|
Waci posted:But if they hadn't spent a bunch of money building capital ships to look like a real navy, how would they get Germany-senpai to notice them? Getting invaded worked well enough. 
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Pfft, boats. What you really want are planes 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
What was the best destroyer ever built?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:What was the best destroyer ever built? In what era? In a ship as small as a destroyer, any superlative has to come at a cost. Want more speed? You need bigger boilers and machinery, which means less room for crew and fuel. You want AA guns? Fewer torpedo tubes and main guns. In terms of all-round capability, there are lots of candidates. During WWII, the American Gearings and Sumners were pretty capable ships (6 5-inchers, 10 torpedo tubes, radar, 36 knot top speed). The Fletcher-class was more ubiquitous, although slightly less well-armed. The Japanese Akizukis were capable ships as well, although they only had four torpedo tubes. If you just want all-out speed, you want the French Le Fantasques. 45 knot top speed. The British Tribals and Battles were quite good, although the Battles barely entered service before the war's end
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
I was asking what was the best destroyer of its time, really. Not looking for a history channel what if so and so fought so and so. If there was a destroyer that was deployed in 1924 that was better for its time than a destroyer deployed in 1937, obviously that 1924 destroyer was the best one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Great post! I was hoping you'd show up and elaborate on the bigger picture here, and you certainly didn't disappoint. Your posts in the old Wargame threads was one of the reasons I sought out the archives in the first place. Thanks!  cheerfullydrab posted:What was the best destroyer ever built? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_helicopter_destroyer
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
The HMS Surprise.  But seriously, though, that's kind of an insanely broad question. What's the best car in all of history? What's the best computer? It kinda seems like you need to lay down some parameters to judge by before you can come up with a definition of "best" - and in any event, comparing across eras is a bit apples-to-oranges. How do you decide which is best when comparing a WW1 destroyer intended to intercept enemy torpedo boats with a late-WW2 destroyer intended to provide AA cover with a modern destroyer intended to hunt nuclear submarines?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:40
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Endman posted:Pfft, boats. What you really want are planes Funnily enough, Finland also bought Bristol Blenheim bombers before the war, which also were pretty useless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:If you just want all-out speed, you want the French Le Fantasques. 45 knot top speed. That's impressive. Modern jet-powered ships can't get above 60 knots, and that class was using boilers? It must have been difficult to stand on the deck while moving at top speed because of the wind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
I had no idea anything like this existed, wowsers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Finnish coastal defense ships Ilmarinen and Väinämöinen weren't necessarily bad ships but still a waste of a restricted defense budget. The newly established Finnish navy started with obsolete Tsarist equipment in the 1920s. After torpedo boat S2 capsized in a storm and took 53 sailors down with her, a popular movement demanded for modernizing the navy. This involved getting new torpedo boats and submarines (which were prototypes for later German U-boat designs) and most of all the two coastal defense ships or panssarilaiva's. A fleet gotta have a proper flagship, after all! Unfortunately Finland was a really poor nation and the two capital ships were a tragic misinvestment. Ilmarinen was lost to a mine in 1941 taking 271 sailors into the depths. Neither ship ever did anything particularly useful, meanwhile ground forces were short on just about everything. Counterpoint: think of all the terrified Estonian booze smugglers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
