|
Ice Fist posted:Straight from the wikipedia page for the Montana battleship design: You know how the Sheridan and the prototype "starship" M60A2 had a 155mm gun/launcher? Nuclear shells were considered.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
my dad posted:How the gently caress does that work? Look up the Baker tests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
Is it just a case of "gently caress you, gently caress your entire fleet, I don't care how heavily armored you are and whether or not I'll survive"?
my dad posted:How the gently caress does that work? Can destroy a task force, a port, or a fast diving sub you desperately need to destroy.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Can destroy ships at decent range and render many more unusably glow in the dark.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Nuclear torpedo detonations weren't that big, right? Like, big compared to a regular torpedo, but a fraction of the size of a detonation in the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Nuclear torpedo detonations weren't that big, right? Like, big compared to a regular torpedo, but a fraction of the size of a detonation in the atmosphere. Well I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:27
|
|
bewbies posted:Nuclear torpedo detonations weren't that big, right? Like, big compared to a regular torpedo, but a fraction of the size of a detonation in the atmosphere. 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Nuclear torpedo detonations weren't that big, right? Like, big compared to a regular torpedo, but a fraction of the size of a detonation in the atmosphere. The Mark 45 was 11kt so roughly 2/3 the size of Little Boy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
A nuclear blast underwater is going to kill every living thing and all submarines for miles due to overpressure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Honestly, when the opening of Tomorrow Never Dies has James Bond stopping the detonation of a nuclear torpedo at an arms deal I legit thought it was one of those famous James Bond world ending macguffins. Nope. It's real. That's kinda lol to me for some reason. Although I'm not exactly shocked that human beings managed to develop a nuclear weapon out of [insert object here]
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Why yes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie Also in testing some nukes were delivered to altitude by balloon. Desiderata fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Desiderata posted:Also a "short-range" air to air rocket : Did anyone ever float the idea of putting nukes on the backs of of a herd of flaming horses and pointing them at a city?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The Mark 45 was 11kt so roughly 2/3 the size of Little Boy? I didn't really mean the size of the warhead but rather its lethality when detonated subsurface....I could be misremembering but I think I recall being pretty surprised at how relatively small the "kill radius" was versus surface ships. It was still huge compared to a conventional warhead of course but it wasn't like the "everything dies for miles around" kind of effect that I'd assumed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
How much has canister shot been used after WWI? I remember someone mentioning that tanks use it still for urban combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
The best nuclear landmine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock quote:One technical problem was that during winter buried objects can get very cold, and it was possible the mine's electronics would get too cold to work after some days underground. Various methods to get around this were studied, such as wrapping the bombs in insulating blankets. One particularly remarkable proposal suggested that live chickens be included in the mechanism. The chickens would be sealed inside the casing, with a supply of food and water; they would remain alive for a week or so. Their body heat would, it seems, have been sufficient to keep the mine's components at a working temperature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:The best nuclear landmine: haha drat
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Artillery wise I don't believe canister shot was even anything anymore when ww1 began and it definitely was not after. Can't speak for tanks though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How much has canister shot been used after WWI? I remember someone mentioning that tanks use it still for urban combat. At least the Sheridan tank had canister shot for its gun and I remember it being used in Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How much has canister shot been used after WWI? I remember someone mentioning that tanks use it still for urban combat. Post-WW2 it has been used in Vietnam (flechette) and Iraq at least. From the M1 Abrams article in WP: quote:The new M1028 120 mm anti-personnel canister cartridge was brought into service early for use in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It contains 1,098 3⁄8-inch (9.5 mm) tungsten balls which spread from the muzzle to produce a shotgun effect lethal out to 600 meters (2,000 ft). The tungsten balls can be used to clear enemy dismounts, break up hasty ambush sites in urban areas, clear defiles, stop infantry attacks and counter-attacks and support friendly infantry assaults by providing covering fire. The canister round is also a highly effective breaching round and can level cinder block walls and knock man-sized holes in reinforced concrete walls for infantry raids at distances up to 75 meters (246 ft).[72] Also in use is the M908 obstacle-reduction round. It is designed to destroy obstacles and barriers. The round is a modified M830A1 with the front fuse replaced by a steel nose to penetrate into the obstacle before detonation.[73]
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Oh yea there was a flechette / beehive type artillery round developed for use in Vietnam but it was found that using time fuzed HE rounds with a very short time setting were more effective because the flechettes would project forward from the projectile, making it of limited use against prone personnel at close range
