|
    Pikes, square, line, and James Burke. 
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
1tv posted an interesting documentary about a gently caress up while filming the November 7, 1941 parade in Moscow (due to secrecy, the film crew wasn't informed that the parade was moved up and missed most of the marching and Stalin's speech) and how the documentary crew had to deal with the situation. Sadly it's in Russian with no subtitles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Does anyone know why fission bombs are "atomic" and fusion bombs are "nuclear" or "thermonuclear"? They both do things with the nuclei of atoms, so you could swap the labels and it would still apply. Just curious about how that linguistic distinction came about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Topic request, if anyone happens to be particularly well informed: the Muscovite-Lithuanian wars. The Muscovite forces appear to have a stunning record of success, while the Lithuanians received very little help from the Polish crown, and these losses seem to have led the Lithuanian nobility towards the Union of Lublin. Was the Polish crown disinclined to intervene, or just busy elsewhere? What were Polish-Lithuanian relations like during this period? Were the religious divisions between Lithuanian noble and Ruthenian local elites the key element in Muscovite success? Is there any good English language books about this I should go read?JaucheCharly posted:The level of early modern posts is low, hence: Ottoman History Podcast you say? Hells yes. These dudes are standing way too close together, right? hogmartin posted:Does anyone know why fission bombs are "atomic" and fusion bombs are "nuclear" or "thermonuclear"? They both do things with the nuclei of atoms, so you could swap the labels and it would still apply. Just curious about how that linguistic distinction came about. Just a convenient shorthand. "Atomic" was the popular label in the wake of WWII, and "thermonuclear" got shortened purely to "nuclear" because too many syllables I guess. I just finished Richard Rhodes' the Making of the Atomic Bomb, and I'm about to start on Dark Sun (about the H-bomb project), I'm guessing it'll come up. During the Manhattan project, the idea of a thermonuclear bomb seems to have always been referred to as "The Super". But I'd put real money on most people just not knowing and/or caring about the difference between a pure fission weapons, boosted-fission, fission-fusion, fission-fusion-fission, etc. Hell, I've spent a long time reading the rather limited public information about it, and I'm even sure I understand it all at even a basic level. "Atomic" bombs are easy, the others much less so. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:20
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
All the downsides of the square formation with almost none of the benefits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Just a convenient shorthand. "Atomic" was the popular label in the wake of WWII, and "thermonuclear" got shortened purely to "nuclear" because too many syllables I guess. I just finished Richard Rhodes' the Making of the Atomic Bomb, and I'm about to start on Dark Sun (about the H-bomb project), I'm guessing it'll come up. During the Manhattan project, the idea of a thermonuclear bomb seems to have always been referred to as "The Super". I've never heard people use "atomic" vs "nuclear" to differentiate between fission and fission-fusion bombs. The thermonuclear label came from the original physics, which describes nuclear reactions that can only take place under conditions of extremely high heat. The bomb inherits the label because it uses those reactions. Fission bombs create a lot of heat, but the fission reaction can start at ordinary temperatures, so they aren't "thermo-" in the same way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I've never heard people use "atomic" vs "nuclear" to differentiate between fission and fission-fusion bombs. The thermonuclear label came from the original physics, which describes nuclear reactions that can only take place under conditions of extremely high heat. The bomb inherits the label because it uses those reactions. Fission bombs create a lot of heat, but the fission reaction can start at ordinary temperatures, so they aren't "thermo-" in the same way. I think you could distinguish between 'fission' and 'fusion' bombs, but that'd require you to know what specific weapon you were talking about, and your listeners to know what the hell that distinction was. Better to just label all of 'em nuclear (or for a neato retro feel, atomic) and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Ottoman History Podcast you say? Hells yes This is amazing, but why the hell can't I download it in .mp3? not everyone uses google play or itunes..
