|
ChubbyChecker posted:Iirc, the Panthers had better off-road mobility than Shermans or T-34s, when they worked that is. The Panther had better flotation than the Sherman, but worse traction. This in practice meant that it wouldn't sink in mud, but it also wouldn't drive very well. Depending on the tracks used the Sherman could beat the Panther handily in off-road mobility tests. http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/02/shermans-in-mud.html?m=1
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Following onto the tech tree post from yesterday and like fifty pages' worth of discussion, here's the ship classes I'm considering being playable. My goal was to get 4 classes from each of US/UK/DE/JP in destroyer, cruiser, and battleship sizes, while also getting classes that players are most likely to have heard of (and failing that, classes that were heavily used historically and/or have a nice progression of max displacements to give the player a ladder to climb). So for example, I included the Dreadnought class even though the UK had plenty of more up-to-date designs by WW2, just because it's the freakin' Dreadnought, it defined the genre.quote:- US: Please go ahead and pick nits, this was almost entirely written off the basis of this page. (I'm aware, the Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
The Bren was used by the winner of the war and the MG42 the loser. But the MG42 is still used today while the Bren is a relic. Hmmm...
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
The Puckle gun is a relic. The Bren is obsolete both in design and how machine guns and squad tactics have changed since the war. It was a decent Cold War stop gap while ironically the British Army worked on trying to get a MG-42 style machine gun working. Lindybeige is a guy who cannot buy boots.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The Puckle gun is a relic. The Bren is obsolete both in design and how machine guns and squad tactics have changed since the war. It was a decent Cold War stop gap while ironically the British Army worked on trying to get a MG-42 style machine gun working. I was being dramatic by calling it a relic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Yeah I know but dammit we take relics very seriously here! Chances are high on the borders of Ireland somehow said weapon is going to show up in the hands of people who want to hurt other people for vague reasons.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Following onto the tech tree post from yesterday and like fifty pages' worth of discussion, here's the ship classes I'm considering being playable. My goal was to get 4 classes from each of US/UK/DE/JP in destroyer, cruiser, and battleship sizes, while also getting classes that players are most likely to have heard of (and failing that, classes that were heavily used historically and/or have a nice progression of max displacements to give the player a ladder to climb). So for example, I included the Dreadnought class even though the UK had plenty of more up-to-date designs by WW2, just because it's the freakin' Dreadnought, it defined the genre. I'd take the V & W classes over the Towns for the starter UK destroyer. The Towns were ex-American ships from the destroyers-for-bases trade. A bunch of them are Clemsons, so it'd be repetitive. Three of your British cruisers are also near-sisters (Kent, London, and Norfolk). Since you're throwing heavy and light cruisers into the same category, I'd suggest drawing more from the RN's large pool of CL classes. Maybe something like Kent, York, Leander, Southampton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Edinburgh class would be my vote for a UK cruiser.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:One thing from the era that article mentions specificlly is that all battleships save American ones had an armored 'citidel' in their design; the best quality armor surrounding the most important systems. Only America was rich enough to build the entire ship out of this high quality but very expensive armor. What. 'All or nothing' wasn't developed on cost grounds, it's a weight tradeoff, and the US Navy pioneered it to boot!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Following onto the tech tree post from yesterday and like fifty pages' worth of discussion, here's the ship classes I'm considering being playable. For British cruisers I'm going to go very controversial and say Abdiel - late C-class - Town/Edinburgh - County. Abdiels are going to be very weird, with immense 39 knot speed and destroyer-tier armament along with the capacious mine storage which can essentially be used like mission space for whatever you like. The late Cs are pretty middle of the road late WW1 CLs which can optionally be converted into a fairly creditable CLAA. Edinburgh gets you Belfast which is really the British cruiser and the Counties round out the line as the RN's famous workhorse CAs. If you want purely CAs, Hawkins - York - London - Tiger. I know Tiger isn't a CA but that's the RN's only Missile Cruiser option. For the American battleships, Colorado beats all of your other Tier 1 options easily and NorCal beats all of your Tier 2s and SoDak beats all of your Tier 3s. Iowa beats all of your Tier 4s but that's frankly okay. I'd go for Pennsylvania - Colorado - NorCal - Iowa, you keep the iconic Iowa and one of the ships from Second Guadalcanal but you gain Arizona. Deutschlands and Hippers should be