|
Ensign Expendable posted:Google Play is too smart for that, turns out. Sign out of your google account?
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Sign out of your google account? Then I can't buy the ebook. I can still see the preview from Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:trees and earthen berms are pretty sturdy Note that this is WW2. Things get sloppier earlier on. There's famously a couple of patent disputes with Mauser and DWM over the m1903 and it's ammo. The outcome of that is probably what led to the development of the later system, although that's just supposition on my part - I'm not aware of any direct, causal link but I'd be surprised if there isn't one. The tl;dr on it is that the m1903 rifle borrowed heavily from the m93 Mauser rifles that Spain had in Cuba, and which were captured in large numbers by the US during that war. The over-all design was pretty derivative of it, but what got the US in trouble specifically were some patents that Mauser had earlier filed in the US for the magazine system, the design of the stripper clips, the design of the stripper clip feed in the receiver, the safety, the extractor, and the extractor collar.* This is pretty normal, Mauser was always good about filing patents numerous places internationally, usually the US, Britain, France, and of course Germany. As I recall Mauser didn't actually sue, but the US government realized it was deep into infringement territory and pre-emptively contacted Mauser to negotiate as settlement. This was resolved in 1905 and the royalties were on both rifles and stripper clips, with the royalties capping at $200,000. This was paid out in a handful of installments that finished up within a couple of years. A few years later there was a separate issue when the US developed the .30-06 cartridge. DWM (of which Mauser was a subsidiary by that time) had filed a patent in the US for the spitzer type bullet and believed that .30-06 was essentially a knock-off of 7mm and 8mm Mauser rounds. DWM approached in 1907 asking for a similar settlement but the Ordinance Department's lawyers thought their case much weaker than the earlier Mauser issue, so they negotiated for a few years. When those negotiations fell apart a lawsuit was finally filed in 1914 a few months before WW1 started. This kicked around the courts for a few years until the US got into the war, at which point the government simply seized the patents as enemy assets. Since the gov't now owned the patents the case was thrown out of court. A few years later, after the war finished, DWM filed suit again alleging this time that the seizure of their patents had been unconstitutional. This was actually a pretty strong case and the courts ruled in favor of DWM and awarded them $300,000 in damages. The government appealed, the case dragged on, until the appeal was eventually rejected in the late 20s. The US was ordered to pay, with interest, on the original damage award. After a decade's worth of interest it came out to a touch over $410,000. edit: I'm not touching on the corporate history here beyond observing that Mauser was a DWM subsidiary. It gets complicated. DWM was founded by Isidore Loewe out of the component parts of his Ludwig Loewe & Co. (originally founded by him and his brother Ludwig), which had bought Mauser a few decades earlier along with a poo poo ton of ammo factories and some other stuff. Post-WW1 DWM ends up getting bought out by the Quandt Group, who I've written about in this thread so search for that. Spoiler: they're fucks. * As an aside, these were the big advancements that made the various iterations of Mauser rifles so ground breaking, ultimately culminating in the m98. If you look at a rifle from the 1885-1892 generation or so of rifles (so the Carcano, the Mosin, the Gew 88, Mannlicher's various designs, etc) the big advances that you see Mauser making are the internal, staggered box magazine, the wing safety, feed via stripper clips, and the non-rotating (relative to the cartridge) extractor claw and the collar that enabled that. IIRC it roughlty goes: Mauser 1889/90/91: stripper clips, receiver feed cuts: Mauser 93 - internal box mag, non-rotating extractor and collar. The 95 and the 98 also see a lot of safety improvements such as the backup action lug and vent holes in both receiver and bolt, but that's not as important to function. Don't get me wrong, a Carcano or Gew 88 still works in 1914 or even 1940, but there's a reason that Mauser derivatives were the gold standard for bolt action rifles right up until the beginning of WW2. There's an argument about the Mas36 to be made after that. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:This is really interesting to me because of Xteenth's second post, which I read previously in the M1 v. King Tiger LP. It was - I'm just showing that people have been making that sort of comparison for a while now. Jobbo_Fett posted:I don't think the Panther is a bad tank but even the "Best until mid-1950s" is a pretty big yikesarooney. Oh, it's ridiculous. But that's what you get when you look at things like a gamer and only compare the stats like "penetration" and "armor thickness/front." These sorts of things are easily quantified and are important for games, so that's what is often focused on. Other stats like "how many hours of work per hour driven" are as important if not moreso, but they aren't as readily available. They're also hard to work into most tactical level games. As a result, they're often ignored - even though they're vital. And even further down, things like "does this tank use flammable hydraulic fluid" often aren't fully appreciated until after the fighting starts. (This happened to Israeli M-60s in 1973.) Nenonen posted:The 1972 oil crisis seems to have broken some people's thinking. "Fuel shortages will force even the military to consider fuel efficiency. And what's more efficient than replacing one 50t tank with two 25t tanks! Ever hear of Twilight: 2000? Edit: Also, nitpicking, the oil crisis was 1973, after the US sent those M60 tanks to Israel. Cessna fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 16:56
|
|
" Just what would the mass armies and their logistics be powered with, overall, if oil is in short supply? Horsecarts and hay? Granted, that would be a fascinating setting.
|
Cessna posted:Ever hear of Twilight: 2000? lol that's what i was thinking about
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:legal jawns Interesting - that precedent case almost certainly informed the later actions at scale in WWII referenced in that paper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Tulip posted:So this is kind of a fun thing - as much as Americans joke about how everything they eat is corn in some form or another, corn that goes into people's mouths is like 9% of the corn we make in the US tops (that 9% also includes "industrial"). Like 27% goes to ethanol, mostly to make fuel already. That grim world is already here it's just instead of war it's "jockeying over congressional subsidies." Also there has already been a food price crisis in 2010 which was in part a result of food production going to biofuels, and a contributory factor to the Arab Spring; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932012_world_food_price_crisis
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
Have any of you comrade tankists read (or seen!) Tankovy Prapor (The Tank Battalion), offputtingly renamed in English translation Republic of Whores? It's a funny novel by one of the Czech literary movers and shakers behind 68 Publishers, the Canadian publishing house that printed books by Havel, Kundera, and friends for smuggling back into CZ. It is based on the author's time a tank battalion in 1953 Czechoslovakia, including the low-budget, rote training maneuvers, barracks town life, the isolation of being a draftee ordered away from home even in a country as small as CZ, lackadaisical political indoctrination, pre-coup officers, low-enthusiasm stalinization by low-wattage officers... It's a farce with a lot of the heart and sadness that the author will have tons of in his later work. If you've seen the movie, is it worth digging up a version with English subtitles? Other books of interest include The Cowards, the story of the gap period starting when Germans fled through his town and the arrival of the Red Army, told by a doofus middle-class teenager in a jazz band, and The Engineer of Human Souls, a look at life in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, told from the point of view of the same teenager, put to work in a seized aircraft components factory. As a bonus, a lot of The Cowards takes place in the Primator brewery, so you can drink along with the story. Greg12 fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Not available in Canada That sucks. Worst comes to worst I'll buy the ebook and mail you my paper copy if you want. Panzeh posted:I think given the difficulty of using the technology, and based on some reading of how engagements went, that the fire control capability of ww2 era tanks were more based on crew experience and training than technology, as they required a lot more human input into the parameters. That's how you get Panthers at Arracourt being an absolute joke while 2nd Panzer Division's Panthers on the way to Bastogne wrecking the 9th and 10th AD's tanks. Even in similar situations in the Bulge, there's a difference between the performance of 2 Pz which had spent months in the strategic reserve preparing and, say, 12th SS which was hastily formed, where crews had barely any chance to practice firing the cannons on their brand new Panthers and jagdpanthers. Absolutely. Every bit of the process you offload onto the humans introduces massive variability into the process in a way that isn't the same as one or the other things being compared meaning the crew simply has to do fewer things. If you have to use all the same skills with better or worse suited tools than your competition, it'll tell, but it's a lot less likely that one side is hopeless and simply gets clowned. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Ever hear of Twilight: 2000? Thanks for the nitpick  It's been a while since I have read about that war/played it on computer.Yes, I remember Twilight 2k. Wasn't it more about stragglers than massed units with massive logistics, though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Thanks for the nitpick I'm in the middle of No Victor, No Vanquished, a good book on the war. There's also Valley of Tears on HBO. I've only seen the first few episodes and it's a bit of a melodrama, but the portrayal of tank combat in the first two episodes is some of the best I've ever seen in media. Nenonen posted:Yes, I remember Twilight 2k. Wasn't it more about stragglers than massed units with massive logistics, though? Absolutely; the whole thing was based on the concept of "broken back war." WWIII starts, everything goes to poo poo and collapses, but somehow the fight goes on. My post wasn't meant to be an exact prognostication, rather, an example of a modern military operating under extreme scarcity (especially of fuel) in pop culture. Cessna fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Cessna posted:It was - I'm just showing that people have been making that sort of comparison for a while now. Funny this is that my interest in military history was basically kickstarted by playing 90s simulators and strategy games (in the case of armored warfare it was Steel Panthers) and those taught me German tanks were anything but immune to Shermans or T-34s used with a modicum of skill, which convinced me that maybe Allied tanks weren't as hopeless as people liked to claim. Playing World of Tanks only reinforced this even more (ask me about killing Tigers in a prewar T-28). Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:Ofc Theres a plenty of coldwar tanks on NATO side with parts of hunter-killer implementation earlier such as I think chieftain, m60 and certainly conqueror What are you thinking of for the Chieftain's hunter-killer system? I'm not aware of anything except the late ones (post Leopard 2A4) having a repeater screen for the thermals so the TC could backseat drive the gunner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Funny this is that my interest in military history was basically kickstarted by playing 90s simulators and strategy games (in the case of armored warfare it was Steel Panthers) and those taught me German tanks were anything but immune to Shermans or T-34s used with a modicum of skill, which convinced me that maybe Allied tanks weren't as hopeless as people liked to claim. This is an interesting question, well to me at least: how did y'all get into military history? I built fighter jet models when I was That Age. Also I was terrified of nuclear war and whenever I was scared of something as a kid I'd research it exhaustively in order to discover the One Weird Trick that would protect me from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
My dad played the song “Sink the Bismarck” idly one day. Wanted to know what that was all about, and fell down the MilHist rabbit hole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Planes are cool as hell and which planes go the highest and the fastest? I don't actually remember, I started very early.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
As xthetenth mentioned, even when this was published the paper stats of the M48A2 were significant in the technological realm. The analysis used here is more... the paper stat comparison someone would misguidedly apply to WWII tanks, ignoring all the dimensions by which post-WWII tanks were improved. Which is, as you say, technological. There's a vague mention of guns getting better, as if that's a footnote instead of the, like, one of the primary factors of tank combat (which even using WWII-style analysis, surely you'd take into account that a 6-pounder and a long-barrel 88 are a significant capability difference, so what the hell is going on with this analysis?) The M48A2C/M48A5 this compares the Panther with has the better gun, the better mean-time-between-failure, the better operational range, an actually workable nightvision system, a ballistic computer, a coincidence rangefinder...
