|
The Lone Badger posted:Why is it that infantry rifles have gone through multiple redesign cycles since WW2, but machineguns like the M2 and MG42 just keep on keeping on with minimal changes? Once you get to a certain level of development in a role, it becomes very difficult to introduce major updates. Heavy and medium machine guns reached that point much earlier than infantry rifles did, primarily because it wasn't until the middle of WWII that the concept of an intermediate cartridge really gained traction. That said, there hasn't been that much more fundamental iterations on the infantry rifle. The majority of infantry rifles are derivatives of the AK (1948) or AR-15 (1959). This isn't that much newer.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
I'm dying to know what kind of raving sicko thinks that Charles V's hat is holy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
bewbies posted:What's your metric for this? 228 US subs sank 9.8 million tons of ships. (~43K tons per sub) 1,162 U-boats sank 21 million tons of ships. (~18K tons per sub) Figures from Clay Blair. Cessna fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Feb 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'd argue the Type IX U-boat was the most effective pound-for-pound weapon of the entire war, though serving on one would have sucked serious rear end. Type XXI descendants are still in service, though its service with the Germans was less than spectacular. No doubting the Type IX's effectiveness and it was a good design for the use it was intended for and put to. Much better than the old-fashioned and undersized Type VII. But the Type IX was still really just a double-hulled take on submarine design from WW1 and was only slightly bigger than a USN S-boat. The Germans called the Type IX a U-Kreuzer while the USN considered the S-boat barely fit for Pacific service. And the Type IX was much closer to the S-boat in terms of technology than it was to something like a Gato. And none of the Type IXs had properly sorted engines. I know we're not just talking about Wunderwaffen, size, sophistication or technological innovation, and the Type IX was a good boat, but it was far from cutting edge. The Type XXI was conceptually brilliant, a technological leap forward and is rightly considered the ancestor of all modern naval submarines. But it was massively flawed through a combination of Nazi political boondoggling and late-war labour, material and production problems. Putting crucial parts of your hydraulic system outside the pressure hull where the crew can't get at them isn't great. Many of the systems were over complex and unreliable due to having to use more simplistic technology in place of more advanced but more user-friendly equipment. The diesel plant was underpowered and based on an old engine design stretched too far. The modular out-sourced construction led to massive quality problems. Over 100 boats completed, only two made a patrol. The idea was great, the execution was utter garbage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Why is it that infantry rifles have gone through multiple redesign cycles since WW2, but machineguns like the M2 and MG42 just keep on keeping on with minimal changes? Mostly cartridge changes, shortening the gun and adding the ability to customise for things like optics. Most infantry rifles after WWII went from full power to intermediate cartridges which meant a wholly new assault rifle, and then with further updates/modifications usually to increase portability or some other feature the army in question wants. NATO standardisation is also a factor here, as is the debate over battle rifles vs assault rifles which gave us the M-14. Meanwhile as crew served weapons still firing full sized cartridges there's just not been as much need to update things like the MG-42 or M2 since they were already pretty mature. This does depend heavily on the military and how they label changes however - the US has been using the M-16 in some fashion since it came out, but a modern M-16 has a lot of different features to one from the 60s. The Brits went from the L85A1 to the L85A2, where basically every operating part of the gun replaced because of how poor the originals were but the gun looks basically the same. Meanwhile the Russians are more likely to give variants of the same gun different numbers, like the AK-103 and AK-104, which might give the impression they have more different rifles when in reality they're just variants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Cessna posted:228 US subs sank 9.8 million tons of ships. (~43K tons per sub) First, a 1:1 comparison isn't really valid. The US fleet boats were mammoth submarines compared to the Type IXs. It is like comparing a cruiser to a battleship. Second, simple tonnage sunk doesn't account for the environment they had to operate in: for the most part, US subs were beating up on a deaf and blind kid, while the U-boats pinned down a substantial portion of the world's naval combat power in the Atlantic. BalloonFish posted:No doubting the Type IX's effectiveness and it was a good design for the use it was intended for and put to. Much better than the old-fashioned and undersized Type VII. But the Type IX was still really just a double-hulled take on submarine design from WW1 and was only slightly bigger than a USN S-boat. The Germans called the Type IX a U-Kreuzer while the USN considered the S-boat barely fit for Pacific service. And the Type IX was much closer to the S-boat in terms of technology than it was to something like a Gato. And none of the Type IXs had properly sorted engines. All true (especially the engines) but the IXs were not designed to fight a Pacific war. The US built subs for its specific operational requirements, the Germans, for theirs. When you account for the relative size/complexity/cost of the two philosophies, the IX made sense for its particular mission, and its simplicity/cheapness was a huge advantage...one which the Germans, as this thread discusses exhaustively, were rarely excited to take advantage of. bewbies fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:The idea was great, the execution was utter garbage. I'll also point out that it wasn't "Type XXI descendants are still in service." It was "American Fleet Submarines with mods taken from the theories used in the Type XXI but made practical still in service," i.e., the GUPPY program.