|
you know what's cool http://petermorwood.tumblr.com/post/60838614603/hominisaevum-timeline-from-helmets-and-body Savoy Helmets are cool    imagine it's the 1600s and you really believe in magic and the spirits of the unquiet dead and you see some of those dudes heading at you on horseback, maybe in twilight or through fog, dust, or gunsmoke  
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Jul 8, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
That's my helmet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
With luck, y'all get a twofer tonight to catch back up fully. 100 Years Ago 5th July: The Somme is starting to drift rather aimlessly as both sides battle hopelessly against incompetence at the top. Speaking of which, one General Lyakhov makes an ill-advised attack in the Caucasus and pays for it. JRR Tolkien is detailed to stay behind as his men go up the line for the first time; we meet Lt-Col Neil Tennant of the Royal Flying Corps as he travels to Mesopotamia and 30 Squadron by the scenic route; Robert Pelissier decompresses in rest billets, but hints that he might next be sent to the Somme; we also meet Briggs Kilburn Adams, an American Ivy League student who's taken the most stupid holiday job imaginable; idiot son of a Montreal millionaire Clifford Wells has been pulled out of school and warned to go to France; and Henri Desagneaux puts a postscript on his experiences at Verdun, as he's rewarded quite literally for not being dead yet. 6th July: We take a look at the interesting intelligence of General Charteris, the happiest man in the British Army. General Joffre considers committing his cavalry to the Battle of the Somme, three days too late; a 13th Rifle Brigade burying-party encounters a truly idiotic staff officer; JRR Tolkien is reunited with one of the friends who went over the top on Z Day; General Lyakhov had one job and now he's hosed it up; Lt-Col Fraser-Tytler has had almost no firing to do, so turns his mind to strategic criticism instead; and Maximilian Mugge is talking to the wounded and the prisoners. 7th July: Callbacks day! Hands up everyone who remembers the original Battle of Tanga, when Colonel von Lettow-Vorbeck fended off a superior enemy force by throwing bees at them? Well, it's time for round two at Tanga at last, and this time the war has rather moved past it. The timetable for advancing to set up an attack on the German Second Line just keeps slipping and slipping; there's a particularly nasty debacle at Mametz Wood; there *is* an unexpected part-success at Ovillers; the French Prime Minister's mouth writes cheques that his government's arse may not be able to cash; Emilio Lussu has fun and games with a Bangalore torpedo, a large explosive on a long stick; Lt-Col Fraser-Tytler reads a confiscated newspaper and goes sightseeing in Montauban; and Maximilian Mugge is getting very annoyed with people complaining about soldiers who swear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
People want WW1 games? Make one about Emilio Lussu, you've got your survival horror right there. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
my dad posted:People want WW1 games? Make one about Emilio Lussu, you've got your survival horror right there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago holy poo poo Henry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:That's my helmet.  Edit: Emilio Lussu: Keep Crawling And Nobody Explodes. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
im curious about the concept of space-based warfare. have there been any actual efforts to create militarized satellites? (that are declassified) and what are some interesting examples of stuff in this topic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Kanine posted:im curious about the concept of space-based warfare. have there been any actual efforts to create militarized satellites? (that are declassified) and what are some interesting examples of stuff in this topic? AFAIK, there has only been one 'weaponized' satellite system, if you could call it that- the Russian Almaz series - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz They carried a 23mm autocannon that was test fired. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing else has launched that could be considered a "weapon". Spy sats and stuff not considered a weapon. If you want to talk about theory, the Cold War and 'Star Wars' was chock full of crazy ideas that never made it off the drawing board. There was this as well - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft) Also from the Russians, but it never reached orbit. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Project Thor was also seriously considered. Y'know those tungsten lawn darts that tank guns fire? Like that, but the size of a telephone pole (20 feet long, one foot diameter) dropped from orbit, so going about twice as fast as the tank projectiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment Edit: it also neatly sidestepped SALT II's "no WMDs in space" rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 00:14