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I've never heard people use "atomic" vs "nuclear" to differentiate between fission and fission-fusion bombs. The thermonuclear label came from the original physics, which describes nuclear reactions that can only take place under conditions of extremely high heat. The bomb inherits the label because it uses those reactions. Fission bombs create a lot of heat, but the fission reaction can start at ordinary temperatures, so they aren't "thermo-" in the same way. You're right that you don't hear the distinction, but only because people don't usually talk about it, and I've never seen anyone discuss the physics involved (I guess I might if I hung with a physicist crowd). Only place it comes up is when people talk about the bombing of Japan, where "atomic" gets used often enough. But I'm guessing the progression goes:
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I didn't mean in academic/research or official military environments, just in popular culture. Saying that "nuclear bombs" were dropped on Japan sounds odd, and so does talking about "ICBMs with atomic warheads". At some point, we culturally made a distinction and changed the names.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Saying that "nuclear bombs" were dropped on Japan sounds odd does it?  truth be told I didn't even know there was a distinction between hydrogen bombs and the other type until like a year ago
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know if this atomic/nuclear distinction is actually a thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Does anyone know why fission bombs are "atomic" and fusion bombs are "nuclear" or "thermonuclear"? They both do things with the nuclei of atoms, so you could swap the labels and it would still apply. Just curious about how that linguistic distinction came about. I believe "thermonuclear" refers to the fusion bomb because the heat and neutron shower from the fusion reaction is used to create a second fission explosion. It's thus a "thermally enhanced" nuclear explosion. The distinction has largely been lost at this point, as all-fission single-stage bombs are rare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
A query about camoflage, specifically NATO vs Warpac camo. I hear commonly that NATO used camoflage, and the warsaw pact didn't. However, I've read the assertion that this is because soviet (and soviet-backed) procedure was to apply disruptive camo only during exercises (that the west generally didn't see) and in the event of actual hostilities. Is this actually the case, and would, consequently, the monotone-green vehicles from various war games actually have been mottled with yellow and brown disruptive patterns?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Does anyone know why fission bombs are "atomic" and fusion bombs are "nuclear" or "thermonuclear"? They both do things with the nuclei of atoms, so you could swap the labels and it would still apply. Just curious about how that linguistic distinction came about. "Thermonuclear" means "these are nuclear reactions that happen because of insanely high temperatures." A fission bomb isn't thermonuclear: you get a supercritical mass of uranium together and it will go boom, the trick is in getting it together fast enough to get significant energy out of it before the "go boom" results in disassembly. A fusion stage only works because you got it *really really hot*, so hot that the kinetic energy of the fuel atoms overcomes the strong nuclear repulsion between them, which you do by using the energy from the first stage to compress it and heat it up to something well north of the temperature of the core of the sun. Hence, thermonuclear. A magnetic confinement fusion reactor like ITER is also a thermonuclear process, the word isn't synonymous with nuclear reactions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
spectralent posted:A query about camoflage, specifically NATO vs Warpac camo. I hear commonly that NATO used camoflage, and the warsaw pact didn't. However, I've read the assertion that this is because soviet (and soviet-backed) procedure was to apply disruptive camo only during exercises (that the west generally didn't see) and in the event of actual hostilities. Is this actually the case, and would, consequently, the monotone-green vehicles from various war games actually have been mottled with yellow and brown disruptive patterns? I don't know about the rest of the Warsaw pact (Cold War isn't really my thing), but the Soviets definitely applied camo. Here's a manual excerpt: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I believe "thermonuclear" refers to the fusion bomb because the heat and neutron shower from the fusion reaction is used to create a second fission explosion. It's thus a "thermally enhanced" nuclear explosion. Although it's worth noting that Pakistan's arsenal appears to be all single stage weapons, but boosted, so not all-fission. India on the other hand has successfully detonated a thermonuclear device.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I don't know about the rest of the Warsaw pact (Cold War isn't really my thing), but the Soviets definitely applied camo. Here's a manual excerpt: Am I correct that that's meant to be a T-54/55?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Do remember that everything about atomic weapons were intentionally highly obfuscated by the people that owned said weapons. It was/is deep enough that the study of the secrecy and its etymology is really fascinating by itself! Here comes the holy words, irradiated shall be our passing http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/ https://www.amazon.com/Command-Cont...and+and+control
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Am I correct that that's meant to be a T-54/55? The wheel spacing looks more like a T-62, but it's abstract enough to be anything. The caption just says "medium tank".
