|
Most warships would be steam turbine plants burning fuel oil, which is a heavier distillate of crude than diesel. Small boats like landing craft and motor-launches used diesel engines, as did submarines. Many merchant ships had steam turbine plants, but the Liberty Ships were built with older style triple-expansion steam engines burning FO. I'm sure there were still merchant ships out there burning coal, though.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Wow, I was wrong about the steaminess and wrong about the diesel. Glad I asked now!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They generally used heavy bunker oil, because it was cheap and plentiful and they didn't need anything better. Bunker oil was the goo left over over from refining oil that was slightly thinner than tar and had no practical uses. Propulsion was by steam-driven turbines, so any crap that would burn was good enough to heat the water. Wasn't there some consideration made for the potential of use by the enemy in the event of capture as well? Like "heh, good luck using this poo poo, Tojo/Dönitz"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Wasn't there some consideration made for the potential of use by the enemy in the event of capture as well? Like "heh, good luck using this poo poo, Tojo/Dönitz" I know getting a ship going from a cold start was a huge pain in the rear end. They needed a supply of lighter oil to get the steam system going so they could heat the bunker oil enough to get it to flow and atomize in the burners. If enemy ships lacked those systems it would be useless to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Wasn't there some consideration made for the potential of use by the enemy in the event of capture as well? Like "heh, good luck using this poo poo, Tojo/Dönitz" afaik, most ships used the same fuel oil. Small craft like submarines used diesel engines, but that's because of size limitations. In any case all you really need is to heat up water in some way, so as long as your fuel ignites, it'll suffice. There are specifics involved in getting bunker oil to a pump-able viscosity, but warships have engineers for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
You have to remember that liquid doesn't burn. Combustion only occurs once the fuel has been vapourised, and the heavier the fuel, the more energy it takes to vapourise it. That's why it's possible to put out a cigar in diesel (but not petrol).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:You have to remember that liquid doesn't burn. Combustion only occurs once the fuel has been vapourised, and the heavier the fuel, the more energy it takes to vapourise it. That's why it's possible to put out a cigar in diesel (but not petrol). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMrj9VFl2cY
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
British codenames posted:Blue Badger - truck-mounted nuclear land mine - later renamed Violet Mist  By the way: 1) What are some fun things you can tell me about T-55? 2) Why was it so popular anyways? 3) I've read that one of the T-6X series was a marked step down from the previous tank - what was it, if it's true? 4) Some poo poo head once wrote that Mi-24 can't hover and is liable to chop its own tail off. True/false? Also, I remember one /k/ thread tearing itself apart over use of T-34/85 in modern day Third World conflicts, but that was a given, since it attracted people who don't think T-34/85 was a good tank in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
JcDent posted:
The T-55 is the most produced tank ever. It's cheap, has space for plenty of modernization, and is also actually fairly light, while retaining a semblance of armor protection, a significant step up from things like IFVs these days. The USSR(and Russian Federation) kept them in service for their marines all the way into the 2000s with modernizations that gave them IR sights, laser rangefinders, reactive armor, and improved ammunition(along with tube-launched ATGM capability). The T-62(I assume you're talking about the T-62, because the T-64 is a very different tank and could be considered part of an entirely different generation) was a marginal upgrade over the T-55 at the cost of a lot of weight. It did have a better gun, but improved ammunition for the T-55 eliminated that advantage. That being said, it still had some export success and could be modernized, too. T-62s are still around in a lot of places, just like the T-55, and these days they're not really worse than each other. One of the most common observations of Western analysts about those tanks is that the T-55 and T-62 were the last Soviet tanks to have been made for human beings(a reference to the T-64/72/80 having made the crew space much smaller using an autoloader to get more armor while keeping the weight down). As to t-34/85s, a tank is a tank. Being able to have a tank can be a lot more helpful than not, though it probably takes a lot of effort to get creaky T-34s to run. You see a lot of improvised armored vehicles in third world conflicts, so it doesn't surprise me that they would try to make T-34s work. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
The Deutschland-class cruisers were diesel powered. Probably the largest combatants to be so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