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The Davey Crockett, which was a tiny recoilless gun which fit on the back of a jeep. In case you really want to detonate a nuke less than 2 miles from your own location while in an open topped vehicle. The Davy Crockett was a very low yield device; http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=0.02&lat=38.8946925&lng=-77.0218993&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&zm=15 The 500 rem radius is 1400 feet, the 5 psi radius is only 410 feet. You'd easily survive from 2 miles away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Post-WW2 it has been used in Vietnam (flechette) and Iraq at least. From the M1 Abrams article in WP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8 LostCosmonaut posted:The Davy Crockett was a very low yield device; http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=0.02&lat=38.8946925&lng=-77.0218993&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&zm=15 Yeah, but you might have an M28 launcher that only has a 2-kilometer range. Which still doesn't put you within the lethal radiation range, but still is a dose you don't want. Note that due to scaling factors, the lethal radius due to radiation is much larger than the lethal radius due to blast effects, which is exactly the opposite of a big blast. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Straight from the wikipedia page for the Montana battleship design: One of the books I recently finished is the Age of Great Guns, a history of artillery written by an army officer in the 70s. In the epilogue he theorizes about an "Atomic Battle Group", consisting of a nuclear capable artillery battery, with cavalry and mech infantry for defense and recon, and some engineer support. He imagines it as an independent, highly mobile unit a la the British mobile columns in WW2. They have a 200 mile AO and move around waiting on missions from higher or targets acquired by electronic means. Sounds like a crazy 70s sci fi novel or some sort of video game. Edit: or an episode of the twilight zone where one of these has been out for weeks, without any contact from friendlies, shooting missions and avoiding radiation and counter fire then at the end they realize they're the only survivors FastestGunAlive fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Beautiful and horrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:Artillery wise I don't believe canister shot was even anything anymore when ww1 began and it definitely was not after. Can't speak for tanks though. Not true canister, but WWI shrapnel is basically a technologically advanced long-range case shot, which is canister with a small bursting charge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Yamato's 18-inch beehive AA shell was pretty boss, too bad all your smaller AA batteries have to take cover from the muzzle blast when the main guns fire so it wasn't all that successful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:At least the Sheridan tank had canister shot for its gun and I remember it being used in Vietnam. Nenonen posted:In WW2 US light tanks used 37mm canister, it was a preference in the Pacific jungles to clear bushes. Some medium guns used it too, but they might have been delayed burst shells, I don't remember. Strange that Finland didn't use them. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Not true canister, but WWI shrapnel is basically a technologically advanced long-range case shot, which is canister with a small bursting charge. Yeah, I just learned from Sharpe books that it was a much older invention than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Yamato's 18-inch beehive AA shell was pretty boss, too bad all your smaller AA batteries have to take cover from the muzzle blast when the main guns fire so it wasn't all that successful. It wasn't just canister, it was some weird incendiary thing. But yeah didn't work too well, especially compared to the US method of an absolute gently caress ton of regular AA guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Yamato's 18-inch beehive AA shell was pretty boss, too bad all your smaller AA batteries have to take cover from the muzzle blast when the main guns fire so it wasn't all that successful. That wasn't just a beehive round, though. It didn't just contain fragments, it contained hundreds of tubes packed with an incendiary mixture that would ignite when it blew up and spray flame for meters out ahead of them. Visually spectacular. Totally useless. Or worse than, as you point out, because it screws up your other AA guns that might actually shoot things down. Are there any records of a single aerial kill from them? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That wasn't just a beehive round, though. It didn't just contain fragments, it contained hundreds of tubes packed with an incendiary mixture that would ignite when it blew up and spray flame for meters out ahead of them. Visually spectacular. Totally useless. Or worse than, as you point out, because it screws up your other AA guns that might actually shoot things down. Are there any records of a single aerial kill from them? Holy poo poo it's a battleship caliber Dragons Breath .
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Quick question, why do tanks go to smoothbores with fin-stabilized sabot shells and away from rifles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
HEAT hates spin, I think. edit: The French for a while did the opposite with a rifled tank gun that had a HEAT shell that was bearing-stabilized called Obus-G. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Quick question, why do tanks go to smoothbores with fin-stabilized sabot shells and away from rifles? Better muzzle velocity and less barrel wear and HEAT prefers no spin. Brits stayed with rifles because they love HESH and it does better spinning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Australians too, their rifling just went opposite way because of southern hemisphere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Quick question, why do tanks go to smoothbores with fin-stabilized sabot shells and away from rifles? Kinetic penetrators want to maximize cross-sectional density which means maximizing length:diameter ratio. As that ratio increases, you need to spin a projectile faster in order to keep it stable. And you've got practical limits on how fast you can spin a projectile (eventually centripetal acceleration exceeds strength of the material, and it gets harder on the rifling as well) so you're going to go fo fin-stabilization rather than spin-stabilization. And this benefits you with HEAT rounds too since spinning a HEAT round acts to disperse the penetrator, and now you don't need to include some funky collar on your HEAT ammunition to prevent it from spinning when you fire it from a rifled barrel. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Quick question, why do tanks go to smoothbores with fin-stabilized sabot shells and away from rifles? Everyone already beat me to the main ammo things but it's also easier on your barrel. Also if you're soviet/russian you can improvise the barrel into a missile tube.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
So much work already goes into modern tank shells that it doesn't really suffer from having to add fin stabilizers. Rifling is good because it makes your ammo very simple, so it's good for things you're manufacturing in the millions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
