|
bewbies posted:[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_54_MAKO_Lightweight_Torpedo]o. "Surface ships are no longer able to fight without effective radar equipment." - Großadmiral Karl Dönitz I would like to buy your Chobham and kevlar protected radar set.
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Except nobody has in this current iteration of "Lol the Luftwaffe is terrible at everything" Well then I'm glad I headed that one off at the pass. But I don't think we have reached the levels of U-boat "I'm under air attack and can see Luftwaffe airfields on the French coast Lol!" terrible yet.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The problem with American towed guns was that the US Army didn't take them as seriously as they should have, and consequently was consistently stuck a generation behind contemporary British, German, and Soviet guns. Keep in mind, the army started the war with the hopelessly obsolete 37mm gun, adopted the British 6 pounder just as the Brits were moving on to the 17 pounder (And the Germans the PaK 40), and the 3 inch/76mm gun that was only issued to Tank Destroyer units was put into service just as the Germans were rolling out the vastly more powerful PaK 43. To make matters worse, the 3 inch gun was basically garbage-the gun itself dated back to the First World War, the carriage was repurposed from a 105mm howitzer, and as a result the platform was huge, unwieldy, and completely and utterly insufficient for dealing with German armor, as their track record during the Bulge showed. I'm going to offer a slight disagreement here. While US ground forces overall got late into the whole tank/anti tank game, the Yanks also got into the entire ground warfare game a bit late and then drew the necessary conclusions and acquired the 6 pounder gun. British 2 pdr gun before it wasn't that stellar either. Also comparing a 57mm gun weighing about one ton, of which 15k were built by USA alone (of which one third was delivered to Brits as L-L), to an 88mm gun that weighs four tons and of which 2000 were built is plain apples to oranges. A gun that can be towed by a jeep and actually be maneuvered in the field by the crew and can kill most of targets fills an entirely different tactical niche than one that requires a prime mover to move an inch but which can kill any tank several kilometers away. Nor could Germans replace their 50mm PaK 38's with heavier guns. Nor did Red Army lose dependency on the 45mm guns which were no better than 37mm guns penetration-wise, just slightly better against infantry.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Not really. Even a worst case 1985 general exchange doesn't lead to a mass extinction event or kill enough of the population that we're back in the Middle Ages. Wait. Are you telling me that A Canticle for Leibowitz was not actually a documentary?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Am I missing something? It sure looks like you're cherry picking like crazy to nobody's benefit. According to Wiki, overall, PQ18 lost 13 ships, 8 of which were sunk in an attack by KG26 using He-111s with torpedoes. In a later contested attack, only one ship was sunk by torpedo.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Am I missing something? It sure looks like you're cherry picking like crazy to nobody's benefit. According to Wiki, overall, PQ18 lost 13 ships, 8 of which were sunk in an attack by KG26 using He-111s with torpedoes. In a later contested attack, only one ship was sunk by torpedo. In the ETO/MTO there are limited cherry's to pick so I'll not apologies for that (and PQ18 is Schweinfurt raid level of losses - It's not just failure it's Royal failure). In PTO... are you suggesting that a handful of Fairey Fulmars or clapped out Hurricanes (which is what the Luftwaffe 'contested' against) on the opposing side would changed the result at Coral Sea or Midway? The IJN sliced through the same force composition in it's Indian Ocean raids that had foiled the Luftwaffe for so long around Malta not six months later.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Perhaps he means PQ17? No PQ18 the PQ after the PQ everyone knows about. After the debacle that was PQ17 Germany had a real opportunity to start driving a wedge into the alliance against her (or more likely create a future in which USA/USSR direct dialogue excluding the UK forms a greater part of the post war settlement). However the Luftwaffe were to well and truly drop the ball.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:this dude gets it To clarify, I think the smell of burnt gun powder is nice, it's the residue left all over the inside of ~our device~ that I have to clean out with a Qtip that stinks. I have to keep it a secret because patents and yada yada, but I can say that this thread has been a constant source of ideas when we hit design problems, so thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Archive.org has a copy. I read the intro: lots of flourishes, lots of other people's opinions, very little settling down to the business of understanding. 99% of everything written about Nietzsche ever
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
