|
orange juche posted:EMPs generate thousands of volts in metal objects and circuits and unlike a faraday cage most aren't nearly well grounded enough to dissipate the charge. Also the charge from an EMP is generated everywhere in the circuit, and modern electronics will burn out from a voltage of slightly over 1VDC through critical components like CPUs. Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I know little to nothing about any of this: will electronics burn out under an EMP even if they're turned off at the time?
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
Artificer posted:Didnt upgrades to the A10 improve its sensors so pilots werent literally looking out with binoculars? Yeah. Nowadays, it’s capable of sitting at 15,000+ feet and dropping bombs and firing missiles and other guided weapons. The downside is it’s slow and obvious and can’t throw a bomb as far, so if your threat is MANPADS and MGs, that’s fine. If your threat is even a truck-mounted SAM, not as much. The problem all planes face is if you fly in the weeds to avoid SAMs, your sensors also can’t effectively see at range either. Can work for tactical ingress/egress, not great for finding targets that aren’t precisely known beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
orange juche posted:A very high altitude nuclear detonation is really the only feasible way to create an EMP without subjecting the ground to blast wave effects. Something like Starfish Prime detonated over the continental US
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
Lord Awkward posted:Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I know little to nothing about any of this: will electronics burn out under an EMP even if they're turned off at the time? very much yes, think CD in a microwave oven type of destruction on a micro scale
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
Lord Awkward posted:Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I know little to nothing about any of this: will electronics burn out under an EMP even if they're turned off at the time? yes. an emp works by inducing current in a circuit, which happens regardless of whether the circuit is currently energized, and does damage because the voltage and/or amperage of the induced current is much higher than what the circuit was designed for standard.deviant posted:i think you’ll find that this would subject the ground to blast wave effects within 30 minutes or so 30 minutes or less or the next one’s free
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Lord Awkward posted:Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I know little to nothing about any of this: will electronics burn out under an EMP even if they're turned off at the time? Yes. It’s not causing a surge in the power lines but it’s inducing a current in everything that resembles a conductor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
 my ebooks...Thanks, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
joat mon posted:They had a point. The heavy, gunless fighters of the early Vietnam period did much, much worse than anyone expected. Their influence helped de-bloat the F-15 and make it more agile. Lol, no, their influence did not do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:yes. an emp works by inducing current in a circuit, which happens regardless of whether the circuit is currently energized, and does damage because the voltage and/or amperage of the induced current is much higher than what the circuit was designed for Heh
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
 Re: A-10s and Ukraine, a possible use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Lord Awkward posted:
They only do this when they’re scared 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Lord Awkward posted:
Is that an A-10 repurposed into a ground based cannon?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Biggest problem is that, as far as I know, we really only have one way of creating weaponizable scales of EMP and that method comes with some....really inconvenient side effects. So it's not like in Ocean's Eleven? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Ask the British when they were fighting Zulu tribesmen armed with clubs, spears and hide shields, and they had the gatling gun. Maxim Gun 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
Ionicpsycho posted:Is that an A-10 repurposed into a ground based cannon? Retire the airframes like they want to, appease everyone who wants to send jets to Ukraine, and improve the air defense situation all at once! Especially if you can get anti-air missiles onto the pylons  I found it with zero context and I'm 99.9% certain it's shopped but I want to believe edit ↓↓ didn't see that thread, but that's neat, funny that the solution for testing is flip the whole plane over and stick it on a post though ↓↓ Lord Awkward fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Apr 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
I said it was CIWS in TFR (It's a testing rig.) kill me now posted:In that specific case it is being used to static test the jamming pod under the wing against a radar array
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Fivemarks posted:Don't forget their thing where they can get major motion pictures made based on their bald faced lies, like Pentagon Wars. Pentagon Wars wasn't a major motion picture, it was made-for-TV on HBO back when broadcast TV was still king.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Maxim Gun Wasn't invented for 4 more years
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Maxim Gun Zulu War was pre Maxim i think, conflict in Sudan would be Maxim era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
McNally posted:Pentagon Wars wasn't a major motion picture, it was made-for-TV on HBO back when broadcast TV was still king. Oh yeah? Well if that's true why is it so funny? Wise guy over here saying that the movie isn't accurate. Have you not heard the music!? That's the theme song of DoD ineptitude, and that theme song don't lie!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Is the Bradley really as bad as it's portrayed in that movie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
I had to go from an Abrams to a Bradley and that thing fuckin' sucks. I'd rather walk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
psydude posted:Is the Bradley really as bad as it's portrayed in that movie? One of the complaints in the movie is that giving it a gun might make enemies shoot at it. Because clearly an unarmed vehicle full of soldiers never would get shot at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:One of the complaints in the movie is that giving it a gun might make enemies shoot at it. Because clearly an unarmed vehicle full of soldiers never would get shot at. IT LOOKS LIKE A TANK!!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
It's a good tank Brent
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
psydude posted:Is the Bradley really as bad as it's portrayed in that movie? "Blows up when hit by an antitank weapon" is somehow its scandalous weakness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
