|
Flikken posted:I think the German radio operated glide bombs would be the first drones First guided weapon to sink a battleship too; the Italian Roma, on her way to Malta to formally surrender. They also got a cruiser off the Anzio beachhead, possibly the Southhampton, and damaged the Warspite there was well.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
I've been on a close air support kick recently and came upon this clever piece from Burt Rutan: I think the official designation was the ARES, but also seemed to have the nickname of 'Mudfighter'. Here's a cool promotional video, sadly in poor quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg It's a single seater, single turbofan, maneuverable-as-hell CAS fighter built around a 25mm rotary cannon. Designed to be very low cost and simple, it looks like the sort of thing that would have been extremely useful in the sort of counter insurgency battles that have been going on the past decade or so. It has a kind of audacious simplicity to its design that I love. The video does a good job of illustrating its features and even shows some live-fire!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Last seen as a fictional WW2 German aircraft in Iron Eagle 3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 12:08
|
|
|
It looks like it has no room for fancy avionics, targeting devices, or actual decent armaments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
Nimrod MR2 XV260 at the RAF Leuchars airshow.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It looks like it has no room for fancy avionics, targeting devices, or actual decent armaments. Skip to around 5:30 in the video where Burt shows how the whole centre portion of the fuselage is empty to allow for internal payloads or whatever other gear one would want to stuff in there. It also has wing mounts for rockets etc. The GAU-12 is the same cannon the Harrier carries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 13:05
|
|
|
Rutan-built planes are pretty much only good at taking out John Denver. Too soon?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It looks like it has no room for fancy avionics, targeting devices, or actual decent armaments. The design came out of an Army request for a dirt-cheap flying gun for CAS, so avionics beyond a simple gunsight weren't much of a priority. Of course, since it was the Army asking for fixed-wing CAS, it never went anywhere beyond a single prototype and a "good job there sport" for Burt Rutan. I think the "Mudfighter" nickname comes from the same dude who's obsessed with M113s and wants everybody to call them "Gavins" and overhaul their doctrine to use them. The video description is pretty funny in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Hahaha. Sparky. God the wikipedia talk page on the M113 used to be (might still be) an absolute comedy riot. Him and his obvious shill accounts blasting people for not signing their 'real names' to the talk pages, when he was clearly astroturfing with multiple fake aliases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
How could anyone love the M113 so much. It's an aluminum box with tracks and a sad engine. Even the designer was probably not as keen on it as that guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:I think the "Mudfighter" nickname comes from the same dude who's obsessed with M113s and wants everybody to call them "Gavins" and overhaul their doctrine to use them. Ugh, is that the same guy who did like a 12 page write-up on how the military needs to adopt a tactical wheelbarrow thing as well? Sorry for not vetting that quote of 'mudfighter' if that's the case. priznat posted:Rutan-built planes are pretty much only good at taking out John Denver. Nope! I still love Burt's designs though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
priznat posted:How could anyone love the M113 so much. It's an aluminum box with tracks and a sad engine. Certainly not my dad who had to rid *in* them in the early stages of the Vietnam war. I guess the whole concept of them was to drive infantry to the battle, barf them out, then run away. As such the M113 was never intended to come under direct fire,a role which it is entirely unsuited for as you all well know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I guess the whole concept of them was to drive infantry to the battle, barf them out, then run away. "battle taxi" is a phrase I've heard applied to it more than once, so yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Psion posted:"battle taxi" is a phrase I've heard applied to it more than once, so yes Yeah, think less IFV in the modern sense and more in the WW2 halftrack sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
The 113 is a piece of poo poo and I can't wait until the last artillery shell carrier rebuild is finally purged from our stockpiles. The compartment heater is particularly loved up here in the frozen north. Nothing beats an aluminium box in -30 centigrade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Psion posted:"battle taxi" is a phrase I've heard applied to it more than once, so yes I would have called it, "Combat Rhombus"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:The 113 is a piece of poo poo and I can't wait until the last artillery shell carrier rebuild is finally purged from our stockpiles. The compartment heater is particularly loved up here in the frozen north. Nothing beats an aluminium box in -30 centigrade.  but you see the M113 is superior to the Stryker in every respect because
