|
Real hurthling! posted:why do mortars make a cool fwump sound when they launch in movies instead of a boom? Mortars have a muzzle velocity around 90 m/s, howitzers fire at 830 m/s. It's similar to how a silencer for a pistol reduces muzzle velocity below the speed of sound, so you could think of a mortar as a tiny silenced howitzer Speed of sound is around 350 m/s
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
I knew the speed of sound was involved somehow, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Wait, is the engine noise coming through cabin speakers in bmws? lol lol yes, some of it. you can even change it in some https://www.bmwblog.com/2020/03/13/bmws-new-reduced-interior-engine-noise-is-a-revelation/
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:lol yes, some of it. you can even change it in some "BMW was one of the first brands to introduce artificial engine/exhaust sound into the cabin. Using speakers to play an artificial version of the car’s own engine noise, every modern BMW adds at least a little bit of engine noise to the cabin. This is due to the fact that customers expect quiet cabins but quiet cabins reduce the amount of engine noise you can hear. So if you want to have your cake and eat it, too, you need to use some fake engine noise. However, BMW has gracefully added a new feature to its performance cars and it makes a world of a difference — adjustable engine noise."  jfc
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
lol yeah
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
you vs enemy artillery your commander told you not to worry about
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
when did they start putting the sound through the speakers i want to make fun of someone but i think their car is pretty old now
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:when did they start putting the sound through the speakers i want to make fun of someone but i think their car is pretty old now you can always make fun of bmws
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyUgqk6z7rY The movies actually made/acted by guys who'd served in WWII tend to depict the war as this hazy and spaced out memory that debases everybody with industrial death. The naval equivalent of this is The Cruel Sea. For the army guys there's The Big Red One.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 07:21
|
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:when I was a kid we went on several school class trips to decommissioned naval vessels (there are a ton of them in NJ) and one of the things that really struck me were how there were some interesting weapons systems that were never in the war movies I watched, probably because they just weren't exciting or cinematic Actually they made two movies about these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 08:24
|
|
|
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-navies-in-the-worldquote:Top 10 Largest Navies in the World (by total number of warships and submarines - 2020): https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/1629301872615100416 "China has the largest navy in the world but they don't count because they're the wrong kind of warships!" is a pretty funny take especially with the recent think-tankery about how it's possible to win a fight over Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 08:33
|
|
|
quote:“Our Navy now is smaller than any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission; we’re now down to 285. … That’s unacceptable to me.” quote:“You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916,” Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 08:40
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:"BMW was one of the first brands to introduce artificial engine/exhaust sound into the cabin. Using speakers to play an artificial version of the car’s own engine noise, every modern BMW adds at least a little bit of engine noise to the cabin. This is due to the fact that customers expect quiet cabins but quiet cabins reduce the amount of engine noise you can hear. So if you want to have your cake and eat it, too, you need to use some fake engine noise. However, BMW has gracefully added a new feature to its performance cars and it makes a world of a difference — adjustable engine noise." they claim it's because of cabin insulation but the real reason they had to add "engine noise" is because BMW went from naturally aspirated straight-6 motors that sounded great to turbo-4s and turbo-6s that sound like stifled farts
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 08:43
|
|
|
Danann posted:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-navies-in-the-world strong middle aged dude with receding hairline who constantly brags about his muscle car energy right here
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 08:49
|
|
|
lol that Japan has more tonnage that the UK
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 08:52
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:strong middle aged dude with receding hairline who constantly brags about his muscle car energy right here several $10000 mines later
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:lol that Japan has more tonnage that the UK well as it's basically wasted money jokes on Japan
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 09:18
|
|
|
One thing the Chinese don't have: trillion dollar floating targets
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 09:25
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:lol that Japan has more tonnage that the UK Look at their 20th century battle records, the UK haven't had game in centuries next to Japan. I'm not sure if I'm joking
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 10:23
|
|
|
Danann posted:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-navies-in-the-world It's also useless information since between 2014 and now there has been a massive capital ship building program in China. Also, China actually has carriers, 2 are commissioned and another one is fitting out for sea trials.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 10:52
