|
If you haven’t seen The War Game that’s worth checking out, it’s more a documentary style and based around UK war plans. It’s still really bleak but not in the way Threads is.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
InAndOutBrennan posted:All short range IR missiles look too similar. Field must be open for disruption. Something something plasma? 3D vector thrust? I'll call some techbros and see what we can get together. Well mostly because the Russians and Chinese were able to get a complete AIM-9 from a failed to detonate AIM-9 that hit a MIg-17 during the Taiwan Strait battles. Then a spy for the Russians, Stig Wennerström, from the Swedish Air Force, sold the Russians the plans for the AIM-9. Thus the AA-2 Atoll was born. Of course the Chinese copied the AA-2 in the form of the PL-2. Oh and then the Israeli's with the Shafrir-1 and Shafrir-2 which were developed using AIM-9 tech. Even today's Python 5 uses tech from the AIM-9 series missiles. And the Israeli's sold these designs to the Chinese and spawned the PL-8 series... which lead to the PL-9's and PL-10's currently in service with the PRC Air Force (which of course has sold them to Pakistan and Bangladesh).
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:If you haven’t seen The War Game that’s worth checking out, it’s more a documentary style and based around UK war plans. It’s still really bleak but not in the way Threads is. There's also the QED episode A Guide to Armageddon, from 1982. https://youtu.be/9GJttnC8PoA
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Tias posted:The israeli military and political leadership is.. less than interested in playing fair, so they probably could skirt the conventions and paint a cross on it if it occurred to them. Still would be pretty unsporting though, that is some dystopian cityfight poo poo right there. Uh you write that as if there isn't an approximately zero chance of any of the IDF's likely opponents respecting a red cross. They've made an ambulance with tank levels of protection because that's what they need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Uh you write that as if there isn't an approximately zero chance of any of the IDF's likely opponents respecting a red cross. The problem isnt the armor. Its the 120mm main gun. And the mortar. And the three machine guns. The question isnt whether someone respects Red Cross or not, Its about painting it on a tank and then using it offensively- the entire idea behind International Red Cross is to have a way to mark non-combatant vehicles and equipment that are supposed to aid everyone that has been wounded. That is why using it whilst blasting away is such a big deal- whilst you arent protected by the conventions, you are eroding the international standing of one of the most important humanitarian NG organisations. Note, however, that I specifically said I havent Heard of IDF painting one in Merkavas, just specuöating How hazardoys ut would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Well mostly because the Russians and Chinese were able to get a complete AIM-9 from a failed to detonate AIM-9 that hit a MIg-17 during the Taiwan Strait battles. Then a spy for the Russians, Stig Wennerström, from the Swedish Air Force, sold the Russians the plans for the AIM-9. Thus the AA-2 Atoll was born. Of course the Chinese copied the AA-2 in the form of the PL-2. Well the Python 5 must be best. Just by looking at it you can see it has twice the turn.  Shitposting aside, people must have tried a lot of options by now? But like a lot of other stuff there might be not be that many ways of coming up with a missile body that needs to be quick and turn a lot? And not weigh more than x and preferably cost less than y.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:The problem isnt the armor. Its the 120mm main gun. And the mortar. And the three machine guns. I think the IRC has a lot more to worry about from, say, Hamas: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/red-crescent-chief-tells-of-hamas-betrayal-while-delivering-aid-in-gaza-1.64655
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
There's some engineering term I can't come up with right now for when you basically arrive at a functional form of a thing, and then said thing doesn't change all that much externally over a long period of time, but the technology driving the thing evolves spectacularly. Like, our computers are all boxes, with monitors, and keyboards, and mouses, but what I'm using today is vastly different from my dad's Apple IIc he bought in 1980-whatever despite looking more or less the same. Or, the 737 looks basically the same as it did in the 1960s. Or a howitzer today is more or less the same as it was in 1918. The AIM-9 is a great example of this...they hit on the basic configuration of a short range air to air missile in 1950-whatever, and there hasn't been much if any reason to change this over the last 70 years. Meanwhile, the missile's components and performance are completely different despite it looking the same. What I'm asking here is what is the drat word I can't come up with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
EDIT: Actually gently caress it this is way too D&D
Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