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Psion posted:God the wikipedia talk page on the M113 used to be (might still be) an absolute comedy riot. Him and his obvious shill accounts blasting people for not signing their 'real names' to the talk pages, when he was clearly astroturfing with multiple fake aliases. Still is. Wasn't he the same nutter who wants our boys in the sandbox to carry an SKS with a Tapco mag as a standard issue backup weapon?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:Still is. Excuse me, that's the VULTURE GUN which will be carried by our boys as they fight from M113 GAVINS with MUDFIGHTER close air support. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt7Zdp2W7eY Bonus uploader comment: Mike Sparks actually posted:American G.I. in WW2 were not insufferable weak egomaniacs like idiots who post comments here that get DELETED; they used ENEMY WEAPONS without their penises falling off...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
Tatrakrad posted:I would have called it, "Combat Rhombus" Good name for M113 upgrade program, I love it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Excuse me, that's the VULTURE GUN which will be carried by our boys as they fight from M113 GAVINS with MUDFIGHTER close air support. This guy needs a dedicated thread. I just dipped into combatreform.org for the first time in years and the rabbit hole has reached unimaginable depths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 13:56
|
|
|
Scut posted:This guy needs a dedicated thread. I just dipped into combatreform.org for the first time in years and the rabbit hole has reached unimaginable depths. From Wikipedia M113 discussion page 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
AntiTank posted:From Wikipedia M113 discussion page Christ. Who gets that worked up over a stupid nickname for a piece of poo poo APC?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
They should just call it "Aluminum Shitbox Deathtrap" like my dad did. Everyone start making this edit on Wikipedia! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Akion posted:Christ. Who gets that worked up over a stupid nickname for a piece of poo poo APC? Mike Sparks? e: It's not just the name though. He seriously envisions the US Army using Chinooks to slingload M113s into the fight, where they will be supported by nothing but swarms of cheap planes fitted for CAS. Abrams? Bradleys? Weapons in a caliber larger than 7.62? FOR SCRUBS. JUST HELICOPTER EVERYTHING IN. Seriously, though, I think on one level he realizes if he googlebombs the word Gavin hard enough in conjunction with M113 it'll start showing up in search. This has been more effective for the Ares "Mudfighter" than the 113. It's like on some strange level he's accidentally doing something right for his cause by being completely wrong about it all the time. Oxford Comma posted:They should just call it "Aluminum Shitbox Deathtrap" like my dad did. I thought that was the Sheridan 
Psion fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Aug 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:On the one hand, it kinda makes sense, as the losing side had a really strong motive for technological innovation. Some of the late war fascist inventions are somewhat like cold war innovations minus electronics. The Japanese had that Kamikaze cruise missile, the Oka, and deployed the world's first strategic submarine - only it launched airplanes and not missiles. Similarly, everybody's favorite Nazi rocket plane, the Me 163, was kinda like a SAM: it was deployed near important industry and was a rocket powered air defense, erm, thing, but was piloted and reusable. One of the important things to remember is that the Allies were doing just as much crazy poo poo, it just wasn't stuff you could pilot. Radar, a lot of the encryption and code cracking stuff, nukes, that sort of thing. Germany gets credit for building things a superhero would use, but as far as practical stuff goes the Allies were a lot more advanced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:One of the important things to remember is that the Allies were doing just as much crazy poo poo, it just wasn't stuff you could pilot. Radar, a lot of the encryption and code cracking stuff, nukes, that sort of thing. Germany gets credit for building things a superhero would use, but as far as practical stuff goes the Allies were a lot more advanced. BAT BOMB
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:as far as practical stuff goes the Allies were a lot more advanced. I'm not really sure about that. Things like the V-2, Me-262, etc, may not have been 'practical' as war-winning superweapons, but they were for drat sure practical in ensuring rather large, sudden jumps in US/USSR missile and plane technology circa 1946 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
Psion posted:I'm not really sure about that. Things like the V-2, Me-262, etc, may not have been 'practical' as war-winning superweapons, but they were for drat sure practical in ensuring rather large, sudden jumps in US/USSR missile and plane technology circa 1946 I think Mike's got a point. Call it the Cryptonomicon thesis of WW2 RnD. To be as spergy about this as possible, you could probably divide German innovation into three parts. 1) Stuff that actually could have helped them in WW2 if given enough resources/deployed properly (Jet planes, tactical missiles, modern submarines); stuff that was useless to the Germans but would be developed by others post-war (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, infrared viewers etc) and stuff that was just crazy bullshit (Maus tank, plywood rocket fighters, The Ratte, etc.) While reading this thread it occurred to me that through most of the cold war Russia's Navy and naval air arm was like a perfected, completed version of what the Germans had in ww2. A huge fleet of submarines, and a lot of long range naval bombers equipped with missiles. Hell, the engine that the Tu-95 uses was stared by German engineers in ww2. Also, re M 113 Sparky: gosh, the things I learn in this thread 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