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It's also useless information since between 2014 and now there has been a massive capital ship building program in China. Also, China actually has carriers, 2 are commissioned and another one is fitting out for sea trials. the new one has a catapult launcher so it should be able to launch heavier aircraft than the first 2 carriers
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 11:05
|
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:the new one has a catapult launcher so it should be able to launch heavier aircraft than the first 2 carriers Will see if they get their EMALS working faster than the US did on the new carrier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:lol that Japan has more tonnage that the UK Japan has been building new ships.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Lol at Obama being a patronizing rear end in a top hat while Mitt was right I have some news about pretty much every one of Obama's 'smartest guy in the room' moments Motherfucker had poisoned West Wing brain
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
Danann posted:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-navies-in-the-world Did they tell the readers that the chinese navy is basically built to hard counter carrier battle groups?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Will see if they get their EMALS working faster than the US did on the new carrier. Trump telling the navy to go back to goddamn steam was unequivocally right
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Trump telling the navy to go back to goddamn steam was unequivocally right Surprisingly yes
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Will see if they get their EMALS working faster than the US did on the new carrier. given the maintenance bullshit with emals, i think steam catapults are the superior system
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
Eh eventually electromagnetic will be better than steam and it won’t get there without a lot of work and a lot of Virginia McMansions. Steam catapults are a mature technology now, but didn’t arrive overnight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Eh eventually (Science Fiction) will be better than (equipment in service) and it won’t get there, but will buy a lot of Virginia McMansions. Development began in 1946, and the first operational steam catapult to be installed on a warship was in 1950. This is what they have said about every boondoggle for the past 30-40 years including chemical lasers, rail guns, Electrothermal-chemical technology, Bulk loaded liquid propellants etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
Better question is whether heavy fixed-wing carrier aviation is really going to be of strategic importance in the future. Drones (or, rather, fundamentally disposable aircraft) obviously do, and it's hard to imagine a world in which imperialistic forces wouldn't be interested in amphibious warfare, but carriers for big, heavy, manned fixed wing strike and fighter aircraft are big fat targets in a world that includes ballistic anti-ship missiles. Like does it matter whether your aircraft carrier uses the new hotness aircraft launching technology when the billions and billions you've invested in it, its air wing, pilot training, etc. gets pasted by a missile if it comes within striking distance of a hostile coastline?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
i would go even further and say that any surface vessel is basically a big fat target for the cheaper anti-ship ballistic missiles
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
yellowcar posted:i would go even further and say that any surface vessel is basically a big fat target for the cheaper anti-ship ballistic missiles People have said that about submarines since a U-Boat bagged 3 cruisers in September 1914, aeroplanes since 1941 with Taranto, Pearl Harbour and Force Z, and anti-ship missiles since HMS Zealous in 1967. There are many things you need warships for, and the utility of those roles will keep them in service. In war, nothing is invulnerable and everything is a target, you just have to do what you can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
yellowcar posted:i would go even further and say that any surface vessel is basically a big fat target for the cheaper anti-ship ballistic missiles Your analysis has deep flaws. You hit an issue where the combat modelling within what was a high-level political/strategic wargame used some very simplistic assumptions for speed, rather than doing a realistic analysis of the tactical battle (which can be done, and in considerable detail, but takes a day or two at least to tailor and run for the specific engagement… which makes the turns too slow). Red didn't have to provide any information of how this massive missile armada was being assembled, briefed, positioned, targetted and delivered in a precise simultaneous time-on-target raid; in less than a day; without using radio; let alone the very real problems of mutual interference (how many missiles are trying to use the same radar frequency to detect and home on their targets?) One version described was that rather than go for a realistic "an AEGIS cruiser can defeat <very many> incoming missiles" representation - which was the job they were specifically designed for, but basically made Red's antiship missiles of very limited value - a much lower value was assumed to overwhelm the defenses if the ship was caught flatfooted at short range, or left confused by a deceptive tactical picture. However, the much simpler and clearer situation of "Bruisers, sah! Faaaarsands of 'em!" where it's clear and obvious that a major attack is underway, and the AEGIS system is turned loose in automatic mode to do what it's designed to do. Again, having found a specific opportunity in the rules, Van Riper was very upset when it was challenged and questioned. Similarly, the carrier was "destroyed" by suicide-crashing an aircraft onto its deck, using the claim that a small single-engined Cessna would be able to get close enough without being shot down to then make a sudden, destructive kamikaze dive. Again, though, this hits the problem that the aircraft used weighs about a ton at most, and has a VNE (formally 'never exceed velocity', informally 'wings fall off very soon after passing this speed') of about 160 knots. The carrier regularly survives twenty- and thirty-ton aircraft crashing down onto its deck at similar speeds many times a day - it's called "landing" for its air wing - without damage, and historically (much smaller, less well defended, less well armoured) British carriers hit by real kamikazes in 1945 had been back at flying stations within minutes. The model didn't include a rule for this sort of action, so Van Riper claimed "sunk" and then protested unfairness when this was challenged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 22:24