JcDent posted:4) Some poo poo head once wrote that Mi-24 can't hover and is liable to chop its own tail off. True/false? False, this is a myth that probably stems from Mi-24 doctrine and design emphasizing gun runs and constant forward movement. Now, while you can hover in the Mi-24, it's not necessarily easy or a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
From the Cold War/Airpower Megathread:BIG HEADLINE posted:#1 - find EnsignExpendable in the World of Tanks thread in the Games forum. TheFluff posted:The coloring book that I know of is for the T-62. The T-64 was definitely really far ahead of the western curve, but I'm not sure if the western powers realised at the time just how far ahead it was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:False, this is a myth that probably stems from Mi-24 doctrine and design emphasizing gun runs and constant forward movement. It may also be confusion over the Mi-24 deriving additional lift from its stub wings, which is helpful but not critical to keeping it in the air.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
I think that most helicopters can't really hover if they're carrying a heavy load.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
A helicopter that can't hover would be, shall we say, challenging to land, especially if you don't have a paved runway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
There's a rumor that Mi-24 can cut it's tail boom during a sharp turn. It's pretty widespread, but I'm not sure if it's true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:A helicopter that can't hover would be, shall we say, challenging to land, especially if you don't have a paved runway. A given helicopter can or can't hover based on the load it's carrying and its available power which is based on environmental conditions like temperature and altitude. A given helicopter might be able to hover with a given load on a standard day but not even be able to take off with that load from some airfield that's high up in the desert in the summer. In addition, if the helicopter's low to the ground, it will benefit from the ground effect, and be able to hover in-ground-effect but not out of it. This is a significant difference, an Apache (say) with a TOGW of 16,000 lbs can hover IGE at 14,000' on a standard day but only 10,000' OGE. It's not a binary condition, is what I'm saying. A helicopter might not be able to hover carrying its mission loadout when it's shooting rockets at people up in the mountains, but then when it comes into land it's now IGE and at lower altitude and can hover to land just fine. ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It's worth noting that the Supreme Court decision that basically said "no you can't protest the Great War, get in the jail" is where the "fire in a crowded theater" exception to the First Amendment comes from. And I do wish that people who cite the "fire in a crowded theater" argument to explain how you can censor some speech would remember that the guy who came up with it was using it to explain why we can throw people in prison for handing out pamphlets opposing the draft. But fortunately that decision has been thoroughly overturned, but it doesn't stop the stupid arguments based on it. But anyway. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
I seem to remember an interview or something about the Hungarian revolution where they mentioned that the T-55 was a lot harder to take out since it had better machine gun coverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
JcDent posted:
It has the most Soviet wet ammo rack ever: a tank of diesel fuel. During trials, it turned out that a HEAT shell that hit the front of the tank does not ignite the fuel, and the stream peters out before it reaches the ammunition. quote:2) Why was it so popular anyways? It's basically the cheapest thing you can get with NBC protection and modern armament. The design ended up with tons of space for modernization. I grabbed an arms show pamphlet a few years back, it has a ton of goodies you can buy to make it a credible threat to a modern MBT for a fraction of the cost. quote:3) I've read that one of the T-6X series was a marked step down from the previous tank - what was it, if it's true? The T-62 was basically designed around the gun. There was a lot of hubbub about New Tanks of the Potential Enemy (tm) which happens once every other decade, a lot of harsh words were said, and the engineers shoved the biggest, baddest gun they had into a chassis. And then some new ammunition was developed for the T-55 that surpassed 115 mm APDS. Oops. The T-64, on the other hand, was The poo poo, and scared a bunch of people in the West based on how advanced it was. Once they found out, anyway, it was a pretty well kept secret for many years. Panzeh posted:As to t-34/85s, a tank is a tank. Being able to have a tank can be a lot more helpful than not, though it probably takes a lot of effort to get creaky T-34s to run. You see a lot of improvised armored vehicles in third world conflicts, so it doesn't surprise me that they would try to make T-34s work. Not that much effort. I know of several T-34-85s monuments that turned out to be perfectly serviceable after being "disabled" and then sitting out in the rain for decades. Get a tractor mechanic and a couple of new hoses, and it will run like a charm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
