|
What were examples of effective early (say, pre-19th century) insurgencies? What caused modern insurgencies to be more effective (if they were?)
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:What were examples of effective early (say, pre-19th century) insurgencies? What caused modern insurgencies to be more effective (if they were?) first thing that comes to mind is Spanish guerrillas in the peninsular war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:Intel 80386's, which isn't necessarily bad thing, as the older circuitry is less likely to get faults caused by cosmic rays while in orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:What were examples of effective early (say, pre-19th century) insurgencies? What caused modern insurgencies to be more effective (if they were?) The American Revolution (especially in the south).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:...and the F86 sabre kept 8 .50s well into the 50s as primary armament. F-86s, like almost all US fighters of the period, had six .50s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Yeah only the P-47 had 8 .50s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
I still find funny how the PBJ could end up with 12 .50s on the nose. Talk about a buzzsaw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
sullat posted:The American Revolution (especially in the south). I would argue that was an aspect of a full-on war and not an insurgency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
High caliber cannons on planes had a different problem though in that they tended to be rather low velocity. That's not as much of a problem when you're tossing rounds at relatively slow or even immobile ground targets, but when you're talking about throwing rounds at planes that are traveling at a rather fast clip themselves, that greatly limits the effective range of such weapons. It wasn't like they didn't know that was a problem, of course, it was just a limitation of mounting such weapons on an airplane. A long-barreled cannon weighs a lot, putting stresses on the airframe and introducing balancing issues. Nowadays the aircraft mounted cannon is
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:High caliber cannons on planes had a different problem though in that they tended to be rather low velocity. That's not as much of a problem when you're tossing rounds at relatively slow or even immobile ground targets, but when you're talking about throwing rounds at planes that are traveling at a rather fast clip themselves, that greatly limits the effective range of such weapons. Cartridge size besides projectile diameter, and barrel length are still huge factors on gun performance. The 30x173mm ammo used by the GAU-8 in the A-10 is on a completely different planet in terms of penetration from the 30x113mm used by the M230 on the AH-64. It's like comparing a .30-06 rifle cartridge to 9mm parabellum. That said, putting a high-velocity large caliber weapon like that in an aircraft literally required designing the aircraft around the gun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
In general a larger cartridge also needs a longer barrel to take advantage of the extra propellant, but a longer cartridge doesn't necessary mean that there's more propellant. And of course the negative effect that a longer barrel has due to risk of droop, greater heat due to extra friction, etc... The point being that there's a lot of factors and both the GAU-8 and the M230 are both far more advanced than WWII cannons. (Also the GAU-8 is absolutely massive compared to the M230)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:And really, at the end of the day, what does it matter if the launch codes are fed in via a 5.25 floppy instead of a USB as long as the missile goes up only when you tell it to and comes down where you want it to? That was an 8" floppy. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Which part? Operation Pedestal is a bit of a hobby horse of mine so I can give you a long reading list. For general stuff, I'd say James Holland's Fortress Malta and Richard Woodman's Malta Convoys are a good place to start. If I'm remembering the titles correctly. In general. Something comprehensive with citations but is also readable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I've heard that one guy used to regularly mug the locals with his rifle, and they'd just carry around a couple of spare sandwiches or whatever to give to him so he felt like he was denying the enemy vital resources while they were really just feeling bad for the guy and wanting to make sure he got fed. Holy poo poo, is this true? This is a word that doesn't get a lot of use in this thread, but if so, that is the one adorable highlight in what is otherwise a parade of unmitigated misery and despicable manipulation of the hearts of man. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The Space Shuttle (I know it retired a few years ago) used computer systems from the 80s. Well that all depends on how you look at it. As a machine built to perform its designed mission, it's a god damned triumph. Problem is that the required mission capability was ridiculous, and utilized exactly zero times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 06:48
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