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:First, a 1:1 comparison isn't really valid. The US fleet boats were mammoth submarines compared to the Type IXs. It is like comparing a cruiser to a battleship. Sorry, I disagree. The US fleet subs sank well over twice the tonnage per sub built. Smaller, shittier subs don't get points because they were smaller and shittier. bewbies posted:Second, simple tonnage sunk doesn't account for the environment they had to operate in: Yes, the Pacific IS much larger, and US subs had to travel thousands more miles to find scattered targets. bewbies posted:for the most part, US subs were beating up on a deaf and blind kid, Yes, Allied ASW was much better than Japanese ASW. This doesn't make U-boats better. bewbies posted:while the U-boats pinned down a substantial portion of the world's naval combat power in the Atlantic. Yes, the Allies did divert significant resources to destroying the U boats. This doesn't make U boats better. Both Japan and the UK were island nations whose war efforts depended upon shipping. One defeated their enemy's submarines and won the war, the other was economically strangled and lost. Obviously this wasn't the only thing that mattered - of course - but the U boats just were not as effective as the US Fleet Boats. - - - Edit: And, that said, this is a tangent. I started off evaluating German stuff and comparing it to Allied equivalents. In my opinion a US fleet boat is better than a German U boat. And what do I base that opinion on? I was a curator on Pampanito for a few years in the late 90s. While there my boss (Russell Booth) had successfully overseen the the drydocking of Pampanito, done to preserve the hull and maintain the ship - for this, he was hired by the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago to work up a preservation plan for U-505, a Type IX U boat. This was back when the sub was stored outside; Russ was one of the consultants who pushed for the U-505 to be moved inside. It has been, and is now in a much better space, thanks in part to Russ' work. We got to look over U-505 in detail; we took photos, did material inspections, you name it. I've directly compared a US Fleet Boat and a Type IX U boat as a result. In my opinion - based on my surveys - the U-boat is garbage. Just off the top of my head, it had: - Bad welds seemingly everywhere. The thing had a really sexy pressure hull, with cool curved ends so that "on paper" it had a deeper crush depth. But when you see it in person you see that it was sloppily assembled - I would be VERY hesitant to dive in that sub. In contrast the Fleet Boat had a simple flat-ended cylinder for a pressure hull. It isn't as robust on paper, but it was built correctly. - No shock mounts anywhere. The German stuff was just put together - bolted to racks, welded together. Much of the delicate stuff on US subs was shock mounted, making it much more resilient. - Wood EVERYWHERE. storage lockers, bulkhead liners, overheads, seemingly everywhere you looked there was wood. The whole boat, from stem to stern, was a firetrap. In contrast the US sub had very few flammable fittings. - A complete lack of ergonomic considerations. The US sub was a luxury yacht in comparison; it had water distilleries, a much better galley, more comfortable bunks (I've slept in both), hell, even air conditioning and an ice cream maker. This may sound silly, but that sort of thing matters a lot. Exhausted, miserable sailors don't fight as well as well rested, well fed, confident sailors. - This isn't just limited to "quality of life" items; the stuff on the U-boat just wasn't well thought out even in weapon systems. For example - on the U-boat, shells for the deck gun had to be handed up through the hatches, one at a time, and passed to the gun bucket-brigade style. The US subs had sealed, waterproof "ready round" magazines right next to the gun. You won't see that when you compare "on paper" stats, but in a real fight it would make the US sub's gun fire much faster than the U-boat's, probably by at least double. - Simple firepower. The US sub had 6 torpedo tubes forward, 4 torpedo tubes aft. The U-boat had 4 tubes forward, 2 aft. The US sub can do a lot more damage in an attack. Want me to continue? Cessna fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Sorry, I disagree. The US fleet subs sank well over twice the tonnage per sub built. Smaller, shittier subs don't get points because they were smaller and shittier. Agree to disagree! Interesting thought you'd take this position considering your obvious interest in the cost value analysis of WWII equipment. quote:Yes, Allied ASW was much better than Japanese ASW. This doesn't make U-boats better. This is true, but it does impact the effectiveness of the system. In other words, why comparing simple tonnage sunk/boat is not a good methodology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
