸 于 2007-01-05, 21:36:55:

回答: Steven, here is my interpretation, giving enough benefit of doubt 由 PhonyDoctorPhD 于 2007-01-05, 21:34:18:

• yes. I didn't say that L-2 couldn't have shoot down F-86, - steven (457 bytes) 2007-01-05, 22:38:15 (118889)
  • 现在知道你错在哪里了 - 揍汉奸 (365 bytes) 2007-01-05, 22:45:45 (118891)
    • 进一步的论证 - 揍汉奸 (312 bytes) 2007-01-05, 22:50:35 (118894)
      • "切半径紧紧咬住最后一架敌机" he was turning according to this. (无内容) - steven (0 bytes) 2007-01-05, 23:55:18 (118910)
        • 另外一点 - 揍汉奸 (78 bytes) 2007-01-06, 00:39:55 (118914)
          • I said that all along, the description in the article couldn't have been true. - steven (615 bytes) 2007-01-06, 01:52:10 (118918)
        • 好 - 揍汉奸 (145 bytes) 2007-01-06, 00:37:20 (118913)
          • 闹了半天你还没明白 - blessuuu (67 bytes) 2007-01-06, 14:17:34 (118968)
          • 如果两架飞机的机动性差不多的话，是的。 - 蓝隼 (372 bytes) 2007-01-06, 01:54:58 (118919)
            • 昨天晚上的DOGFIGHT介绍的一个战术很有意思 - blessuuu (149 bytes) 2007-01-06, 14:26:51 (118970)
          • aircrafts cannot do that since turning like that eventually will cause - steven (186 bytes) 2007-01-06, 01:43:01 (118917)
      • actually, you misled me. There isn't L-2. It should be La-9. (无内容) - steven (0 bytes) 2007-01-05, 23:10:21 (118899)
        • 都错了，是拉-11 - 揍汉奸 (16 bytes) 2007-01-05, 23:16:21 (118901)

加跟贴