|
adtrw will probably laugh and/or post anime tits at you, and even if they were feeling helpful they probably wouldn't know much 70 year old military jargon. try the japanese langauge thread in SAL instead, it has some truly high level linguistic nerds hanging around
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Apr 5, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
TheFluff posted:adtrw will probably laugh and/or post anime tits at you, and even if they were feeling helpful they probably wouldn't know much 70 year old military jargon. try the japanese langauge thread in SAL instead, it has some truly high level linguistic nerds hanging around I'll probably make a post up there eventually for some help, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:adtrw will probably laugh and/or post anime tits at you, and even if they were feeling helpful they probably wouldn't know much 70 year old military jargon. try the japanese langauge thread in SAL instead I dunno, Kantai Collection got popular, they might know more about WW2 Japan at this point than ever before
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
TitoLeibowitz posted: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. Well, the St. Louis-class at least saw service in WWI as convoy escorts. Magni fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Loads of pre-dreadnoughts served around the world, away from the main theatres where proper fleet actions required the Dreadnoughts be concentrated. Most famously there's HMS Canopus, which fought at Coronel and was grounded to serve as a defensive emplacement in the Falklands during the pursuit of the Graf Spee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:04
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
bewbies posted: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. A 30,000 ton nuclear-powered battleship with cruise missiles, railguns and an ABM system?!  On that note, did anyone ever design a nuclear-powered (gun) battleship?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:A 30,000 ton nuclear-powered battleship with cruise missiles, railguns and an ABM system?! I'm sorry, the Ace Combat and Warship Gunner threads are in Games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Speaking of ADTRW, they had a thread a while back that touched on milhist. (NWS) Erotic Russo-Japanese War
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
The Soviet Kirov-class battlecruisers, the largest non-carrier surface warships in service, are nuclear powered. 5 were planned, 4 built, 1 in active service, 1 out of service after a reactor accident, 1 laid up because the Russian Navy couldn't afford to operate it, and 1 coming out of mothballs because Putin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
TitoLeibowitz posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
The problem wasn't the cost of the turrets, the problem was that it was too goddamn expensive to replace the entire fleet of pre-dreadnoughts that it just obsoleted in your navy overnight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:The problem wasn't the cost of the turrets, the problem was that it was too goddamn expensive to replace the entire fleet of pre-dreadnoughts that it just obsoleted in your navy overnight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Dreadnaught-type ships weren't significantly more expensive to build than pre-Dreadnaughts. The cost of their more complex turrets was likely offset by having fewer guns in the secondary battery and a simpler armor scheme. Dreadnaughts were also significantly less expensive on a per-gun basis as they brought many more big guns to the fight. Early turrets on stuff like Monitor or Roanoke, were silly things that were unreliable and unsophisticated. I think he meant the cost of those experimental turrets compared to just cutting a hole in the armour like CSS Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
If Hitler were gay and black, would he still be lower on the "did nothing wrong" list than Jacky Fisher?quote:The [HMS Northampton] was fitted with a new design of lamp created by Captain Philip Colomb, who came on board to inspect them. As a joke, Fisher arranged for anything that could go wrong with the lamps to do so, sending Colomb away disheartened over his invention (although Fisher officially reported favourably about the lamps). Luigi Thirty fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Why were dreadnaughts such a big deal? Was the idea of sticking the guns in turrets and getting rid of all the pea-shooters really so revolutionary?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken Dreadnoughts were also significantly faster than pre-Dreads owing to their use of turbines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why were dreadnaughts such a big deal? Was the idea of sticking the guns in turrets and getting rid of all the pea-shooters really so revolutionary? There were turreted guns before, but they were all over the place and had a big mixture of everything. The Dreadnought was an 'All Big Gun' design in heavy turrets, 5 2x-12" (I think?) guns and smaller batteries rather than a bit of a mish-mash everywhere. The difference in the style of the ship and its structure also was set by the dreadnought. Pre-Dreadnought ships had no real castle/superstructure and kinda had a 'cruise liner with guns sticking out of it' thing going on. There was also a greater focus on armor belts and the types of fire you were likely to see with more modern