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
is the new russian tank a good tank or is this all hysteria from officers who want more funding
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:is the new russian tank its poo poo and to high is the short answer e. It seems so tooled to be a propaganda piece for internal consumption more than anything else, that it is hard to take any supposed merits out of that context. It certainly doesn't look right, I can tell you that. Its raison d'etre seems to be 'russia stronk, tank, modern, remove kebab, for the use of'. Much in the same way as the Sukhoi T50 PAK FA mind you. ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Do remember that everything about atomic weapons were intentionally highly obfuscated by the people that owned said weapons. It was/is deep enough that the study of the secrecy and its etymology is really fascinating by itself! Oh yeah, there's loads of this going on. Also the idea that Nuclear Technology in America is considered a "born secret", so that if you happened to independently discover how to build a thermonuclear weapon all on your lonesome, it's still considered classified, and the government will likely prosecute the hell out of you to make you keep it to yourself; see United States v. Progressive, Inc.. On the other hand that law has never been tested in the Supreme Court, so  Also fun: when the Manhattan project was starting to finish, and it became pretty clear that at least the gun-type design would work, a number of physicists involved, most notably Niels Bohr, started trying very hard to get the American government to talk to the Soviets about this stuff, before the Trinity test, and certainly before the bombs were used, to try and work out some sort of framework as to how these weapons could be regulated in the post-war world. The opinion of most of such scientists was that a new world order was need, based around the principle of openness practiced in the scientific world, lest the world descend into some sort of standoff based around MAD principles and midnight clocks and such. The argument was that if the bombs were a surprise to the Soviets, this would inspire such paranoia in them that it would poison relationships between the two powers forever. Churchill was extremely opposed to this idea of course, and his arguments were enough to make FDR pretty dismissive of the whole thing. Truman's advisors, and Truman himself were also in the Churchillian camp on the issue, believing that the cost and know-how required to build such weapons would ensure that America would always have nuclear supremacy (queue the revelation that Uranium is actually pretty common and the Soviets had long since infiltrated the program and knew all the fundamentals already). Now, given the personality of Stalin (not to mention the Anglo-American leaders) it's pretty doubtful that any such effort could have succeeded, but it's interesting in a road-not-taken sort of way. And also that the relatively stable world order we now have is based on (extremely limited) openness surrounding nuclear arsenals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:is the new russian tank a good tank or is this all hysteria from officers who want more funding pretty sure its hysteria. I suspect russia is at the point where the hosed internal economics are screwing their military in a way no amount of spending can fix
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:is the new russian tank a good tank or is this all hysteria from officers who want more funding Literally no one aside from actual Russian military types and high up UVZ workers know anything about it and everything posted is speculation. The vehicles shown at the parade are rumoured to have little to do with the actual mass production tank, but again, everything about it is just rumours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Oh yeah, there's loads of this going on. Also the idea that Nuclear Technology in America is considered a "born secret", so that if you happened to independently discover how to build a thermonuclear weapon all on your lonesome, it's still considered classified, and the government will likely prosecute the hell out of you to make you keep it to yourself; see United States v. Progressive, Inc.. On the other hand that law has never been tested in the Supreme Court, so https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadline_(science_fiction_story) During the Manhattan project there was a sci-fi short story published in America that described an atomic weapon and got the attention of military intelligence
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Some of the stuff they did seems like it's going to be no-brainer part of any future tank design, ie unmanned turret, crew capsule etc. I'd guess with it and the Pak-fa the litmus test is going to be whether or not they are going to buy any meaningful number of it for themselves and are they going to manage to get foreign sales. Odds of being able to discern anything about its quality from poring over open-source milnews and blog posts seem about zero.