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Kanine posted:im curious about the concept of space-based warfare. have there been any actual efforts to create militarized satellites? (that are declassified) and what are some interesting examples of stuff in this topic? The airpower/cold war thread in tfr would be a great place to cross post this if you want a really detailed response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Kanine posted:im curious about the concept of space-based warfare. have there been any actual efforts to create militarized satellites? (that are declassified) and what are some interesting examples of stuff in this topic? Outer Space Treaty quote:The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit. The treaty also states that the exploration of outer space shall be done to benefit all countries and shall be free for exploration and use by all the States. Conventional weapons have little use in space - aiming would be difficult, recoil make multiple shots even more difficult, and actually hitting anything would create a shower of space trash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Didn't Reagan's wacky death star program break the treaty? Even if it didn't come up with anything useful. I've heard that one of the ideas behind the space shuttle was that it could do things like stealing enemy satellites out of space.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Didn't Reagan's wacky death star program break the treaty? No. Among other things, it never actually orbited a weapon of mass destruction. In context, that meant nuclear weapons, and the only part of SDI that would have entailed them was the pop-up x-ray laser weapons that we never got close to making work. Deteriorata posted:Conventional weapons have little use in space - aiming would be difficult, recoil make multiple shots even more difficult, and actually hitting anything would create a shower of space trash. Conventional weapons have plenty of use in space - aiming is a long-solved problem, recoil is not an issue, and resulting debris is really not a sufficient concern to deter anyone from using. The Soviets had kilsats that could maneuver to match orbits with a target satellite and then detonate and kill them via fragmentation damage, the US successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon fired from an F-15, destroying the target satellite, and within the past few years both us and the Chinese have destroyed orbiting satellites with conventional weapons. If the target's a RORSAT that's about to spot your carrier group and result in a strike, and you have a weapon in place to kill that satellite, you're going to kill it and worry about the downstream effects of additional fragments in orbit later. For that matter, at least three of the Salyut space stations were actually military programs with functional 23mm cannon mounted. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Why would recoil not be an issue? And wasn't the 23mm considered to be pretty much useless as it was a fixed mount with no traversal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Too many awesome photos to clog up one post with but here's an awesome gallery of sunken military stuff from WW2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:And wasn't the 23mm considered to be pretty much useless as it was a fixed mount with no traversal? It had unlimited traverse, just spin the whole ship. Spacecraft don't need to be pointing in the direction they're moving once the engines are off. And recoil wouldn't be much of an issue because the mass of the station was so much greater than that of the projectile, it wouldn't perturb the orbit noticeably, just like how a battleship doesn't actually move sideways when firing a broadside. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Now that I've thought about it, a heavy auto cannon seems like a dumb weapon to be lugging into space anyway. Surely a AAM or even a rocket pod would be more efficient.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Now that I've thought about it, a heavy auto cannon seems like a dumb weapon to be lugging into space anyway. Surely a AAM or even a rocket pod would be more efficient. I can see them wanting an autocannon because it's a cheap, easily reloaded weapon that can fire multiple bursts and potentially carry loads of spare ammunition aboard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Why would recoil not be an issue? A few reasons. One, recoil only matters for certain weapon systems. If you're shooting a missile at something you don't care about the recoil, because there isn't any. If your weapon's a single-use satellite that gets up real close to the target and then blows up, you don't care about the recoil. Two, even for systems where recoil does matter if the weapon's mounted to something that's relatively massive the impulse on the platform from firing it will be minimal. Three, if it's really a matter for concern, we figured out how to make weapons recoilless a long time ago: you shoot stuff similar momentum out the back end of the gun at the same time you shoot the bullet out the front. quote:And wasn't the 23mm considered to be pretty much useless as it was a fixed mount with no traversal? And even beyond that there was no system for targeting at all, unless you were in matched orbit with a target and that target was very close there was no way you were going to hit anything with it, it was mainly a test to see if you could fire the thing in space without its various finished surfaces vacuum-welding together. I didn't include it as an example of a real serious conventional weapon in space, just that by the way it's something that existed. Delivery McGee posted:It had unlimited traverse, just spin the whole ship. Spacecraft don't need to be pointing in the direction they're moving once the engines are off. Those work at cross-purposes, note. If the thing's massive enough to not worry about the recoil, it's massive enough that spinning the whole thing around to aim a weapon on a fixed-mount is going to be pretty slow or fuel-intensive or both. If on the other hand it's light enough to be agilely spun about on a dime, you're going to be changing its orbit when you fire. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Presumably it is fairly straightforward to correct any changes in orbits, because the delta vee wouldn't be that large. We don't use cannons as rockets for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Two, even for systems where recoil does matter if the weapon's mounted to something that's relatively massive the impulse on the platform from firing it will be minimal. quote:Those work at cross-purposes, note. If the thing's massive enough to not worry about the recoil, it's massive enough that spinning the whole thing around to aim a weapon on a fixed-mount is going to be pretty slow or fuel-intensive or both. If on the other hand it's light enough to be agilely spun about on a dime, you're going to be changing its orbit when you fire. quote:we figured out how to make weapons recoilless a long time ago: you shoot stuff similar momentum out the back end of the gun at the same time you shoot the bullet out the front. Although, wouldn't a gun fired in orbit put the projectile in a higher/lower orbit than the gun platform (if fired parallel to the orbit one way or the other, though obviously you'd want to shoot to the west in most cases, for maximum closing speed/KE)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Presumably it is fairly straightforward to correct any changes in orbits, because the delta vee wouldn't be that large. We don't use cannons as rockets for a reason. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Yep. Yeah, this points up another major problem. The projectile does not simply fall to earth. It's now a body that will orbit the Earth independently for eons, unless it hits something first - like maybe the back of your head. There are no stable platforms in space, your platform will rotate and change orbit slowly as you fire, so you'll have to recompute your aim for every shot - and save all the spent shell casings, as they're more space junk otherwise. Aiming is more plotting the orbit of your bullet (which can't be altered in-flight) so any deviations in charge or exact position out of the barrel will limit its accuracy, and any prolonged battle will generate enough debris to make outer space unusable for a number of years until it can be cleaned up. Space is big, but enough junk makes the odds of something hitting your vehicle at some point sufficiently high that it gets untenable. A fleck of paint would be enough to pierce a fuel tank, for example. All in all, my point stands that conventional weapons in outer space would be effectively useless. They would work on a very small scale, but any meaningful attempt to use them would be disastrous, which would make putting them in space in the first place rather ill-advised.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:All in all, my point stands that conventional weapons in outer space would be effectively useless. They would work on a very small scale, but any meaningful attempt to use them would be disastrous, which would make putting them in space in the first place rather ill-advised. On the other hand, if we're gonna start killing off a nation's sats, it's probably because of or a prelude to nuclear war. No need to worry about space debris at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
There are very few ways we as a civilization can make things miserable for any potential civilization that might crop up on the planet after us, even dropping nukes everywhere is a temporary problem on planetary timescales, but Kesslering the gently caress out of our orbit is probably the one way. There's a point where decay is too insignificant to keep the orbit clean even over millions of years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Those work at cross-purposes, note. If the thing's massive enough to not worry about the recoil, it's massive enough that spinning the whole thing around to aim a weapon on a fixed-mount is going to be pretty slow or fuel-intensive or both. If on the other hand it's light enough to be agilely spun about on a dime, you're going to be changing its orbit when you fire. Ultimately what you strive for is a dual purpose gun/propulsion system. Antti posted:There are very few ways we as a civilization can make things miserable for any potential civilization that might crop up on the planet after us, even dropping nukes everywhere is a temporary problem on planetary timescales, but Kesslering the gently caress out of our orbit is probably the one way. There's a point where decay is too insignificant to keep the orbit clean even over millions of years. But on the other hand, think of all the shooting stars that we'll provide to them. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:All in all, my point stands that conventional weapons in outer space would be effectively useless. They would work on a very small scale, but any meaningful attempt to use them would be disastrous, which would make putting them in space in the first place rather ill-advised. Depending on your conventional weapon. As mentioned earlier, a missile with a nice big explosive warhead sounds more reasonable - no shell casing, it can be guided so it should hit its target, it can go bang sufficiently hard not to leave big chunks whizzing around in orbit whether it misses or hits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter how small it is, the amount of Kinetic energy is massive so even a flecks of paint can knock something out. So no, there is no good way to kill a satellite without leaving a hell of a mess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Unless you vaporize the target the debris cloud is still going to be around for some time though. Quite some time if we're talking about non-LEO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Up-Armour your own satellites and fill LEO with ball bearings?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
Jeff Sichoe posted:Up-Armour your own satellites and fill LEO with ball bearings?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:That's a fuckton of up armouring. If we're talking about total war (non-nuclear) between two industrial nations then when is 'a fuckton' impossible? -edit- the most cursory of google searches provides; http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185150-heres-what-space-debris-does-to-the-kevlar-shielding-protecting-the-international-space-station This photo, released by the ESA earlier today, shows a piece of Kevlar/Nextel that has been blasted by a 7.5mm (0.3in) aluminium bullet travelling at 7 kilometers per second (15,600 mph). Believe it or not, despite the gaping hole (view larger), the shielding actually did its job. The photo below shows the layer of aluminium underneath the shielding which represents the spacecraft’s hull; it’s scorched, but otherwise unharmed. This is mostly down to the immense strength of Kevlar/Nextel, and also the innovative design of the stuffed Whipple shield. -- understanding the immense difficulties in completing a task does not make it un-achievable. Sorryformybadjokes fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
And then it hits the rest of (orbit/radius of bb + spacing) -1 worth of bbs in the same rough location and you may as well have left it on the ground and just sandblasted it with the ground up remains of other satellites.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
I understand that, all i'm saying is that it's obvious that armoring a satellite vs debris is a solved problem - it just depends on how far you want to take the theory?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Jeff Sichoe posted:I understand that, all i'm saying is that it's obvious that armoring a satellite vs debris is a solved problem - it just depends on how far you want to take the theory? I really disagree with the 'solved problem' description. As your link says: quote:It’s also worth pointing out that the 7-kilometers-per-second test carried out by Fraunhofer is fairly conservative, too. The ISS has an orbital speed of 7.7km per second — if a piece of debris is approaching from the opposite direction, also at 7.7km per second, for a combined collision energy that’s probably on the order of a small nuclear bomb, and it’s probably bad news for the astronauts. I mean it's solved in that 'building a dyson sphere' is a solved problem. Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
fair call, so we're back to... hacking?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Jeff Sichoe posted:I understand that, all i'm saying is that it's obvious that armoring a satellite vs debris is a solved problem - it just depends on how far you want to take the theory?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
m=2.7g v=15500 m/s "Head on collision" Ke=.5mv^2 Ke=.5*2.7*15555^2 Ke=3.2664333375 × 10^8 or 326.6 MJ (megajoules) 0.07751 tons of TNT or 78Kg of TNT. ~~ ( 0.22 ~~ 1/5 ) × energy in a typical lightning bolt (~~ 1.5×10^9 J ) @ 7Km/s from the article that is still 15Kg of TNT equivalent. From Wolfram Alpha. So a bit of an exaggeration on the whole atom bomb part. But as you can see due to the numbers involved the amount of energy the problem isn't remotely "solved" and are staggering for such a small object. That's Aluminium, Uranium clocks in at 7 times more energy at the same speed. Half a tonne of TNT equivalent. Here is 100Kg of TNT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vai5S0mI9u0&t=43s It's not because Kevlar is strong as we understand it when catching a bullet. The impact causes both to vaporise depositing the result over the gap on to the surface. It has more in common with an RPG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Of course, the best way to do a recoilless space gun would be the venturi method (rocket nozzle for the propellant gas out the back rather than firing an equivalent weight of shot backward), but I do like the idea of just firing a shell in both directions -- if the actual shot doesn't kill 'em, the balance shot will catch up a few orbits later. Space Ontos. Spaaaaaaace Ontos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 15:14
|
|
