|
Nenonen posted:Dunno about that in particular (I have never heard that claim) but in general tanker helmets aren't meant to stop a piece of shrapnel or a bullet, they're riding a tank for that. The main purpose of tanker helmets is to protect your noggin from getting bruised from a bumpy ride inside a metal coffin. When the Soviets were doing experiments with ramping BTs across rivers, they just tied the driver to his seat. Can't have whiplash in a rigid system (except when the ties break, oops). JcDent posted:British tank design was the biggest enemy A 2-pdr ought to be good enough for anyone. You have a machinegun to deal with infantry, soldier! Also, to be fair, they made a fast tank with vertical armour in 1942, it just took two years to make it battle worthy. Slim Jim Pickens posted:Churchills are apparently absurdly cramped. They had tiny little turrets because they were British tanks and therefore hilariously un-modern. I don't know how they fit 75mm guns into there, but I suppose the British were pretty good at stuffing big guns into small spaces. 1380 mm turret ring for three people. The loader's station was only 380 mm across. Even the gunner got more than that somehow.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Haig's throwing French under the bus to take his job was pretty spectacular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Looks like them Duke boys are at it again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
zoux posted:Looks like them Duke boys are at it again. If only the tank was an M3 Lee
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Churchills are apparently absurdly cramped. They had tiny little turrets because they were British tanks and therefore hilariously un-modern. I don't know how they fit 75mm guns into there, but I suppose the British were pretty good at stuffing big guns into small spaces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
What's the point of making very small ships that are also stuffed with expensive missiles and radars? Other than maybe slightly shallower draft. Seems like there's a downward limit where it's economical to have all that stuff and also have armor and sufficient crew to work everything and their food and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What's the point of making very small ships that are also stuffed with expensive missiles and radars? Other than maybe slightly shallower draft. Seems like there's a downward limit where it's economical to have all that stuff and also have armor and sufficient crew to work everything and their food and whatnot. You seem to have put more thought into this than the US Navy did
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What's the point of making very small ships that are also stuffed with expensive missiles and radars? Other than maybe slightly shallower draft. Seems like there's a downward limit where it's economical to have all that stuff and also have armor and sufficient crew to work everything and their food and whatnot. Modern warships don't really have armour now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What's the point of making very small ships that are also stuffed with expensive missiles and radars? Other than maybe slightly shallower draft. Seems like there's a downward limit where it's economical to have all that stuff and also have armor and sufficient crew to work everything and their food and whatnot. I think the argument is that it's impossible to effectively armor warships against the threats they face these days. So instead you discard armor, build them small and (in theory) cheap, and make plays into low observability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:57
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Arquinsiel posted:I've got a source that's the diary of a Churchill commander in which he and his crew investigate a knocked out Panther. The consensus was "how do they fit any chickens in this at all?" afaik the Panther's hull is stuffed full with its giant engine and the raised driveshaft. Perhaps the Churchill had something a little more modest?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What's the point of making very small ships that are also stuffed with expensive missiles and radars? Other than maybe slightly shallower draft. Seems like there's a downward limit where it's economical to have all that stuff and also have armor and sufficient crew to work everything and their food and whatnot. The good implementation of this already exists as the FAC or missile boat, but that doesn't allow you to put stuff on shore or board ships really. Ships aren't armored and you really do not need very much crew to work a modern warship. Complement on a La Fayette is like 140 all ranks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Fixed that for you It's a coping mechanism They need their boaty safe space (shh don't tell them the bulkhead is actually the side of the tent)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
bewbies posted:LCS is kind of a different thing altogether....they are tiny and basically intended to fight brown water threats only, and as far as I'm aware there really isn't an historical equivalent....maybe....triremes? Coastal battleships? Monitors? Coast Guard cutters? mllaneza posted:The USN is now talking about something in the 4000 ton range to pack a bigger anti-surface punch than the LCS ever could. They're calling it a frigate. They really remind me of the coastal defense ships, which were about the same size and also used stealth technology:  Väinämöinen Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Churchills are apparently absurdly cramped. They had tiny little turrets because they were British tanks and therefore hilariously un-modern. I don't know how they fit 75mm guns into there, but I suppose the British were pretty good at stuffing big guns into small spaces. They did fit the firefly with a anti-tank gun that other people assumed was just too big for the sherman Though that sorta begs the question why the British were so gun shy (heh) about giving their tanks proper firepower Also, Dear Mr. EnsignExpendible, do you have a good source on the Elephant having 2 tons of copper inside them? For that matter, is there any good info on the Maus's drivetrain? In the scale model thread we're trying to build our P.1000 Rattes and suddenly find myself interested in woebegone Nazi