|
StandardVC10 posted:F-22A Raptor --> F-22B Velociraptor. That is reserved for the F22C with its ability to go hypersonic.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah, that'll ruin someone's day. It seems a bit far above the waterline, though. I don't think that's all that unusual in ASM's, I know at least the original Swedish one used up until the 90's was designed to overfly the target and fire a shaped charge at it downward. I think the current one does that as well, not sure though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
JcDent posted:
Saw this in the Mil Hist thread, thought some here might like to pop over and help
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
#1 - find EnsignExpendable in the World of Tanks thread in the Games forum. #2 is pretty easy to field - there were something close to 100,000 T-55s built. It's popular for the same reason people were talking at such length about the TF33 engine - parts aren't hard to find through white, black, and grey market arms dealing, and it's a kind of tank that doesn't need someone with a Ph.D. in astrophysics and a half-dozen software engineers to fix. When you need to petrify the local gentry, and have a reasonable expectation that a Western power isn't going to roll in with A-10s, SDBs, and Predators, having T-55s is a force multiplier. #3 is also somewhat easy. The T-62 was a disappointment, but they relegated it to an 'infantry support tank.' The T-64 was the MBT that #4 it evidently can't hover or take off vertically with a full load - it needs a rolling takeoff for that. So now if there's ever a Jeopardy question on how the Hind and F-35B are alike, you can yell the answer at the TV. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:#3 is also somewhat easy. The T-62 was a disappointment, but they relegated it to an 'infantry support tank.' The T-64 was the MBT that earned enough street cred to get a coloring book made about it for A-10 pilots. The coloring book that I know of is for the T-62. The T-64 was definitely really far ahead of the western curve, but I'm not sure if the western powers realised at the time just how far ahead it was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:The coloring book that I know of is for the T-62. The T-64 was definitely really far ahead of the western curve, but I'm not sure if the western powers realised at the time just how far ahead it was. Yeah, you're right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 12:07
|
|
Fearless posted:The Forrestal fire in 67 that was previously cited was made worse than it needed to be due to a lack of proper training in firefighting and heavy casualties among the designated damage control teams. It's worth pointing out that even after the massive fire and explosion the "untrained" personnel still managed to save the ship.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:It's worth pointing out that even after the massive fire and explosion the "untrained" personnel still managed to save the ship. There's also the kitty hawk fire, which is a pretty good touchstone for what a mess the 70s military was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Well, Good news for the HagelHaters in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:My understanding is that the US Navy has been absolutely psychotic about damage control since about '42 or so. During the war in the Pacific, US damage control practices gave the Japanese a few surprises. The most notable being the Battle of Midway when the Japanese thought they sent the Yorktown to the bottom, and assumed it was an entirely different carrier when hours later it was making 19 knots and flying aircraft from the deck, something they never would have imagined (once Japanese ships caught fire, they tended to stay that way). I don't think training was so much the cause of the US being much better at damage control than the Japanese, but naval architecture and the number of damage control stations and fire hoses*. *I remember reading somewhere that US warships during the 30's and 40's had a much more extensive fire hose network than most warships of the time, having multiple pumps and routs for hoses so that multiple hits taking out pumps and lines wouldn't cripple the entire hose network. (confirm/deny)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
I'm trying to remember if I had asked about this before. How did nominally communist armies explain the division between officers and enlisted? Obviously, the practical explanation was likely to be "Shut it, Private soon-to-be-clearing-mines.", but was there ever any attempt at rationalizing a near-aristocracy in a nominally classless society? For that matter, have any armed forces gone to a single hierarchy (e.g., adding 3rd, 4th, sublieutenants, etc. for what would otherwise be enlisted positions) and if so, what was their experience?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
I suppose it went along the lines of "We killed or drove out the aristocracy; thus everyone else is a working man like you but does more for the state so gets more status"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