AbleArcher posted:No PQ18 the PQ after the PQ everyone knows about. After the debacle that was PQ17 Germany had a real opportunity to start driving a wedge into the alliance against her (or more likely create a future in which USA/USSR direct dialogue excluding the UK forms a greater part of the post war settlement). However the Luftwaffe were to well and truly drop the ball.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
lenoon posted:99% of everything written about Nietzsche ever I like you So, here's a question: looking at the Pacific theater, how much did the American public know? They seem to be in the loop for island invasions and land battles, but Naval battles have no detail in contemporary life magazine. The Battle of Midway gets a two page spread of some models. They do another story in 1946, saying that "It looks like Midway was the really important naval battle of the Pacific War."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, Halsey staged a big press blitz right after Leyte in hopes of getting ahead of things.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
AbleArcher posted:In the ETO/MTO there are limited cherry's to pick so I'll not apologies for that (and PQ18 is Schweinfurt raid level of losses - It's not just failure it's Royal failure). In PTO... are you suggesting that a handful of Fairey Fulmars or clapped out Hurricanes (which is what the Luftwaffe 'contested' against) on the opposing side would changed the result at Coral Sea or Midway? The IJN sliced through the same force composition in it's Indian Ocean raids that had foiled the Luftwaffe for so long around Malta not six months later. It's incredibly hard for me to take someone seriously who creates an equivalency between a pure medium bomber LBA force and a highly trained, innovative combined arms package designed expressly to sink enemy warships. I actually would suggest that the handful of fulmars or clapped out hurricanes would make a difference in the fate of force z, which would interestingly make the problem structurally quite similar to PQ18, instead of all of your nonsense.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I like you My dad has talked about this some. He was in high school during WWII. 1942 was pretty grim, because Japan was running wild and people were genuinely doubting whether they were actually going to win. They could feel a bottom in '43, and could sense the momentum turning in '44. There were daily newspaper reports, so people knew what was going on.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
I just started reading Neptune's Inferno, about the naval campaign surrounding Guadalcanal, and the defeat and loss of several cruisers in the battle of Savo Island was withheld from the public for 2 months. Sailors rescued from the battle were held in "virtual house arrest" to quarantine them from the rest of the service and public for so long they revolted. A little later, the Wasp got torpedoed and sank on September 15th and the public wasn't told until December. Part of it was managing morale at home, part of it was denying intelligence to the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Oh. Well then I don't see why you're assuming that the Germans made mistakes attacking it, rather than the British and Americans massively beefing up the convoy escort elements with things like actually sending along an aircraft carrier. I'm not assuming they made mistake in attacking PQ18, In fact I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I'm accusing them of attacking badly and ineffectively and believe a late 1942 IJN or USN strike force would have done much better in the same situation against the same opposition and achieved a decisive a result (which on balance the RN/FAA managed as well when it had to). PQ18 and many other instances show the Luftwaffe had a poor track record of sinking/protecting the ships it needed to. So in regards to Sea Lion, (where the discussion started) with 5 years of failure as evidence why would anyone think it would be successful in a hypothetical endeavour of this nature?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
I wish the Luftwaffe would bomb you two. You've been arguing for like 10 pages give it a rest.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
AbleArcher posted:I'm not assuming they made mistake in attacking PQ18, In fact I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I'm accusing them of attacking badly and ineffectively
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
So just to be clear are we still talking about the Germans invading Britain in 1941?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Has anyone made an excellent IFV, or are all the IFVs kinda messes in some way or another? I ended up reading the BMP vs Bradley chat and got "BMP is better than Bradley but not by much", and I'm aware Warrior is kind of a mess in that it has a gun that wouldn't be out of place in WW2. Is the Marder really good or something?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Has anyone made an excellent IFV, or are all the IFVs kinda messes in some way or another? I ended up reading the BMP vs Bradley chat and got "BMP is better than Bradley but not by much", and I'm aware Warrior is kind of a mess in that it has a gun that wouldn't be out of place in WW2. Is the Marder really good or something? The Bradley has a really bad rep because of its hilarious procurement process, but my understanding is that it's been fairly good in the wars it has been in.