gas-electric drivetrains. I'm also vaguely curious as to how the T-28 super tank destroyer / the Tortise managed to move themselves (though I think their weight was in the 70-80 ton range, so America/Britain could swing straight mechanical.) I ask these things because it seems to me that once a vehicle gets to a certain size/mass, having it driven by electricity is pretty much the only way to do it. You avoid (basically) the complexities and weight of a transmission, and the problem of having a great metal sprocket driving metal tracks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:afaik the Panther's hull is stuffed full with its giant engine and the raised driveshaft. Perhaps the Churchill had something a little more modest? The British assessment of the Panther says that it would be fine if the internal components were shuffled around a little, but they are inexplicably placed in the worst possible spots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:They did fit the firefly with a anti-tank gun that other people assumed was just too big for the sherman The Americans didn't forego the 17-pdr because they thought it wouldn't fit, they just didn't think it had enough benefits over the 76 mm M1 to bother. quote:Also, Dear Mr. EnsignExpendible, do you have a good source on the Elephant having 2 tons of copper inside them? I got that figure from the SVAG archive. I don't have a number, but I do have the scans from a report by Rudolph Mann. If you want to brave the SVAG website, that name will probably lead you to a cite-able source. quote:For that matter, is there any good info on the Maus's drivetrain? In the scale model thread we're trying to build our P.1000 Rattes and suddenly find myself interested in woebegone Nazi gas-electric drivetrains. I'm also vaguely curious as to how the T-28 super tank destroyer / the Tortise managed to move themselves (though I think their weight was in the 70-80 ton range, so America/Britain could swing straight mechanical.) I'll have to check Pasholok's book once I get home, I think he had drawings of the engine and generators. The Soviets had an 80 ton tank prototype before the war, but it kept breaking down for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The British assessment of the Panther says that it would be fine if the internal components were shuffled around a little, but they are inexplicably placed in the worst possible spots. Where were the internals placed, and where should they have been?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:afaik the Panther's hull is stuffed full with its giant engine and the raised driveshaft. Perhaps the Churchill had something a little more modest?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:They really remind me of the coastal defense ships, which were about the same size and also used stealth technology: Camo on ships worked really well, though, especially in the Pacific when the harsh sunlight and sharp contrasts between sky and ocean made subtle irregularities literally impossible for human perception to pick up.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The good implementation of this already exists as the FAC or missile boat, but that doesn't allow you to put stuff on shore or board ships really. Ships aren't armored and you really do not need very much crew to work a modern warship. Complement on a La Fayette is like 140 all ranks. A FAC or missile boat can't sail from CONUS to all the places we would actually want to use a LCS on their own like the LCS can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
kill me now posted:A FAC or missile boat can't sail from CONUS to all the places we would actually want to use a LCS on their own like the LCS can. When a missile corvette or diesel sub from the 80s can blow your LCS right out of the water because it really can't defend itself against either and the crew is too small for damage control, what is the list of places that we would actually use an LCS on its own?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:They literally evaluated tanks on the single criteria of how easy it was to get a chicken in a cage in and out of it. Having your chickens inside the hull where shrapnel wouldn't end your egg supply was a major plus point in any tank design. Explains the Maus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
People call the F-35 a boondoggle but really they should look at the LCS and just stare in awe. The F-35 will probably end up pretty good at the thing it was designed to do. The USN didn't need a fleet of 50kt coast guard cutters. The fact that the Navy is just now going "maybe this should've been a real OHP replacement in the first place" kind of blows my loving mind. I think the only good that could come out of the LCS at this point is the mine countermeasures module pans out so they have a use as minesweepers before the Navy slowly forgets how important that poo poo is to maintain. Mazz fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Mazz posted:People call the F-35 a boondoggle but really they should look at the LCS and just stare in awe. The F-35 will probably end up pretty good at the thing it was designed to do. The USN didn't need a fleet of 50kt coast guard cutters. Now now, its not like the US navy has been denied access to major areas of sea by mine designes dating back to the 1800's twice since the end of WW2 or anything. Im sure they have learned this time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Where were the internals placed, and where should they have been? Like the sights and pedals and flywheels and other controls. If they were just a few inches to the left or right, they would be fine, but the way they were positioned made them really hard to use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Watching the AN-94 episode of Forgotten weapons and  you're just asking for the drat gun to break with that kind of Rube Goldberg poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:The USN is now talking about something in the 4000 ton range to pack a bigger anti-surface punch than the LCS ever could. They're calling it a frigate. I predict 2 get built for $100,000,000,000 a piece before the class is canceled
