|
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. sweet, the LCS can drive on its own to a place where it will die very quickly far away from CONUS, which is good because... the LCS can't do poo poo on its own unless it's in an extremely permissive environment, otherwise it needs support from boats that can actually do stuff. I do really love the idea of a 50kt hundred million dollar low RCS minesweeper, though.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 13:28 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:56 |
|
Gnoman posted:There were several factors. The 6-pdr didn't have an HE shell either though. If all you want is AP performance, then the 2-pdr was fine against all but the newest German tanks with 50 mm armour. Also the Soviets put a 76 mm gun into the Matilda and there was a project to put an 85 mm gun into the Valentine somehow, a small turret ring is not an issue if you believe in yourself.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 14:33 |
|
No it won't because the point of the LCS is to be a patrol vessel not a frontline combat warship. The LCS is survivable enough for the missions it was actually designed to do, namely, the miscellaneous stuff we used OHPs for.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 15:32 |
|
someone made a really expensive patrol vessel and forgot the guns
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 15:40 |
|
Don't worry, if it comes under attack, they will just throw off the hastily bolted on galvanic block, and the boat will dissolve before any harm can be done to it.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 15:49 |
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The 6-pdr didn't have an HE shell either though.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 15:53 |
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:someone made a really expensive patrol vessel and forgot the guns anything to put an end to gunboat diplomacy
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 15:54 |
|
Arquinsiel posted:It did. The Americans decided not to make them or the canister rounds for it so their 57mm guns were far less useful for infantry support than the British OQF 6 pdr unless they managed to get some buckshee prior to late 44 at least. Huh, interesting, I guess none were sent to the USSR then, since the trials report for the Valentine Mk.IX complains that there is no HE shell. Interestingly enough, the trials of the Valentine Mk.II say that there is an HE shell and the British just refused to send any.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 16:00 |
|
Mortabis posted:No it won't because the point of the LCS is to be a patrol vessel not a frontline combat warship. The LCS is survivable enough for the missions it was actually designed to do, namely, the miscellaneous stuff we used OHPs for. The LCS isn't survivable enough to withstand contact with water let alone gunfire
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 16:00 |
|
for $500 million a ship, thats a reaaaaaally expensive patrol ship. Can someone who knows more about this explain this better? It feels like we built something that is kinda lacking in capability, and is really expensive for what it can do? Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Apr 19, 2017 |
# ? Apr 19, 2017 16:21 |
|
Saint Celestine posted:for $500 million a ship, thats a reaaaaaally expensive patrol ship. Whoops you just accidentally summed up the entire history of military procurement.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 16:29 |
|
Saint Celestine posted:for $500 million a ship, thats a reaaaaaally expensive patrol ship. They wanted to build a lot of them, but costs overran like they always do, then they cut the program to a lot less, which meant the unit cost ended up huge.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 16:37 |
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Huh, interesting, I guess none were sent to the USSR then, since the trials report for the Valentine Mk.IX complains that there is no HE shell.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 16:51 |
|
Fangz posted:They wanted to build a lot of them, but costs overran like they always do, then they cut the program to a lot less, which meant the unit cost ended up huge. And they have also scaled back the modular combat module portion of the program which gutted a lot of the capabilities from the ships. As it stands now it looks like they will just be equipping each LCS for a single mission only (mine countermeasures, surface warfare, ASW)
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 16:55 |
|
Would it be fair to say that military procurement in democracies have the habit of falling into the pattern of "government announces large and overly optimistic program to widespread public acclaim, then next government from opposing party kills or partially kills the underperforming program to again widespread public acclaim, then announces new alternative program"?
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 16:59 |
|
Fangz posted:Would it be fair to say that military procurement in democracies have the habit of falling into the pattern of "government announces large and overly optimistic program to widespread public acclaim, then next government from opposing party kills or partially kills the underperforming program to again widespread public acclaim, then announces new alternative program"? no. most democracies have permanent, and ostensibly apolitical, military establishments to ensure continuity in defense policy. the same for foreign policy. there are also elements of corporate welfare and jobs programs that support defense contractors and representatives of places reliant on defense industries, so programs develop democratic constituencies. what you describe is arguably more likely in authoritarian societies as a result of competition between factions.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 17:09 |
|
kill me now posted:And they have also scaled back the modular combat module portion of the program which gutted a lot of the capabilities from the ships. Kinda feel like you'd have to be deaf dumb and blind not to have seen that coming from the start. The swappable modules thing was always ridiculous.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 17:13 |
|
Gnoman posted:There were several factors. Additionally IIRC early on the British mounted the guns on a balanced mount where the gunner aimed it like a rifle (for better moving accuracy, with the gunner basically functioning like a crude stabilizer), which limits the size of the gun that can be mounted before you have to go back to a traditional howitzer style mounting. And IIRC as a result the British also had trouble balancing their turrets when they went back to regular mounts because they'd spent the 30s and early 40s just balancing the gun instead.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 17:27 |
|
Mortabis posted:Kinda feel like you'd have to be deaf dumb and blind not to have seen that coming from the start. The swappable modules thing was always ridiculous. The StanFlex system the Danes use seems to be fairly logical and useful as you might expect from the country that invented Lego. The modules are standard across ship classes and each vessel has multiple module slots so that's quite a bit different from the LCS mission modules already.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 17:40 |
|
Schenck v. U.S. posted:no. Sounds like what seems to happen all the time in Canada
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 17:57 |
|
So we have a $500 million dollar minesweeper? Amazing.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 18:03 |
Ensign Expendable posted:Also the Soviets put a 76 mm gun into the Matilda and there was a project to put an 85 mm gun into the Valentine somehow, a small turret ring is not an issue if you believe in yourself. This statement seems tounge-in-cheek, but have you done an article on the Matilda II/76 attempt? I can't seem to find one on your blog. C.M. Kruger posted:Additionally IIRC early on the British mounted the guns on a balanced mount where the gunner aimed it like a rifle (for better moving accuracy, with the gunner basically functioning like a crude stabilizer), which limits the size of the gun that can be mounted before you have to go back to a traditional howitzer style mounting. And IIRC as a result the British also had trouble balancing their turrets when they went back to regular mounts because they'd spent the 30s and early 40s just balancing the gun instead. I've heard that story apocryphally, but never in any primary sources. The shoulder-balanced gun was definitely A Thing, but I've never seen any official source to support the narrative that it was a major hassle to move away from, and the timeline doesn't support it. The 6-pounder was too big for such a mount, and the British were quite eager to replace the 2-pounder (introduced in 1935) with the 6-pounder (development started in 1938, was supposed to replace the 2-pounder completely by 1940 or early 1941 but was delayed by Dunkirk and didn't enter service until 1942). If the shoulder stabilization was such a huge problem, they wouldn't have planned to throw it away in just 3 years.