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Some of the stuff they did seems like it's going to be no-brainer part of any future tank design, ie unmanned turret, crew capsule etc. I'd guess with it and the Pak-fa the litmus test is going to be whether or not they are going to buy any meaningful number of it for themselves and are they going to manage to get foreign sales. Odds of being able to discern anything about its quality from poring over open-source milnews and blog posts seem about zero. I'm not sure the unmanned turret's necessarily a no-brainer; it seems like there's both mechanical and ergonomic issues it might present. I can see clearing jams and generally maintaining the gun being a huge PITA with the lack of a turret crew, and it also means the turret's actively in the way if you wanted to unbutton and have a look around and your vantage isn't as high when you do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm not sure the unmanned turret's necessarily a no-brainer; it seems like there's both mechanical and ergonomic issues it might present. I can see clearing jams and generally maintaining the gun being a huge PITA with the lack of a turret crew, and it also means the turret's actively in the way if you wanted to unbutton and have a look around and your vantage isn't as high when you do. TBF, if the gun jams in battle you're probably hosed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm not sure the unmanned turret's necessarily a no-brainer; it seems like there's both mechanical and ergonomic issues it might present. I can see clearing jams and generally maintaining the gun being a huge PITA with the lack of a turret crew, and it also means the turret's actively in the way if you wanted to unbutton and have a look around and your vantage isn't as high when you do. Just get a VR headset for the crew, are we living in the future or not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:is the new russian tank a good tank or is this all hysteria from officers who want more funding Who is hysterical about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm not sure the unmanned turret's necessarily a no-brainer; it seems like there's both mechanical and ergonomic issues it might present. I can see clearing jams and generally maintaining the gun being a huge PITA with the lack of a turret crew, and it also means the turret's actively in the way if you wanted to unbutton and have a look around and your vantage isn't as high when you do. It also makes the crew reliant on either technology or small vision blocks and periscopes to actually see outside, which can be a bit of a problem when your cameras get shot out or the software suffers a crash. Always have a manual backup. The Abrams has a fancy fire control computer that makes hitting a moving target with little training such a breeze that it's almost cheating, but if it fails you can always plug in numbers manually. And if that fails you still have an optical gunsight just like in World War II.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Serious question, is there even a crew-remediable tank gun jam? Like could the casing get stuck or something, but in a way that a guy can fix during a battle? Or wasn't there something about the casings being combustible? Idk how it works. If I had to guess I'd say that tank crews probably don't spend a lot of time clearing main gun jams as-is. If they have a little corkscrew or something to get stuff out of the breech I've never heard of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
I read an anecdote once about Richard Feynman taking a visit to the uranium refining facility and being horrified. He had to plead for permission from the brass to tell the laymen enough so they wouldn't get themselves killed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Always have a manual backup. The Abrams has a fancy fire control computer that makes hitting a moving target with little training such a breeze that it's almost cheating, but if it fails you can always plug in numbers manually. And if that fails you still have an optical gunsight just like in World War II. But in this case you're already out of battle effectively and only a madman would not disengage. What will be more interesting than the individual capabilities of the T-14 tank will be to see how well they can work with T-15 heavy apc's. They are both equally protected but where T-14 is supposed to kill all MBT's, T-15 is supposed to terminate everything else, including automatically recognizing from images infantry AT weapons launchers and asking for permission to engage. It's all technically viable but practicability remains a mystery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
German speakers, what's the difference between zerstören and vernichten? Google tells me they both mean "destroy", but the context of the image seems to imply that zerstören is somehow not as bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
How much time do modern tank crews spend training with the various backup fire control systems?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Zerstören is destroy and vernichten is eradicate. Ver = prefix that sorta denotes a process, ie verbrennen = to burn up. Nichts = nothing. Ver-nichten is to turn into nothing. This explains it way better: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ver-#German I wouldn't make that distinction, ie the words denoting degrees of severity, as a contemporary German speaker and I can't tell if back then it would have worked or would've been bad usage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Huh, that's an exceptionally dramatic way to describe penetration/chance of penetration/no penetration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Vernichten would probably translate fairly literally as "annihilate"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:46
|
|