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I'm going to offer a slight disagreement here. While US ground forces overall got late into the whole tank/anti tank game, the Yanks also got into the entire ground warfare game a bit late and then drew the necessary conclusions and acquired the 6 pounder gun. British 2 pdr gun before it wasn't that stellar either. Also comparing a 57mm gun weighing about one ton, of which 15k were built by USA alone (of which one third was delivered to Brits as L-L), to an 88mm gun that weighs four tons and of which 2000 were built is plain apples to oranges. A gun that can be towed by a jeep and actually be maneuvered in the field by the crew and can kill most of targets fills an entirely different tactical niche than one that requires a prime mover to move an inch but which can kill any tank several kilometers away. Nor could Germans replace their 50mm PaK 38's with heavier guns. Nor did Red Army lose dependency on the 45mm guns which were no better than 37mm guns penetration-wise, just slightly better against infantry. But while the Germans and Soviets continued to use the 50mm PaK 38 and 45mm ZiS-2, heavier guns like the 75mm PaK-40 and 76mm ZiS-3 were widely produced and distributed (To the tune of 20,000+ for the PaK-40 and well over a hundred thousand for the ZiS-3). Meanwhile, production of the 76mm M5 was barely greater than that of the much more effective (And not much less mobile) PaK-43. A 57mm gun was simply not adequate for use as a mainline anti-tank weapon by 1943 and especially by 1944, and the US in many respects got lucky that there were able to remain consistently on the attack (Where the lack of an effective AT gun was less important), and had more than enough tanks and tank destroyers to cover the gap.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:These are the same thing. You are either deliberately misunderstanding to try avoid being wrong or you're genuinely not understanding that the lessons learned from PQ17 resulted in PQ18 being a totally different animal. You are correct PQ17 are PQ18 are totally different animals and together they make my point very well (Thank you for mentioning PQ17, I hadn't thought to contrast the two!) PQ17 was rashly ordered to scatter in the face of a phantom surface threat allowing the Luftwaffe to attack lone merchant ships. Throughout the war the Luftwaffe was very successfully at this kind of operation. PQ18 did not scatter and kept in convoy to benefit from pooled AA and haphazard CAP (such as 10 sea Hurricanes on early escort carrier can provide). Throughout the war Luftwaffe was very UNsuccessfully at this kind of operation. Of these two animals which is the more relevant when considering the ability of the Luftwaffe to operate in support of Sea Lion?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
PQ18, after which the allies said "gently caress this poo poo, it's not working" and stopped.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Splode posted:The Bradley has a really bad rep because of its hilarious procurement process, but my understanding is that it's been fairly good in the wars it has been in. Is that the case? I'm only really aware of the two Iraq wars it was in, and in both of those my understanding is that everything did amazingly because it was facing incompetent opposition, making it really hard to tell what's well designed and what's coasting on bad opposition.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:But while the Germans and Soviets continued to use the 50mm PaK 38 and 45mm ZiS-2, heavier guns like the 75mm PaK-40 and 76mm ZiS-3 were widely produced and distributed (To the tune of 20,000+ for the PaK-40 and well over a hundred thousand for the ZiS-3). Meanwhile, production of the 76mm M5 was barely greater than that of the much more effective (And not much less mobile) PaK-43. A 57mm gun was simply not adequate for use as a mainline anti-tank weapon by 1943 and especially by 1944, and the US in many respects got lucky that there were able to remain consistently on the attack (Where the lack of an effective AT gun was less important), and had more than enough tanks and tank destroyers to cover the gap. It's also partially an issue of economics. The US just didn't need guns in the numbers the Soviets or Nazis did. They weren't really a high-demand item in the PTO and the US Army wasn't really in serious combat in Europe until '43. We had enough industry going that we could afford to just make all the anti-tank weapons we felt we needed self-propelled, for the most part. It's just a totally different animal when you're talking about fighting multi-million man battles across a front that reaches from the Baltic to the Black Sea for 4 years, vs. about two years of much smaller, more constrained fronts followed by a fast advance across Western Europe.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:PQ18, after which the allies said "gently caress this poo poo, it's not working" and stopped. The shipping is needed in North Africa and now the Luftwaffe can (continue to) fail in the sun!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Has anyone made an excellent IFV, or are all the IFVs kinda messes in some way or another? I ended up reading the BMP vs Bradley chat and got "BMP is better than Bradley but not by much", and I'm aware Warrior is kind of a mess in that it has a gun that wouldn't be out of place in WW2. Is the Marder really good or something? Heavy IFVs are all pretty much the same capability-wise, and they are all very capable in their intended roles. The BMP 2/3 is really a different kind of vehicle entirely; they are less capable generally speaking vehicle for vehicle, but they're also a lot lighter, which is a pretty big deal. Laypeople really like to rag on the Bradley due almost entirely to Pentagon Wars but its development really wasn't particularly difficult all things considered, and the output was a pretty excellent system. There are a LOT of programs out there, in pretty much every country that were so, so, so much worse. bewbies fucked around with this message at 02:25 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