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:This is an interesting question, well to me at least: how did y'all get into military history? I built fighter jet models when I was That Age. Also I was terrified of nuclear war and whenever I was scared of something as a kid I'd research it exhaustively in order to discover the One Weird Trick that would protect me from it. I remember how it happened for me very clearly. I was seven or eight and playing with random toy guns and army men when my mom pointed out that AMC was showing old war movies (This was in the mid-90's, back when AMC basically didn't air anything from before 1970) and I might like them since they weren't particularly graphic. The first one I saw was To Hell and Back. I was already old enough to understand the idea of actors and whatnot, but having it explained to me that Audie Murphy actually did most of that stuff in the movie in real life blew my mind, and him running around with a Thompson with mags taped together jungle style was cool as gently caress. I basically started watching tons of old war movies from there, and since I was already reading a lot, that quickly led to books (And later on, grog games). This was the era when the Harry Potter books were new and exploding and schools were trying to force them on kids cause they "made reading fun" or some poo poo, and I pushed that crap away cause I was already reading stuff like Guadalcanal Diary and books on the British Commandos and was much more interested in that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:As xthetenth mentioned, even when this was published the paper stats of the M48A2 were significant in the technological realm. The analysis used here is more... the paper stat comparison someone would misguidedly apply to WWII tanks, ignoring all the dimensions by which post-WWII tanks were improved. Which is, as you say, technological. There's a vague mention of guns getting better, as if that's a footnote instead of the, like, one of the primary factors of tank combat (which even using WWII-style analysis, surely you'd take into account that a 6-pounder and a long-barrel 88 are a significant capability difference, so what the hell is going on with this analysis?) The M48A2C/M48A5 this compares the Panther with has the better gun, the better mean-time-between-failure, the better operational range, an actually workable nightvision system, a ballistic computer, a coincidence rangefinder... It's not a rigorous analysis to be sure, but the larger point is that when Panzerblitz was published it had been almost three decades since the Panther had been produced, and the fact that the two systems were even comparable was shocking. In other fields vast, obvious improvements had been made. Aircraft, for example, went from the P-51 Mustang to the F-14 Tomcat (1970) in a comparable time-frame. So why weren't tanks - better? The conclusion many reached was that tanks had just plateaued. Sure, there were incremental improvements, but not like there were in other areas. And with the coming of cheap ATGMs, maybe the day of the tank had passed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
Always interested in history. Everyone kept crapping on about the Second World War, so I wanted to know about it. Including how it got started in the first place. And what those masks were about. And why I was suddenly hearing about countries that didn't seem to exist any more. And why the poor ostrich died for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/MIY3aFp.gifv
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
zoux posted:This is an interesting question, well to me at least: how did y'all get into military history? I built fighter jet models when I was That Age. Also I was terrified of nuclear war and whenever I was scared of something as a kid I'd research it exhaustively in order to discover the One Weird Trick that would protect me from it. About 15 years ago I played a PS2 game called Warship Gunner 2, which is a highly historically accurate (  ) naval combat game. Recently I decided to make a spiritual sequel, which meant getting enough of a background on the "source material" to at least do a passable job of faking competence.It helps that WW2-era warships are really intrinsically interesting, for me anyway. Fantastically complex vessels with hundreds or thousands of people working with the most cutting-edge systems of the day, and few of the limitations that kept terrestrial war machines from getting too out-there. Like, everyone laughs at how the Ratte was an implausibly huge tank design, but at 1000 tons it would have been smaller than your average WW1-era destroyer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:About 15 years ago I played a PS2 game called Warship Gunner 2, which is a highly historically accurate ( Seems legit to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xERigSvuovk&t=1688s
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Seems legit to me: This is one of my favorite ships I've made in Warship Gunner 2:  A catamaran-hull battleship with some ludicrous maximum displacement, almost all of which is taken up by the 10 100cm cannons on its deck. There is absolutely no reason you'd ever need that kind of firepower in the game, but it lets you do it anyway!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