swapped, the Hippers are newer but the Deutschlands are CAs so large and heavily armed that they start to edge into the Battlecruiser class. Everything else I'm fairly unfamiliar with honestly, so I'll leave it to others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:I'd take the V & W classes over the Towns for the starter UK destroyer. The Towns were ex-American ships from the destroyers-for-bases trade. A bunch of them are Clemsons, so it'd be repetitive. Three of your British cruisers are also near-sisters (Kent, London, and Norfolk). Since you're throwing heavy and light cruisers into the same category, I'd suggest drawing more from the RN's large pool of CL classes. Maybe something like Kent, York, Leander, Southampton. wdarkk posted:Edinburgh class would be my vote for a UK cruiser. Thanks for these suggestions! The V/W replacing the Town is smart...hopefully I would've realized that something was up when I went to do the modeling but at minimum that saves me some confusion later. I'd skipped the CLs initially because one of the most important metrics for a ship in-game is its max displacement, which determines how much stuff you can pile on (including armor of course). The ships have other stats, mostly base endurance and maneuverability, so there's some wiggle room to make smaller ships in the same class compelling alternatives to larger ones, but given the choice between a 5kton CL or a 10kton CA, I suspect most players will prefer the latter. That s aid, the Edinburgh has a max displacement of 10400 tons, so I'm not really sure why it's a light cruiser instead of a heavy cruiser. And then there's things like the Konigsberg, nominally a CA but with a max displacement of 6650 tons. Ship designations, man. Seems like I'll just have to figure out some way to make the lighter-weight ships attractive, or accept that some ship options will be largely ignored by the players in favor of More Guns. Updated list, including max displacement on all ships: quote:- US: EDIT: poo poo, FrangibleCover made a post while I was updating things. Will revise momentarily. OK. List above has been updated per FrangibleCover's suggestions. FrangibleCover posted:Dreadnought is going to be the worst of those Battleships by some distance, I'd suggest a Queen Elizabeth or Iron Duke instead. I agree with the V/Ws instead of a Town, which are going to be as bad or worse than Clemsons, and further suggest the iconic Tribals instead of the S/Ts since there's not a lot of difference between them and a player-upgraded E/F with extra AA. Dreadnought being poo poo is OK because it can be cheap poo poo. When the player first unlocks the ability to build battleships, they'll have a ton of research options unlocked -- they'll need not just the hull but also the bigger guns that don't fit on CAs, larger boilers, new bridges, etc. Dreadnought gives them a hull that can be cheaper than anything else and big enough to put some big guns on, then they can toss it a mission or two later once they can afford something better. That said, it's a fair complaint that this means the UK is only getting three "real" options when it comes to the most iconic ships of the 20th century, so adding another in isn't a bad idea. By "Iron Duke" do you mean the Revenge class? (EDIT: no, of course you mean the HMS Iron Duke, learn to google, me). Tribals are an easy swap-in at this stage, and I'm happy enough just to have a ship class that isn't just a letter or a number. The UK had some great ship classes, so why are some of them so boring? quote:For British cruisers I'm going to go very controversial and say Abdiel - late C-class - Town/Edinburgh - County. Abdiels are going to be very weird, with immense 39 knot speed and destroyer-tier armament along with the capacious mine storage which can essentially be used like mission space for whatever you like. The late Cs are pretty middle of the road late WW1 CLs which can optionally be converted into a fairly creditable CLAA. Edinburgh gets you Belfast which is really the British cruiser and the Counties round out the line as the RN's famous workhorse CAs. Tiger's a bit late compared to the others...I know that I have some post-WW2 weapons tech though. And you're right, the Abdiel class is an odd suggestion, and one I would never have thought of on my own. As cruisers they have pathetic displacement, but that top speed sure is something. I'd need to figure out some way to make them interesting as AI ships though (where I plan to use solely historical designs, or as close as I can get with my ship designer). Currently I have no plans to implement mines. quote:For the American battleships, Colorado beats all of your other Tier 1 options easily and NorCal beats all of your Tier 2s and SoDak beats all of your Tier 3s. Iowa beats all of your Tier 4s but that's frankly okay. I'd go for Pennsylvania - Colorado - NorCal - Iowa, you keep the iconic Iowa and one of the ships from Second Guadalcanal but you gain Arizona. This can be balanced through the cost of the hulls, but it's a fair complaint anyway, and your suggestion makes sense. Done. quote:Deutschlands and Hippers should be swapped, the Hippers are newer but the Deutschlands are CAs so large and heavily armed that they start to edge into the Battlecruiser class. The order in this document is historical order, but their placement in the tech tree is easy to change. And yeah, the Deutschland really feels like it ought to be a capstone ship; its stats are nuts. TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Edit: You might want to consider swapping out the Sumner DD class for the Gearing for the USN.feedmegin posted:What. 'All or nothing' wasn't developed on cost grounds, it's a weight tradeoff, and the US Navy pioneered it to boot! I think they're confusing armor schemes with how liberal the US was with the use of stronger steel for internal structures, overall strengthening the whole design Taerkar fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