bewbies posted:First, a 1:1 comparison isn't really valid. The US fleet boats were mammoth submarines compared to the Type IXs. It is like comparing a cruiser to a battleship. The U-boats had most of their successes in a relatively permissive environment as well, though. The first 'Happy Time' came at a time when the Royal Navy didn't have enough escorts available (due to diversions to anti-invasion preparations, damage from Dunkirk and other concerns), and lacked many of the technological advantages they would have later in the war. As the war progressed into 1941, the RN built more escorts, but still didn't have enough long-range ships, or practice with underway replenishment, to cover convoys throughout their journeys. Many ships were lost from unescorted convoys in the mid-Atlantic. Many more came from ships sailing independently - when the minimum speed for ships to sail out of convoy was raised from 13 knots to 15 in June 1941, sinkings of independents dropped from 200,000 tons/month to 50,000. The second 'Happy Time' came after the American entry to the war; as the USN refused to operate a coastal convoy system and coastal communities weren't blacked out, ships on coastal routes were easy targets. The RN, RCN and USN did need to commit strong forces to the Atlantic to defeat the U-boats (especially since there were so many subs constructed), but they were ultimately able to beat them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I'll also point out that it wasn't "Type XXI descendants are still in service." I think he meant the German Bundesmarine, not whatever ideas the Americans stole for their own designs. We just straight up used two Type XXIII and one Type XXI U-Boat after the war and all our models designed later are basically improvements on the basic models. I think no German engineer ever gave a poo poo about what the Americans were doing with their boats, the design philosophies were simply too different. The modern class 212 submarines are basically the best in the world at what they do, which is being silent as gently caress when underwater.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Agree to disagree! I edited some stuff into my post if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
How is this even an argument? The Type IXs didn't even have ice cream machines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The Panzer IV wasn't great, but it was adaptable. The Panzer IV is actually a great example of German inefficiency. It was supposed to be a very specialized close support vehicle. Krupp didn't really invent anything new for it and went with a nice and well known leaf spring bogey suspension instead of this fancy pants new torsion bar stuff everyone else was going with. The Panzer IV went through its whole production life using that same suspension. Barring the introduction of a new gun and spaced armour, the whole tank didn't really change drastically until the end of the war. To compare, the Panzer III, Germany's prospective main medium tank, was in constant flux and every variant had a new suspension. A satisfactory suspension was not put into production until 1939, and only 50 such tanks were available by the start of WWII. However, Daimler-Benz was still lobbying to get rid of the Panzer IV and just put the 75 mm gun on a Panzer III chassis, even though production of these tanks was lagging terribly behind schedule. On paper, this looks like a good move to rationalize production, but in reality it was just a cash grab from Daimler-Benz that would have put the German military in a pretty bad situation with their medium tank supply if it had gone through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I think he meant the German Bundesmarine, not whatever ideas the Americans stole for their own designs. We just straight up used two Type XXIII and one Type XXI U-Boat after the war and all our models designed later are basically improvements on the basic models. I think no German engineer ever gave a poo poo about what the Americans were doing with their boats, the design philosophies were simply too different. Yes, the German navy used WWII submarines as research boats. U-2540 (a type XXI) was raised in 1957 and retired in 1982. Of the two type XXIIIs, one sank in a gale in 1966, the other was scrapped in 1969. In comparison, the US converted 52 submarines to "GUPPY" standards after WWII, a few of which were still in service with Taiwan and Turkey until the mid-2000s. Cessna fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
 Yeah, that sounds like something build by Germans, alright. But I should point out that the way German industry worked, seeing bad welds on just one Type IX doesn't mean all of them had bad welds, the U-505 could just have been one that was made exceptionally lovely.If you want to feel true horror, by trawling the web through some random German pages about U-Boats, the Type IX was described as a vast improvement in terms of comfort for the crew, when compared to the earlier Type VII submarines. Cessna posted:Yes, the German navy used WWII submarines as research boats. U-2540 (a type XXI) was raised in 1957 and retired in 1982. Of the two type XXIIIs, one sank in a gale in 1966, the other was scrapped in 1969. Yeah, but we also built better ones, improving on the designs. Continuing to use designs the original builders decided where obsolete doesn't really make me think better of what the US was doing. I