|
Delivery McGee posted:At least a few claimed Panther kills were probably because the transmission shat itself at the same time somebody shot at it and missed. I think mud claimed more Big Cats than the Red Army and USAAF combined. Edit: Naval question for someone who understands more about carriers than I do to start the new page. It came up recently in another thread that the IJN at one point welded two light carriers together side by side for a catamaran design, and I've been playing a science fiction game where one of the carrier designs you can use is this:  I've never seen anything about a carrier design like that in real life with the side-by-side flight decks and very long angled sections (I know there are angled parts on some modern carriers), but it looks interesting and I'm curious if there's anything to the flight deck layout or if it's just a sci-fi game going with something that looks cool. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Sep 13, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:I've never seen anything about a carrier design like that in real life with the side-by-side flight decks and very long angled sections (I know there are angled parts on some modern carriers), but it looks interesting and I'm curious if there's anything to the flight deck layout or if it's just a sci-fi game going with something that looks cool. That looks silly as hell, possibly based on the angled deck of single-hull carriers without understanding why it's a thing. Parallel or outward-angled decks would make far more sense on a catamaran carrier -- at least you'd be able to launch from both at the same time, and maybe even launch from one while recovering on the other. Is it allowed to launch and recover at the same time on a modern carrier (using whichever set of cats is offset from the landing path)? It's definitely possible, but probably unacceptable for safety reasons short of a full-on WWII-style massive fleet action (refueling/rearming with the engines running, and all, and by that point the USAF would have their heavies in the fray, maybe throwing nukes). Edit: I'm pretty sure the days of desperate prolonged naval battles (cf. Leyte Gulf) are well over -- nowadays the carrier only has to hold the line for Edit again: Google results for longest bombing raid are all Black Buck (was a hell of a thing, but they stopped halfway) and B-2s bombing Libya (25-hour round trip from KC), but apparently the seven BUFFs that kicked in the proverbial door in Desert Storm flew 35-hour missions, from Barksdale to Baghdad and back, nonstop (otoh the USAF had forward-deployed tankers, the Brits had to carry all their fuel from Ascension). Also: Wikipedia posted:B-52Gs operating from the King Abdullah Air Base at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom; Morón Air Base, Spain; and the island of Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory flew bombing missions over Iraq Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 05:16
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Cythereal posted:I think mud claimed more Big Cats than the Red Army and USAAF combined. Uh, just so you know that's a shop done for an alt-history where the Washington Naval Treaty wasn't renewed or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Edit again: Google results for longest bombing raid are all Black Buck (was a hell of a thing, but they stopped halfway) and B-2s bombing Libya (25-hour round trip from KC), but apparently the seven BUFFs that kicked in the proverbial door in Desert Storm flew 35-hour missions, from Barksdale to Baghdad and back, nonstop. Jesus gently caress, did they have bunks or did the pilots just get hepped up on go-pills?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I think mud claimed more Big Cats than the Red Army and USAAF combined. Yeah, Nibai isn't a real thing, it's a funky alt-history thing. Sorry if I accidentally misled you there. E: Here's the main page for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Jesus gently caress, did they have bunks or did the pilots just get hepped up on go-pills? Two pilots, presumably they took shifts monitoring the autopilot while the off-duty one slept in his seat (sleeping whenever and wherever you get the chance is a skill one learns quick in the military), and only had to both be awake at the same time over the target. As for the rest of the crew (in a B-52; the B-2 is just the two pilots), they can just sleep/play cards/etc. for the 30 or so hours they're over friendly/neutral territory. But probably also a lot of go-pills. IIRC the B-36 and a lot of long-haul airliners did/do have bunks and a spare crew, though, what with the rather longer travel time in the piston-powered Peacemaker and the maximum workday length required by airlines/OSHA. I've driven 25 hours straight with one other person, only stopping for gas, grub, and potty on the same theory of one naps while the other drives, and we didn't die. OTOH, the last thing I remember of that trip is taking over driving in Memphis and washing a couple of No-Doz down with a NOS energy drink. We lived in Dallas at the time, I completely blanked out on driving through Arkansas. So there's a good civvie equivalent to the go-pills, I guess. 
Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:As for the rest of the crew (in a B-52; the B-2 is just the two pilots), they can just sleep/play cards/etc. for the 30 or so hours they're over friendly/neutral territory. Kicking in the door has never sounded so... boring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:Kicking in the door has never sounded so... boring. "Hurry up and wait" or "weeks of boredom punctuated by minutes of terror" is pretty much how the common soldier*/field-grade officer has felt since ... probably at least the Classical era. But yeah, the strategic bomber guys have it the worst -- the infantry's boredom gets interrupted by the enemy storming the wire within rifle range or dropping mortar shells on them; SAC/AFGSC crews run out to their planes when the Klaxon sounds and sit in an uncomfortable ejection seat for fifteen hours before the enemy starts shooting at them. */sailor/airman/Marine/Hoplite/Centurion/whatever, is there a better word than "soldier" as a general term for "every enlisted man ever"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:*/sailor/airman/Marine/Hoplite/Centurion/whatever, is there a better word than "soldier" as a general term for "every enlisted man ever"? Warrior?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:*/sailor/airman/Marine/Hoplite/Centurion/whatever, is there a better word than "soldier" as a general term for "every enlisted man ever"? Serviceman?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:*/sailor/airman/Marine/Hoplite/Centurion/whatever, is there a better word than "soldier" as a general term for "every enlisted man ever"? Warfighter
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Warfighter Why is this word even a thing? Honest question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Or an armoured car. Well, the claim is hitched on a tank. If it's true, we must assume that's what it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Tias posted:Well, the claim is hitched on a tank. If it's true, we must assume that's what it was. People are real bad about picking out different kinds of AFVs, though, especially on a battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Why is this word even a thing? Honest question. It was a way of specifying enlisted men who would end up taking part in combat operations. Someone pointed out, though "hey let's not call people on peacekeeping 'warfighters.' Also, it sounds really stupid. Wait, they released the game already? poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
spectralent posted:People are real bad about picking out different kinds of AFVs, though, especially on a battlefield. Yeah, and whatever the case was, we don't really have reliable source to know. In the filmed version, it's a mk I or II, I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
It could reasonably have been a proper Pz I or II. The majority of Inter-war tanks weren't particularly impressive in terms of armor or overall construction so it could have been either a proper combat or mobility kill. Doesn't really matter though, as the claim is both plausible and impressive to a dumb goon in a chair like me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:It could reasonably have been a proper Pz I or II. The majority of Inter-war tanks weren't particularly impressive in terms of armor or overall construction so it could have been either a proper combat or mobility kill. Doesn't really matter though, as the claim is both plausible and impressive to a dumb goon in a chair like me. it was highly impressive to dumb goon in a movie theatre, I can assure you 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i took Trin Tragula to a museum in dresden today and i would like to say that i was wrong: small portable telescopes date from 1608, which i learned today, and one of the oldest ones in the world is in that museum. so you totally could have been staring downrange with a spyglass in the 30yw. dude how can you post this but not mention the sword which is also a matchlock pistol and there's a small watch on the end of the pommel and also it has an extra compartment at the top of the scabbard which holds your racing spoon and a small complete set of tools for working out the bore of a cannon and which direction you should point it??? (I am not making that up.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:dude edit: three-barrelled pistol rifled wheellock pistol with a bore the size of my pinky fingernail HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:dude This sounds rad and I think we should organise goon museum visit expeditions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
That would be extremely strange to watch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:dude Laffo Maybe some Officer's wife commissioned it, and the officer was all "this is amazing! thanks" but then he's all "well this is way too nice/fragile to actually use" and so he left it with his kit while using the same old clever he always did?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
there was a remarkable quantity of things inside other things/things that turn into other things in that exhibition http://www.skd.museum/de/museen-institutionen/residenzschloss/ruestkammer/weltsicht-und-wissen-um-1600/ a sword/cane whose handle is a warhammer the handle also contains a whistle
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
