|
bewbies posted:The last flight of Arleigh Burkes are close to 10,000 tons and the Zumwalt's are about 14,000 tons. In WWI terms the ABs are heavy cruiser size, and the Zumwalt is pushing into battlecruiser range. Hah, drat. So why are they called destroyers instead of cruisers? Is it because they're meant only to be escort ships?
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Same reason the Alaskas were cruisers. Role decides designation, not displacement.Tekopo posted:One question about aircraft carriers (the real ones) that popped up when viewing that website: how were the islands counter-balanced on an aircraft carrier? Hull design. If you get a picture of the island side of the Lexingtons, note how the hell is bulged out there like how battleships could get added bulges. That's to provide buoyancy to balance the island. Carriers designed as such are much more subtle about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Hah, drat. So why are they called destroyers instead of cruisers? Is it because they're meant only to be escort ships? The old way of classifying ships doesn't have a whole lot of relevance anymore, at least to the US navy. Even the current fleet, which was designed roughly around CG = surface-heavy and DDG = subsurface-heavy is pretty much all blurred together...all of the surface ships are all relatively equally capable of fighting surface, subsurface and shore targets or doing pretty much any mission across the spectrum. Really the only meaningful differentiation between surface ships anymore is whether or not the ship is BMD capable. This isn't as true for navies that still employ frigate sized ships as they're so small they have to be more specialized, but pretty much everybody uses the jack-of-all trades DDG as the backbone of the surface fleet nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Soldaten also mentioned that being in the Kriegsmarine is a great place to avoid being asked awkward questions if you had very un-nazi ideas and wanted a service branch to already have a claim on you so you can't be conscripted somewhere more awkward. No idea how many people that covers, but a few of the recordings seem to bear that out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Nimitz did, but that hasn't stopped decades of the idea that unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan was okay, but unrestricted submarine warfare by the KM was evil. Who holds this idea? EDIT: Not that I agree that intercepting transports from the UK's allies and neutrals is entirely equivalent to intercepting appropriated supplies from Japanese occupied Asia. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The old way of classifying ships doesn't have a whole lot of relevance anymore, at least to the US navy. Even the current fleet, which was designed roughly around CG = surface-heavy and DDG = subsurface-heavy is pretty much all blurred together...all of the surface ships are all relatively equally capable of fighting surface, subsurface and shore targets or doing pretty much any mission across the spectrum. Really the only meaningful differentiation between surface ships anymore is whether or not the ship is BMD capable. Thanks. Btw, would you and other people too, please write out the abbreviation for stuff like BMD and DDG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Ballistic Missile Defense; Destroyer, Guided Missile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The old way of classifying ships doesn't have a whole lot of relevance anymore, at least to the US navy. Even the current fleet, which was designed roughly around CG = surface-heavy and DDG = subsurface-heavy is pretty much all blurred together...all of the surface ships are all relatively equally capable of fighting surface, subsurface and shore targets or doing pretty much any mission across the spectrum. Really the only meaningful differentiation between surface ships anymore is whether or not the ship is BMD capable. I think my favorite classification is the Japanese Izumo-class 'Helicopter Destroyer' (DDH), which clocks in at (according to Wikipedia) 27000 tons displacement fully loaded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Thanks. Ballistic missile defense. DDG isn't an abbreviation really. It's a designation where the DD basically means it's a destroyer that doesn't have any role changing differences from the norm (eg BC for battlecruisers or CV for cruisers that carry planes), and the G means it carries guided missiles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
If you redesignate the role of a ship, do you change its class?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Why are modern warships grey?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If you redesignate the role of a ship, do you change its class? Or if the senate is getting scared of how many Soviet cruisers are running around, yes. Do note that role in this case is more a set of capabilities so it'd be a reflection of physical changes most likely. Decking over a BC and adding hangars and lifts and so on gets you a CV, for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:The USN did plan from the very start to begin unrestricted submarine warfare well before the actual outbreak of war, it was part of their pre-war planning for a war against Japan, the USN decided pretty much on its own that it would lead off with that largely because it had the potential to work so well. The RN also rather flagrantly violated the rights of neutral shipping in WW1 as well to try to put the squeeze on Germany.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Who holds this idea? Unrestricted submarine warfare isn't intercepting supplies though, that's only part of it. It's sinking everything that could conceivably be part of the war effort, whatever it is. Intercepting supplies makes it sound like restricted submarine warfare, which was the hilariously unworkable stop and sink. It's another of those "acceptable war crimes" like area bombing, that everyone decried before the war, then did because war has a logic all of its own and a hideous arithmetic of lives taken and lives lost, and then pushed back down until the next time it'll be needed. War, man, war is a terrible monster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
That thing Ron Pearlman says that we're all getting sick of hearing but we know.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
