|
Fangz posted:Also the "WE'RE GONNA SEND YOU TO THE GULAG!" "oh i mean the nice gulag, gulags are nice, how dare you perceive what i said as a threat" is like prime rear end in a top hat behaviour Yep this is the important point here. That fluid transition between irony, intimidation, and historical revisionism is basically identical to the way the alt-right were operating five or so years ago.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
I should just interject with excerpts from these two ex-pilots arguing with eachother through snail mail about the max safe speed of a Spitfire Mk 1 vs a Hurricane Mk 1 and the difference (and obsolescence) between the latter's Mk I and Mk II vs Bf-109s and general dick-waving of credentials on hours flown with each type.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
I wonder where on the scale that whole GULUG/Island colony that collapsed and resorted to desperate barbaric cannibalism is then? a really over the top party?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:I should just interject with excerpts from these two ex-pilots arguing with eachother through snail mail about the max safe speed of a Spitfire Mk 1 vs a Hurricane Mk 1 and the difference (and obsolescence) between the latter's Mk I and Mk II vs Bf-109s and general dick-waving of credentials on hours flown with each type. What's the WWII equiv of furiously mashing F5? Getting blackout drunk?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What's the WWII equiv of furiously mashing F5? Getting blackout drunk? Stalking your hobby shop or book store for the latest AEROPLANE MONTHLY magazine and scouring the editorials for bad opinions on that thing you like. Also, learning to type with a word processor so you can reply EVEN FASTER!    
Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Sep 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Personally I don't get the appeal of doing all these delightfully-constructed arabesques on the head of a pin to make sure that people know there have definitely been worse things than the GULAG in the world i enjoyed this post quite a bit
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I wonder where on the scale that whole GULUG/Island colony that collapsed and resorted to desperate barbaric cannibalism is then? a really over the top party? Mortal Book Club
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
quote:tedious bean counting megacrime olympics This is a great phrase; I’d say it would make a good thread title, but then it might encourage more of that kind of thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/lilyslynch/status/1039898232783036418 Kosovo
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Doesn't really fit the theme of the rest of the beach boys oeuvre but it's good to travel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
We interrupt this shitfit about the GULAG Archipelago to bring you an extremely stupid patent from 1913 for defending ships against bombers. I'll let the rest of you figure out exactly how much is wrong with this proposal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:We interrupt this shitfit about the GULAG Archipelago to bring you an extremely stupid patent from 1913 for defending ships against bombers. Oh poo poo! It's so simple!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
One thing that jumps right out is that the netting doesn't seem to be elastic enough to propel the bomb back upwards into the bomber, destroying it for its temerity
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
What size of aerial bombs are we talking about in 1913?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Aerial bombs in 1913 were between non-existent and a couple dozen pounds in size, usually the former. Of course, that's irrelevant to that mesh thing working for several reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:What size of aerial bombs are we talking about in 1913? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:We interrupt this shitfit about the GULAG Archipelago to bring you an extremely stupid patent from 1913 for defending ships against bombers. Deck fire? Plunging poppycock!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:We interrupt this shitfit about the GULAG Archipelago to bring you an extremely stupid patent from 1913 for defending ships against bombers. The British actually deployed on real ships a rocket launcher that would fire a small charge of explosive attached by a line to a parachute which would hopefully deploy, hopefully suspending the explosive in the path of a bomber, which would hopefully snag the line and hopefully draw the charge up to it where it would hopefully explode. If you ask "But that which goes up must come and, mightn't the parachute leads snag on antennas and the like on the ship, requiring someone to climb up and dispose of the bombs?" then you are comfortably smarter than the people in admiralty who thought this was a good idea. And if you ask "Was Churchill involved in this idea?" then you already know the answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The British actually deployed on real ships a rocket launcher that would fire a small charge of explosive attached by a line to a parachute which would hopefully deploy, hopefully suspending the explosive in the path of a bomber, which would hopefully snag the line and hopefully draw the charge up to it where it would hopefully explode. In World of Warships this is actually somewhat effective, but only when you have a cooldown up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:We interrupt this shitfit about the GULAG Archipelago to bring you an extremely stupid patent from 1913 for defending ships against bombers. *me, screaming at my monitor* You fools! Attach rockets to the nets and shoot them into the bomber's flight path!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Shoot guys on parachutes to hijack the planes and now you got more planes
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The British actually deployed on real ships a rocket launcher that would fire a small charge of explosive attached by a line to a parachute which would hopefully deploy, hopefully suspending the explosive in the path of a bomber, which would hopefully snag the line and hopefully draw the charge up to it where it would hopefully explode. Yeah I had a whole series of posts about those launchers. You're not supposed to shoot it directly up so that they fall back on the ship, you have them fall to the side. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