spider bethlehem posted:Holy poo poo, is this true?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:You, uh, you know what distinguishes an ox, yeah? Oxen are just cattle with jobs. They're often castrated males, but that's not part of the definition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Its worth noting that the deficiencies of the Wildcat, P-40, etc vs the A6M could largely be compensated for by better teamwork on the part of the US pilots. Sakai wrote about the famous "Thach Weave" in his memoirs. quote:For the first time Lt. Commander Tadashi Nakajima encountered what was to become a famous double-team maneuver on the part of the enemy. Two Wildcats jumped on the commander’s plane. He had no trouble in getting on the tail of an enemy fighter, but never had a chance to fire before the Grumman’s team-mate roared at him from the side. Nakajima was raging when he got back to Rabaul; he had been forced to dive and run for safety. Heavy US planes also had a big advantage in the dive. If they had the altitude to use they could easily dive, extend and escape from Zeros, and if they had an altitude advantage they could make a high speed firing pass from above and escape quickly. On the topic of modern aircraft guns, the GSH-6-30 is clearly the best. quote:On the Mikoyan MiG-27 the Gsh-6-30 had to be mounted obliquely to absorb recoil. The gun was noted for its high (often uncomfortable) vibration and extreme noise. The airframe vibration led to fatigue cracks in fuel tanks, numerous radio and avionics failures, the necessity of using runways with floodlights for night flights (as the landing lights would often be destroyed), tearing or jamming of the forward landing gear doors (leading to at least three crash landings), cracking of the reflector gunsight, an accidental jettisoning of the cockpit canopy and at least one case of the instrument panel falling off in flight. The weapons also dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200 meter radius from the impact center, including the aircraft firing. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:What were examples of effective early (say, pre-19th century) insurgencies? What caused modern insurgencies to be more effective (if they were?) Haitian revolution comes to mind first. And how about Gustav Vasa's rebellion against union king Christian II which resulted in the modern Swedish state?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I just heard that America's nuclear silos still use old fashioned floppies, and I was wondering how often military systems are normally upgraded? I'm thinking that using obsolete, incompatible technology that relies on Adeptus Mechanicus-esque institutional knowledge is a really good security measure, can anyone confirm/deny?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:In general a larger cartridge also needs a longer barrel to take advantage of the extra propellant, but a longer cartridge doesn't necessary mean that there's more propellant. And of course the negative effect that a longer barrel has due to risk of droop, greater heat due to extra friction, etc... And mounted entirely different, the M230 being mounted on a swivel as an extra toy that goes bang vs the GAU-8 that has a wonderfully ugly, mean-rear end plane designed around it
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:F-86s, like almost all US fighters of the period, had six .50s. I bring great shame upon my family. I must commit seppuku.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Azipod posted:Heavy US planes also had a big advantage in the dive. This is only partially accurate; the Zero, the 109 and the 190 for example all had an advantage initially in a dive (versus their respective US opponents excepting the F4U) because they had superior acceleration. Eventually though the heavier planes would catch/pass them, particularly with the Zero and 109 as they had pretty poor handling at high speeds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I'm thinking that using obsolete, incompatible technology that relies on Adeptus Mechanicus-esque institutional knowledge is a really good security measure, can anyone confirm/deny? Ask people about the urban legend regarding early Russian jet fighters using vacuum tubes instead of transistors because you can't EMP a vacuum tube. A) It was more likely that the SU didn't have the ability to produce transistors on the needed scale and B) there's more to avionics than vacuum tubes. You can EMP a vacuum tube, it just has more tolerance. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Ask people about the urban legend regarding early Russian jet fighters using vacuum tubes instead of transistors because you can't EMP a vacuum tube. EMP is significantly overrated as a threat to electronics anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:EMP is significantly overrated as a threat to electronics anyway. These days an EMP is going to be the least of problems if such a situation occurs where one is emitted. Then again a CME from the sun will gently caress up power transmission infrastructure but I imagine one of those is orders of magnitude more powerful than the same kind of burst coming from a nuclear EMP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Soviet airplanes are the best, it's like they're actively designed to kill their pilots as well as everything else in the skies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:In general a larger cartridge also needs a longer barrel to take advantage of the extra propellant, but a longer cartridge doesn't necessary mean that there's more propellant. And of course the negative effect that a longer barrels has due to risk of droop, greater heat due to extra friction, etc... I was a bit unclear, I was trying to draw a comparison between a low-velocity auto cannon like the Mk108, or the M230, and a true high velocity weapon like the GAU-8. They all fire a 30mm projectile, but a projectile from a GAU-8 has more than two and a half times the muzzle energy of one from an M230. The projectiles are much heavier, and traveling quite a bit faster. This doesn't take into account the GAU-8s extremely high rate of fire, but as you said, that is a large part of why the thing is so enormous. WWII aircraft cannons were almost always relatively low-velocity, more akin to the M230, and their penetration (and projectile trajectories) reflected that. The M61 Vulcan was revolutionary in the US, not just because of it's very high rate of fire, and relative compactness compared to a pack of AN/M3s, but because it fired a 20mm projectile at velocities similar to the smaller .50BMG. (Actually a twitch higher.) That just wasn't possible, as has been mentioned, within the limitations of WWII technology and aircraft capabilities. The 20mm threshold is important as well, as projectiles that large begin to offer you the ability to add a bursting charge or other payload to the projectiles, which can be devastating against aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I'm thinking that using obsolete, incompatible technology that relies on Adeptus Mechanicus-esque institutional knowledge is a really good security measure, can anyone confirm/deny?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Why did the AIM-4 have a contact fuse? That seems...bad. Especially for an anti-air weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