I guess I say it more to remind myself as I divide my free time between writing a commentary to Soul of a Skunk (look out world!) and playing Warthunder where there's an endless parade of 109s bursting into flames when the hispanos chatter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:That thing Ron Pearlman says that we're all getting sick of hearing but we know. It changes, just in the clothes sense more than the not causing atrocities sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Unrestricted submarine warfare isn't intercepting supplies though, that's only part of it. It's sinking everything that could conceivably be part of the war effort, whatever it is. Intercepting supplies makes it sound like restricted submarine warfare, which was the hilariously unworkable stop and sink. Well, like my point is that you can potentially make the distinction that Japan was not 'entitled' to the resources it was pillaging from the continent, so it was not exactly the same as in the Atlantic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
WW2 Data 152mm projectiles are the item of the week for the Italian arsenal. Another two projectiles can be added to the "originally of British design" list. We've got another set of captured/foreign guns that the Italians used. This time we've got the Cannone da 152/37, which was an Austrian field gun first built in 1913. We have an indigenous design in the form of the Cannone da 152/45, which was a naval gun mounted on a land carriage/firing platform. This is followed up by the Obice 152/13, which was the Italian version of the British 6-inch Howitzer. The 152/45 and 152/50 seem to be for two different guns, the 152/45 S. Mod. 1911 and the 152/50 A. Mod. 1918, respectively. The /45 gun is of French origin, while the /50 gun is of British origin. According to the Italian wikipedia, these projectiles were simply 152/13mm rounds modified to fit these new weapons. Lastly, there's the 152/32mm gun that I can't seem to find either a photo of, or a good source. The only website that has any information on it is here but, from what I can gather, it was a British gun license built/purchased by the Italians and used as Coastal Artillery and probably looked like the 6-inch guns at Fort Kamehameha.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well, like my point is that you can potentially make the distinction that Japan was not 'entitled' to the resources it was pillaging from the continent, so it was not exactly the same as in the Atlantic. But the colonial empires were?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well, like my point is that you can potentially make the distinction that Japan was not 'entitled' to the resources it was pillaging from the continent, so it was not exactly the same as in the Atlantic. that's a really, really bizarre argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Why are modern warships grey? Lack of ambition.  I guess because they aren't belching out clouds of black smoke everywhere they go so hiding the fact that the ship exists is actually a possibility, whereas old ships were highly visible, so the best suggestion for camouflage was to make it impossible to tell what the gently caress you were looking at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Lack of ambition. The idea of dazzle camp was actually to make it difficult to determine angle on the bow - basically, which way the ship is headed - a measurement that makes a huge difference when you're trying to compute a firing solution to hit a moving target. Of course if you can track range and bearing over a period of time, say using radar, it doesn't make as much of a difference...
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:But the colonial empires were? UK food imports were from the US and Canada, not from its colonial possessions. Anyway, this is mainly a pedantic point that I'm not gonna pretend is terribly strong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Who holds this idea? Not to get toooo  about this, but I'm not sure the prewar British/Dutch occupied colonial Asia was technically that much better morally speaking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
India exported the living poo poo out of men, food and tobacco, the three things all armies march on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not to get toooo The specific argument I'm making is not that it's not a war crime because the British colonial powers were morally better than Japan, but that the situations are not comparable because the specific traffic that was being intercepted in the Atlantic was different from the traffic that was being intercepted in the Pacific. The latter constituted the proceeds of war crimes and thus can be claimed to be acting to hinder that sort of activity. If the KM was preventing the British from expropriating materials from India, say, that would be more similar. Like, it seems obvious that people would consider differently bombing a lorry full of gold looted from Jews en route to Berlin than any other lorry. Fangz fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The specific argument I'm making is not that it's not a war crime because the British colonial powers were morally better than Japan, but that the situations are not comparable because the specific traffic that was being intercepted in the Atlantic was different from the traffic that was being intercepted in the Pacific. The latter constituted the proceeds of war crimes and thus can be claimed to be acting to hinder that sort of activity. If the KM was preventing the British from expropriating materials from India, say, that would be more similar. This is a very strange argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:UK food imports were from the US and Canada, not from its colonial possessions. In what universe was Canada not a colonial possession? All the same awful poo poo went down here, just longer ago than in Asia and Africa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