I think especially with things like the 34/85 that you have to keep in mind that they were designed for use in adverse conditions where there was a ton of access to labor but not much access to materials and a complex supply chain. This makes them about perfect for third world conflicts - you have a shitload of labor to perform basic mx and repair, and the hardware is mechanically simple so you don't need much training or advanced knowledge to take it apart and put it back together. Granted, it may require a transmission rebuild every 150 hrs, but you can get a team of illiterate peasants to do it, versus a more modern MBT, which may require fewer mx hours but of a much higher quality and specialization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It has the most Soviet wet ammo rack ever: a tank of diesel fuel. During trials, it turned out that a HEAT shell that hit the front of the tank does not ignite the fuel, and the stream peters out before it reaches the ammunition. It is well known that diesel fuel actually makes for pretty good armour especially against HEAT rounds. The Merkava for example stores fuel in the front hull sandwiched between steel armour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
The theory is nothing new, at least; old battleships stored their coal on the outside (obviously still inside the outer hull, though) as a form of protection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
simplefish posted:The theory is nothing new, at least; old battleships stored their coal on the outside (obviously still inside the outer hull, though) as a form of protection. That seems like a bad idea unless you're dedicated to removing coal dust.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Can someone explain briefly the working mechanism (guidance, fuse etc.) of modern anti-shipping missiles? Are they like anti-tank missiles just much bigger and with longer range or?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:That seems like a bad idea unless you're dedicated to removing coal dust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_cruiser
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_dust#Explosions
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Oh no, I know what you're on about - I'm all up on my dust explosions (grew up not far from a water-wheel-powered flour mill). I'm just saying that it did happen, to the extent that two feet of coal was considered equal to one foot of steel
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Protected cruisers are a better example. Who needs steel when you have coal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Can someone explain briefly the working mechanism (guidance, fuse etc.) of modern anti-shipping missiles? Are they like anti-tank missiles just much bigger and with longer range or? The basic idea for all cruise missile platforms is the operator gives the missile an inertial/GPS guidance path that puts it into a given geographical area where hostile ships are expected to be. When the missile reaches said area it goes into a terminal phase where it turns on an active radar seeker that detects large RCS objects in the area (ie, ships above the water) and provides precision guidance to the target. Anti-ship ballistic missiles are a newer thing but they work on essentially the same principle. They are launched to a given area using data from some sort of separate ISR platform (ie, a drone), then in the terminal part of their descent they open either an active radar seeker or an electro-optical seeker that detects ships and guides the warhead. This is pretty different from nearly all ATGMs. They're almost all direct fire/line of sight weapons that lock onto their targets before they are launched.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I think especially with things like the 34/85 that you have to keep in mind that they were designed for use in adverse conditions where there was a ton of access to labor but not much access to materials and a complex supply chain. This makes them about perfect for third world conflicts - you have a shitload of labor to perform basic mx and repair, and the hardware is mechanically simple so you don't need much training or advanced knowledge to take it apart and put it back together. Granted, it may require a transmission rebuild every 150 hrs, but you can get a team of illiterate peasants to do it, versus a more modern MBT, which may require fewer mx hours but of a much higher quality and specialization. Some Finnish tankers have mentioned, after working on T-55s, T-72s and Leopard 2A4s, that when it comes to doing more intricate repairs, working on the T-series tanks is utter rear end. Things like swapping out engines take something like three or four times more time on the Ts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The men of the Emden wash up in the Dutch East Indies, after a long voyage in a boat so rotten that they can't investigate how rotten it actually is, in case they put a hole in their bucket. The German attack at Festubert goes nowhere; the retreat from Lodz gathers pace; and the British realise that they have a lot of men at Basra and nothing really to do with them...