guess it was cheap, at least? Though I'll have to hand it to the US-industry, at the very least they managed to build their first after-war submarines without accidentally using brand-new anti-magnetic steel which then turned out to corrode on contact with sea water. (Class 201 was basically cursed, and had to be mostly replaced with the later Class 205)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The Panzer IV is actually a great example of German inefficiency. It was supposed to be a very specialized close support vehicle. Krupp didn't really invent anything new for it and went with a nice and well known leaf spring bogey suspension instead of this fancy pants new torsion bar stuff everyone else was going with. The Panzer IV went through its whole production life using that same suspension. Barring the introduction of a new gun and spaced armour, the whole tank didn't really change drastically until the end of the war. HOWEVER pz4 Did go from design of 18 tons to What, 25-26 tons by the H model- and had similar increase in firepower. It is still the only tank that started production two years before the war and was kicking to the bitter end. That in itself is a testament to the foresight in design (and desperation at 1944 but that is an entirely another story) Relatively few tank designs gained 1/3 of their mass extra between versions and remained in operational use between 1935 and 1945.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
dublish posted:How is this even an argument? The Type IXs didn't even have ice cream machines. i mean we're talking about the germans here, it would have been a limburger dispenser in any case
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
Libluini posted:But I should point out that the way German industry worked, seeing bad welds on just one Type IX doesn't mean all of them had bad welds, the U-505 could just have been one that was made exceptionally lovely. Or maybe it was one of the better ones, and other U-boats just sank in the middle of the Atlantic the first time they made a serious dive. (Edit to add: I'd like to emphasize that this wasn't just the pressure hull (which is, obviously, critical). This was seemingly everything under the superstructure - bad, gloppy, cracked welds were all over the place.) Libluini posted:Yeah, but we also built better ones, improving on the designs. Continuing to use designs the original builders decided where obsolete doesn't really make me think better of what the US was doing. I guess it was cheap, at least? The US used those GUPPY upgrades to keep more boats in the water for relatively little money in the early days of the Cold War, but that wasn't all they did. At the same time they developed and built lots of completely new submarines with innovations like teardrop hulls and nuclear power. Cessna fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Feb 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:HOWEVER pz4 Did go from design of 18 tons to What, 25-26 tons by the H model- and had similar increase in firepower. It is still the only tank that started production two years before the war and was kicking to the bitter end. That in itself is a testament to the foresight in design (and desperation at 1944 but that is an entirely another story) Oh yeah, the tank itself was quite good, which makes attempts to replace it even more ludicrous. The weight gain it sustained was quite impressive too, the only comparable increases are the Sherman (if you count the Jumbo) and T-34, although if you take the A-32 then the mass from the basic version to the heaviest one goes up by 50%.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Or maybe it was one of the better ones, and other U-boats just sank in the middle of the Atlantic the first time they made a serious dive. Now don't get sassy with me, Cessna. You saw one boat out of like 200. This would be like me visiting some old US-boat sitting in a Russian museum and high-fiving the Russian curator about how bad all US-submarines are. quote:The US used those GUPPY upgrades to keep more boats in the water for relatively little money in the early days of the Cold War, but that wasn't all they did. At the same time they developed and built lots of completely new submarines with innovations like teardrop hulls and nuclear power. As I said, completely different design philosophies. German submarines went down a different tech tree and developed their own innovations. Like for example, improving Diesel, electrical motors and fuel cell technology. After all, Germany wasn't allowed to use nuclear technology in military applications. Using nuclear technology in German submarines would also have run counter to what German submarines were supposed to do after the war: Silently stalking and killing Russian submarines in the event of a war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:You're thinking of Our World War (although I prefer episode 2); and, to the contrary, they ensured all mod cons by making it possible to fry eggs on the engine, at the cost of only a 14% increase in one's chance of having an arm taken off by the exposed flywheel, a highly attractive bargain for the average squaddie. I liked the tank one because the lads were from Levenshulme, Manchester where I used to live 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think it is probably telling that with the exception of the V2, which required a lot of specialized knowledge, all of their designs were easily replicated or their innovations taken on after the war. I mean, yes? Once you have the blueprints its easy to replicate poo poo. Until then not so much because eg first generation jet fighter development is simply hard - compare the Me262 to the American first go with the Airacomet. The Nazis were building stuff out of the same physics as anyone else, not secret Nazi unobtanium. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Feb 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