For the Americans, I think the Atlanta and/or Alaska class deserves to be in the cruiser list. The anti-aircraft cruiser was arguably perfected by the USN during the Pacific War, and the Alaska class were virtually battlecruisers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:For the Americans, I think the Atlanta and/or Alaska class deserves to be in the cruiser list. The anti-aircraft cruiser was arguably perfected by the USN during the Pacific War, and the Alaska class were virtually battlecruisers. ...WTF is a "large cruiser" with a max displacement of 34253 tons? That's well into battleship/cruiser territory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Also, this http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.php alleges that the majority of the armored carriers had suffered permanent deformation in their structure from fires contained within the structure, and they were in fact written off quickly as a result. As long as 'quickly' means 'after winning the war', this is irrelevant tbh. What matters is how many carriers you have still afloat while you still have enemies to defeat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:For the Americans, I think the Atlanta and/or Alaska class deserves to be in the cruiser list. quote:The anti-aircraft cruiser was arguably perfected by the USN during the Pacific War, and the Alaska class were virtually battlecruisers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
The (never used) US designation for "battlecruiser" was CC. The CBs were intended as cruiser hunters to counter surface raiders, with none of the capital-ship aspects of the Battlecruiser role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:What. 'All or nothing' wasn't developed on cost grounds, it's a weight tradeoff, and the US Navy pioneered it to boot! What I think I read that in that link I posted?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Also France and Italy should be in the mix, they had surface fleets e: this I demand You simulate all the supply costs on that WW2 poster that tells you how many donuts the bakery has to produce every morning (I can't find it now) Aircraft. Do it like Sands of Kharak if that's otherwise troublesome. You have airship scouts, Imperial Japanese Army amphibious assault ships flying autogyros, seaplane tenders, seaplanes, scout aircraft, floatplane fighters, submarine aircraft carriers (for real)... Aircraft Carriers! (Fleet, escort, whatever the hell the Shinharo was) Submarines, mostly useful for attacking supply oh and supply, it's typically the thing that restrained battleship use, they consume poo poo-tons of oil. In the battle of Guadalcanal, the US had to choose between carriers and battleships, chose carriers, and of consequence when the Japanese showed up with their battleships, they were seriously outgunned. Escorts for guarding your supply lines (corvettes, destroyer escorts, those weird torpedo boat almost destroyers the Italians built) battlecruisers! all the different types of other cruiser! German Q ships! British Q ships! Oh and if this helps, you could probably have another tier to battleships, super battleships, only the Japanese actually built them but most naval powers doodled equivalent designs. The Americans nearly gave us the Montana class The Vanguard class, the orphan who showed up too late to party e2: If you need another totally different fleet may I suggest Liechtenstein Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The (never used) US designation for "battlecruiser" was CC. The CBs were intended as cruiser hunters to counter surface raiders, with none of the capital-ship aspects of the Battlecruiser role. Also, Big Cruiser That Owns Little Cruisers is the core Battlecruiser role, they were originally intended for killing scout cruisers in the opening stages of a fleet battle and for independent operations against other cruisers. Pretending that a 35000t ship is merely an extremely heavy cruiser is disingenuous. Nebakenezzer posted:Also France and Italy should be in the mix, they had surface fleets FrangibleCover fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Squalid posted:on the subject of historic guns how on earth do you bore the barrel on a big bronze or cast iron gun in the 18th or 17th or 16th century? On a big naval gun I assume you have to remove several kilograms of material, like what kind of tool do you even do that with? They must have used wind or water mills or maybe mules to drive the drills, I can't imagine they had some poor sap manually doing all the labor. . . In the 18th century, they invented modern boring bars with horizontal mountings, where you'd rotate the cannon over a stationary drill bit, using either water, or later steam for power.  