It's important to remember that the Germans weren't the only ones coming up with batshit crazy projects that, in retrospect, you can't loving believe were greenlighted in wartime. The brits and canadians, for example, thought that building a giant loving aircraft carrier that could only go a couple knots and launch 4 engined bombers was not only a great idea, but that it should be made of ice and wood pulp. Yes, that includes the hull. The Japanese actually bombed the mainland US with glorified weather baloons that had a couple incendiary bombs strapped to them. The idea was to light the forests in the PacNW on fire. They had basically no success with this, and really only managed to kill a couple of civilians who found them after they didn't go off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's important to remember that the Germans weren't the only ones coming up with batshit crazy projects that, in retrospect, you can't loving believe were greenlighted in wartime. Then again, you had poo poo like US planning to bomb Japan with bats carrying tiny incindiary bombs that succeeded only in burning down virtually the US base doing the research. And USSR training suicide attack dogs to carry bombs under german tanks; except they made the mistake of using soviet tanks to conduct training, and shouldn't have been surprised when the dogs turned around and blew up their own comrades. grover fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Aug 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
My favorite part of this is that the bats escaped and lit part of a US air base on fire. I'd love to see the official report on that one. Also, both the US and the UK were working on amazingly impractical super-heavy tanks, the T28 and A39, respectively. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Aug 31, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
SA Admin elpintogrande wrote a book about batshit crazy WWII projects: http://www.amazon.com/My-Tank-Fight-Zack-Parsons/dp/0806527587
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Where does the V-3 fit into all this? It's my favorite overly complicated artillery gun project.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yes, that includes the hull. pykrete is bad rear end, I won't hear you slandering it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
grover posted:And USSR training suicide attack dogs to carry bombs under german tanks; except they made the mistake of using soviet tanks to conduct training, and shouldn't have been surprised when the dogs turned around and blew up their own comrades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Where does the V-3 fit into all this? It's my favorite overly complicated artillery gun project. A technically interesting idea that like the other V-series weapons was a waste of resources, so I`d say (2) especially since the idea was used again in the HARP project.  Hm, we were speaking of drone aircraft; JFK`s brother was actually killed in an attack on the V-3 site that involved radio shacking remote controlled B-17s filled with explosives directly into the `barrels`of the V-3s.What Gerard Bull, the ballistics engineer behind HARP, did after might interest you: wikipedia posted:Bull never gave up on the idea of building a gun-fired satellite, but was forced to turn to other work. Through the 1970s and 80s he developed a new artillery piece that dramatically outperformed all others. His design, the GC 45, attracted wide attention. Looking for customers, Bull sold the gun to South Africa (then under the apartheid system) and then to Iraq. He was arrested and jailed in the U.S. for the sales to South Africa, and left Canada after his release to live in Brussels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Cyrano can post more words on this but from what I've seen posted before, "this is unsourced and most likely totally made up". http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Farmy.armor.kiev.ua%2Fengenear%2Fsobaka-mina.shtml
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
grover posted:SA Admin elpintogrande wrote a book about batshit crazy WWII projects: http://www.amazon.com/My-Tank-Fight-Zack-Parsons/dp/0806527587 I was actually introduced to SA by finding My Tank is Fight! in a Barnes and Nobel way back when it was first published, and it's still one of my favorite books. Oh Walter Christie, you crazy diamond.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Psion posted:Mike Sparks? I'm glad all of you noticed that weird surge in pro m113 stuff too. It's such a drat non sequitur. Nobody in their right mind likes m113s because they serve absolutely no purpose today. They weren't ever much more than the American cousin of the Soviet bmp, filling the of driving troops to fight while shielding them from nbc role. The point he keeps repeating about strykers and other modern apcs not being air droppable is so odd, as if he imagines the US establishing airheads all the time, but aching for apcs to go with them that they just don't have!! No!!! Our airheads!! Aaaaa, help us, bring us m113s, please god, please! It's just so strange. And totally unrelated, I forgot to say all of those pages back when talking about all of the Soviets and Cubans fighting for Derg Ethiopia in the Ethiopia vs Somalia cold war proxy fight. On the Nato side, IDF pilots flew most of the Somali air force's fighter sorties. It's a bit of funny, the sort of founded fears of Israel provoking world war III being pushed aside for a strange proxy war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 04:47
|
|