*Lifts head from newspaper* Back to "What the Germans did well/okay/not poo poo" cycle of the thread eh? *Goes back to reading about wind turbines killing F-15s in disproportionate numbers*
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
bewbies posted:What's your metric for this? The U-boats sank a lot more tonnage in a far less permissive environment despite being less than half the displacement of their American equivalents. This is a really silly comparison point, there were just far more Allied merchant ships to sink period. The Germans sank around 21 million tons of shipping, which is more than double what the entire Japanese merchant fleet could account for. On "permissive environments" ai wouldn't discount how ~7 million tons or so were lost while either Britain or the US completely neglected convoy defence. Valtonen posted:HOWEVER pz4 Did go from design of 18 tons to What, 25-26 tons by the H model- and had similar increase in firepower. It is still the only tank that started production two years before the war and was kicking to the bitter end. That in itself is a testament to the foresight in design (and desperation at 1944 but that is an entirely another story) The 1945 models of Panzer 4s were tremendously overweight and broke down constantly, at similar rates to Tigers and other famously fragile vehicles. The late models of the Panzer 4 were really just a desperation move because the Germans had no other chassis around that wasnt totally obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
quote:Bad welds seemingly everywhere. The thing had a really sexy pressure hull, with cool curved ends so that "on paper" it had a deeper crush depth. But when you see it in person you see that it was sloppily assembled - I would be VERY hesitant to dive in that sub. In contrast the Fleet Boat had a simple flat-ended cylinder for a pressure hull. It isn't as robust on paper, but it was built correctly. Between this and other discussions throughout the thread, is it fair to say that the Nazis had an extremely "form over function" approach to design? Because it seems to me like the overriding priority at all times was to look intimidating/have intimidating specs- anything from weight to ease of manufacture to combat effectiveness could be (and often was) sacrificed in service of this goal. The result is that their equipment looks sleek and badass, especially on paper. But it's been enough to fool a lot of people ever since. Including me, honestly, until I started following this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:*Lifts head from newspaper* Tragic, no wonder the USAF wants lightnings to strike them with Nenonen posted:I will now take a brief moment to draw your attention to the fact that early APC concepts were loltastic Is this...a built APC or a truck with an armor shell?  Ensign Expendable posted:The Panzer IV is actually a great example of German inefficiency. It was supposed to be a very specialized close support vehicle. Krupp didn't really invent anything new for it and went with a nice and well known leaf spring bogey suspension instead of this fancy pants new torsion bar stuff everyone else was going with. The Panzer IV went through its whole production life using that same suspension. Barring the introduction of a new gun and spaced armour, the whole tank didn't really change drastically until the end of the war. Making a bomber design in the mid-30s, stopping development and letting the design be revamped into a civilian airliner, then deciding "hey can you make this into a heavy lift transport" (they could), getting the designers to roll "very long range maritime recon aircraft" into the design as their civilian airliner bodge and the airplane they choose to develop in the mid-30s instead of this one were not working, decide this one airframe could be expanded upon to do all big airplane third Reich jobs (this was actually plauseable), and being in the middle of converting the design back into a bomber when the Allied Air Force destroyed their aircraft industry. Got a question for the thread. I'm reading a memoir of a Ferry Command Pilot called "North Atlantic Cat[alina]". One detail I can't figure out is that the dude keeps talking about "inches of boost" on the aircraft engines. I know a lot of these engines used forced induction to combat higher altitudes/get better performance, but I can't for the life of me figure out why this is variable, and why it's measured in inches.