What's a racing spoon?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Is it allowed to launch and recover at the same time on a modern carrier (using whichever set of cats is offset from the landing path)? It's definitely possible, but probably unacceptable for safety reasons short of a full-on WWII-style massive fleet action (refueling/rearming with the engines running, and all, and by that point the USAF would have their heavies in the fray, maybe throwing nukes). Modern US navy carriers cannot peform launch and recovery operations at the same time. The issue is that as planes are recovered they are sent forward to the bow of the ship, which obviously wouldn't be possible if you are launching planes from the bow catapults at the same time. There's also the issue of how to get planes up on deck to launch them if you are recovering planes over the rear elevators. Also i'm not sure I fancy the BUFF's chances if a Carrier Battle Group is facing difficulties against some hypothetical opponent, since presumably said opponent has enough of an air wing to threaten the air wing and air defences of an entire US Navy battlegroup, which doesn't bode well for a plane that took a lot of casualties against 1960's tech. I'm also unsure of how effective whatever munitions the BUFF can carry are going to be against hostile shipping, unless they're firing nuclear cruise missiles (which they probably are I guess).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Tias posted:What's a racing spoon? In the British Army, the spoon you carry so you can have something to eat with in the field. The ideal racing spoon is exceptionally durable and as large as can fit into one's mouth, in case something bad happens and the only way to get food is via an all-in meal in a big pot with everyone sticking their spoons in and grabbing as much as possible, as quickly as possible (which is why it's the "racing" spoon).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:there was a remarkable quantity of things inside other things/things that turn into other things in that exhibition Are you sure this wasn't the Bloodborne museum
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Yeah, Nibai isn't a real thing, it's a funky alt-history thing. Sorry if I accidentally misled you there. Yup, I got bamboozled. The IJN did enough bizarre poo poo during WW2 that I took that thing at face value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
I got The Face of Battle and Castles of Steel for my birthday.  Looking forward to digging in!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Why is this word even a thing? Honest question. I think you can pretty much blame the US Army for the birth and propagation of that word. It emerged in the 90s as kind of a marketing term and it looks good on brochures and so here we are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Did it come out of the same school as AirLand Battle?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:58
|
|
Feral_Shofixti posted:Warrior? I can never take anyone in a modern context using that seriously. I just keep picturing bored as hell Victorian NCO's and officers dressing up as stereotypical Romans during the down time of their service.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Did it come out of the same school as AirLand Battle? At least that's descriptive and comparatively terse. Warfighter is deliberately vague and long compared to the alternatives. SeanBeansShako posted:I can never take anyone in a modern context using that seriously. I imagine an autocannon firing a short burst and needing to reload. I'm unreasonably mad at the rarden from playing wargame and armored warfare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I imagine an autocannon firing a short burst and needing to reload. I'm unreasonably mad at the rarden from playing wargame and armored warfare. Oh thanks for reminding me of that turd gun. In Combat Mission Shock Force you are also presented to the fact that the standard load out for Warrior and Scimitar is 1/5th HE-I, 4/5ths AP ammo. Guess which type always runs out and which is completely useless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I seem to recall someone noting though that in many accounts, every tank is a Panther and every SPG is a Ferdinand? "Ferdinand" was just what people called all assault guns. It's weird how the term got applied to the whole class of vehicles. spectralent posted:Huh; does that mean the "tiger terror" thing didn't really happen on the eastern front? I know the Tiger II was initially mistaken for a Panther, but was identification pretty good after they established there were two long-barrelled sloped-hull vehicles? There were some misidentifications, but most of the time when I investigate claims of Tigers knocked out, there was a Tiger battalion nearby taking losses. Although, there is one battle where they mistake a PzIV for a Tiger... And then an actual Tiger for a PzIV. Nenonen posted:Do you know what they called the American tank destroyers??? They were classified as SPGs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:They were classified as SPGs. Did they not distinguish between direct-fire and indirect-fire pieces, then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Modern US navy carriers cannot peform launch and recovery operations at the same time. The issue is that as planes are recovered they are sent forward to the bow of the ship, which obviously wouldn't be possible if you are launching planes from the bow catapults at the same time. There's also the issue of how to get planes up on deck to launch them if you are recovering planes over the rear elevators. This sounded very wrong to me, since the capability to conduct simultaneous launch and recovery operations is 90% of the purpose of an angled flight deck, so I checked with a friend who used to be S-3 crew. Here's how he put it: "Launch operations are dramatically restricted if you're doing a recovery at the same time. It's mainly constrained by flight deck loading. If all the planes are upstairs (on the flight deck), the bow cats probably won't *both* be usable, and you're going to have traffic congestion up there. So it's hard, it's a sort of "degraded mode," but it's totally do-able. I've personally launched while recoveries were going on, and personally landed while launches were going on. But it's not something you do every day."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
It's a possibility but a lot of the appeal that doesn't get brought up as much is you aren't doing landing ops directly at the landed aircraft on the bow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:It's a possibility but a lot of the appeal that doesn't get brought up as much is you aren't doing landing ops directly at the landed aircraft on the bow. That's the other 10%. If that's all you were going for you could just build a wider flight deck, without an extra set of cats, and use the extra space to park aircraft so the recovering aircraft aren't headed right for them. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 16:16
|
|