InAndOutBrennan posted:All short range IR missiles look too similar. Field must be open for disruption. Something something plasma? 3D vector thrust? I'll call some techbros and see what we can get together. Vectored thrust, vortex generators in front of the control surfaces: R-73  Small size, low weight (fits two to a pylon on some aircraft), vortex generators in front of the control surfaces: R-60  Large size, no forward control surfaces at all: ASRAAM  Anime Hair: AAM-3  This piece of poo poo on the far right: AIM-4 Falcon  I mean, yeah, they all look like tubes with a rounded point at one end and a hole in the other and some wings. They're missiles. The only one that wasn't like that never entered service. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:What I'm asking here is what is the drat word I can't come up with. Convergent Evolution? Like why a shark, dolphin, and ichthyosaur all follow the same basic shape - once you've gone through a bunch of different designs and found the one that is optimal for that environment you stick with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Uh you write that as if there isn't an approximately zero chance of any of the IDF's likely opponents respecting a red cross. I don't know that I did, I just don't think Israel would be above putting red crosses on military assets and then using it for optics when they invariably get attacked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:
What is that thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What is that thing the uss defiant
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
A very expensive frisbee.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What is that thing 40K Tau drone: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
It's PYE WACKET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye_Wacket
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:It's also worth noting the rapid timeline of US tank development: So, after the fall of france in 1940, America realized "Oh poo poo, this M2 just doesn't cut it" and yelled at the engineers "JUST PUT OUR NEW 75mm GUN IN THE HULL AND GIVE IT A SMALL TURRET, WE'LL GET A REAL SOLUTION LATER?" What's shared between the M2, M3, and M4? Since we're talking about Shermans, I was reading through that Sherman site EE recomended, and it's impressive as hell to me that the Americans could take 10 final assembley factories, god only knows how many subcontractors, and a tank that I think soon had three or four engines and two different hull types....and make everything work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What's shared between the M2, M3, and M4? Check out that suspension:    Sprocket in the front, idler in the back. Three "bogies," six single road-wheels, three return rollers. Paired guide teeth on the outsides of the track blocks, end-connectors instead of drift pins. I don't think anything is directly copied over, but it looks like a path of evolution to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Sprocket in the front, idler in the back. Three "bogies," six single road-wheels, three return rollers. Paired guide teeth on the outsides of the track blocks, end-connectors instead of drift pins. For comparison, a T-34/85 has the sprocket in the rear, idler in the front. Five sets of paired road wheels on coil-springs. No return rollers, guide teeth in the middle, drift pins instead of end connectors. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Uh you write that as if there isn't an approximately zero chance of any of the IDF's likely opponents respecting a red cross. Valtonen posted:The problem isnt armor... The “their opponents don’t respect the convention” doesn’t follow here either. If they’re going to shoot at MDA marked vehicles anyways, why bother painting it on your tank? It only makes sense against an opponent who is going to at least hesitate to engage an attacking vehicle with that insignia on it... and then you’re tossing away the benefits for actual medical evacuation and I struggle to think of a realistic objective that’s worth that loss, especially given how uncertain and small an advantage it would provide. It’s pretty obviously a dumb idea - which certainly doesn’t mean someone wouldn’t try it anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So, after the fall of france in 1940, America realized "Oh poo poo, this M2 just doesn't cut it" and yelled at the engineers "JUST PUT OUR NEW 75mm GUN IN THE HULL AND GIVE IT A SMALL TURRET, WE'LL GET A REAL SOLUTION LATER?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So, after the fall of france in 1940, America realized "Oh poo poo, this M2 just doesn't cut it" and yelled at the engineers "JUST PUT OUR NEW 75mm GUN IN THE HULL AND GIVE IT A SMALL TURRET, WE'LL GET A REAL SOLUTION LATER?" Four main engine families (R-975, GM 6046 diesel, Ford GAA, Chrysler A57). The R-975 came in at three production variants (EC2, C1, C4) plus a bunch of prototype ones. Also there was the RD-1820 multi fuel engine that was accepted into service, but only 75 Shermans were built with it. These Shermans also had a unique hull (lengthened M4A4 type, but with a hybrid front plate). This all worked somehow, and not just worked, but flourished, largely because the manufacturers didn't try to undercut each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:IIRC they wanted to ditch the 37mm and the turret but the infantry demanded it be kept. it would then have been an assault gun before assault guns were cool
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:It's PYE WACKET that thing is loving cool