"from each according to his ability"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Going to the Intrepid museum today. Any must-see recommendations there? I'll try and get (cell phone) pictures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
edit: double post
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:Going to the Intrepid museum today. Any must-see recommendations there? I'll try and get (cell phone) pictures. It's not big enough that you won't be able to get all the way through it in one go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:I'm trying to remember if I had asked about this before. How did nominally communist armies explain the division between officers and enlisted? Obviously, the practical explanation was likely to be "Shut it, Private soon-to-be-clearing-mines.", but was there ever any attempt at rationalizing a near-aristocracy in a nominally classless society? I don't know gently caress-all about the second one, but in the first one you see a couple of different things at work depending on what country you're talking about. 1) elected officers. Immediately post-revolution/mutiny/whatever a lot of units were left with noble officers who either got killed by their men or who hosed off for the hills in order to join the anti-revolutionary forces or just to get the hell out of dodge. This leads to a lot of very immediate and very quick/dirty field promotion of senior NCOs and then elections at the bottom rungs to fill the enlisted / junior officer leadership positions that just got vacated when Sgt ShitKicker just became Capt. Shitkicker. 2) political leadership that interacts directly with enlisted and officers but does so outside the military hierarchy. This was kinda/sorta a bit of slight of hand, as the Soviet political commissars were defined as having equal military authority and rank to the commander of the unit they were assigned to - so in a pinch the Commissar attached to the company staff can take over as acting Captain if a fascist artillery crew gets lucky and blows the HQ dugout to splinters - but theoretically at least there is a parallel civilian apparatus that counter-balances military hierarchy. 3) some real crazies do without much in the form of official officers, although at that point I think you're mostly in the world of failed third world or 19th centuryrevolutionaries. Relics of bourgeois class hierarchies or not, clear and effective leadership is kind of important for the success in any group endeavor, especially time critical ones like the military. History is replete with bullshit little revolutionary communes - especially in mid-19th C. Europe - that got their heads up their asses over ideology and sat around trying to vote on every small issue while the King's forces regrouped and squashed them. This issue actually becomes a real fundamental crisis for the early Soviet Union in all manner of things. A classless state of workers and peasants might be a great revolutionary ideal, but it turns out that it's an utter poo poo way to organize a modern factory and an even worse way to figure out who the gently caress needs to pull the plow and who the gently caress needs to go get a degree in mechanical engineering to build all those factories Stalin wants. I don't have my notes right at hand, but they go through something like 5 distinct and radically different models for university admissions alone in the years between 1922 and 1933. I don't have time to really dig in on it, but here's a quick copy/paste from a chapter of a thing I did that had to discuss this for a bit: Cyrano4747 posted:With the advent of the Revolution and the eventual consolidation of power in the hands of the Bolsheviks the new leaders of Russia faced a dual dilemma with regards to education. The majority of the educated elites that had been cultivated under the Tsarist system sided against them either during the Revolution or the subsequent civil war and were categorized as class enemies of the proletariat. However, a certain level of specialized, educated expertise was required for technical and administrative tasks. No matter how genuinely eager, willing, and politically reliable a decorated peasant-soldier of the Revolution might be, he was a sorry replacement for even the most aristocratic of university-educated engineers when it came to matters such as building factories or maintaining rail networks. Some form of ‘proletarian intelligentsia’ drawn from the previously repressed classes seemed necessary on this basis alone, but it was hard to justify on purely Marxist principles that did not recognize the possibility of a class of non-exploitive elites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Blistex posted:During the war in the Pacific, US damage control practices gave the Japanese a few surprises. The most notable being the Battle of Midway when the Japanese thought they sent the Yorktown to the bottom, and assumed it was an entirely different carrier when hours later it was making 19 knots and flying aircraft from the deck, something they never would have imagined (once Japanese ships caught fire, they tended to stay that way). I don't think training was so much the cause of the US being much better at