brakeless posted:Funnily enough, Finland also bought Bristol Blenheim bombers before the war, which also were pretty useless. And the only useful tanks that Finland had were Vickers 6-tonners bought from Britain unarmed for budget reasons; even the driver's seat was left off to cut costs. It took precious time to fit them all so troops could start training with them and work out any technical issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I have done some research on the rations of soviet POWs a while ago. It is especially instructive as they constituted such a large part of the workforce later on and originally were destined to be exterminated by starvation until failure of Operation Taifun meant different economic requirements. It was expected that taking Moscow would enable them to disband a very large number of divisions and put the men back into the factories. So that failing, they had to use POWs. Streit calculates that about 57,8% of all Soviet POWs (100% = 5.734.528) died. 1941 to mid 1942 being especially deadly. Main reason being starvation, which was already implicated in the economical plans for the Ostgebiete in early 1941 (another reason being that there weren't any big Kessels later on, but it was expected that they could capture enough soviets anytime they needed). Compare that to mortality rates of e.g. french (1,58%), british (1,15%) and american (0,3%) POWs. German POWs in the hands of the SU had a mortality rate of 35,1-37,4% from 1941-1945. Finnish POW camps had about about 30% casualty rates. And the worst period was also the 1941-42. There were a few reasons for it. Finland faced a food crisis in the winter of 1941. Harvest had been bad, but the biggest problems were in the logistics. The crisis was averted (as in, it didn't end in starvations in the civilian population), but war prisoners didn't have the first priority in getting food. Finland had also gotten more prisoners than expected, and the war didn't end with the famous kick in the door, so the camps were mostly improvised things. Prisoners' main reason for death was starvation. Food given to the prisoners included the POW-grade sausage. Ingredients that could be legally put in it were eg. potato peels, herring heads and liver. Bonedust was forbidden in 1942. Some of the prisoners were used for work, eg. from the thousand prisoners who built the 60km Orivesi-Jämsä railroad 335 died. So one per every 180m. Prisoners sent to farms had it easier, and from what I've read, they weren't usually treated much different from the other hired farmhands. Many of the camp guards were older reservists who had learned their trade after the Finnish Civil War in 1918. Over 11000 Finnish Reds died in camps after that war from the population of 3 million. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
"What? An amphibious assault ship? No no no, this is a self-defense helicopter frigate!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
The UK Invincible class 'through-deck cruisers' had a legit primary tasking as barrier ASW ships in the North Atlantic though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Gear like that has a real wide range of applications.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
That's done such unkind things to the term 'destroyer' that I had to call the police and report a crime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
What's the appreciable difference between a cruiser and a destroyer in modern terms?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Role. The Ticonderoga Class Cruisers are only slightly bigger than the Arleigh Burke Destroyers and the Ticos were designated as Cruisers because they were to handle fleet Air Defense work. Course the Burkes now have at least some of the same capabilities but whatever. For reference, that Helicopter destroyer is over twice the displacement of the Ticos, though to be fair the Ticonderogas were based on a destroyer hull (though at ~10k tons they're well into the WWII-era cruiser displacement)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Depends on the nation. As the US has one class of cruiser and one class (really ~3 classes) of destroyer the distinction between cruiser and destroyer boils down to the distinction between those two classes. And the Ticonderoga class was originally designated as a destroyer and it was changed to cruiser after the ruskies started calling things they were building cruisers and we didn't want a cruiser gap. In this era the distinction is political in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What's the appreciable difference between a cruiser and a destroyer in modern terms? For the current USN anyway, there isn't anymore. The new flight of ABs are actually bigger than Ticonderogas and their capability is practically identical. Navy guys can correct me on this but I *think* that CGs are usually allocated to CSGs individually while DDGs are part of a squadron, but aside from that they are treated as more or less the same thing tactically. That being said the USN is starting its study on son-of-CGX, which I would assume will wind up being quite a different thing altogether. CGX was basically a giant nuclear powered Zumwalt that was getting into the 25k-30k ton range so it is basically a battleship, they should probably call it BBG or something. If I were to guess they'll eventually develop something that size with the primary mission being ballistic missile defense with something like a railgun plus the successor to SM-3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Role. For reference, that destroyer is only 10m shorter than the Battleship Yamato.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