As far as I can tell the biggest knock on the Bradley is how tall it is.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:My dad has talked about this some. He was in high school during WWII. 1942 was pretty grim, because Japan was running wild and people were genuinely doubting whether they were actually going to win. They could feel a bottom in '43, and could sense the momentum turning in '44. Yeah, this is my impression from Life. Is there any record of what the public knew during world war 2? It occurs to me now that the popular narrative at the time might be pretty different than the one we know now. I mean, reading Life 1942 you know a big battle happened in the coral sea, (and the Lexington sank, some time after) then there was an attempt by the Japanese to invade midway which failed. What you didn't know was that Midway was a spectacular victory for the US.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Yeah, this is my impression from Life. Is there any record of what the public knew during world war 2? It occurs to me now that the popular narrative at the time might be pretty different than the one we know now. I mean, reading Life 1942 you know a big battle happened in the coral sea, (and the Lexington sank, some time after) then there was an attempt by the Japanese to invade midway which failed. What you didn't know was that Midway was a spectacular victory for the US. Here's the Chicago Tribune from June 20, 1942. Here's May 8, 1942, while the battle was still hot. There aren't a lot of newspaper archives available from the '40s at this point, unfortunately, unless you subscribe to something. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 02:52 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
^^^^ edit: note that the June 7th Chicago Tribune headline is Jap fleet smashed; 2 carriers sunk Newspapers reported naval battles etc. pretty well, and the public was certainly aware of the goings on with landings on the islands etc. This wasn't the days of your cell phone updating you every time a presidential candidate has a hard poo poo, but within a few days of something big going down it was reported. Just google some WW2 newspapers and you'll see what Imean. Here's Midway: https://www.google.com/search?q=bat...neaq9qKUALiM%3A Note all the other random poo poo you have. Cologne getting the gently caress bombed out of it, a bunch of japanese subs getting sunk off australia, etc. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 02:52 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Hell, newspapers were printing the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima less than a day after the picture was taken. People knew what was happening (Roughly), but it took a while afterwards for everything to be collected and the impact of certain battles or events fully realized.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Hell, newspapers were printing the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima less than a day after the picture was taken. People knew what was happening (Roughly), but it took a while afterwards for everything to be collected and the impact of certain battles or events fully realized. Yeah, I think that was the bigger problem. It wasn't a lack of news, it was a lack of context. Stories were coming in from all over the world simultaneously (and not always in chronological order) and it was like trying to drink from a fire hose. It was only after there had been time to reflect, categorize, and analyze all of it that people could understand what was going on.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
You might want to check out some of Ernie Pyle's reports, most of them are online I think. http://mediaschool.indiana.edu/erniepyle/wartime-columns/ quote:THE TUNISIAN FRONT, March 1, 1943 – This . . . will be an attempt to describe what [the beginning of] a tank battle looks like. quote:OKINAWA, April 21, 1945 – Now I’ve seen my first Jap soldiers in their native state – that is, before capture. But not for long, because the boys of my company captured them quicker than a wink. quote:WITH THE AMERICAN FORCES IN ALGIERS, December 1, 1942 – From now onward, stretching for months and months into the future, life is completely changed for thousands of American boys on this side of the earth. For at last they are in there fighting. Also, just going to have to recommend the Library of America's Reporting World War II: American Journalism 1938–1944 ( https://www.loa.org/books/115-reporting-world-war-ii-american-journalism-1938-1944 ) It has some amazing excerpts from both well known and less known journalists and it's interesting to see how this stuff was covered as it occurred. There's a report on a RAF burn ward that is something