damage control than the Japanese, but naval architecture and the number of damage control stations and fire hoses*. Part of it is that the Yorktown was a veteran carrier by that time, so when they saw the Japanese were coming, they voided their fuel lines, significantly reducing the risk of the sort of fire that turned one bomb hit on Akagi into a ship-killing inferno. It's really depressing reading about the battle because the Yorktown does everything right and she's the one that gets sunk after taking a ridiculous amount of punishment and damned near making it anyway. The US also got a good taste of how bad unsecured fuel is early in the war between the Lex and Wasp. The Japanese were still having bad problems in 44, with the loss of Taiho and Shokaku. Japanese fuel tank layout also caused problems, since they were integrated into the structure of the hull, which made them easier to rupture. In addition to that, US carriers were better off by far. First, the Japanese ships had two mains for water. They ran down the port and starboard side, which made it very likely that a hit would break both. US ones were much better. The US also had a love affair with portable gas pumps, which made firefighting teams much more likely to have access to high pressure water. Next, US carriers had open hangar decks. This was huge because the hangar is a fireball waiting to happen because it's got a bunch of fuel, explosives and aluminum, all of which are guaranteed to make for a worse day if they get lit on fire. Dealing with that gets a lot easier when you can open up the sides of the hangar, push planes out and have undamaged destroyers spray water into your hangar (incidentally it also helps not getting your ship girder warped and making the ship a writeoff postwar, the Brits had that happen to at least one of theirs, while even the Franklin notionally could have been used). Finally, in the IJN, they had volunteers and conscripts, and the conscripts served a shorter time, so damage control was a specialty and a lot of the knowledge was concentrated among the damage control NCOs. A lot of those guys were standing around in hangars ready to do their jobs and ate the bomb that marked them becoming necessary. The Americans spread the knowledge around a lot better and figured out pretty early that having them lie prone meant there were a lot more of them left when they were needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Blistex posted:During the war in the Pacific, US damage control practices gave the Japanese a few surprises. The most notable being the Battle of Midway when the Japanese thought they sent the Yorktown to the bottom, and assumed it was an entirely different carrier when hours later it was making 19 knots and flying aircraft from the deck, something they never would have imagined (once Japanese ships caught fire, they tended to stay that way). I don't think training was so much the cause of the US being much better at damage control than the Japanese, but naval architecture and the number of damage control stations and fire hoses*. The Yorktown also had been severely damaged in the battle of the Coral Sea. She was taken back to Pearl Harbor, and the repairs under normal conditions would have taken six months. Through what I can only imagine was a heroic effort, she was made combat ready again in three days. I do know that the Japanese were often not as well trained as the Americans in damage control, and their earlier carriers often made trade-offs with damage control so that more airplanes could be carried. They lost one fleet carrier in the battle of Leyte Gulf specifically to bad damage control. The Japanese also had torpedoes that were very good - they were wakeless, they exploded when they hit their targets, and they had a very long range. The drawback to them is that they used pure oxygen as a propellant, and this, ah, was a drawback if fire ever got into the torpedo magazine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Amazingly they only could attribute the loss of a surface ship to those exploding in the case of one destroyer if I remember right. Dude just wanted to keep his torpedoes in reserve in case he ran into battleships. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The Yorktown also had been severely damaged in the battle of the Coral Sea. She was taken back to Pearl Harbor, and the repairs under normal conditions would have taken six months. Through what I can only imagine was a heroic effort, she was made combat ready again in three days. That's how an escort carrier with one 5 incher killed a heavy cruiser off Samar. If I remember right there's an itemized list of how much oxygen and he is in a heavy cruiser load of long lances in Shattered Sword in a discussion of the two heavy cruisers that got hit after the main event. One had dumped her torps and she was in much better shape.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Amazingly they only could attribute the loss of a surface ship to those exploding in the case of one destroyer if I remember right. CA Mikuma was destroyed by her torpedoes exploding after being bombed at Midway. Edit: ^^^^ Mikuma and Mogami were armored cruisers of the same class, both bombed together at Midway. Mogami jettisoned torpedoes and survived - Mikuma didn't and didn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Yep, that's the ones. I'm phoneposting from memory. It was Chokai getting hit by White Plains off Samar, and that knocked her right out of formation, and after getting hit by a 500 pound bomb to her forward machinery she was dead in the water. E: Apparently Suzuya was lost from a near miss setting off her torps. drat. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