Cessna posted:It's not a rigorous analysis to be sure, but the larger point is that when Panzerblitz was published it had been almost three decades since the Panther had been produced, and the fact that the two systems were even comparable was shocking. I mean, yes, but also the M48A2 is from the early fifties, so it's an absurd comparison: why haven't early 50s tanks progressed as much from WWII as late-60s aircraft did from WWII? Now, I know it's terrible, and you know it's terrible, but if we're going to compare the fruits of technological advancement in 1970, it's not Panther/M48A2 Pattern, but Panther/M60A2 Starship. Space-age computer-gun-missile with lasers! That's the technological development tanks had made since WWII.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Now, I know it's terrible, and you know it's terrible, In fairness the late M60A2 manages to remove the M85 gun?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:This is one of my favorite ships I've made in Warship Gunner 2: Rule the Waves 2 adding in a cowardly rule of 'you can only have up to 20 primary guns on a BB/BC' to prevent you from having superfiring main guns over wing turrets and fielding a BC with 32 11 inch cannons will live in infamy. What is the stupidest warship design IRL? What is the silliest thing someone actually built in the 20th century and expected to accomplish things as a warship?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Funny this is that my interest in military history was basically kickstarted by playing 90s simulators and strategy games (in the case of armored warfare it was Steel Panthers) and those taught me German tanks were anything but immune to Shermans or T-34s used with a modicum of skill, which convinced me that maybe Allied tanks weren't as hopeless as people liked to claim. Not military history per say, but what started my fascination with History (in particular, early 20th century )was when I watched this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_and_the_Shaping_of_the_20th_Century This was 1996...I would have been 11 years old. Yes I was a weird kid. Anyway it peaked my interest so much I read every history textbook, particularly milhist, I could get my hands on at the local library. Started playing flight sim games too. Saving Private Ryan and Medal of Honor (PS1 game)were big influences on me as well. Jane’s WWII fighters, European Air War, Combat Mission, Close Combat also reinforced a WWII obsession with me in those years. Unfortunately I also found myself glued to The History channel by the late 90s and was a Wehraboo for a few years because of it. 
Solaris 2.0 fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
It was the model section at the local hardware store that got me. First a US destroyer with a kamikaze attack for the box art. As my first model it's no surprise that it ended up looking like it had been hit by a few. Then a bright green P-47 with an awful lot of glue showing... So I started reading everything the library had about ships and planes and basically never stopped.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:About 15 years ago I played a PS2 game called Warship Gunner 2, OH MY GOD THANK YOU I have some very specific, very booze/pot muddled early 20s memories of playing the poo poo out of this game at friends houses and I've been trying to figure out what the gently caress that game was for literally a goddamned decade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:OH MY GOD THANK YOU Happy to be of service! If you have any other fever dream games you're trying to track down, might I recommend the Help Us Remember the Name of a Game thread? (btw I have a dev.log thread for the development of my game, and I'm running a closed beta on my discord) Night10194 posted:What is the stupidest warship design IRL? What is the silliest thing someone actually built in the 20th century and expected to accomplish things as a warship? There are absolutely some stinkers out there, especially if you include submarines. The French Surcouf and other "submersible monitors" rate pretty highly, as does the I-400 submersible aircraft carrier. Some brave idiot made a submarine (whose name escapes me) that ran on steam power instead of diesel-electric drives, which was A Problem when you wanted to submerge. The Novgorod was a Russian monitor with a circular hull. In general, I recommend following Dreadnought Holiday for silly naval antics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 02:44
|
|
|
My submission: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_M-class_submarine
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
Will your game allow me to make extremely nonstandard/unwise armament decisions? Like a BC armed with very-high-calibre very-low-velocity HE lobbers? Or a destroyer with a single, spinally-mounted, non-traversable battleship gun?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 02:54
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The 1972 oil crisis seems to have broken some people's thinking. "Fuel shortages will force even the military to consider fuel efficiency. And what's more efficient than replacing one 50t tank with two 25t tanks! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I mean, yes, but also the M48A2 is from the early fifties, so it's an absurd comparison: why haven't early 50s tanks progressed as much from WWII as late-60s aircraft did from WWII? If you have good stuff to tell about the starship and what they were working on other than 'lmao the gun and missile didn't really work so we canned it', I'd love to know more, especially about stuff like fire control and crew workflow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