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Got a question for the thread. I'm reading a memoir of a Ferry Command Pilot called "North Atlantic Cat[alina]". One detail I can't figure out is that the dude keeps talking about "inches of boost" on the aircraft engines. I know a lot of these engines used forced induction to combat higher altitudes/get better performance, but I can't for the life of me figure out why this is variable, and why it's measured in inches. Because it relies of the American use of pressure in inches of Mercury iirc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Now don't get sassy with me, Cessna. You saw one boat out of like 200. The fact of the matter is that you don't know either. As it is, I worked on a US Fleet Boat as a curator for years, and was hired to consult on the restoration and preservation plan of a Type XI U-boat. Maybe I saw the only uniquely bad U-boat produced, but if it was at all typical, U-boats were garbage. Libluini posted:As I said, completely different design philosophies. German submarines went down a different tech tree and developed their own innovations. Like for example, improving Diesel, electrical motors and fuel cell technology. After all, Germany wasn't allowed to use nuclear technology in military applications. You said, regarding the USN, that "continuing to use designs the original builders decided where obsolete doesn't really make me think better of what the US was doing" as if they were technologically stagnant. I am pointing out that this was not the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
Yup, exactly—and it's variable because both the engine's operating state and the surrounding atmosphere will be different in different phases of flight
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Because it relies of the American use of pressure in inches of Mercury iirc. So is there some conversion I can do to understand inches in pressure of mercury to, I don't know, pounds of boost? Also, did these engines have intercoolers? And did they really adjust boost for greater power? While I get some boost is necessary to keep power at altitude, so essentially keeping the same air pressure, the idea that they were just going hard on the boost when necessary and it didn't explode the engine is kinda  to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
no, the pby had a pretty simple induction system and oil cooler—take a quick look at the maintenance and erection handbook ( ); scroll to the very bottom of the document for a full exploded diagram
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:Between this and other discussions throughout the thread, is it fair to say that the Nazis had an extremely "form over function" approach to design? Because it seems to me like the overriding priority at all times was to look intimidating/have intimidating specs- anything from weight to ease of manufacture to combat effectiveness could be (and often was) sacrificed in service of this goal. The result is that their equipment looks sleek and badass, especially on paper. But it's been enough to fool a lot of people ever since. Including me, honestly, until I started following this thread. I think that's part of it. Another big part - and I'll admit that this is speculation on my part - is that I don't think the Nazis really understood that they were involved in a total war that they could lose until (roughly) Stalingrad. They achieved some amazing successes in the relatively brief time between when Hitler took power and then. Look at the situation in, say, late 1941. At the time Hitler was on a roll. In less then a decade as leader, had taken a defeated, broken nation and made it a military power. They reoccupied the Rhineland, annexed Austria and most of Czechoslovakia - then invaded and beat Poland, the Low Countries, Norway, and France, forced the British off the Continent, and were rolling towards Moscow. In retrospect, we know that was the high-water mark - they wouldn't take Moscow. The UK was regrouping, partisan and resistance movements were growing, and the factories of the USA and USSR were starting to build the machines that would crush Hitler and his thugs into the dust. But at the time, it looked different. Anything written in 1941 had to acknowledge that they had done a lot, and done it very fast. The fact was that from their perspective, the weapons they had in hand had worked. Why mess with success? Similarly - a similar point in time Germany had to understand that in a war of attrition where they could no longer count on quick victories they had to be better on a "man for man" basis than their enemies. If you're going against the USSR, USA, UK and other nations you're severely outnumbered. You can't trade tanks, for example, on a 1:1 basis, if you do that you'll lose. So instead, you have to built better stuff than your enemies. For an infamous example of this, consider that when the Wehrmacht first ran into the T-34 their first impulse was to copy it. But doing so would have, in their minds, resulted in parity, a situation that they would have lost. Instead they turned the design "up to 11" and made the Panther, an even bigger and nastier tank which surely would defeat T-34s by the score. Well, when it worked the Panther was a good tank, but "when it worked" is the catch; having rushed it into production it came with all kinds of flaws that hampered its effectiveness. And this mindset - build it bigger and meaner! (whether it works or not!) - sees to creep in everywhere. Make them the best uniforms (whether they're practical or not), etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:no, the pby had a pretty simple induction system and oil cooler—take a quick look at the maintenance and erection handbook ( in general wwii aircraft engines were also pushed to the hilarious brink as a matter of practice you can get prime use in a frontline fighter going full-bore with water injection and WEP and after a few dozen engine hours refurb and stuff it in a tank, it's nbd e: dear abby, i never thought quote =/= edit would happen to me...