All this pacific theatre talk really makes me wish someone would remake this classic. Nothing like taking a rag-tag group of escorts (few destroyers, a heavy and light cruiser) and trying to turn back a line of Japanese heavy cruisers and a BB. Hell, I'm sure the Silent hunter 4 engine would handle it with a few months of development.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Blistex posted:All this pacific theatre talk really makes me wish someone would remake this classic. That was a drat good game, although I'm still pissed that the old battleship on the cover wasn't available in game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Blistex posted:All this pacific theatre talk really makes me wish someone would remake this classic. Looks like it's free abandonware. http://www.myabandonware.com/game/task-force-1942-1lb
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Looks like it's free abandonware. Not anymore it ain't http://store.steampowered.com/app/329680/
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Not anymore it ain't Weird, that link still works but you need to use DOS box instead of just running it from steam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Weird, that link still works but you need to use DOS box instead of just running it from steam. Best steam review yet! Steam User posted:A "friend" of mine has a very large collection of old DOS games. As in gigabytes. My "friend" didn't share where this remarkable collection came from, but it includes a TF 1942 distro. And lo and behold, my "friend's" TF 1942 distro HAS THE SAME CRACK USED IN THIS STEAM RELEASE. Night Dive Studios didn't even bother removing the TRSI .NFO file!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Not anymore it ain't ...I wouldn't. Steam Review posted:To make matters even worse, ship recognition is still in play as a form of DRM, and with no manuals or ship recognition guides (the ones that came with the boxed release) it's hit & miss guessing. And, like the original, if you guess wrongly 3 times, you are tossed into the same scenerio time and time again. There has been no effort at all made in bringing this to Steam! The only positive review is from a guy with less than an hour logged, and he says he's rating it up for the nostalgia. He also says he hasn't gotten the sound to work just yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Cross-posting from an Ask/Tell thread, but someone suggested I'd have better luck finding information here: Anyone know anything about these? I can't find anything like these on the internet, but I may be Googling the wrong thing. If these are fairly unique I'd like to know so we can properly care for them. A little background on this- my grandfather fought in the Pacific during WWII as an Army radio carrier. He hit all the major island invasions- Saipan, Leyte, Okinawa, etc. These shots are from a scrapbook he made soon after he got back to the states. He died around 2000 and a lot of his stuff got packed away. My grandmother re-discovered the scrapbook earlier this year, so we've all been taking turns flipping through it, but these really caught my eye. I haven't seen these cards in ~20 years, so my story may be full of holes- so please bear with me. My understanding is that during the island-hopping campaign, the Marines lost a bunch of their radio carriers as they began to become major targets, so they would pull in Army radio carriers to go on missions with them. He saw quite a bit of action in his time. I wish I was older when he was talking about it more, but I remember bits and pieces of some of the old stories. As far as I can remember, he found these during an attack on a Japanese airbase- possibly on Saipan, but I'm not positive. There was a note at the top of the page that can be seen one of the shots but I only got the last couple letters of the name, and I can't remember right off what it said. They are roughly 3x5 note card size and are glossy on the front, papery on the back, and are all creased in the middle. Not sure if that was by design or if that was done when he put them in his pocket. Three of them had writing on the back but I can't really decipher what any of it means. The English text looks to be his handwriting but who can really say at this point? What appears to be Japanese characters appears on two of them and it looks to be the same. The third with something on the back was fairly insignificant so I didn't take a shot of it, but it was a square with 3 lines intersecting one side. Apologies for the quality on some of these, they looked nicer on my phone.         I swear he had a big stack of these outside of the book somewhere, but again, the last time I saw these was around 20 years ago, so I have no idea where it would have migrated. Thanks in advance if anyone knows anything about these. My assumption is that they were handed out to pilots going on runs to know what they were up against but I have no information to back that up. Edit: Realized I had several posted twice.. New Leaf fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:18