More importantly will it be able to transit the Dardanelles and surprise the Russian Black Sea fleet again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Duh, that's why they called it a destroyer and not a light carrier 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:What was the best destroyer ever built? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_III
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer Also, anyone know of any good Kanji recognition software? Oh and, TrinTragula, EnsignExpendable, since you both have cool blogs with related stuff, I was wondering if you guys had any pointers on starting one? I'd like to get my bombs, mines, projectiles, etc. info all in one location without having to search my posting habits to make it easier on myself and others. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:In what era? Incidentally the Sumners (and Gearings) were considered mediocre to poor sea boats, so much so that they had an enclosed walkway all the way down the main deck and had some problems with damage in heavy seas when compared to the Fletchers, and they also were pretty severely overcrowded in late WWII trim. On the other hand they were the first ones properly able to mount the large amounts of AA demanded by WWII. I'd seriously propose the Fubuki class, because look at their contemporaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Incidentally the Sumners (and Gearings) were considered mediocre to poor sea boats, so much so that they had an enclosed walkway all the way down the main deck and had some problems with damage in heavy seas when compared to the Fletchers, and they also were pretty severely overcrowded in late WWII trim. On the other hand they were the first ones properly able to mount the large amounts of AA demanded by WWII. I'd go with the Fletcher class. Not perhaps the most outstanding destroyer in any one category, but the US churned out 175 of the things over the course of three years, they served in 15 different countries' navies, they were excellent all-around warships, and the last one was only retired from active duty in 2001 (it was not in the US navy, however).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Japanese Explosive Ordnance: Army and Navy Ammunition Army Projectiles: Part 4 Back again with more 20mm ammunition for the IJA. We start seeing some Kanji which I hope will be legible in the photos I take, although some are fairly small and low-res. Unfortunately, there's not much I can do aside from reverse-lookups and trying to determine the best/closest approximation. Here's a small snippet of the loss in quality. How many inches?  The drop in quality doesn't help identifying kanji  Nor does inverted colors with random blotches of black  Type 98 20mm High Explosive Tracer Projectile Wait, you did this one last time, right? Well, apparently this round was used in the Type 97 antitank gun. Yes, it's confusing.  Overall length: 19.45cm Length of projectile: 6.11cm Filling: Cyclonite, tracer composition Fuzing: Type 93 small instantaneous fuze. Color and Markings: Black body with red band just aft of bourrelet, green and yellow bands forward of rotating band. Type 98  is stenciled on the body.Used in: Type 97 antitank gun Remarks: The projectile is made of steel, with two cavities separated by a septum. Type 100 20mm H.E.T. (Self-Destroying) Projectile  To add even more confusion to the 20mm round category, the Type 100 came in two versions: one for the Type 97 Anti-tank gun, and another for the Type 98 Anti-air/Anti-tank gun. These are marked as (97) and (98), below. Overall length: (97) 19.36cm (98) 20.83 Length of projectile: (97) 8.21cm (98) 8.21cm Weight of projectile: (97) 4.7g (98) 4.7g Filling: Cyclonite, tracer composition Fuzing: Type 100 experimental projectile used type 93 small instantaneous fuze; other two projectiles use type 100 small instantaneous fuze. Color and markings: Black body with red band just aft of bourrelet, green and yellow bands forward of rotating band. Type 100 has  stenciled on the bodyType 100 experimental has  stenciled on the bodyType 100 Mod 1 has  Used in: Type 97 anti-tank gun or Type 98 anti-air/anti-tank gun. Remarks: The projectile is made of steel with two cavities separated by a septum. Leading through the septum and into the explosive cavity is a black powder lead-in. When the tracer has burned out it will ignite the lead-in which will detonate the explosive filling. There is an earlier model of this projectile designated Type 100 Experimental which does not have a self-destroying feature. There is also a Type 100 Mod 1 which differs from this projectile in that it is filled with black powder instead of cyclonite. 