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The basic idea for all cruise missile platforms is the operator gives the missile an inertial/GPS guidance path that puts it into a given geographical area where hostile ships are expected to be. When the missile reaches said area it goes into a terminal phase where it turns on an active radar seeker that detects large RCS objects in the area (ie, ships above the water) and provides precision guidance to the target. In addition, ATGMs are generally a HEAT warhead, which uses a shaped-charge warhead to compress and accelerate a metal liner to gently caress-off velocities, basically concentrating the explosive force of the warhead onto a small an area as possible in order to penetrate the tank's armor (or an EFP warhead which is similar-but-different). The warheads of ASMs are very different, since punching a small hole in a big ship isn't going to do much, and armoring a ship like a tank isn't practical anyway so we don't do it; just the kinetic energy of the missile's enough to get it through the hull of a ship. So instead of a shaped-charge warhead designed to concentrate the impact and penetrate thick armor, ASM warheads are more or less just big lumps of explosive, like 300 pounds and up, to blow the hell up inside the hull and wreck everything, maybe with some incendiary liner to set as much stuff on fire as possible while they do it. The big ones the Russians designed to kill carriers have warheads of over half a ton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Some Finnish tankers have mentioned, after working on T-55s, T-72s and Leopard 2A4s, that when it comes to doing more intricate repairs, working on the T-series tanks is utter rear end. Things like swapping out engines take something like three or four times more time on the Ts. That's interesting, but somewhat unsurprising. I am not speaking to whether it takes more time / is more annoying, it's a question of capability. In general, more modern tanks are more modular, so things like power packs / transmissions / final drives are designed to be field-swappable. However, you have to have a complete unit ready to go to replace the one that came off of the vehicle that's down. This is usually the problem for ragtag 3rd worlders. Anything that can be field-repaired rather than field-replaced is beneficial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And I do wish that people who cite the "fire in a crowded theater" argument to explain how you can censor some speech would remember that the guy who came up with it was using it to explain why we can throw people in prison for handing out pamphlets opposing the draft. But fortunately that decision has been thoroughly overturned, but it doesn't stop the stupid arguments based on it. But anyway. It's a bit like accepting that the Autobahn was a good idea even though it came from Hitler. It's fallacious to claim the concept of harmful speech is just a ruse to throw dissidents in jail when the very phrase used describes a situation in which someone can be responsible for harm done as a result of their speech alone. It's an incredibly narrow situation but there are applicable uses. Hell, people take issue with sting operations conducted by police, but wouldn't that be the exact same thing? The police are inciting, through speech, an attempted crime. It's difficult to lend credibility to someone who isn't consistent across both and raises the flimsy specter of "but one is a cop."
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Those nefarious Spaniards!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Those nefarious Spaniards! NEVER FORGET
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Hey Rabadh, check this out:quote:A desertion trial from Stralsund is extant in which a corporal was retained as a translator for the testimony of the accused, an Irishman by the name of Jacob Cocteau. The accused stated that he had been a soldier for 15 years, and of that time twelve had been spent serving France and six months in Holland. After the questions about his person were cleared up, "he produced all sorts of odd and curious speech, presently in German, presently in English, Scottish, and Irish, and he seemed to digress from the point, so that neither the examiners nor Corporal Million, the translator at this interrogation, stuck to it, and they could not find him out, at which he made curious gestures, so that we closed the interrogation since he could not make himself understood." This is either honest or he's loving with them, but it may have saved Cocteau's life, since this was the Swedish army in 1685 and they appear to be harder on desertion than my 1620s Saxons are. From here. (Their attention to justice is nice. You won't try someone who can't understand the trial, everyone has the right to confront his or her accuser, etc.) (Also interesting is the mention of "Scottish and Irish." Scots-English as well as Gaelic, perhaps? Or maybe since they're Swedes they can tell the difference between Scottish and Irish Gaelic since they have at least fifty years of experience with these guys.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Hey Rabadh, check this out: Interesting. Do you think that guy might have been trying to sabotage the trial by using a mix of languages, or was he just freaked out and unable to communicate with his interpreter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Interesting. Do you think that guy might have been trying to sabotage the trial by using a mix of languages, or was he just freaked out and unable to communicate with his interpreter? Or this could have just been how he spoke normally and his friends were used to picking something they understood out of the word soup but the regimental court wasn't. Edit: The person I'm really interested in is a guy from "Tartary" I found in a 1681 Saxon muster roll. Never mind how you get from central Asia to Saxony--or why--how did he converse? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Chamale posted:Interesting. Do you think that guy might have been trying to sabotage the trial by using a mix of languages, or was he just freaked out and unable to communicate with his interpreter? Given that children brought up in that kind of situation generally learn a mish mash of languages and skip from one to the other at a disturbing frequency I'm guessing that was his normal mode of communication.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:23
|
|