So I have been away for a while and its taken about a month to catch up on this thread. You guys write far too much interesting and read worthy stuff! (And by far too much I mean too little) But I missed the whole, WWII battleships are obsolete discussion. I have played the hell out of, War in the Pacific. Its a super detailed game (*much greater detail and complexity* than HOI for those of you that are familiar with that series of games) that plays out well, the war in the pacific with the main focus on naval and air combat. And as far as realism goes I think it does a pretty drat good job generally in representing how the war was or how it could have been fought. My views on WWII naval combat are influenced by my play throughs of this game, versus other humans and of course on what actually happened. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral's.Edition Air power is paramount. But we already all knew that. No matter where your Battleships go, they need air cover. Either provided by CVs or land based airfields. In a purely maritime engagement the value of a BS is extremely limited and it would almost always be better if that BS were a CV. The only value that a BS provides in such an engagement is as an escort and its impressive AAA and is an extremely expensive asset for what it brings to the table. A dedicated light cruiser provides a nearly equivalent AAA at a fraction of the cost such as the Atlanta class of light cruisers. The other benefit of having a BS in the task force is that enemy pilots stupidly attack it instead of the CVs, which is nice. Its main battery in this context is utterly irrelevant. The potential of a SAG engaging with a CV task force in deep water is almost zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta-class_cruiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Diego_(CL-53) But you have battleships and you might as well use them to escort the carriers. But in deep water engagements you would always prefer them to be CVs instead. Covering and Interdicting Amphibious Invasions This is the only context where you absolutely want to have at least a few Battleships. In order to effect an amphibious invasion it necessarily involves having a large fleet of super vulnerable ships sitting off of a land mass for usually at least a day. If this force was scouted before it arrives that gives the enemy even more time to bring up the SAG necessary to interdict and disrupt the invasion. SAG heading full speed to an invasion site can engage with the naval forces there, on occasion without being interdicted by aircraft. They might have air cover from a relatively nearby land based air field or have land based air cover on the way there or are able to close the range using cover of night, either engaging at night or dawn. Think Leyte Gulf. In every circumstance you want several strong SAG covering the invasion fleet and that means BS. If you don't have Battleships and the enemy has Battleships versus your CA that always ends badly. Miracles like Taffy 3 don't happen in simulations. Typically in the game at least, you spend one day unloading as many troops and supplies as you possibly can, under heavy SAG escort and CV air cover and then leg it as fast as you possibly can. The enemy knows pretty much exactly what you have and can then choose whether it is to his advantage to engage or not. That is never an option you want to give your enemy. Its typically always cost effective to send in SAG into an invasion fleet, even if its just an flotilla of destroyers, if they somehow get through they can cause such havoc. Think Guadalcanal, land the troops and let them get on with it and move the ships out. Risking naval assets isn't worth it. The focus should be on interdicting the enemy naval assets. Sitting still unloading for another day is a recipe for disaster. Bait/Shore Bombardment As has already been elucidated, Battleships are extremely durable! A strategy that I like to employ was using a very strong SAG consisting of Battleships and destroyer escort under heavy land based air cover. There are few locations where this can be employed but I found it to be very effective. Doesn't have any direct historical examples. A force like this cannot be ignored and usually prompts an aggressive response from the enemy which can escalate the situation and hopefully reveal the enemies Carrier Task Force. I don't think it was ever tried in real life to launch an air attack on a task force of Battleships with heavy air cover but in the game at least, the attacking air force suffers heavy losses and while hits are scored, usually all the Battleships are still floating at the end of the day. With the enemies air force spent in this manner it opens up a lot of good options for the next few days. Shore Bombardment Sadly this is what BS in the war were largely reduced to. Unfortunately they just aren't that good at it, when considering the cost of the asset, their limited ammunition and the lengths that have to go to replenish the ammunition of their main battery. And their barrels get worn. Carriers Vs Battleships In the Pacific at least you absolutely had to have carriers. In any carrier vs carrier battle the utility of a BS was reduced to that of its AAA battery which is a function that could just as well be performed by an appropriately designed light cruiser. They had huge utility in covering and interdicting amphibious invasions but you don't need that many and its fairly niche. But when the sun rises, its the carriers that are going to determine who controls the sea. You use battleships because you have them and they do have utility but in nearly all instances you would prefer to have a CV. With strong land based air cover, battleships are fantastic. But if you have strong land based air cover, then the air can usually perform the function that the Battleship could do anyways, which begs the question, why do you need the battleship? Fake Edit: Battleships are one of my favourite things. EDIT: I posted in D&D, mistakes were made. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
When I played World of Warships, I'd park my carrier as close to the enemy as possible without getting shot, rapid-cycle my bombers to inflict as much damage as possible in as little time as possible until they inevitably all get shot down, and then charge the nearest enemy ship with the intent to either ram it or encourage it to shoot my now useless floating pile of metal instead of something that poses an actual threat. This is clearly a realistic depiction of WW2 naval combat, and thereby I claim that the US naval doctrine was flawed, carriers are clearly best suited for naval CQC. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/zr07q5u.gifv
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:54
|
|