|
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 18:04 |
|
Quinntan posted:Sounds like what seems to happen all the time in Canada It's true, that's Canadian procurement in a nutshell
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 18:29 |
|
Gnoman posted:This statement seems tounge-in-cheek, but have you done an article on the Matilda II/76 attempt? I can't seem to find one on your blog. It hasn't been requested yet. I'll add it to the queue. In the meantime, I posted a document on the card cancellation of the rearmament program.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 18:36 |
|
American procurement is so long and murky, you don't even know who to blame
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 19:36 |
|
Quinntan posted:Sounds like what seems to happen all the time in Canada Nebakenezzer posted:It's true, that's Canadian procurement in a nutshell Canada is an interesting case because it has very modest defense needs and they are almost entirely filled by purchase from the USA's bloated defense industry. You can compare what the current government did on the F35 to what they're doing for the Navy. They quickly bailed on buying American F35s, because the deal was basically a favor to the USA and a subsidy to foreign industry anyway. Meanwhile, the Navy involves substantial domestic shipbuilding industries, and naval operations are seen as strategically important, so the Liberals reiterated their commitment to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy and the Canadian Surface Combatant Program... albeit with slightly more attention to costs.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 19:37 |
|
The LCS ships were originally intended to be "disposable" inasmuch as an eight figure thing can be disposable. Somewhere along the line that got shall we say perverted a bit.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 19:46 |
|
Schenck v. U.S. posted:. Meanwhile, the Navy involves substantial domestic shipbuilding industries, and naval operations are seen as strategically important, so the Liberals reiterated their commitment to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy and the Canadian Surface Combatant Program... albeit with slightly more attention to costs. What? The CSC program is already a giant mess and construction isn't even supposed to start for at least three more years.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 20:10 |
|
Phanatic posted:What? The CSC program is already a giant mess and construction isn't even supposed to start for at least three more years. By "attention to costs" I just meant they are continuing to flush money down the toilet but are at least wringing their hands, like how they dropped the requirement for a Canadian design in the hopes of saving a little time and money, whereas Harper's guys just stolidly insisted that everything was fine.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2017 20:17 |
|
happy hitler day everyone
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 07:35 |
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 09:09 |
|
Why didn't Mongol cavalry use shields?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 09:42 |
|
O poo poo adolf kushner waddup
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 10:06 |
|
Hogge Wild posted:Why didn't Mongol cavalry use shields? The power requirements were too high for portable generators.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 10:42 |
|
GotLag posted:The power requirements were too high for portable generators. lol
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 10:46 |
|
Hogge Wild posted:Why didn't Mongol cavalry use shields? I'm not an expert but I suspect its because they wanted to be able to quickly swap between bows at range and swords/spears/axes up close. I assume stowing a shield on a moving horse would complicate this somewhat.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 11:38 |
|
Carcer posted:I'm not an expert but I suspect its because they wanted to be able to quickly swap between bows at range and swords/spears/axes up close. I assume stowing a shield on a moving horse would complicate this somewhat. But what if they had heavier armour and the shield strapped to one of their arms instead? Maybe that would get too heavy for one horse, they should've had two horses and a chariot instead. Or maybe that could limit their mobility if one horse died... Why didnt the mongols put barding on their horses? Tbh they should've invested in tanks. Imagine mongols invading medieval europe on top of Panzer Is, that would be loving rad.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 12:11 |
|
Greggster posted:But what if they had heavier armour and the shield strapped to one of their arms instead? The mongols went round in herds with 4-5 horses per warrior so I can't imagine barding was really an option. In any case the real mongol strength was their strategic mobility - essentially they always wanted to fight a battle at a time and place of their choosing, so having soldiers & horses with a bunch of heavy equipment (assuming that was possible for them, which it probably wasn't) was not in their interest.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 12:30 |
|
I dunno, the steppes, especially certain parts of Siberia, have a lot of oil reserves. Would have been perfect grazing for PzKpfw Is. Makes me wonder why they didn't breed any.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 12:46 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:56 |
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I dunno, the steppes, especially certain parts of Siberia, have a lot of oil reserves. Would have been perfect grazing for PzKpfw Is. Makes me wonder why they didn't breed any. Can't drink the blood of a Panzer I, nor can you make its milk into an alcoholic drink.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 13:00 |