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Before this discussion about the Merkava ambulance goes any further, has anyone ever seen one with protected ICRC markings on it? Otherwise it's a hypothetical war crime in the same way that you could hypothetically paint a protected symbol on any other AFV and not really worth discussing.Nebakenezzer posted:Since we're talking about Shermans, I was reading through that Sherman site EE recomended, and it's impressive as hell to me that the Americans could take 10 final assembley factories, god only knows how many subcontractors, and a tank that I think soon had three or four engines and two different hull types....and make everything work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:that thing is loving cool It's brilliant, isn't it? Honestly it's a relief it never entered service or serious testing, I'm sure it wouldn't have actually achieved the design objectives but if all we have are the design objectives then we can assume it's the coolest missile ever dreamed of. I also think I saw something somewhere claiming they were going to put a small nuke in it like an AIR-2 had. What else could you possibly do to make Pye Wacket more awesome?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Check out that suspension: I think if you look at the welded Sherman there's some similarity in terms of the general shape of the hull. http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/M4A4OTHERSIDE.png
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:It's PYE WACKET Thats disruption right there. I learned something today. Thanks guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Also one of the all-time great code names. Along with the weirdly eerie HAVE BLUE. Rivet Joint, Chrome Dome are good too. There's a navigation sonar named MOUSE ROAR which is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Check out that suspension: Modern US tank development really starts right here:  That there is an M2 light tank. First built in 1935, the M2 was basically the prototype for how American tanks up to the Sherman would be built: Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (Shortened to VVSS), a forward-mounted transmission, and powered by a converted aircraft radial engine. These design features would prove to have a number of downsides—because of the mounting for the radial engine, for instance, the tanks would all end up being way too tall, which effects the tank's center of gravity and is a major tactical disadvantage in combat. The early tanks also suffered from an obsession with packing them with as many MGs as physically possible, which persisted up to the early prototypes of the Sherman. However, it gave American tank designers a very solid foundation from which to build—though the design had flaws, it was fundamentally reliable, easy enough to produce, and easy to service. The design also had plenty of growth potential—initially enlarged for the M2 Medium, the later M3 and M4 tanks would use of large parts of the M2's suspension and powertrain. Not too bad for a 1930s design. Ensign Expendable posted:Four main engine families (R-975, GM 6046 diesel, Ford GAA, Chrysler A57). The R-975 came in at three production variants (EC2, C1, C4) plus a bunch of prototype ones. Also there was the RD-1820 multi fuel engine that was accepted into service, but only 75 Shermans were built with it. These Shermans also had a unique hull (lengthened M4A4 type, but with a hybrid front plate). American production during World War II was really something else, and it's always staggering to read about it. There was a real, honest desire by US manufacturers to build as much as they could as well as they could as fast as they could, and the results were nothing short of astounding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Also one of the all-time great code names. Along with the weirdly eerie HAVE BLUE. Rivet Joint, Chrome Dome are good too. There's a navigation sonar named MOUSE ROAR which is awesome. So much cool poo poo came out of HAVE BLUE. Rivet dome had so many technologies spawn from it... and we can thank almost all modern surveillance on what was learned in the early days of Rivet Dome on it... Chrome Dome was insanity. I'm absolutely gobsmacked that more B-52's didn't crash considering the flight regiment those pilots and crews suffered through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Modern US tank development really starts right here: A little earlier than the M2. The M1 Combat car was the first "tank" to use VVSS 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:it would then have been an assault gun before assault guns were cool 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Chrome Dome was insanity. I'm absolutely gobsmacked that more B-52's didn't crash considering the flight regiment those pilots and crews suffered through. There's a documentary on a Chrome Dome crash called Buzz One Four on Amazon video; it's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Assault guns were never cool Man... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Assault guns were never cool the ASU-57 and its absurd 73 calibers gun is here to say: you are wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Cessna posted:There's a documentary on a Chrome Dome crash called Buzz One Four on Amazon video; it's pretty good. Oh nice. Will watch it tonight. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Man... Bah 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
That is no assault gun! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:05
|
|
