|
Murgos posted:There are enough words written about the horrors of fire bombing and the massed bomber raids of heavily civilian areas that the assertion that some people find those two evil is hardly controversial. Yeah it kind of is. It's not like they started a war with it. And the idea that it doesn't get worse is completely loving bonkers.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:All airplanes should be done up like a van with an airbrushed mural. They should be painted like the diablos rojos from my country. My country bought second hand Thomas-brand school buses and painted them in a mish-mash of pop culture, mythology, cartoons, famous celebrities imagined by gulag-quality artists and they always included a bucolic, Hudson River Valley-like scene on the back of the roof. https://www.google.com/search?q=dia...QEILDAA#imgrc=_
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:You want Slayers nose art? LIGHT COME FORTH! Anybody that hasn't watched Slayers is missing out. Its an anime thats not anime at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah it kind of is. It's not like they started a war with it. And the idea that it doesn't get worse is completely loving bonkers. Are you actually going to argue that no one has made that assertion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
I thought you meant Slayer the band. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
pthighs posted:I thought you meant Slayer the band. I did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Are you actually going to argue that no one has made that assertion? Nope. My argument was summed up by my initial response: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I did. Faith in humanity restored!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
TerryLennox posted:LIGHT COME FORTH! No, I'm good thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This is a very interesting study by the evil corporation on how the PRC/PLA sees the world. Hey, *I* was going to post a very long article, in this case, Russia's fascist inspiration: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-philosopher-of-russian-fascism/ I don't have a bead on who Putin is aside from an increasingly sloppy megalomaniac, so seeing him recycle an Orthodox Russian philosopher that was super into Hegel, taught by the originater of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, became ideological buds with friggin' Lenin after the revolution, endorsed a form of Christianity that said "truth is a lie, and God is a feeble fuckup" then went fascist, (first Italian, later Nazi) and then had the good sense to move to Switzerland before the war started, and who throughout WW2 was cheering on the Germans as they attacked the USSR, and if anything became even more extreme after world war two is, ah, interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Fearless posted:No, I'm good thanks. How about an improved Kongo class JMSDF destroyer getting lost in time and emerging in 1942 before the battle of Midway? (think "The Final Countdown" but with a competent plot this time). 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:How about an improved Kongo class JMSDF destroyer getting lost in time and emerging in 1942 before the battle of Midway? (think "The Final Countdown" but with a competent plot this time). On whose side would it be fighting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:On whose side would it be fighting? The struggle of the crew from a modern, peaceful, and wealthy Japan to resist the nationalistic appeal of defending their country, knowing that in this time it is ruled by a brutal, totalitarian and militaristic government is the central theme of the show. May be an acquired taste, but really beats some poo poo like "The last ship" for me..
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:The struggle of the crew from a modern, peaceful, and wealthy Japan to resist the nationalistic appeal of defending their country, knowing that in this time it is ruled by a brutal, totalitarian and militaristic government is the central theme of the show. It's a shame they only did the one season of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Yep, at least the Manga is finished.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:(think "The Final Countdown" but with a competent plot this time). If Tomcats knocking down Zeros with jetwash is wrong, I don't want to be right. Edit: it was just the carrier, right? Because unrestricted submarine warfare with ADCAPs would be a hell of a thing. What's the current makeup/spacing of a CVNBG? I read once that if you put one on a map of the US, and put the carrier in Ohio, the destroyer screen would be in like Quebec amd Texas and the 688 boat would be somewhere in the North Atlantic. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 06:00
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Hey, *I* was going to post a very long article, in this case, Russia's fascist inspiration: I'd like to know more...in posts not books, i have too many books to read already
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Edit: it was just the carrier, right? Because unrestricted submarine warfare with ADCAPs would be a hell of a thing. Just draw a 1000km circle around a CVN and label it DEATH. There would be small bubbles of more DEATH around other ships and sort of vague squiggly circle of SURPRISE DEATH around the SSN. ADCAPs are old news. The Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS is where its at, and they are just comically good murder machines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:ADCAPs are old news. The Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS is where its at, and they are just comically good murder machines. When did topedos change from contact detonation/blowing a hole in the side to just blowing all the water out from under the keel? OG Mk48? Edit: also, when and why did everybody standardize on 21" for heavyweoght torpedos? I remember a Clive Cussler novel about a CIA-contractor ship using Russian fish because the USN wouldn't let him have ADCAPs, and it goes back at least to WWII, u-boats had 21" tubes. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Just draw a 1000km circle around a CVN and label it DEATH. There would be small bubbles of more DEATH around other ships and sort of vague squiggly circle of SURPRISE DEATH around the SSN. Didn't an Australian sub surface in the middle of a CVBG a few years ago? I can't find anything on Google offhand and it was during an exercise, so who knows what the RoE was for the engagement (and what, if anything has changed since then).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Didn't an Australian sub surface in the middle of a CVBG a few years ago? I can't find anything on Google offhand and it was during an exercise, so who knows what the RoE was for the engagement (and what, if anything has changed since then). The Swedish boat leased to the US for training managed to pull that off five times out of six.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 07:50
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:When did topedos change from contact detonation/blowing a hole in the side to just blowing all the water out from under the keel? look up United States torpedo scandal of ww2. Everyone was trying to develop a torpedo that detonated under the enemy since forever, but it was really hard to make it work. poo poo, we couldn't make contact detonators work reliably until 1944 or so.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 08:33
