|
wdarkk posted:It's not enough to just shoot down a kamikaze, you have to disintegrate them. More dakka! You actually do need to literally disintegrate a kamikaze, because just shooting some bits off isn't going to stop it hitting the gently caress out of your ship. Simple physics.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Well What Now posted:You actually do need to literally disintegrate a kamikaze, because just shooting some bits off isn't going to stop it hitting the gently caress out of your ship. Simple physics. Yeah, I wasn't being sarcastic. You also want to avoid the plane crashing and exploding under you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:And no, the WWII A-10 carries a 75mm, either the Hs 129 or B-25 G/H, or maybe something like the A-20 or A-26. Maybe just gently caress your timeframe, the AD. Or the comedy option: a bomber bay full of PaPaSha's.  And speaking of PPSh... how about night vision?  Looks pretty light compared to German and US versions, but I presume there has to be an active IR lamp and power source carried by someone closeby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:You actually do need to literally disintegrate a kamikaze, because just shooting some bits off isn't going to stop it hitting the gently caress out of your ship. Simple physics. It might still end up being no biggie 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:It might still end up being no biggie Was this one an actual kamikaze attempt, though, or a low flying pilot just losing control?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:had Empire opted for quad turbolaser turrets then Empire would have won the battle of Yavin It turns our four turbolaser turrets is unworkable due to the interference between the rounds in flight. Haven't you ever read Castles of Carbonite?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
pthighs posted:It turns our four turbolaser turrets is unworkable due to the interference between the rounds in flight. Haven't you ever read Castles of Carbonite? You can't trust everything you read, you know. Remember how in Clones Against Fire the author outrageously claimed that 75% of Stormtroopers never fired their blasters at the enemy for the purpose of killing??
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Top-notch old-timey craftsmanship / art is really something. I'm seriously thinking about dropping Texas on a really really nice old painting and if you look closely at what the guys did to make a really really good one pop compared to a mediocre one is just amazing. Don't worry about the cost of the painting, it's the framing that's murder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You can't trust everything you read, you know. Remember how in Clones Against Fire the author outrageously claimed that 75% of Stormtroopers never fired their blasters at the enemy for the purpose of killing?? I'm pretty sure that guy just hates our troops, much like how the Grand Moffs were putting are boys in the AT-AT "Bantha Cooker". Says in a article I read on the HoloNet that most of the wrecks examined after the battle of Hoth showed that they had no countermeasures against *Tow Cables* of all things. Not to mention those AT-ST "Clone Crushers" that were easily torn apart by primitives...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
pthighs posted:It turns our four turbolaser turrets is unworkable due to the interference between the rounds in flight. Haven't you ever read Castles of Carbonite? Nahh, there's references on impweaps to delay coils fitted after Endor when the Republic had access to its yards again that did a lot to mitigate the inaccuracy issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Does this mean the Death Star was the equivalent of the Yamato?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Wages of Destruction is all around excellent. Can confirm. I'm reading Shattered Sword right now, and it too is excellent. The Japanese had a top-level meeting between a flunky of Yamamoto, the army, and Japanese fleet command about his whole "Midway" plan. The army and Fleet command lay into the plan with some very well considered criticisms, to the point the poor flunky was almost in tears. His response to all this criticism is to simply repeat Yamamoto's plan and ignoring everything the Army and Fleet command just said. Yamamoto gets his way entirely by threatening to resign, and all objections are swept aside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Don't believe the bullshit about the X-wing, they broke down constantly and were produced in only small numbers. TIE fighters were still the best fighter of the Galactic Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:as a soon-to-be purged sexual deviant, i can't help but picture the day this thread's future iteration has arguments about gay purple trump No, no. The reason Black Gay Hitler works is Hitler was nether of those things. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Don't believe the bullshit about the X-wing, they broke down constantly and were produced in only small numbers. TIE fighters were still the best fighter of the Galactic Civil War. It's pretty much indisputable that the Rebellion would have been better off if they'd stuck with the Y-Wing instead of constantly developing expensive and unreliable fighters like the A-Wing or B-Wing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Fusion Restaurant posted:I think this is a solid point. If the only ppl who're knowledgeable about war are in the position of also being in the army, they have a poo poo ton of weird incentives/constraints. There's a great line in One Bullet Away (Nate fick from generation kill's autobiography) where a marine recruiter comes to Dartford college. Someone asks him if he came because he wanted to militarise colleges. He replied that no, he wanted to liberalise the military.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
What if the Jedi Coup had succeeded?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
But really he was just trying to meet quota
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
I'm familiar with the propensity of anti-aircraft designers to just glue four of an already good gun together, I just... didn't really think anyone would try it with a 40mm bofors gun. Next you're going to tell me someone built an over-under 88mm. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm familiar with the propensity of anti-aircraft designers to just glue four of an already good gun together, I just... didn't really think anyone would try it with a 40mm bofors gun. Next step is Ontos II using eight GAU-8 Avengers. :ork101:
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm familiar with the propensity of anti-aircraft designers to just glue four of an already good gun together, I just... didn't really think anyone would try it with a 40mm bofors gun. That's how you get eighty of the things on a battleship or 96 on the Saratoga. The USN was not loving about, they literally just started putting AA guns up top until the designers went white and started muttering about stability. The 2 pounder pom-pom that came in up to octuple mounts was 40mm as well. The successor to the bofors was only in twins, but that's fair, it was a 76mm (3"/50 caliber gun Mark 22) so they could put proximity fuzes in its shells. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
The quad 40 was like THE close-medium range AA weapon of choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm familiar with the propensity of anti-aircraft designers to just glue four of an already good gun together, I just... didn't really think anyone would try it with a 40mm bofors gun. How about a side-by-side 128? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Do you have planes flying at you that need to be rendered very unaerodynamic quickly enough that they bleed all their energy into the air rather than you? Thousands of everyday Americans have just this problem. Sign up now for a free director to guide your shots on target! Everyone figured out that the fuckoff big cannon wasn't that useful compared to rockets, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:There's a great line in One Bullet Away (Nate fick from generation kill's autobiography) where a marine recruiter comes to Dartford college. Someone asks him if he came because he wanted to militarise colleges. He replied that no, he wanted to liberalise the military. great anecdote! I would definitely recommend talking to West Point students/recent grads if you get a chance. They have a rly interesting (and pretty critical in many ways) perspective on the modern army.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:How about a side-by-side 128? What the gently caress?  What's the point of that? They weren't using 12.8cm guns as AA guns, were they?EDIT: Holy poo poo. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Everyone figured out that the fuckoff big cannon wasn't that useful compared to rockets, though. Unless you're playing WT 
spectralent fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
spectralent posted:What the gently caress? Gotta get those shells up high and fast to boost that hit rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Gotta get those shells up high and fast to boost that hit rate. Yeah, it's something of a mindfuck to wrap your head around the times and distances involved. Heavy bombers could fly pretty drat high, and firing almost straight up will slow down your projectiles in a hurry. So even with a fast and heavy projectile from those huge guns, you could be looking at ~30 seconds of flight time until they reach the target altitude. Perestroika fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
spectralent posted:What the gently caress? That's what they were originally made for. The dual mount carriage looks dopey as hell though, what would be the backup plan when the big tractor broke down... (there is no backup plan) Nenonen fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