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Heavy IFVs are all pretty much the same capability-wise, and they are all very capable in their intended roles. The BMP 2/3 is really a different kind of vehicle entirely; they are less capable generally speaking vehicle for vehicle, but they're also a lot lighter, which is a pretty big deal. Agreed, and the Bradley is fine. I understand Pentagon Wars was mostly there to mock procurement, but criticism of things like making it amphibious, giving it a turret with ATGMs doesn't seem all that awful to anyone who's seen a BMP. You could make a much more interesting movie of a drunk David Fletcher talking about Sheridan, TOG, and the Rota trailer.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:But while the Germans and Soviets continued to use the 50mm PaK 38 and 45mm ZiS-2, heavier guns like the 75mm PaK-40 and 76mm ZiS-3 were widely produced and distributed (To the tune of 20,000+ for the PaK-40 and well over a hundred thousand for the ZiS-3). Meanwhile, production of the 76mm M5 was barely greater than that of the much more effective (And not much less mobile) PaK-43. A 57mm gun was simply not adequate for use as a mainline anti-tank weapon by 1943 and especially by 1944, and the US in many respects got lucky that there were able to remain consistently on the attack (Where the lack of an effective AT gun was less important), and had more than enough tanks and tank destroyers to cover the gap. You're mixing up the 57 mm ZiS-2 and 45 mm 53-K and M-42 guns. The ZiS-3 and ZiS-2 are also completely different animals: the ZiS-3 is a general purpose divisional gun, while the ZiS-2 is a dedicated anti-tank gun.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Also, if battleship armor IS thick enough to survive modern anti-ship missiles, is it theoretically possible to create something as armored as a battleship, but without the vulnerable superstructure? The superstructure itself of a battleship is the heaviest-armored, equal to or thicker than the turret faces. The problem is that the rangefinders and antennae, for technical reasons, have to be outside the foot-and-a-half-thick armored box -- consider the radar in a metal box on your kitchen counter. It's a lot easier to sweep away the antennae and rangefinders so she can't see or hear or (accurately) shoot than to actually put a dent in the ship itself. bewbies posted:There isn't any technical reason why we couldn't build a "modern" battleship and cover the entire thing in ... slat armor. They actually did that in the Dreadnought era, with curtains of chains that could be extended from the sides to pre-detonate torpedoes. By WWII, they were just building them with sacrificial fuel tanks as spaced armor to reduce drag. Modern ships put nonessential spaces around the outside of the hull to absorb hits and protect the fighting spaces in the center, rather than hard armor to try to stop the impact entirely -- it sort of is like slat/Chobham, except the spacing in the armor is somebody's bedroom. AbleArcher posted:Traditional naval artillery was low angle and flat trajectory (to ensure high velocity) so could be calculated to hit an armored belt. Missiles are free from such constraints and much less predictable so an idea like 'all or nothing' becomes almost worthless. Modern ASMs are all capable of performing programmed terminal maneuvers to maximize damage. Tanks and AFVs are always designed with an 'Armour towards threat' mentality that won't work at sea. Tanks and battleships have very similar problems. Cf. modern antitank missiles that pop up and attack from the top, or regular non-AT artillery vs. tanks, and dive-bombers being really good against battleships -- tanks and battleships are both built to shrug off pretty much anything from the direction the guns are pointing, but rather lightly armored on top.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 04:25
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
The superstructure of a battleship is definitely NOT the heaviest armored part. You're thinking of the conning tower, which IS the most heavily armored part, but the conning tower makes up a tiny portion of the entire superstructure of a battleship. This is the Iowa's armor schema- http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/48137/A340C66177BE46168029882A876584C4.jpg The conning tower is that tiny part just behind turret B. The entire rest of the structure is very thinly armored at best. Edit: WW1 dreadnoughts only used their torpedo nets and booms while at anchor. You couldn't extend them while underway. Edit2: Tanks and battleships aren't really an accurate comparison. Tanks don't worry about plunging fire. Battleships were built to account for plunging fire at extreme combat ranges and were armored to protect against them. They are armored for typical battleship shells, not a 2k kg JDAM or a modern supersonic ASM. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 04:41 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
I think a JDAM is slow enough that a CIWS can probably take them out? Supposing they could elevate the gun to such an angle.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 04:48
|
|