In the centuries prior, they'd generally lower a cannon vertically over a drill that was attached to a horse or oxen pulled mechanism, while the cannon was stationary. But the efficiency of that technology was so low that early cannons were cast with as much of the bore already formed during the casting by a core as possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:I'd agree with this, or perhaps an "Other" set of ships for French, Italian, Soviet and assorted designs. The Turkish Yavuz Sultan Selim, anyone? Don't forget Brazil! Set off a whole naval arms race in South America, ended up doing basically nothing throughout its career. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What You're mixing up terminology in a way that's confusing. The term "citadel" is strongly associated with the All or Nothing armor scheme (the citadel has All the armor, everything else has Nothing). What you're reading is that the US used STS, which was basically armor-quality steel, for structural elements that other countries used mild steel for. The STS is better steel than mild, but it's not really the same as armoring the entire ship because it's still being used in small thicknesses. FrangibleCover posted:For the American battleships, Colorado beats all of your other Tier 1 options easily and NorCal beats all of your Tier 2s and SoDak beats all of your Tier 3s. Iowa beats all of your Tier 4s but that's frankly okay. I'd go for Pennsylvania - Colorado - NorCal - Iowa, you keep the iconic Iowa and one of the ships from Second Guadalcanal but you gain Arizona. I'm amused by the idea of a Northern California-class battleship. Also, the Hippers are about half again as heavy as the Deutschlands. TooMuchAbstraction posted:The order in this document is historical order, but their placement in the tech tree is easy to change. And yeah, the Deutschland really feels like it ought to be a capstone ship; its stats are nuts. Oh, if you're not wedded to ascending order by date that frees things up a bit more. e: Those Japanese cruiser displacements are massive lies btw OpenlyEvilJello fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Ah yes the playground evolved adult Brexiteer argument of all British gear. The only Lindybeige I've ever watched was his "bad tanks" one which, admittedly showed off three of the worst tanks ever made for WWII. The top one being a British prototype that went about 12 miles on test track before the officer in charge of designing it went "Sorry lads, this just isn't working" and the army kept around for a while as an example of things not to do. Ensign Expendable posted:The Panther had better flotation than the Sherman, but worse traction. This in practice meant that it wouldn't sink in mud, but it also wouldn't drive very well. Depending on the tracks used the Sherman could beat the Panther handily in off-road mobility tests. http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/02/shermans-in-mud.html?m=1 Also depending on how long before the Panther's transmission ate itself. The Germans had a real bad issue with over-loading their tanks' engines and transmissions. Part of this was because of, as we all know, the Allies bombing anything that could be potentially a ball-bearing plant. Another part of the issue was they kept up-armoring the vehicles every time the Allies produced a new gun. Now some of this was required, especially on existing Pz. III and Pz. IV tanks to keep them relevant, but you look at the developmental history of any German tank that actually was made in quantity mid or late war you see the same story: -Tank was gonna be X tons, power plant and transmission are designed for this -Allies keep introducing bigger guns, tank needs more armor -Tank is now several tons over its initial design -Transmission and engine are not replaced -Repeat last 3 steps as necessary -Tank enters production an overweight, underpowered resource hog as mechanics and engineers tinker with them on the field or in the production shop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
There's some interesting stuff I read about how this happened because Kniepkamp was able to establish a monopoly of the companies he liked and their engines/transmissions were baked into the requirements. The Germans did later establish a rival organization to design tank concepts, but it was pretty much too late to offset the initial gains of the incumbents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:
Every official IJN displacement from the signing of the washington naval treaty to the official Japanese reputation of the treaty is a lie. They are all heavier than they claim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Every official IJN displacement from the signing of the washington naval treaty to the official Japanese reputation of the treaty is a lie. They are all heavier than they claim. Interestingly, I've read a few accounts that some Japanese sailors believed the Yamato and Musashi were cursed because of the Treaty. Both ships were worse than useless during the war, and at least a few people believed that was because they were genuinely cursed for being built in defiance of the treaty due to the treachery involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The Puckle gun is a relic. The Bren is obsolete both in design and how machine guns and squad tactics have changed since the war. It was a decent Cold War stop gap while ironically the British Army worked on trying to get a MG-42 style machine gun working. You're wrong about basically everything here. The Bren is obsolescent but it has almost nothing to do with changes to squad tactics or even machine guns. While the universal