spectralent posted:What the gently caress? Yep, they were. Most countries built huge AA guns. The US had the 120mm M1 "Stratosphere Gun", and I think Japan had some 120mm and 150mm AA guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Yeah, it's something of a mindfuck to wrap your head around the times and distances involved. Heavy bombers could fly pretty drat high, and firing almost straight up will slow down your projectiles in a hurry. So even with a fast and heavy projectile from those huge guns, you could be looking at ~30 seconds of flight time until they reach the target altitude. That's what killed the things in the long term, the control loops got too long to manage dealing with the target and getting a good intercept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Yep, they were. Most countries built huge AA guns. The US had the 120mm M1 "Stratosphere Gun", and I think Japan had some 120mm and 150mm AA guns. The 5" (12,7 cm) gun of the US Navy was probably the most effective AA weapon of the war once they got proximity fuzes. Smaller guns might fire faster, but anything hit by a heavy shell will just flat out die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:The 5" (12,7 cm) gun of the US Navy was probably the most effective AA weapon of the war once they got proximity fuzes. Smaller guns might fire faster, but anything hit by a heavy shell will just flat out die. But the purpose is not to hit the thing with the shell, especially not if it carries a proximity fuse... For that matter, in Finnish military slang 'ohiampuja' or 'miss-shooter' stands for an AA gunner, because their primary job was to lay a barrage that forced the flyboys to change course, only occasionally hitting things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
150mm range guns were the largest ones on ships that got real serious dual purpose treatment (as opposed to how can we make AA shells for these things treatment). A Worcester class has a pretty scary sounding AA broadside with 12 6" autoloading guns firing 12 rpm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
You know, it's weird; I knew 5" guns were sometimes AA guns, but it didn't click with me that a 12.8cm gun is basically the same thing. They were super-AT in my mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
spectralent posted:You know, it's weird; I knew 5" guns were sometimes AA guns, but it didn't click with me that a 12.8cm gun is basically the same thing. They were super-AT in my mind. 128 mm guns are awful for AT purposes. You can't hide them or move them between positions with the Drew's strength alone, two things that are absolutely vital for an AT gun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
spectralent posted:You know, it's weird; I knew 5" guns were sometimes AA guns, but it didn't click with me that a 12.8cm gun is basically the same thing. They were super-AT in my mind. A good number of tank and anti-tank guns were adapted from anti-aircraft artillery, since they share a number of characteristics in common-you want a high-speed shell with a relatively flat trajectory. The 88 is probably the most famous AA gun that was adapted for use as a tank gun, but it's far from alone-other examples include the American M1 90mm gun (Used in the M36 Tank Destroyer and M26 Pershing), the Soviet 85mm gun (Used in the SU-85 and T-34-85), and the German 128 (Used in the Jagdtiger). Edit: Of course, like EE mentioned, there's an upper-limit to these kinds of things-the bigger the gun, the harder it becomes to move (And reload). And while that's not necessarily an issue when your gun is mounted on a ship, a concrete flak tower, or a railway car, it's very much an issue when it comes to towed and tank-mounted AT, where mobility is a massive supporting factor in overall effectiveness. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Strv m/38 and m/39 Queue: Vickers E, Christie Combat Car T1/Convertible Medium Tank T3, Type 95, T-70, Dicker Max, T-62 Available for request:  T2E1 Light Tank M3A1 Combat Car T4 Combat Car M1 Light Tank M2  Medium Tank Mk.II Medium Tank Mk.III A1E1 Independent Vickers Mk.E  LTP T-37 with ShKAS ZIK-20 T-12 and T-24 T-55 HTZ-16 Wartime modifications of the T-37 and T-38 SG-122 76 mm gun mod of the Matilda  L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40 NEW  TK-3/TKS Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR 37 mm anti-tank gun  SR tanks  Renault NC Renault D1 Renault R35 Renault D2 Renault R40 Char B NEW  PzI Ausf. B PzI Ausf. C PzII Ausf. a though b PzIII Ausf. A PzIII Ausf. B through D PzIV Ausf. A through C PzIV Ausf. D through E
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:That's what they were originally made for. The dual mount carriage looks dopey as hell though, what would be the backup plan when the big tractor broke down... (there is no backup plan) Weren't these generally stationary? I only know them from the (sick nasty) Flaktürme.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:and the German 128 (Used in the Jagdtiger). Tankchat: I remember reading (someplace) that the 128 on the Jagdtiger was actually a different gun from the 128 mm anti-air; the Germans actually developed two different guns with the same caliber?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 01:26
|
|