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Now now, its not like the US navy has been denied access to major areas of sea by mine designes dating back to the 1800's twice since the end of WW2 or anything. Im sure they have learned this time. What are you referring to? Mines didn't stop us from going where we wanted to go during the Tanker War. They inflicted casualties but that's not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
The first instance I'm referring to is the mining of the Korean beaches at Wonsan during the Korean war where they were held up for weeks by the mines. The second is indeed the tanker war, they nearly lost the USS Samuel B Roberts to a mine strike, when they first encountered the minefields they had to use the supertankers they were meant to be escorting as big shields and realised that they didnt have any MCM vessels worth a drat because they farmed that capability out to NATO and so when the UK and France didnt want to get involved the US had no real sweeping capacity. Having to hide behind civillian ships and being essentially unable to safely sail the sea with their own capabilities which i would class as denying them access, eventually the UK and France found their balls and sent some minesweepers and the US got its Korean war era mothballs out that they built in response to the last time they were embarassed. The Iraqis also denied a USMC landing at Kuwait Harbor during Gulf 1 with mines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I think the argument is that it's impossible to effectively armor warships against the threats they face these days. So instead you discard armor, build them small and (in theory) cheap, and make plays into low observability. But if you've discarded 'cheap' (which many designers have), what is the remaining advantage of being small?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:But if you've discarded 'cheap' (which many designers have), what is the remaining advantage of being small? Hard to detect by radar is a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Being bigger allows more survivability since there's more stuff to get in the way of anything hitting the ship, even if it isn't all 2' plate or whatever, I mean diesel fuel is pretty good armor right? You can also sustain for longer since you can carry more missiles and food, more crew means more damage control and less stress, and you can at least add a little bit of armor to the critical parts, there are other things that can hit you besides KH-22s. Your tiny mini destroyer still needs radar and missiles, they're never going to be cheap or expendable, not if you also want them to fight, so what's the point of making them small?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Your tiny mini destroyer still needs radar and missiles, they're never going to be cheap or expendable, not if you also want them to fight, so what's the point of making them small? I think the general idea is that for a given amount of resources you can have a few big ships or more smaller ones. Bigger ones have the advantage of better/more sensors, defensive capabilities and greater survivability and range. Smaller ones have the advantage of being more difficult to detect and numbers. Having seven independent launch platforms instead of three or two means your enemy has more targets to neutralize. A big part of what is "better" will be answered in terms of missile interception capabilities. An Aegis isn't going to be able to be fit onto everything. I doubt we are at the point where we could have a command ship coordinating the defensive fire (and offensive) from multiple other vessels but that would be very potent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Part of the reason Chancellorsville turned into such a clusterfuck for the Union was because Hooker was more or less incapacitated for most of it because he happened to get too close to a rebel cannonball. This seems like it would be fairly predictable. Did these guys not have a second in command who could take over if the general was killed or wounded?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:This seems like it would be fairly predictable. Did these guys not have a second in command who could take over if the general was killed or wounded? The problem was that there were a great many who were salivating at the chance to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
There were several factors. First, the 2-pounder was supposed to be replaced in production by the 6-pounder (which was an excellent AT gun in 1940) much earlier, but that changed after Dunkirk. With the near-total los of the BEF's equipment, the British was forced to make the decision between keeping the old gun in production and having a sub-par weapon; or else go ahead and retool for the new one and have essentially no weapon at all for almost a year. Staring down the threat of an actual invasion (Sealion looked much more feasible from London in 1940 than it does in hindsight), the choice was easy. Second, with the Battle of Britain raging, the bulk of resources went to AA and Fighter Command. Tanks had to take a back seat for awhile. Third, a lot of Britain's tank manufacturers had trouble making decent-sized turret rings. Small rings=small turrets=small guns. Finally, their projects to make really good tanks kept running into delays caused by making perfect the enemy of the good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:. The landing was a deception plan that was never intended to occur
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:The landing was a deception plan that was never intended to occur Fair comment, I hosed up why the Kuwait harbor landing was cancelled, but while they were trying to carry out the deception plan they did have the USS Tripoli and Princeton both hit mines and were pretty severely damaged. It was fortunate that it was called off in retrospect because the USN evidently still didn't have the capability to break through that minefield.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:They literally evaluated tanks on the single criteria of how easy it was to get a chicken in a cage in and out of it. Having your chickens inside the hull where shrapnel wouldn't end your egg supply was a major plus point in any tank design. Why is the chicken required for this test?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why is the chicken required for this test? If you are using the cage for the test where do you keep your chicken? We arent made of cages over here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 13:08
|
|