weaponry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why were dreadnaughts such a big deal? Was the idea of sticking the guns in turrets and getting rid of all the pea-shooters really so revolutionary? All big guns means you could shoot the most metal at a target at the longest ranges. Having a bunch of guns that are all the same size meant you could have effective fire director computers and ranging optics instead of having to calculate firing solutions for 12" guns, 8" guns, 5.5" guns, etc. A ship that can accurately put 5 turrets' worth of shells on a target at 14,000 yards is much more valuable than one that can't, since effectively the longest range guns were thought to win engagements. You didn't need peashooters because you'd have destroyers or torpedo boats to take care of that, letting the battleships be free to duke it out with other battleships. They also used new steam turbine engines so they were faster than earlier ships, yeah. note: I am not an expert on early 20th century naval warfare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If I'm not mistaken Dreadnoughts were also significantly faster than pre-Dreads owing to their use of turbines. Not necessarily, the US still needed the longer range of triple expansion engines (this being before reduction gearing) for example, and switched to turbines after the South Carolinas, although the follow-on Delawares were mixed. Slavvy posted:Why were dreadnaughts such a big deal? Was the idea of sticking the guns in turrets and getting rid of all the pea-shooters really so revolutionary? The mid-caliber guns were all in turrets already (the stuff in casemates was for use against torpedo boats, not battleships). The problem with secondaries and main caliber on the same ship is that's two calibers and thus two firing solutions. Problem is, it's hard to tell which splashes go with which caliber. So the sort of fire control needed to really push the fire out to extreme range with director control really works far better with a homogenous main battery. The Germans still dragged pre-dreads to Jutland though, so it's not like they were totally useless, it's just that they were far less effective. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why were dreadnaughts such a big deal? Was the idea of sticking the guns in turrets and getting rid of all the pea-shooters really so revolutionary? Almost all ships post-1889 had their guns in turrets, but they mounted a host of them in steadily decreasing calibre. So on one ship you would have four 12 inchers, six 10-inchers, and 10 6-inchers, for example. Dreadnought said "gently caress you" to that business, and replaced the secondary/tertiary guns with tiny 3-inchers that would do the same job. Then it mounted ten 12-inch guns that were the pinnacle of the technology. This alone would make a world-changer, but there was more to it than rebalancing the armament. In the pre-dreadnought era, naval engagements (Of which were few) were fought at relatively close range, where the secondary guns were more effective. But throughout that time, torpedoes were rapidly becoming naval boogeymen. Small torpedo boats in great numbers could launch their weapons and scurry away at low cost, and sink very expensive battleships . Torpedo technology had advanced sufficiently by Dreadnought's time that their range far exceeded the mechanical accuracy of secondary guns, which had lead to people questioning whether guns would still be the main naval weapon of the 20th century (Turns out it's planes). The biggest guns had the mechanical accuracy, but you can't just eyeball it if your target is 6,000m away. Fire-control systems had steadily advanced since the. Electronic communications connected its dire directors to its guns replacing literal tube-and-hole systems. As an added bonus, with only 12-inch guns, there was only one set of ballistics to account for. Dreadnought also launched with a steam turbine engine, allowing it to travel at 21 knots, versus 18 for older designs. It seems like a small difference, but it's actually a vast improvement. For reference, a difference of 2 knots was sufficient reason for the US navy to exclude certain ships from Pacific duty in WWII. Dreadnoughts centralized armament allowed its armor to be concentrated on its engines and guns much better than before. All the secondary guns needed their own armour in pre-dreadnoughts, and were often awkwardly placed in strung out positions along the boat. You could write books about Dreadnought. Some of its advancements came with it, and some were improvements of previous technologies, but they were all brought forward in one ship that was superior in every respect to its predecessors. In addition to the very real material supremacy of the ship, it was launched at the peak of European imperialism, with all the associated symbolism attached to that era. Back when military might was an unequivocal point of pride, you would point to a dreadnought as proof that your country and rich and powerful. Battleships are still a pretty enduring image, wouldn't you say?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