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Everyone was trying to develop a torpedo that detonated under the enemy since forever, but it was really hard to make it work. It was uniquely hard for the Americans. Everyone else managed it more or less iirc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:It was uniquely hard for the Americans. Everyone else managed it more or less iirc. The biggest difference was that most other countries had non-criminal weapon development organizations, whereas BuOrd refused to acknowledge any aspect of a three or four-headed problem with their torpedoes. Nazi Germany’s magnetic explorers were only marginally more reliable (particularly at the beginning of the war,) than the USNs, but they weren’t hampered by a nearly non-functional contact exploder, a torpedo that was never trim-tested with a warhead, gyro issues, etc etc, so the overall failure rate was much lower. The captains and crews were also properly trained on maintenance and employment, so the fish were in good condition when they got used and weren’t fired with the magnetic exploder active in conditions where it was likely to predetonate. The Mark XIV scandal should have resulted in admirals hanging from a yardarm somewhere. It was appalling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
The Kriegsmarine exploders problems were found out very early on in the war and they disabled it soon after. I want to say it was during the Norway campaign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Also Donitz had authority over the German equivalent of BuOrd (for sub weapons) as well as the U-boats. So when his captains came back from patrol complaining about malfunctioning torpedoes, he put a boot in the rear end of the weapons division. The American sub commanders didn’t have that kind of clout, so BuOrd could get away with blaming the captains and not fixing he problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
hot take: a NATO surface combatant with a contemporary loadout would have one hell of a time beating a WWII-era battleshipDelivery McGee posted:What's the current makeup/spacing of a CVNBG? I read once that if you put one on a map of the US, and put the carrier in Ohio, the destroyer screen would be in like Quebec amd Texas and the 688 boat would be somewhere in the North Atlantic. It is usually a Ticonderoga or new Arleigh Burke as the "command" ship (for air defense and surface actions), a pair of older Arleigh Burkes for air defense and ASW duty, at least one attack sub, and then a couple of support ships. There isn't really a standard "spacing"; ship position varies a lot based on a ton of different factors, none of which I'm particularly well informed on on, so take all this with lots of grains of salt. If you want to take full advantage of the sensor/shooter network, you're limited to LOS distances between ships (currently, anyway...fire over the network might happen in our lifetime I suppose). Most of this positioning stuff is pretty self explanatory - if you're facing a long range missile or competent subsurface threat, you want your shooters more dispersed. If you're looking at a mass air or subsurface attack by rickety old platforms, you want to be less dispersed. Anti-ship ballistic missiles add a whole new layer of complicated to this; terminal interception basically requires an ABM ship to be right up the carrier's rear end. bewbies fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
bewbies posted:hot take: a NATO surface combatant with a contemporary loadout would have one hell of a time beating a WWII-era battleship This is assuming their radios to the air component are broken? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
bewbies posted:hot take: a NATO surface combatant with a contemporary loadout would have one hell of a time beating a WWII-era battleship Are nuclear cruise missiles or torpedoes in the standard loadout of a blue water destroyer? I'm not a Chinese national, promise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:hot take: a NATO surface combatant with a contemporary loadout would have one hell of a time beating a WWII-era battleship Depends on the battleship, but most modern NATO surface ships are faster than pretty much anything but a post-treaty fast battleship like an Iowa or North Carolina. Yamato and Musashi could only do 27kts, so if the initial range was out of the BB’s gun range, theoretically an Arleigh Burke or Kongo could just kite it around hitting it with missiles until their magazines ran dry. If that would be effective or not is another question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
I'm also wondering whether a conventional Mk48 is something a surface ship would carry, via a deck tube or chopper
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
No. They’ve got Mk46/50/54 ASW torpedoes, but I don’t think western surface ships have carried heavyweight antiship torpedoes in a long time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
You could probably disable even if the target didn’t sink. If everything above deck is blasted you aren’t doing much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
note: my previous hot take has the rather large caveat that none of our extant anti ship munitions are optimized to blow up armored ships.Potato Salad posted:I'm also wondering whether a conventional Mk48 is something a surface ship would carry, via a deck tube or chopper They all carry the lightweight torpedoes for ASW work; I honestly don't know if the current launchers could handle a big one but I am inclined to think they can't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:hot take: a NATO surface combatant with a contemporary loadout would have one hell of a time beating a WWII-era battleship
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is assuming their radios to the air component are broken? unsporting
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
bewbies posted:unsporting Well, if you don't account for the cost of mounted weapons or the cost of pilot training, a single F-15E at flyaway cost in 1998 cost about as much as 114 SBD-3s at flyaway cost in 1944. So screw it, give the battleship about 14 waves of this with centerline 1,000 pound bombs:  And see what effect they can have before this guy ruins the BB superstructure 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
bewbies posted:hot take: a NATO surface combatant with a contemporary loadout would have one hell of a time beating a WWII-era battleship Presumably, as you suggest, the solution to a WWII-era battleship if this came up would be a sub, anyway. See also: the Belgrano.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Alaan posted:You could probably disable even if the target didn’t sink. If everything above deck is blasted you aren’t doing much. Pretend it's an Arleigh Burke Flight III. You have a complete loadout of 96 tomohawk cruise missiles (air warfare is for clowns), 1000 lb high explosive warhead on each. Figure that the short range AA on the Iowa will get a few, and the 5" will get a few as well. 550mph is hittable. 75 hits while accounting for mechanical issues? All of them are going to be non-penetrating. If you're lucky, you wreck all the fire control and then you can close within big gun range and shoot 5" shells at the ship until you run out of ammunition. You probably mission kill the boat Keep in mind that a modernized Iowa will also be shooting back with missiles so that will create some fun times for the DDG. I am assuming we are talking about a 1945 edition. If the Iowa is modernized, no loving way does the destroyer live. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Anime cartoon option, does a harpoon have remotely the precision needed to take out fore and aft primary and backup fire directors plus the optics on each turret?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:21
|
|