|
Shaman Ooglaboogla posted:Ok you should know better, where is this? I'm guessing Dubai.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
Shaman Ooglaboogla posted:Ok you should know better, where is this? It has to be Dubai. You can keep an eye on your yacht from your condo and your office. Pics for the pic god: Crosspost from the Cold War thread. That little thing they are looking at is... a nuke. The Davy Crockett tactical nuclear weapon. It's so cute. "You! Take this over to the Russians and tell them it's a present." 
Schindler's Fist has a new favorite as of 06:44 on Sep 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
The Davy Crockett was the launcher itself, a recoilless rifle. The W54 nuke had a few variants for different applications.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
Shaman Ooglaboogla posted:Ok you should know better, where is this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 09:03
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:
He's called The Fat Controller over here in Ireland and if my niece has anything to say about it, they're all pretty badass 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 11:34
|
|
|
cofaigh posted:He's called The Fat Controller over here in Ireland and if my niece has anything to say about it, they're all pretty badass It's The Fat Controller in the UK also.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
hazza posted:It's The Fat Controller in the UK also. If i recall correctly, his name has been changed in the newer series to be less insulting to fat people or something. Daft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
He was always Sir Top'Em Hat in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
To be fair he's never been very good at controlling fat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:He was always Sir Top'Em Hat in the US. It's Sir Topham Hatt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 12:39
|
|
|
Bertrand Hustle posted:It's Sir Topham Hatt. That makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:The W54 nuke had a few variants for different applications. This included so called "backpack" nukes designed to supposedly be inserted by a two man team in a SADM (Strategic Atomic Demolition) mission into places like harbors then detonated after the men were extracted via submarine. Some dude's replica:  Mk-54 in casing:  note the size of the latches. Imagine the big brass balls it would take to strap even a small nuclear weapon to your back. If I remember correctly the Davy Crockett launcher was problematic because the range of the launcher and the effective radius of the Mk-54 device put the actual users inside fallout hazard range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
beato posted:To be fair he's never been very good at controlling fat. Nor has he ever been very good at controlling his engines. Those dipshits make a mistake, and continue to make the mistake two or three more times before they gently caress up Mr. Topham Hat's orders completely - then they finally realize they hosed up, and apologize to him for not being a really useful engine. Why does he even tolerate those fuckups? My theory is that they're his slaves. All of these sentient engines, however retarded they may be, are tolerated for being fuckups because Mr. Topham Hat would otherwise have to buy other engines, ones that might not be so easily controlled as these idiots that currently reside in Titmus Sheds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
mad.radhu posted:If I remember correctly the Davy Crockett launcher was problematic because the range of the launcher and the effective radius of the Mk-54 device put the actual users inside fallout hazard range. "Hmm, fallout, or the First Guards Tank Army?"  Anyone got a truck I can borrow? I mean, a *big* truck? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
mad.radhu posted:
In the test footage I've seen of the weapon (yes, they test fired it, with an actual nuke) the procedure was to dig a trench right behind the weapon, then everybody immediately jump into said trench after launching it, because that was the only way to not get injured by the shock wave. Kwyndig has a new favorite as of 19:57 on Sep 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:In the test footage I've seen of the weapon (yes, they test fired it, with an actual nuke) the procedure was to dig a trench right behind the weapon, then everybody immediately jump into said trench after launching it, because that was the only way to not get injured by the shock wave. The military training to "evade" a nuclear blast is to fall to the ground facing away from the flash and pray you don't die. Seriously. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
To be fair it was coming on the heels of WWII, the potential damage of even one nuke is astonishing, and no one knew if the "other side" (no matter what side you were on) was going to just jump into the game with them, so they were likely much more concerned with having a counter-attack ready for the majority populace than getting safety procedures right for the unlucky few on the ground. It's a scary and stupid aspect of humanity, but for all the chiding the logic behind runaway arms build-ups isn't that hard to discern.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
It's also the reason why something like Operation Overlord will never happen again. Assemble a division plus of armor in one place, and the only reasonable response is a tactical nuclear strike. People love to carry on about how insane all this crap is, "because it would hurt the environment, man!", which is true, but gently caress-oh-dear man, I'll happily die in twenty years of cancer if it meant that I could live through the next few days when the Red Army was breaking out into Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
Rubber Ducky posted:It's also the reason why something like Operation Overlord will never happen again. Assemble a division plus of armor in one place, and the only reasonable response is a tactical nuclear strike. People love to carry on about how insane all this crap is, "because it would hurt the environment, man!", which is true, but gently caress-oh-dear man, I'll happily die in twenty years of cancer if it meant that I could live through the next few days when the Red Army was breaking out into Europe. I keep reading this but it's not making much sense to me. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