So, the other day I found what might be the best painting ever. Sebastian Vrancx, Uniformierte Affen, 1647. Since it's satire there's a lot of details about how soldiers lived. Check out the humorous sketch of an armed human on the wall!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:adtrw will probably laugh and/or post anime tits at you, and even if they were feeling helpful they probably wouldn't know much 70 year old military jargon. try the japanese langauge thread in SAL instead, it has some truly high level linguistic nerds hanging around Jobbo_Fett posted:I'll probably make a post up there eventually for some help, thanks! What exactly do you want to know? Btw SA does kanji fine, you must just be set to the wrong encoding. 旋固機 - doesn't actually give me any results on Google so I might have one of these wrong, but it seems to make sense as 旋 is like rotating, 固 is hard/fixed, and 機 is machine, short for 機関銃 (machine gun) The other kanji are numbers: 1-10 being 一ニ三四五六七八九十 and 〇 for zero, which is also sometimes written as the more complicated 零. Note the latter is used for the Zero fighter. 式 is type or model. 試 is for experimental/test (試験 is test), 修 is for modification, short for 修正 By the way all the kanji in that book are terrible chicken-scratch copied by someone who clearly cant actually write Japanese haha
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So, the other day I found what might be the best painting ever. Painting presumably found hanging in the galleries of Abartigen Kunst?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:What exactly do you want to know? None of your kanji are coming across for me. You probably have a special encoder that is activated on your browser or operating system that is parsing it correctly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
This is cool, and having the ability to get those Kanji to appear properly rather than having an image (Or just having both) is something I really want, cause I hate skimping out on small details if I'm going to do it properly. Just look at this! It's nuts how much info is there that I can't read.  More self-explanatory stuff, but gives an idea of how terrible the quality it is, along with, as you said, the poor handwriting  Inches are usually the worst of the bunch because they are written even smaller than usual  TRIGGER WARNING: BAD QUALITY  And it ain't my phone's fault! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Kaal posted:None of your kanji are coming across for me. You probably have a special encoder that is activated on your browser or operating system that is parsing it correctly. I can see the kanji just fine, and I'm using the Awful app on an ipad. It might be your computer?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Mitsuo posted:I can see the kanji just fine, and I'm using the Awful app on an ipad. It might be your computer? Probably a missing language pack thing. Work computer wouldn't display copy-pasted kanji but would show
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Kaal posted:None of your kanji are coming across for me. You probably have a special encoder that is activated on your browser or operating system that is parsing it correctly. Posting from an iPhone so there's no weird encoding from my side; you're probably just missing the language pack
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Almost all ships post-1889 had their guns in turrets, but they mounted a host of them in steadily decreasing calibre. So on one ship you would have four 12 inchers, six 10-inchers, and 10 6-inchers, for example. Also most battleships post-Dreadnought still had secondary guns, it was just that they were all 6" guns or smaller and weren't expected to be firing all the way downrange.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What's his reasoning on the Monitor class? Those things kind of owned rivers and coastlines. My limited understanding is that they did a pretty good job within those parameters. Antony Preston was a journalist, not a historian. Pretty much everything he wrote was based on popular understandings of history. The monitors were bad because they weren't HMS Warrior which was British and therefore better. His books are a lot of the reason I ended up becoming a naval historian so I give him props for that. Cythereal posted:List of ships featured in the book: A lot of these choices are arbitrary and stupid just FYI. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Maybe this isn't the place for this question but I wasn't sure where else to put it. Hypothetically, if a country like the UK or France went into a D&D style Full Communist revolution (pushing out the sitting government) does NATO have any provisions that would allow them to occupy/invade that nation, like in the Russian Civil War? Whenever those sorts of revolutionary fantasies come up I can't help but imagine that the US would balk at it before sending 'peacekeeping' into the country. I mean the devil would be in the details to lose a close NATO ally like that just would seem unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
That scenario is pretty much Gay Black Marx. International law is a very complicated and layered thing. Both the UN charta and the Helsinki Accords both forbid military action in response to internal affairs of another country, which includes revolutions (unless they spread to other countries, so the World Revolution might run into trouble fairly quickly). So even if NATO had provisions (I'm not sure it does) that allowed it to intervene, who would decide which law was applicable (the realist would say the US President, I suppose)? Of course, the UK and France would also have nukes, which would make the whole thing even more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