|
|
New Leaf posted:Cross-posting from an Ask/Tell thread, but someone suggested I'd have better luck finding information here: I would assume it was quick reference stuff for spotters / radio guys so they could refer to them quickly and report what planes they saw. Would be interested to see what others say though.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
They look like Aircraft ID training resources. Look at the bombers - the angles show where the guns can get you (i.e. if you're going to attack a B-24, approach from somewhere the guns can't cover). The B26 has the fuel tanks (I think) shaded - as in "Shoot here for massive damage!". The ones without angles would be for ID-ing what you're fighting so you know what kind of tricks it can pull. Ask in one of the Japanese threads for translation, they'll probably help. e: other numbers are gun calibres - 12.7mm is .50cal, 7.7mm is .303 simplefish fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick responses guys. Has anyone ever seen anything like this? I figured these would be fairly common but I haven't seen anything like them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
New Leaf posted:Thanks for the quick responses guys. Has anyone ever seen anything like this? I figured these would be fairly common but I haven't seen anything like them. Stuff like that really isn't all that common, at least as a take-home object. Most GIs seem to have been interested in grabbing pistols, swords, medals, hats, flags, and all the other random poo poo that just kind of screams "look at this crap I took off a dead enemy soldier." Random airplane ID cards though? Your grandfather was a bit of a geek. As to whether or not those were common in Japanese service, I odn't know but I doubt they were common issue items. Your average dude in the foxhole doesn't need them so you're not issuing them in the millions. Even if you're making one full set for every single airbase, carrier, and plane spotter you have that comes out being what? Maybe a few tens of thousands of sets? I know that sounds like a lot, but in a war where rifles and helmets are being made in million-item batches that really isn't poo poo. Plus, stuff like that doesn't survive the post war period well. It has no obvious trade value for the black market, it doesn't sell well for the occupation guys who want something with which to BS girls back home about all the heroic action they saw, and it doesn't have obvious value or use in and of itself. Most probably just got turned into scrap paper or thrown away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
That Works posted:I would assume it was quick reference stuff for spotters / radio guys so they could refer to them quickly and report what planes they saw. Would be interested to see what others say though. Definitely pilot cards. Very careful attention to where the guns are, head on and profile views, listing things like horsepower (the top box of the table) and the one below it is something per hour. The others might be ceiling, that sort of thing. I'm wondering how they got this info/how accurate it is. Observation from pilots who encounter? Putting back together wreckage that came down over their turf? Shenanigans? Was poo poo like made top speed publically available? I know trying to steal working copies of planes was a big deal in the Cold War but I don't know how that worked in WWII.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Stuff like that really isn't all that common, at least as a take-home object. Most GIs seem to have been interested in grabbing pistols, swords, medals, hats, flags, and all the other random poo poo that just kind of screams "look at this crap I took off a dead enemy soldier." Random airplane ID cards though? Your grandfather was a bit of a geek. Well, I think they're cool.. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Sure, 70 years later theyre loving awesome. But in 1944/45 they were just flash cards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
the JJ posted:I'm wondering how they got this info/how accurate it is. Observation from pilots who encounter? Putting back together wreckage that came down over their turf? Shenanigans? Was poo poo like made top speed publically available? I know trying to steal working copies of planes was a big deal in the Cold War but I don't know how that worked in WWII. Japan definitely flight tested examples of a few different Allied types that they were able to capture intact - the P-40, for example. However the armament information on a lot of those looks a bit speculative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
Is that an Apache layout for the mustang?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:11
|
|