20mm High Explosive Incendiary Projectile  Overall length: 19.29cm Length of case: 12.38 Length of projectile: 8.41cm Weight of projectile: 127g Filling: Cyclonite, incendiary composition Fuzing: Type 93 small instantaneous fuze Color and markings: Black body with red band just abaft bourrelet, yellow band forward of rotating band. The characters  (fixed or flexible machine cannon) are stenciled on the body.Used in: Ho-1 (Flexible) and Ho-3 (Fixed) aircraft cannon. Remarks: The projectile is made of steel. It contains two pellets, the forward one surrounding the fuze gaine, is cyclonite while the after pellet is an incendiary mixture. 20mm High-Explosive Incendiary (Ma 201) Projectile  Overall length: 19.29cm Length of case: 12.38cm Length of projectile: 8.63cm Weight of projectile: 109g Filling: P.E.T.N., incendiary composition Fuzing: Fuzeless Color and markings: Black body with red band abaft bourrelet. Characters  (201) are stenciled on the body.Used in: Ho-1 (Flexible) and Ho-3 (Fixed) aircraft cannon Remarks: The projectile is made of steel. A brass nose piece filled with P.E.T.N. threads into the incendiary filled projectile. Detonation of the projectile is accomplished by the crushing action of the P.E.T.N. filled nose piece. Next Time: MORE 20MM! Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/lb13ynu3Iac 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer It's pretty easy to get starter with Blogger for free, but if you want a lot of customization on your own hosting, Wordpress is better. Blogger gives me enough control over my site, and I like the interface better than Wordpress, so I stick with that. Search kind of sucks (come on Google!) but I think I have a decent enough tagging system and table of contents so that it's easy enough to find anything I need. Then of course there's the part where you shamelessly self-promote on every vaguely related forum for that sweet sweet traffic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Then of course there's the part where you shamelessly self-promote on every vaguely related forum for that sweet sweet traffic. Is it shameless if I'd promote your site if it happened to relate to the guns used? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:What was the best destroyer ever built?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'd seriously propose the Fubuki class, because look at their contemporaries. This seems to be the right answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Tie between the USN Arleigh Burke class and the JMSDF Kongō class as both have demonstrated the ability to engage targets in space and will be our only hope in an Independence Day scenario. Seems logical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
For how long did ships with broadside configurations coexist with turreted ships? It seems like the advantages of a turret (protection, firing arc) would at least occasionally be outweighed by the cost, space, and machinery necessary to build a rotating gun. Did any ships designed for broadsides survive as long as WWI? TitoLeibowitz fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Also, anyone know of any good Kanji recognition software? Google Translate has a handwriting function, which sort of works. There's an Android app called Kanji Recognizer that goes with an app version of the WWWJDIC, but I've had bad luck with it when trying to write in kanji and not knowing the stroke order. The WWWJDIC also has a multi-radical kanji lookup, so if you know enough Japanese to recognize radicals that's probably the most reliable way. Finally, there's Capture2Text, which is an OCR program that works on kanji. It's pretty finicky, though, and works best on modern printed stuff with clean white backgrounds. I don't think it would work for your purposes at all, but it's free, so no harm in trying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Or he could ask help from the hundreds of Otaku who frequent this very forum. Try ADTRW
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
MarsDragon posted:Google Translate has a handwriting function, which sort of works. There's an Android app called Kanji Recognizer that goes with an app version of the WWWJDIC, but I've had bad luck with it when trying to write in kanji and not knowing the stroke order. The WWWJDIC also has a multi-radical kanji lookup, so if you know enough Japanese to recognize radicals that's probably the most reliable way. Finally, there's Capture2Text, which is an OCR program that works on kanji. It's pretty finicky, though, and works best on modern printed stuff with clean white backgrounds. I don't think it would work for your purposes at all, but it's free, so no harm in trying. I didn't realize google translate had a handwriting thing. Seems to work as well as my multi-page research. I'll see how well Capture2Text works with my images; I tried WWWJDIC while waiting for a reply and it was having a hard time with the low-quality print. Animal posted:Or he could ask help from the hundreds of Otaku who frequent this very forum. Try ADTRW Hadn't thought about this either. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:59
|
|