kill me now posted:

A FAC or missile boat can't sail from CONUS to all the places we would actually want to use a LCS on their own like the LCS can.

Gnoman posted:

There were several factors.

First, the 2-pounder was supposed to be replaced in production by the 6-pounder (which was an excellent AT gun in 1940) much earlier, but that changed after Dunkirk. With the near-total los of the BEF's equipment, the British was forced to make the decision between keeping the old gun in production and having a sub-par weapon; or else go ahead and retool for the new one and have essentially no weapon at all for almost a year. Staring down the threat of an actual invasion (Sealion looked much more feasible from London in 1940 than it does in hindsight), the choice was easy.

Second, with the Battle of Britain raging, the bulk of resources went to AA and Fighter Command. Tanks had to take a back seat for awhile.

Third, a lot of Britain's tank manufacturers had trouble making decent-sized turret rings. Small rings=small turrets=small guns.

Finally, their projects to make really good tanks kept running into delays caused by making perfect the enemy of the good.

Ensign Expendable posted:

The 6-pdr didn't have an HE shell either though.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

someone made a really expensive patrol vessel and forgot the guns

Arquinsiel posted:

It did. The Americans decided not to make them or the canister rounds for it so their 57mm guns were far less useful for infantry support than the British OQF 6 pdr unless they managed to get some buckshee prior to late 44 at least.

Mortabis posted:

No it won't because the point of the LCS is to be a patrol vessel not a frontline combat warship. The LCS is survivable enough for the missions it was actually designed to do, namely, the miscellaneous stuff we used OHPs for.

Saint Celestine posted:

for $500 million a ship, thats a reaaaaaally expensive patrol ship.

Can someone who knows more about this explain this better? It feels like we built something that is kinda lacking in capability, and is really expensive for what it can do?

Saint Celestine posted:

for $500 million a ship, thats a reaaaaaally expensive patrol ship.

Can someone who knows more about this explain this better? It feels like we built something that is kinda lacking in capability, and is really expensive for what it can do?

Ensign Expendable posted:

Huh, interesting, I guess none were sent to the USSR then, since the trials report for the Valentine Mk.IX complains that there is no HE shell.

Interestingly enough, the trials of the Valentine Mk.II say that there is an HE shell and the British just refused to send any.

Fangz posted:

They wanted to build a lot of them, but costs overran like they always do, then they cut the program to a lot less, which meant the unit cost ended up huge.

Fangz posted:

Would it be fair to say that military procurement in democracies have the habit of falling into the pattern of "government announces large and overly optimistic program to widespread public acclaim, then next government from opposing party kills or partially kills the underperforming program to again widespread public acclaim, then announces new alternative program"?

kill me now posted:

And they have also scaled back the modular combat module portion of the program which gutted a lot of the capabilities from the ships.

As it stands now it looks like they will just be equipping each LCS for a single mission only (mine countermeasures, surface warfare, ASW)

Gnoman posted:

There were several factors.

First, the 2-pounder was supposed to be replaced in production by the 6-pounder (which was an excellent AT gun in 1940) much earlier, but that changed after Dunkirk. With the near-total los of the BEF's equipment, the British was forced to make the decision between keeping the old gun in production and having a sub-par weapon; or else go ahead and retool for the new one and have essentially no weapon at all for almost a year. Staring down the threat of an actual invasion (Sealion looked much more feasible from London in 1940 than it does in hindsight), the choice was easy.

Second, with the Battle of Britain raging, the bulk of resources went to AA and Fighter Command. Tanks had to take a back seat for awhile.

Third, a lot of Britain's tank manufacturers had trouble making decent-sized turret rings. Small rings=small turrets=small guns.

Finally, their projects to make really good tanks kept running into delays caused by making perfect the enemy of the good.

Mortabis posted:

Kinda feel like you'd have to be deaf dumb and blind not to have seen that coming from the start. The swappable modules thing was always ridiculous.

Schenck v. U.S. posted:

no.

most democracies have permanent, and ostensibly apolitical, military establishments to ensure continuity in defense policy. the same for foreign policy. there are also elements of corporate welfare and jobs programs that support defense contractors and representatives of places reliant on defense industries, so programs develop democratic constituencies. what you describe is arguably more likely in authoritarian societies as a result of competition between factions.

Ensign Expendable posted:

Also the Soviets put a 76 mm gun into the Matilda and there was a project to put an 85 mm gun into the Valentine somehow, a small turret ring is not an issue if you believe in yourself.

C.M. Kruger posted:

Additionally IIRC early on the British mounted the guns on a balanced mount where the gunner aimed it like a rifle (for better moving accuracy, with the gunner basically functioning like a crude stabilizer), which limits the size of the gun that can be mounted before you have to go back to a traditional howitzer style mounting. And IIRC as a result the British also had trouble balancing their turrets when they went back to regular mounts because they'd spent the 30s and early 40s just balancing the gun instead.

Quinntan posted:

Sounds like what seems to happen all the time in Canada

Gnoman posted:

This statement seems tounge-in-cheek, but have you done an article on the Matilda II/76 attempt? I can't seem to find one on your blog.

Quinntan posted:

Sounds like what seems to happen all the time in Canada

Nebakenezzer posted:

It's true, that's Canadian procurement in a nutshell

Schenck v. U.S. posted:

. Meanwhile, the Navy involves substantial domestic shipbuilding industries, and naval operations are seen as strategically important, so the Liberals reiterated their commitment to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy and the Canadian Surface Combatant Program... albeit with slightly more attention to costs.

Phanatic posted:

What? The CSC program is already a giant mess and construction isn't even supposed to start for at least three more years.

Hogge Wild posted:

Hogge Wild posted:

Why didn't Mongol cavalry use shields?

GotLag posted:

The power requirements were too high for portable generators.

Hogge Wild posted:

Why didn't Mongol cavalry use shields?

Carcer posted:

I'm not an expert but I suspect its because they wanted to be able to quickly swap between bows at range and swords/spears/axes up close. I assume stowing a shield on a moving horse would complicate this somewhat.

Greggster posted:

But what if they had heavier armour and the shield strapped to one of their arms instead?

Maybe that would get too heavy for one horse, they should've had two horses and a chariot instead.

Or maybe that could limit their mobility if one horse died... Why didnt the mongols put barding on their horses?

Tbh they should've invested in tanks.
Imagine mongols invading medieval europe on top of Panzer Is, that would be loving rad.

Grand Prize Winner posted:

I dunno, the steppes, especially certain parts of Siberia, have a lot of oil reserves. Would have been perfect grazing for PzKpfw Is. Makes me wonder why they didn't breed any.