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The fact of the matter is that you don't know either. As it is, I worked on a US Fleet Boat as a curator for years, and was hired to consult on the restoration and preservation plan of a Type XI U-boat. Maybe I saw the only uniquely bad U-boat produced, but if it was at all typical, U-boats were garbage. I will say that u505 was started in June 40 and completed in August 41, this isn't a late war bodge job or a case of them learning production processes since that date is solidly in the time frame when they should have learnt all of this on earlier ships, if theres a time when they should be producing good ships it's this period and the fact that they aren't is I think fairly representative of their ship construction methods being crude at best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So is there some conversion I can do to understand inches in pressure of mercury to, I don't know, pounds of boost? According to "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines", it was one of the bigger issues with American engines, namely that any sort of automatic boost regulator was omitted from designs... because the civilian market didn't "need" it. And because a lot of engines started life in civilian aircraft, you end up with this weird setup. To make a case to defend the civilian side, the reason it was deemed unnecessary is that, firstly, the weight involved isn't worthwhile. Secondly, the pilot, co-pilot, or flight engineer can take care of any issues during flight. This isn't the same as a combat situation, of course, and the problem of an engine overboosting too much while descending was much greater than the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Similarly - a similar point in time Germany had to understand that in a war of attrition where they could no longer count on quick victories they had to be better on a "man for man" basis than their enemies. If you're going against the USSR, USA, UK and other nations you're severely outnumbered. You can't trade tanks, for example, on a 1:1 basis, if you do that you'll lose. So instead, you have to built better stuff than your enemies. The nominal quality-over-quantity thing is pretty interesting because you can see this mindset in Japanese naval procurement and design, in particular. Of course it was always the case that the IJN had to be better on a "man for man" basis. Nebakenezzer posted:Is this...a built APC or a truck with an armor shell? what's the difference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So is there some conversion I can do to understand inches in pressure of mercury to, I don't know, pounds of boost? Yep try googling pressure conversion calculators. Inches of mercury (inHg) still gets used for some applications although in the US pounds per square inch (psi) is much more common. Adjusting the boost in the supercharger and/or turbocharger was a constant thing while flying. If I'm remembering right this was pretty much a full time job for the co-pilot on multi seater planes. Boost is helpful in the ground but becomes more and more important as you gain altitude. Add sequential or parallel forced induction and it gets very complicated to keep optimized. With that sweet sweet 150 octane fuel you can barely buy anymore they could run ludicrous amounts of boost compared to modern fuels. Try finding a cutaway of the P-47. A big part of why it's such a chonker is all the ducting for the forced induction systems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Want me to continue? This is all cool info, but you're really talking past my point. You're absolutely right that American fleet boats were Cadillacs compared to U-boat Fiestas, but that isn't a valid comparison. They're not the same class of vessel. Random googling of some authoritative-looking old forum post suggests a Type IX cost around $1.2 mil in 1943 (using the 1940 RM/$ exchange rate of 2.5). Your old museum boat cost 5 times that. If you're spending that much more per boat, you'd really better be getting a lot more capability. As an admiral or CINC, and knowing that my resources are badly strained, I'd much rather have 5 Type IXs than one Balao. (note: if anyone has any better numbers than what I was able to google I'd love to see them) Anyway, back to my initial point: it is hard to name a WWII-era system that did more than the Type IXs did on a pound-for-pound basis. I am sure that you're right the American boat was nicer, more comfortable, more advanced, better protected, etc, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Aside: the V2/U-boat comparison is pretty telling when it comes to German economic mismanagement. Libluini posted:I think he meant the German Bundesmarine, not whatever ideas the Americans stole for their own designs. I was actually thinking of the Zulu/Whiskey/Romeo boats, although this is another good example. bewbies fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Feb 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:My rep does meet and greets once or twice a year for people who want to apply to one of the service academies so they can get a nomination. I just assumed they all do that but maybe not. The Westpoint website makes it sound like you can just write them a letter and ask for a nomination. I bet most aren't too picky about it since it's free good will. It depends on where you are. I was one of only two people applying to Annapolis from my (rather large) high school in a city notorious for anti-war activism. My nomination came from a single letter to my congressman; who only gets ten a year. If I'd done a rewrite on my application essay I'd have gone from having government cheese being an important source of protein to the Naval Academy in just 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:44
|
|