I first found that mesh patent last night and I'm still coming up with exciting new ways it's a terrible idea all around. I'll list as many as I can think of: 1) It'd take hundreds of man-hours to set that thing up in the first place even while a ship is anchored. 2) Any decent wind would reduce it to wreckage even in harbor. 3) So would a few exploding shells or bombs. 4) Even vibrations from torpedoes or mines would probably do it. 5) Oh hey, it gives no protection whatsoever against airplanes carrying torpedoes. 6) And speaking of protection, it's no help at all against other warships. 7) Or submarines, for that matter. 8) Surface ships and submarines are what a 1913 warship is going to be facing roughly 100% of the time. 9) This thing can't protect against shells. 10) Or torpedoes launched at the ship by things which are not airplanes. 11) Again, a few shells will reduce the mesh and the associated rigamarole to wreckage all over the ship's deck. 12) Dozens of tons of wreckage at a guess. 13) Dozens of tons of burnt and burning elastic fibers and scaffolding all over the deck means the ship can't use it's own turrets because all that poo poo is blocking their operation. 14) At least until you dump it all over the side. 15) In the middle of a battle, which means exposing the crew to enemy shellfire. 16) While the ship can't shoot back. 17) And even if it isn't all over the deck in wreckage, that wrecking is going to gently caress up the ship's gunnery. 18) Because it's all rigged up around the spotting positions at the top of the masts. 19) Which means it obstructs the parts of the ship with the best view of the enemy. 20) Those are the people who are in the best position to make sure the ship's guns can actually hit the enemy. 21) And even outside of a battle it's a pain in the rear end for the ship. 22) Not only is it in the way of the spotting positions, it's a bunch of flammable material. 23) Located right above the funnels. 24) Which are spraying out hot smoke and coal cinders from the engines. 25) In maritime lingo this is called "a huge loving fire hazard". 26) Fires are pretty much the worst thing that can happen aboard a ship. Especially in 1913. 27) Because to fight them in 1913 you need to use water. 28) Maybe even hundreds of gallons of water if the fire gets bad enough. 28) Pumping hundreds of gallons of water onto a ship is bad because, once the fire is out, you have to pump that water back out of the ship again. 29) And there's no guarantee that the fire didn't cause your pumping equipment to get damaged. 30) Besides which, pumping hundreds of gallons of water into a ship is bad for other reasons. 31) Most notably, it can effect the buoyancy of the ship. 32) Buoyancy is why ships float in the first place. 33) If a ship is not a submarine, losing buoyancy is bad news. 34) It is also arguably bad news for a submarine, because they need a reserve of buoyancy to not just sink like a stone. 35) Surface ships without sufficient buoyancy, meanwhile, sink like a stone regardless. 36) A ship that sinks is useless unless you're trying to create an artificial reef. 37) Presumably this mesh poo poo was installed on a ship that wasn't meant to become an artificial reef. 38) Actually, this isn't presumably because artificial reefs weren't a thing in 1913. Not deliberately, anyway. 39) Even if the mesh doesn't catch fire it still alters the stability of a ship because it's tons of metal and other poo poo high above the water. 40) Stability is important for ships because they're rocked back and forth because of how fluids work, and the ocean is a loving fluid. 41) Less stability means a greater risk of capsizing. 42) If a ship capsizes, it sinks. Usually. 43) Even if a capsized warship doesn't sink, it can't do anything. Especially fight in a naval battle. 44) A warship that can't fight in a naval battle is useful for exactly jack and poo poo. Note that this statement intentionally ignores training and accommodation hulks and auxiliary ships like oilers and hospital ships. 45) In any case this stupid mesh thing probably won't keep out bombs anyway because real life is not a Wile E. Coyote cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Paint the net blue and the planes will just think you’re water
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
some guy took this out of his butt and decided it'd be a good aerial weapon
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And if you ask "Was Churchill involved in this idea?" then you already know the answer. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Paint the net blue and the planes will just think you’re water No, you attach half a forest worth of vegetation (plus monkeys) and pretend you're an island!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
bewbies posted:some guy took this out of his butt and decided it'd be a good aerial weapon pls no kink shaming
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
In fairness to Churchill (and he gets very little in these threads), the British weren't the only ones to try that sort of thing. It's like what Mahan said when he urged Congress to fund the first USN submarines: their value if successful would be out of proportion to the money spent if they failed. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Sep 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:In fairness to Churchill (and he gets very little in these threads), the British weren't the only ones to try that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
I wanna play a crimson skies with barrage bloons badly now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Was non-dive bombing ever particularly effective vs warships
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
zoux posted:Was non-dive bombing ever particularly effective vs warships Are the ships moving in this scenario? If yes, not really. If no, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:Was non-dive bombing ever particularly effective vs warships Do air-dropped torpedoes count?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Did anyone try torpedo-dive bombing submarines? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:Was non-dive bombing ever particularly effective vs warships Torpedo bombers were terrifying. Torpedoes are much, much better at sinking ships than bombs, doubly so when you have a good torpedo to match like the IJN's long lance. The problem with torpedo bombing is that the bomber is incredibly vulnerable while making their run. Bombs could cripple ships, occasionally sink them if they got lucky with a secondary explosion (as happened at Midway for the only ship actually sunk by aircraft there), but nothing beat a torpedo bomber for sinking big ships when it came to air attack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Do air-dropped torpedoes count? Not for Net Shield purposes. In the patent, he says that dropping a bomb down the smokestack was the biggest threat, which I don't think history bore out
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Speaking of torpedos, it's easy to see where the idea for anti-bomb nets stems from. Now just add a top net and you're ready to fight!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
zoux posted:Not for Net Shield purposes. Historically the main way that aerial bombs sank ships was starting fires that caused secondary explosions in places like magazines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
zoux posted:Not for Net Shield purposes. But if we extend the nets to completely enclose the ship...! Edit: Nenonen beat me to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 20:10
|
|