zoux posted:This is an interesting question, well to me at least: how did y'all get into military history? I built fighter jet models when I was That Age. Also I was terrified of nuclear war and whenever I was scared of something as a kid I'd research it exhaustively in order to discover the One Weird Trick that would protect me from it. I just thought swords were really cool. And then I learned I liked old stuff, cause it's cool. And then I learned a bunch of dead languages cause they're also cool. I am a very boring man. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I mean, yes, but also the M48A2 is from the early fifties, so it's an absurd comparison: why haven't early 50s tanks progressed as much from WWII as late-60s aircraft did from WWII? Since you brought up Starship, and other people are dunking on how they couldn't make the gun/missile combo work, I'd like to jump in and ask: The US couldn't make the gun launched missile combo idea work. The Soviets could, and they eventually proliferated it to all of their tanks, and kept it on platforms like the BMP-3. How did the Soviets succeed where the Americans failed, and why did they go down this route? For something like Bastion, it can be justified by saying "it gives us more use out of these old 100mm guns on T-55s", but that doesn't explain why T-80s and T-90s need the capability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Will your game allow me to make extremely nonstandard/unwise armament decisions? Like a BC armed with very-high-calibre very-low-velocity HE lobbers? Or a destroyer with a single, spinally-mounted, non-traversable battleship gun? God, stupid ship designs is at least half the point of the game! Though it's a very forgiving system, so you won't usually get punished per se. https://twitter.com/byobattleship/status/1337812399936610305 I don't have any ship-sized grenade launchers, but that's a neat idea and should be pretty easy to implement! Making a non-traversable gun is mostly a matter of bracketing it in with stuff on either side so it can't rotate. The damage model is also very simple: ships have HP, and weapons deal differing amounts of HP damage. As your guns get bigger, they deal more DPS and have longer range, but fire more slowly and inaccurately (which can be countered using autoloaders and fire control systems). In addition to standard cannons, torpedoes, and ASW weapons, I have a smattering of more exotic weapons, like rockets, missiles, lasers, and minelayers...I'll be adding more as development continues. Weapons are what I do when I want to work on something simple and fun. I used to have a more complicated system involving (still very simple) armor penetration rules, but it was confusing to non-botepeople, and the gameplay's too fast-paced for it to really affect your decisions in combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 04:46
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Rule the Waves 2 adding in a cowardly rule of 'you can only have up to 20 primary guns on a BB/BC' to prevent you from having superfiring main guns over wing turrets and fielding a BC with 32 11 inch cannons will live in infamy. I'll throw out the USS Vesuvius. A Dynamite Gun Cruiser. The only one of her class. She had three 15 inch guns that were fixed in the front part of the ship. They also had a fixed elevation of 16 degrees. The Dynamite Gun designation came from the shell it fired. It was a slightly less shock sensitive version of dynamite. It was not however less shock sensitive enough to be fired in a traditional fashion. Instead it was air powered. A bit like the world's most hosed up BB gun. A full shell of 550 lbs of explosive had a range of a bout a mile. Dropping the shell to 220 lbs of explosive could push that to a bit over 2 miles. When you combined the range with having manually steer the ship to aim, it wasn't considered a success. I have to imagine if they managed to get into range to fire on a protected or armored cruiser, it would gently caress up it's day but the other cruisers would have almost ten times the range. It's guns were fired in anger during the Spanish-American war. It was used to bombard Santiago Cuba because it's guns were very quiet compared other naval guns. And the shells were pretty heavy. Apparently the Spanish found the combination unpleasant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:What are you thinking of for the Chieftain's hunter-killer system? I'm not aware of anything except the late ones (post Leopard 2A4) having a repeater screen for the thermals so the TC could backseat drive the gunner. Hence ”parts of” since full hunter-killer system means the TC can personally identify and designate the target to the gunner (slewing him directly on it) and continue udentifying other targets, with the gunner being able to autonomously engage the target once TC releases him. chieftain Im pretty sure had at least a day optic for TC hooked up with a mechanical designation system. Valtonen fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 05:31
|
|