NATO is about external threats. You'd have to go through a very torturous argument to establish that the revolutionaries are in fact some kind of external armed attack and to invoke Article 5. In your situation there would probably be politically easier and less spurious juridical grounds to use for an intervention. I think a likely scenario would be the ousted government maintaining it is the legitimate government and if need be requesting "humanitarian" intervention from outside actors. Then if politically expedient a country like the US could play along and send help in a legal manner. There'd also be the hypocrisy of intervening on a communist revolution while letting Greece and Turkey go through numerous military coups while NATO members. The charter isn't very long, you can read it yourself here. Edit: Operation Gladio gives you a good idea of what kind of forces would be involved, and why a communist revolution during the Cold War in Western Europe, or today, is a very far-fetched notion. If a state actor like the USA would want to stamp a communist revolution or insurrection or whatever you want to call it in a foreign country, they'd have a big box of tools to use before they'd have to use boots on the ground. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Antti posted:NATO is about external threats. You'd have to go through a very torturous argument to establish that the revolutionaries are in fact some kind of external armed attack and to invoke Article 5. In your situation there would probably be politically easier and less spurious juridical grounds to use for an intervention. I think a likely scenario would be the ousted government maintaining it is the legitimate government and if need be requesting "humanitarian" intervention from outside actors. Then if politically expedient a country like the US could play along and send help in a legal manner. The 1968 Paris Spring was not that far away from outright overthrow of de Gaulle. People forget about it a lot these days, but it was a danger taken very seriously at the time, and successfully navigating out of it is what made Pompidou's career.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
This. You'd have had to go through decades of lead before a truly eurocommunist government could have formed inside NATO. Koesj fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Japanese Explosive Ordnance: Army and Navy Ammunition Army Projectiles: Part 5 Hopefully, today will be the last post about 20mm Army Projectiles. We start to get into post-1940 projectiles which were used in the Ho-5 cannon seen on many late-war Japanese fighters. 20mm High-Explosive Incendiary Tracer Projectile  Overall Length: 19.52cm Length of projectile: 11.98cm Length of case: 12.38cm Filling: Cyclonite, incendiary composition, tracer composition Fuzing: Type 100 small instantaneous fuze. Color and Markings: Black body with red band just abaft bourrelet, green and yellow bands before rotating band. Characters  (flexible or fixed machine cannon) stenciled on the body.Used in: Ho-1 (Flexible) and Ho-3 (Fixed) aircraft cannon. Remarks: The projectile is made of steel and has two cavities, a main charge cavity and a tracer cavity, seperated by a septum. The main charge cavity contains two pellets, the forward one, fitting around the fuze gaine, is cyclonite while the after one is an incendiary mixture. Type 100 Mod 2 20mm I.T. (Self-Destroying) Projectile  Overall Length: 20.93cm Length of projectile: 8.32cm Filling: Incendiary composition, tracer composition Fuzing: Type 100 small instantaneous fuze Color and Markings: Black body with red band just abaft bourrelet, green and yellow bands before rotating band. Characters  (Type 100 Mod 2) are stenciled on the body.Used in: Type 98 anti-aircraft / anti-tank gun Remarks: This is the same projectile as the type 100 and type 100 Mod 1 H.E.T. but there is no high explosive other than that used in the gaine. 20mm Armor-Piercing Tracer Projectile  This projectile came in 3 variations: Type 97 anti-tank gun, Ho-1 and Ho-3 aircraft cannons, and Type 98 anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun. Overall Length: (97) 19.36cm (Ho-) 19.36cm (98) 20.95cm Length of projectile: (97) 8.01cm (Ho-) 8.09cm (98) 8.01cm Weight of projectile: (All) 156g Length of case: (97) 12.38cm (Ho-) 12.38cm (98) 13.97cm Filling: Tracer composition Color and Markings: Hard round (type 100): black body, green and white bands before rotating band. Medium Round (Type 97) has  (type 100) stenciled on the body, black body, green band before rotating band. Soft round (Type 97 substitute) black overall.Used in: Type 97 anti-tank gun, Ho-1 (Flexible) and Ho-3 (Fixed) aircraft cannon, or Type 98 anti-aircraft / anti-tank gun. Remarks: This projectile is a solid steel shot with a tracer cavity drilled into the base. This projectile, with different colored tracers and markings is used in three guns. There are three types of rounds differing in grades of hardness of steel. Ho-5 20mm Ammunition  Excerpt from the Manual: The latest Army 20mm gun developed is the Ho-5 aircraft gun which is of excellent design and represents a considerable improvement over previous Army 20mm aircraft machine guns. Case properties Length: 9.48cm Diameter of base: 2.46cm Material: Brass Weight (Empty): 113.5g Remarks: The case is of the rimless type and has a slight taper toward the neck. Propellant: The propellant is 21.4g of graphited smokeless pwder in fine cylindrical grains. Type 2 and Type 2 Modified 20mm H.E.I. Projectile  Overall Length: 14.6cm Length of projectile: 6.5cm (Fuzed) Weight of projectile: 77.4g (Fuzed) Weight of filling: -Cyclonite (Type 