psydude posted:Is the Bradley really as bad as it's portrayed in that movie? Yes, and no. Some of the issues portrayed were legit problems, but it was mostly one guy real mad no one listened to his dumb ideas, and he took no interest in learning. But he did take interest in writing a book!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:One of the complaints in the movie is that giving it a gun might make enemies shoot at it. Because clearly an unarmed vehicle full of soldiers never would get shot at. But the turret does make it hella tall, making it a much easier target.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Bradley has TOW missiles on it though so it can blow up T-72's real good
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Bradley can also slice and dice T-55s with it's gun
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Bradley can also slice and dice T-55s with it's gun How many tank kills does it have compared to an A-10 though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
psydude posted:Is the Bradley really as bad as it's portrayed in that movie? No. Most of Burton's complaints were either nothingburgers that he pushed because he wanted to prove he was smarter than the MIC, or willfully misunderstanding the reasoning behind the livefire tests and the decisions that went into them The famous "Covering a tank with heaters so a heat seeking missile could hit it" wasn't because they were cheating, it was because they wanted to study the effects of a missile impact. There's also the little fact that burton wanted them to test every Bradley available to destruction. Also there's the fact that the movie lies and says that the initial Bradley program was overbudget, when it was in fact under budget.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
Fivemarks posted:No. Most of Burton's complaints were either nothingburgers that he pushed because he wanted to prove he was smarter than the MIC, or willfully misunderstanding the reasoning behind the livefire tests and the decisions that went into them Wouldn't you need to heat up a tank target to simulate engine heat anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wouldn't you need to heat up a tank target to simulate engine heat anyway? I think they went beyond engine exhaust
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:I think they went beyond engine exhaust It's more than just engine exhaust. A tank driving around doing things heats up. The hull absorbs engine heat, the treads and wheels create friction, etc. It's not that it gets hot to the touch or anything but it makes a huge difference to a thermal sensor. But yeah if they were doing testing of other aspects than the sensor/guidance heating it up to make sure it's a super easy target also makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
A big problem with the Combat Reformers' complaints about the Bradley, when it isn't Burton being someone who thinks he's smarter than he is and being willing to waste billions of dollars and redesign the Bradley in a way that would've gotten soldiers killed (He was upset that the Bradley's water tanks were positioned so that a hit that hit the engine and possibly started a fire would also puncture the tanks and cause the fire to be doused- Burton thought that this was 'cheating'), is that the Combat Reformers don't understand the difference between an APC and an IFV, and so think that the Bradley is an APC that is poorly designed to do APC things instead of an IFV designed to do IFV things.Jarmak posted:Wouldn't you need to heat up a tank target to simulate engine heat anyway? You are Smarter than Colonel James Burton. Can you guess why they replaced gunpowder in ammunition stores with sand and fuel with water on test vehicles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
Fivemarks posted:A big problem with the Combat Reformers' complaints about the Bradley, when it isn't Burton being someone who thinks he's smarter than he is and being willing to waste billions of dollars and redesign the Bradley in a way that would've gotten soldiers killed (He was upset that the Bradley's water tanks were positioned so that a hit that hit the engine and possibly started a fire would also puncture the tanks and cause the fire to be doused- Burton thought that this was 'cheating'), is that the Combat Reformers don't understand the difference between an APC and an IFV, and so think that the Bradley is an APC that is poorly designed to do APC things instead of an IFV designed to do IFV things. Because they wanted to see the primary effects of the warhead without them being obscured by damage from secondaries? The likelihood fuel or gunpowder would have gone up can be inferred from the damage analysis, you don't actually have to see it happen. Edit: Also why make a big loving fire if you can just look if the water spilled? Edit 2: I mean honestly why the gently caress would you ever put actual fuel and ammo in a target? I just keep thinking of more reasons that's dumb as hell. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Apr 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
not caring here posted:I had to go from an Abrams to a Bradley and that thing fuckin' sucks. I'd rather walk. I liked both. The Abrams was a better ride, though. It's a shame Pentagon Wars is a load of crap, because it has some genuinely good jokes and performances by a rogue's gallery of 90s comedic actors. I like Lazerpig, but he did overreach when it came to analyzing the engines in his T-14 video. I don't know what version of the engine that's in the T-14 is, but I doubt it's that similar to the industrial version, and I know for a fact it's very different from the mentioned WW2 engine. Even saying that the current version of the T-72 or T-90 engine is "the same as" the T-34 engine is incorrect. The T-72 and its variants have had several different engines, each with different upgrades over the years. I also don't know where he got that Honda Jazz figure from. Maybe he didn't realize that Russia is one of the few countries that actually measures things like engine performance in metric units? I don't know. He did have some better points that he should have stuck to, though. I'd say the one general weakness of the T-72 is how many different configurations have been produced and exported. I've always wanted to get a chance to rip apart one of the engines that ended up in the T-80UDs. They sound neat from what I've read. Supposedly they still do interesting new versions of them. Coquito Ergo Sum fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
Spotted in the wild: a Ukrainian whirlybird encourages the Russians to "deal with it" https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1651329876094271488
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
A.o.D. posted:Spotted in the wild: a Ukrainian whirlybird encourages the Russians to "deal with it" Modern war with a Slavic flair is weird as gently caress Never thought I'd see pixellated shades on an Mi-8
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 23:58
|
|