A combination of a small warhead and generally bad ideas being tossed around at the time, most likely. They probably felt it was so good it would always hit.MrYenko posted:I was a bit unclear, I was trying to draw a comparison between a low-velocity auto cannon like the Mk108, or the M230, and a true high velocity weapon like the GAU-8. They all fire a 30mm projectile, but a projectile from a GAU-8 has more than two and a half times the muzzle energy of one from an M230. The projectiles are much heavier, and traveling quite a bit faster. This doesn't take into account the GAU-8s extremely high rate of fire, but as you said, that is a large part of why the thing is so enormous. Well, to be fair the Hispano-Suiza 20mm had pretty comparable MV to the .50 as well (880ish compared to 890ish) with a similar RoF. The US used the .50 more mainly because they had troubles working out the kinks in the HS for domestic production.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:Why did the AIM-4 have a contact fuse? That seems...bad. Especially for an anti-air weapon. It was designed to shoot down a target that didn't really exist in the wars that we fought subsequent to it's design. Big assed bombers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well that all depends on how you look at it. As a machine built to perform its designed mission, it's a god damned triumph. Problem is that the required mission capability was ridiculous, and utilized exactly zero times. Can you expand a bit on mission capability and zero utilization? I don't know that much about the Space Shuttle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Soviet airplanes are the best, it's like they're actively designed to kill their pilots as well as everything else in the skies. Obligatory mention of the LaGG-3. Also known as Guaranteed Varnished Coffin by their pilots. Or maybe it was lacquered and not varnished but the name still applies. 
Azran fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
On that note, can someone do an effortpost on Soviet fighters in WW2? All I know was they started the war with a bunch of really maneuverable biplanes, then switched over to the LaGG and the MiG-3 and one other model I can't remember right now, and then I don't really know what else comes after that. Did Soviet fighters ever come up with something comparable to the P-51, late-war Spitfire, FW-190?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
I would love to see that. Yaks and Las came after those, but I would love to know about the M163 Chaika. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:On that note, can someone do an effortpost on Soviet fighters in WW2? All I know was they started the war with a bunch of really maneuverable biplanes, then switched over to the LaGG and the MiG-3 and one other model I can't remember right now, and then I don't really know what else comes after that. Did Soviet fighters ever come up with something comparable to the P-51, late-war Spitfire, FW-190? Yak-1< Yak-9 < Yak-3 Ie Yak 3 was the latter and better considered aircraft. Unreliable maybe, but shot down the german aircraft in decent numbers
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Can you expand a bit on mission capability and zero utilization? I don't know that much about the Space Shuttle. The Airforce wanted the shuttle to be able to take off on a polar trajectory and land after a single orbit, which meant it had to be able to glide a long way because a single polar orbit would put it pretty far away from the cape due to the rotation of the planet. People have been speculating why the Air Force wanted this capability, but it was either to grab a soviet satellite and land before the Soviets could do anything about it, stuff the cargo bay full of cameras and run the Shuttle as a on-demand spysat or for use as an orbital nuclear bomber. In either event, none of this ever happened, but the requirements meant that the design had far bigger wings than it needed, which, due to the way rockets work, means the Shuttle had to compromise in other areas which would have made it a better vehicle to explore space with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Can you expand a bit on mission capability and zero utilization? I don't know that much about the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle was originally designed to be a cheap, reusable platform to get relatively smaller payloads into Low Earth Orbit. The idea was that there could be a fleet of a dozen or more, and you'd have weekly launches, which would bring the cost down per vehicle. Enter from stage left, the US Air Force. They think the shuttle is a great idea, but it should be able to do more. Like, be able to take off, capture a soviet satellite, and land again in but a few orbits. They also want to be able to do polar and geosynchronous orbits, and launch from Vandenberg AFB on the west coast. These requirements greatly increase the size and weight of the shuttle, and the fleets of vehicles swiftly get dropped to 4. Columbia, Challenger, Atlantis and Discovery. Endeavour was built from spares after Challenger blew up. Those Air Force requirements were used exactly never.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
MA-Horus posted:The Space Shuttle was originally designed to be a cheap, reusable platform to get relatively smaller payloads into Low Earth Orbit. The idea was that there could be a fleet of a dozen or more, and you'd have weekly launches, which would bring the cost down per vehicle. Do you think the Air Force guys watched that Bond movie, You Only Live Twice, or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:54
|
|