2 Modified): 3.4g -Cyclonite (Type 2): 0.4g -Incendiary composition: 3.7g Filling: Cyclonite and incendiary composition Fuzing: -Type 2: Type 2 small instantaneous or Type 2 small instantaneous modified type. -Type 2 Modified: Type 4 super-detonating fuze. Color and Markings: -Type 2: Black overall and, sometimes, yellow band around body. -Type 2 Modified: projectile is painted silver-gray overall Remarks: The difference between the Type 2 and the Type 2 modified is the fuze. The Type 2 projectiles uses a fuze that has an external gaine and thus has less explosive filling than the Type 2 Modified projectile which uses a fuze with the gain built into the fuze body. My notes: Only Japan could come up with a "Super-Detonating" fuze. Type 4 20mm H.E.T. (Ma 202) Projectile  Overall length: 14.6cm Length of projectile: 6.6cm Weight of projectile: 78.2g (fuzed) Weight of filling: -P.E.T.N.: 3.2g -Incendiary composition: 8.7g Filling: P.E.T.N., and incendiary composition (barium nitrate, aluminium powder, magnesium powder, and wax) Fuzing: Fuzeless Color and Markings: Black overall with characters  (202) Remarks: The projectile is made of steel with a brass nose piece threaded to it. The nose piece is filled with P.E.T.N. and is designed to explode by the crushing action of impact. An incendiary mixture contained in the steel body is separated from the high explosive by a felt pad and a threaded brass disc. This disc has two lead-in holes. Type 2 20mm Armor-Piercing Tracer Projectile  Overall length: 14.6cm Length of projectile: 6.35cm Weight of projectile: -Soft Round: 112.7g -Medium Round: 116.7g -Hard Round: 119.5g Weight of filling: 7g Filling: Tracer composition Color and Markings: -Soft Round: Black overall -Medium Round: Black with green band around body. -Hard Round: Black with a green and a white band around body. Characters  (Type 2) are stenciled on the bodyRemarks: There are three different models of this projectile differing in the grades of hardness of the steel. This difference is indicated by the color markings. 20mm Practile Projectile  Overall length: 14.6cm Length of projectile: 6.5cm Weight of projectile: 81g Filling: None Color and Markings: Black overall Remarks: The projectile approximates the shape of the Type 2 H.E.I. projectile. It is unfilled and closed at the base by a threaded plug. Next time: 37mm Cannon Projectiles and more!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Antony Preston was a journalist, not a historian. Pretty much everything he wrote was based on popular understandings of history. The monitors were bad because they weren't HMS Warrior which was British and therefore better. I'm pretty confident in saying there's a considerable amount more behind that book than that. It doesn't read like a popular understanding of history, the popular understanding of history doesn't beat up on Japanese ships for requiring rebuilds to not get wrecked by heavy seas for example, it doesn't tend to criticize small missile boats for having bad sensor fits, and it doesn't tear into things for not having a clear strategic role and rationale. Somebody with the book correct me if I'm wrong, but it starts out mentioning a few people including one Stuart Slade and a discussion of British and French sailing ship designs much like this one. If I remember right, the Captain chapter is in part a rant about private shipyard designers messing things up. I don't think the book ever takes a ship to task for being too weak (except for the basically unarmored early Condottieri class), it's almost always for bad detail design, for having bad priorities and so on, and it really feels like a sensationalist book that's intended to give a greater appreciation for how ship design is done (and quite possibly to back up arguments in favor of professional ship design apparatuses). It seems like things I've seen Slade harp on show up relatively frequently and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if at least part of it was intended as ammunition against warship designs by commercial shipyards. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a procurement debate going on about when the book was written and commercial shipyards' designs were being considered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I wouldn't be surprised if there was a procurement debate going on about when the book was written and commercial shipyards' designs were being considered. It was published while the Type 45 Destroyer design was being finalised and construction was due to start soon, and there were early rumblings of a new Aircraft Carrier class to replace the Invincible class ships, it lead us to the wonderful omnishambles that is the Queen Elizabeth class. The Royal Navy had also put HMS Ocean into service a few years before, she was built to commercial standards rather than military standards and should reach the end of her service life as built within the next decade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
If you had a time machine that could only travel back in time and return once, and you could only observe and not interact: what is the one time and place you would want to go back to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Kanine posted:If you had a time machine that could only travel back in time and return once, and you could only observe and not interact: what is the one time and place you would want to go back to? Is there a time limit on how long you can stay?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 01:46
|
|