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:People have said that about submarines since a U-Boat bagged 3 cruisers in September 1914, aeroplanes since 1941 with Taranto, Pearl Harbour and Force Z, and anti-ship missiles since HMS Zealous in 1967. There are many things you need warships for, and the utility of those roles will keep them in service. The solution is probably going to be jam as many missiles on a vessel large enough to stay a decent amount of time at sea, more or less the "super frigate" concept that has been getting more trajection in recent years. I don't know if I want to call it for aircraft carriers yet, they still have range, but again the US has probably placed far too much confidence in its rapidly aging fleet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The solution is probably going to be jam as many missiles on a vessel large enough to stay a decent amount of time at sea, more or less the "super frigate" concept that has been getting more trajection in recent years. I don't know if I want to call it for aircraft carriers yet, they still have range, but again the US has probably placed far too much confidence in its rapidly aging fleet. Well you touched on an issue that comes up at every naval architects convention on warship design. Whatever the ideal surface combatant and related doctrine is, it's not one that the MIC as it exists now can or will produce, so naval planners are stuck trying to fight a war with the last functioning surface fleet that the state was able to deliver before the 2000's. Remember too that the US is trying to equal the Royal Navy at its peak in terms of dominance and force projection without allocating 40% of the national budget or having taxes anywhere near the level they did, let alone direct control over production and procurement. It's a deeply compromised system, and every strategic, operational or tactical problem flows from that because those high level political and socio-economic problems are not up for discussion. So, considering that alternatives to "the navy of the 80's, give or take ships and aircraft retiring from age" (F-14, A-6, A-7, S-3, OHP etc.) require political will or industrial capacity that can't or won't be mustered, or reliability and functionality that the MIC can't or won't deliver on, they do sort of have to limp along with, to borrow from the first time we saw how the rot had set in, the navy they have, not the navy they might want or wish to have at a later time. If you rewind the clock, it took the USN a long time to come to grips with the emergence of Soviet nuclear cruise missiles, submarine and air launched cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, conventional warhead cruise missiles etc. they never satisfactorily solved the problem of the Backfire or Soviet SSBNs launching from bastions in Soviet waters, that that was probably the most functional the USN ever was, aside from 1943-45. For the navy now to respond to an emerging tactical, operational or strategic problem requires a state that can facilitate that. There are naval designers and maritime architects with all sorts of interesting responses, from a focus on ECM and EW, possibly to the degree that there's a partial return to gun armament as missiles become inoperable, to much larger warships, larger missile batteries, new types of missile and CIWS etc. but where steam catapults went from a brand new theory to operational on a major warship in 4 years, even introducing a new gun into service will probably be a 20 year boondoggle. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 23:16 on Mar 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:So, considering that alternatives to "the navy of the 80's, give or take ships and aircraft retiring from age, and also unmaintained and covered in rust" (F-14, A-6, A-7, S-3, OHP etc.) require political will or industrial capacity that can't or won't be mustered, or reliability and functionality that the MIC can't or won't deliver on, they do sort of have to limp along with, to borrow from the first time we saw how the rot had set in, the navy they have, not the navy they might want or wish to have at a later time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
It's loving insane to me that the most basic element of life in a steam navy is being neglected. I mean, the Victorians took it a little far by requiring captains to buy their own paint beyond the provided I think 4 coats a year, and the amount of brass that needed to be polished, the buff and white paint in tropical waters, but letting major warships rust is ...lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:It's loving insane to me that the most basic element of life in a steam navy is being neglected. I mean, the Victorians took it a little far by requiring captains to buy their own paint beyond the provided I think 4 coats a year, and the amount of brass that needed to be polished, the buff and white paint in tropical waters, but letting major warships rust is ...lol. no one ever got passed up for promotion by reducing maintenance costs, I assume
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
imagine leaving your planes out in the rain to get rusty smdh
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:35
|
|