machine gun became an important part of the modern infantry arsenal, the magazine-fed light machine gun has endured as a viable squad-level machine gun concept to this day. They're considerably lighter than universal machine guns and often more compact and cheaper, and many designs allow them to use magazines interchangeably with the standard service rifle. The light weight makes them more handy and it's often feasible to issue more than one per squad, which is convenient for modern squad tactics that emphasize splitting into two fireteams that support each other, such as using one LMG fireteam to pin the enemy and the other to move up and destroy the enemy without losing their automatic firepower. (You can do this with two universal machine guns, but it hasn't been common.) The magazine-fed LMG continued to serve alongside the universal machine gun in the Cold War and were extremely prolific, sometimes replacing universal machine guns as tactics changed. The list is very long but the most prominent example would be the Soviet RPK and its derivatives, and the Bren would serve in the British Army until The reason the Bren is obsolescent comes down to the top-mounted magazine and offset sights being passed over for a more conventional design, but there's really nothing wrong with it. If you built a Bren, today, it would slot right into modern squad tactics seamlessly. It was also not a British Army stopgap during the Cold War. The British Army tried to make a belt-fed Bren for a bit (and stopped mainly for political reasons), but adopted the FN MAG without much fuss in the late 50s and it would serve alongside the Bren for decades. It would serve well as the squad machine gun for some units well into the 70s and the Royal Marines were often issued one MAG and one Bren and preferred the Bren. Bren: It's just a good bit of kit, really. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:This was about as desperate as it looks. The smoke and heat from the stacks made the approach difficult and then one had to crab the aircraft sideways onto the deck. The first guy to do it died five days later in another landing attempt. Keep in mind that smoke and heat also means turbulence. Exhaust air is a serious problem because of this, and bringing in a WWI era biplane in near its stall speed to try and sideslip onto this deck is one of the most ludicrously dangerous things I can think of. Exhaust gases formed a problem for carrier design, especially once they figured out that faster carriers were better carriers. A lot of thought went into figuring out how to trunk that stuff out of the way of the guide slope. The US came up with some fun little trunks that pivoted out of the way, as seen on the Langley in the foreground here:  The Ranger had a similar setup but with trunks on each side, and with the drat things having a patch of deck space on them. So with the stacks up, it looked like this:  With them down, like this:  Note the wildcats on the resulting uninterrupted deck, the aviation guys liked the idea because of that. Eventually the giant stacks the Lexingtons have in the picture of the Langley won out though. Meanwhile Japan went for a downturned stack on the sides, shown particularly well here by the kaga:  The idea here was that it'd get the gases going away from the deck and cool them down with contact with seawater. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:That s aid, the Edinburgh has a max displacement of 10400 tons, so I'm not really sure why it's a light cruiser instead of a heavy cruiser. And then there's things like the Konigsberg, nominally a CA but with a max displacement of 6650 tons. Ship designations, man. Seems like I'll just have to figure out some way to make the lighter-weight ships attractive, or accept that some ship options will be largely ignored by the players in favor of More Guns. The definition of a light versus a heavy cruiser comes down to the naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. The Washington Treaty of 1922 limited cruisers to a maximum standard displacement of 10,000 tons (n.b. standard displacement is very easy to game, so most cruisers went above this in total displacement). This was then followed by the 1931 London Treaty, which split cruisers into 'light' cruisers with 6in guns, and heavy cruisers with 8in guns. This was, as defined, the only difference between the two types, but most light cruisers of the 1920s and early 1930s tended to be smaller ships, displacing 5-6000 tons. However, in the late 1930s, people start to realise that 6in guns can be better than 8in guns - you can fit more on a ship of the same size, they fire faster, and the penetration advantage of the 8in doesn't matter when you're fighting lightly armoured cruisers. This meant that you get cruisers like the 'Town's, of which Edinburgh was the last evolution, which have light cruiser armament on a heavy cruiser's displacement. Konigsberg, with 6in guns, was always a light cruiser, and I don't recall seeing anything call it a heavy cruiser. FrangibleCover posted:
This is wrong. The battlecruiser was, when originally constructed, intended to support the scouting line before joining the battleline as a fast wing. They were never really built to cruise independently, and rarely did so. They were descendants of the first-class armoured cruisers of the 1890s and early 1900s, which were built for exactly this role. Fisher's writings, while not fully explicit, strongly suggest that he was thinking along these lines when designing the first battlecruisers. They were primarily used with the fleet in exercises pre-1914. They had a clear place in naval thinking as an innate part of the battlefleet, and this continued throughout WWI and the interwar period. The Alaskas, meanwhile, don't fit into this place. They were explicitly built to hunt raiding cruisers. They needed to be so large thanks to the threat from the German panzerschiffe and Scharnhorsts, both built for raiding shipping, as well as the perceived threat from Japanese ships of a similar size and role. They were never expected to fight in the battleline, or to be able to fight battleships. They could be considered '2nd Class battlecruisers', but large cruiser works just as well, and is the term that was historically used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:In the 18th century, they invented modern boring bars with horizontal mountings, where you'd rotate the cannon over a stationary drill bit, using either water, or later steam for power. I was trying to read the text on that image and thought I was having a stroke for a moment before I realized half the text is in Welsh. I was having trouble imagining a boring bar for a moment and I kept thinking of like a threaded screw shape which seemed like it couldn't possibly work, but looking at them I see now they are more like a solid bar that only needs to be as wide as the radius of the bore you need to drill. So thanks, it makes a lot more sense to me how this would work. Looking at the oldest bombards I'm pretty sure they were cast like bells without any boring. A lot of them basically look like big bells, and the barrel of the Dardanelles bombard was cast in two pieces that have to be screwed together. Boring must have made guns hugely more expensive. I think I remember reading even the small compliment of guns carried by 17th century merchant ships could be more expensive than the ship itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Chances are high on the borders of Ireland somehow said weapon is going to show up in the hands of people who want to hurt other people for vague reasons. You mean the coast? nyuck nyuck nyuck Nebakenezzer posted:You simulate all the supply costs on that WW2 poster that tells you how many donuts the bakery has to produce every morning (I can't find it now) How many donuts per person, you remember? Milo and POTUS fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Looking at the oldest bombards I'm pretty sure they were cast like bells without any boring. A lot of them basically look like big bells, and the barrel of the Dardanelles bombard was cast in two pieces that have to be screwed together. Boring must have made guns hugely more expensive. I think I remember reading even the small compliment of guns carried by 17th century merchant ships could be more expensive than the ship itself. Bronze guns can be fully cast with no boring, and were frequently made in the same facilities as bells. Sometimes out of bells. Boring must have begun cheap enough for iron guns to be cheaper than bronze guns. (You can cast iron, but making a gun out of it is a bad idea)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Mons Meg was built “from longitudinal bars of iron, hooped with rings fused into one mass”, which I think means it was forge‐welded.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
It's man portable, right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:It's man portable, right. It is capable of transporting a man over a considerable distance, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Bronze guns can be fully cast with no boring, and were frequently made in the same facilities as bells. Sometimes out of bells. can you fully cast the classical Napoleonic guns without boring? Like this style?  It's clear to me that by the 19th century bronze guns were, if not cast completely solid, at least largely solid. How do you cast a long serpentine barrel around a mold? I'm not sure when boring becomes the standard manufacturing procedure, I assume its sometime after the 15th century but I don't know when Cast iron cannon were a lot cheaper than bronze but more prone to violently exploding. They were also either a lot lighter or heavier, I forget which, but it mattered a lot to people buying guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Cast iron cannon were a lot cheaper than bronze but more prone to violently exploding. They were also either a lot lighter or heavier, I forget which, but it mattered a lot to people buying guns. Cast iron cannons were heavier than bronze ones with comparable loads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The Puckle gun is a relic. The Bren is obsolete both in design and how machine guns and squad tactics have changed since the war. It was a decent Cold War stop gap while ironically the British Army worked on trying to get a MG-42 style machine gun working. Bren: Still theoretically usable in modern day, but people who actually see them are in the parts of the world where old guns tend to collect and are still baffled by them and call them things like 'prehistoric'. MG42 or even MG34: Yeah it's usable, and they're kinda quotidian there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
I will be impressed if somehow a Puckle Gun turns up in one of the forever war conflicts still on going.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 03:09
|
|