xthetenth posted:It changes, just in the clothes sense more than the not causing atrocities sense. War. War changes it's pants and it is really bad and stuff.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Fangz, have you ever heard of the Tsushima Maru? I just looked up the exact number, when it went down 775 Japanese schoolchildren were killed. Now, try to imagine a world where 775 British children are killed after a German submarine torpedoed their ship without warning. Or American children. You don't see that as being remembered as a cowardly act of murder forever and ever and ever? It's not, and the reason it's not is simple: we won. My point is that the ships Americans sank in the Pacific weren't just bringing back "looted" oil from the Dutch East Indies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Would you really consider a truck with 1T of gold looted from, say Czechoslovakia as a different type of military target than a truck with 1T of gold from the German Central Bank, assuming they're traveling to the same place for the same purpose?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Chiming in to say this whole argument is super weird.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Fangz, have you ever heard of the Tsushima Maru? I just looked up the exact number, when it went down 775 Japanese schoolchildren were killed. Now, try to imagine a world where 775 British children are killed after a German submarine torpedoed their ship without warning. Or American children. You don't see that as being remembered as a cowardly act of murder forever and ever and ever? It's not, and the reason it's not is simple: we won. My point is that the ships Americans sank in the Pacific weren't just bringing back "looted" oil from the Dutch East Indies. I mean, you do see that stuff brought up all the time though. The US winning in the Pacific hasn't stopped the atomic bombings from being a constant debate for the past half century. I dunno what Fangz was saying with that last point but his earlier "who actually holds this stance" post was valid for sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Hearing protection was also a big issue until recently because electronic earmuffs and earplugs that can selectively filter out loud noises are a modern invention. Previously, a soldier wearing earplugs would be sacrificing his ability to notice potential threats. As has been said, it's a different matter for artillery because you're typically not listening for a guy sneaking through the jungle looking to slice your ankles. Fwiw, they gave us regular old foam hearing plugs in Iraq, but I had to take them out to hear over the headset I wore. Then I got denied benefits for hearing loss because I didn't follow the rules, lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Fangz, have you ever heard of the Tsushima Maru? I hadn't, and I've stood on board the Bowfin. Thanks for the knowledge. poo poo like that happened. Mush Morton on the Wahoo machine-gunned a bunch of survivors off a sunken transport and it would have been a war crime even if they had been Japanese sailors instead of British-Indian POWs. The Dan Carlin podcast that's only notionally about dropping atomic bombs on Japan had a pretty succinct lead-in: the question "was it right for the US to drop atomic bombs on Japan" is complete bullshit, the question worth debating is "when did we decide that it's OK to drop bombs on cities in the first place?" Submarine warfare is pretty much the same, an airplane flying low enough to distinguish the pharmacy from the factory is probably going to get wrecked, and the submarine that surfaces and demands that a freighter surrender under the prize rules is probably not going to last long. One we've decided that bombing cities is ok because that's where the factories are, or sinking merchantmen without warning is fine because otherwise they'll radio in our position, then that de facto becomes the ordinary conduct of war. I still think that surfacing and shooting a bunch of escapees who turn out to be your allies is at the very least Not In Keeping with the Highest Traditions of the United States Naval Service, and ol' Dudley should have been prosecuted, but he's been pickled somewhere under the Pacific for about 80 years and that ship has sailed out of the barn doors and you aren't getting the genie back into the toothpaste tube. Also I guess there's an argument going on but I don't really know what it's about so if you read this post and don't like it, please assume that you're a big jerk-head. hogmartin fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Would you really consider a truck with 1T of gold looted from, say Czechoslovakia as a different type of military target than a truck with 1T of gold from the German Central Bank, assuming they're traveling to the same place for the same purpose? Yeah, that's the distinction I'm making. If you don't think that exists, then okay. Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Fangz, have you ever heard of the Tsushima Maru? I just looked up the exact number, when it went down 775 Japanese schoolchildren were killed. Now, try to imagine a world where 775 British children are killed after a German submarine torpedoed their ship without warning. Or American children. You don't see that as being remembered as a cowardly act of murder forever and ever and ever? It's not, and the reason it's not is simple: we won. My point is that the ships Americans sank in the Pacific weren't just bringing back "looted" oil from the Dutch East Indies. A lot of people think the sinking of the Lusitania was justifiable (the diplomatic outcry was understandable at the time, but I dunno if many Americans really remember it as a cowardly act of murder forever and ever). Similarly there's stuff like the shooting down of various airliners over the years which have been eventually plastered over in the collective memories. Collateral damage is a different thing from starvation strategies so you are kinda derailing the argument. EDIT: Also, the reason why it's not remembered in the US and the UK is not because 'we won', it's because the British and the Americans aren't the victims, and for the Japanese it's a small drop in the bucket of the tragedy of WWII. Losing a war does not in fact erase the memories of the defeated. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yeah, that's the distinction I'm making. If you don't think that exists, then okay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yeah, that's the distinction I'm making. If you don't think that exists, then okay. Agree with Arquinsiel's comments. Even if you believe this, how does one make the determination that the truck is in fact full of Bad Nazi Gold and not OK Nazi Gold?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
I don't personally want to weigh in on the morality of unrestricted submarine warfare. I didn't mean to start a moral argument. The original question asked was if there were any people who advocate a "clean Kriegsmarine" and I was saying that the closest I'd come to defending them was that I get upset about the hypocrisy surrounding German unrestricted submarine warfare vs American. Morality arguments are sticky things and I'm not touching that one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:15
|
|