DixielandDelight posted:I keep reading this but it's not making much sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:overlord was d day. He's saying that a massive troop invasion, where the entire force is concentrated in one small area is tactically unfeasible since the dawn of nuclear weapons because it would be far too easy to obliterate the troops in one strike. No, the other part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:No, the other part. Let me see if I can parse it. Operation Overlord could never happen again with the weapons we have today. If someone assembled that kind of projection of force into such close quarters, the temptation to use a nuclear bomb would be too great. You could detonate just one and your enemy's entire capacity to make war would be effectively obliterated in an instant. It would suck, in that it would be very damaging to the environment and anyone living in the nearby area. However, in a scenario such as the Former Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries suddenly deciding to march on Europe, your options would be limited. Basically, you could let them march in and destroy your country with conventional weapons. If you are a military grunt or leader, survival may be unlikely. Or, you could set off a bomb, end the war, and deal with the literal and figurative fallout.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
einTier posted:Let me see if I can parse it. Bingo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
I think the temptation to use a nuke would be outweighed by the inevitable nuclear response on any and all military targets in the nation. If we were to stage a massive ground invasion of China (a thing that will never ever happen, for a billion reasons, but just as a for-instance) I seriously doubt they'd nuke our formations in response. I strongly believe that all wars between nuclear states would be purely conventional in scope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Ducky, it's not the environmental damage that's the argument against this. I don't know why you think that even weighs in anyone's mind. It's that as soon as one nation sets off a nuke (and wipes out an entire opposing army), the nukes don't stop. The opposition fires their nukes, because what else are they going to do, they just lost their entire army. So side 1 starts lobbing all their nukes, and anyone else with a score to settle against anyone starts popping off. And then it's John Lee Hooker time: boom, boom boom, boom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Better nuke this derail a'fore those bans start falling! Old school diving suits were pretty badass! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Barometer posted:Better nuke this derail a'fore those bans start falling! Oh, so THAT is what the Big Daddy mask is based on!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
TShields posted:Oh, so THAT is what the Big Daddy mask is based on! Yup. Designed by a couple of French brothers if I remember right, though it was never used, since I think it never really sealed up correctly. Still, a cool looking suit. A lot of old atmospheric diving suits are cool because they either look like something a Medieval knight would wear, or some invader from beyond the stars.   
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
What's really bad-rear end are the men who had the cajones to get in those suits despite the fact that explosive decompression can and did suck their bodies through a goddamn tube.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
Iluvlortab posted:The military training to "evade" a nuclear blast is to fall to the ground facing away from the flash and pray you don't die. Seriously. They should have developed some sort of tactical school desk they could deploy in the field so they could duck under it case of earthquake or nuclear attack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:What's really bad-rear end are the men who had the cajones to get in those suits despite the fact that explosive decompression can and did suck their bodies through a goddamn tube. You got a source for this? I was under the impression explosive decompression isn't a thing. Wait, wtf? How would they decompress if it sprung a leak? I'm assuming you mean under the ocean, right? You're aware the water would be at a much greater pressure than the air inside?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
Ok wrong term. Still, I've read that it's happened and oh boy is it nightmare fuel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:You got a source for this? I was under the impression explosive decompression isn't a thing. He means being the suit being crushed under high water pressure, which is of course the opposite of decompression. But that's just a mix up in terms. Of course someone being crushed in a diving suit however deep in the ocean, either because the air pressure being supplied into the suit fails or they just go too deep, is going to be squeezed like toothpaste into their helmet. I know Mythbusters ain't exactly the most reliable source, but they tested it and it's not too pretty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEY3fN4N3D8 Explosive decompression can happen, it's just that the whole people being sucked out of airplane windows isn't really a thing, as the pressure differentials aren't really all that extreme, I believe. However, the Byford Dolphin diving bell accident was pretty nasty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin#Diving_bell_accident
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:You got a source for this? I was under the impression explosive decompression isn't a thing. He might be talking about this. Seems like a pretty horrific way to go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin#Diving_bell_accident edit: ^^^drat you 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:You got a source for this? I was under the impression explosive decompression isn't a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 08:33
|
|
|
DixielandDelight posted:I keep reading this but it's not making much sense to me. Information on this engine? I'm guessing it's like an F1 car engine? What with all the fancy carbon fibre, turbo (and supercharger?) and dry sump? What are those cylinders on the sides?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
It looks like Wily's Fortress to a Megaman game where everyone is shrunk down Rick Moranis-style.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
Vidaeus posted:Information on this engine? I'm guessing it's like an F1 car engine? What with all the fancy carbon fibre, turbo (and supercharger?) and dry sump? What are those cylinders on the sides? It's the engine from the Audi R18 LeMans prototype. Single-turbo diesel V6, with the exhaust valves on the inside of the V. e: Lots of info here: http://www.speedhunters.com/2012/08/the-monoturbo/ It's quite a fascinating engine actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
That's an extremely wide angle for a V6.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 11:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:That's an extremely wide angle for a V6. My car has an even wider angle. It's a flat-6.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 14:46
|
|