|
gfanikf posted:My boss actually has a ski based Lahti behind his desk at work. It owns hard. Registered and active, or de-milled? Lahtis and Solothurns make my loins quiver.
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:
B-29s were certainly CAPABLE of operating out if the reach of 88mm flak, but after LeMay assumed command, and changed tactics, the raids were going in much lower. On the topic of the Type XXI, significant numbers of them would have been a great shock to allied ASW. It wouldn't have won the war, but ASW would have had to evolve even faster in order to cope with it. The sustained submerged speed of the type XXI alone drastically reduced the effectiveness of depth charges and hedgehogs, the primary ASW weapons of the time. The XXIs were a generational leap in submarine capability not to be seen again until the Nautilus.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Yes, but the muzzle velocities would probably turn the projectile into a massive cloud of rapidly-expanding ganja that would make the entire population of National City stoned out of their minds. Dozens would be trampled to death trying to reach the nearest Taco Bell. That's a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Is that a bolt-action rifle, or is that just the strap/angle of the gun causing an illusion? I'm 90% sure thats a Springfield 1861 or 1863, so that would be the lock mechanism, not a bolt handle.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Because more than a thousand people died. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Do that, incorporate some heatsink vanes that glow red and smoke a bit after firing, and make more of it protrude from the housing. At that point, it's just legs away from belonging in the Mechwarrior universe.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:
Fun BMP-1 fact: the two main doors at the aft end for the dismount infantry did double duty as doors, and fuel tanks! That way, if they get hit, and catch fire, everyone burns to death equally!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 02:16
|
|
seriously? No way!
|
Saint Celestine posted:This is the funniest thing. "Drunken vodka induced bender" has been the consistent ground state for all Russian military development since before the October revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It depends on the context. Avoiding flak required frequent changes in heading and altitude, so you could easily argue that while flak failed to outright shoot down many aircraft, it had a significant effect on bombing accuracy, due to the maneuvering required to avoid it, and the simple fact that men getting shot at are not likely to be as effective as they would be if they were simply cruising over the target at 25,000ft, unmolested.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Wow ew War sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I've always thought it was pretty astonishing that about, oh, 40 years before Jutland navies were limited to shots that were completely manually aimed, went maybe a mile or two at the absolute most and weren't all that different from the guns used for the previous three centuries. A lot of the guys who hand-loaded the 36 pounders that armed the fully rigged ships in Crimea and the ACW were still alive to see Revenge and Konig chuck 2,000 lbs shells at one another at distances of tens of miles. If you get the chance, check out The Eighth Sea, by Frank Courtney. He got his pilots license as a civilian in 1914, flew in combat in WWI, was a test pilot and racer in the twenties and thirties, ferried aircraft all through WWII, and flew the 747 before he retired. The man literally was there for it all, when it comes to aviation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Not specifically, but Anthony Beevor does mention this in the Berlin book. The Soviets were not just out of manpower, but their industrial base was shot to poo poo and the workforce wasn't doing that great either. I think post-Bagration, the Soviets started breaking up existing units to redistribute the manpower into other units, because there wasn't enough fresh recruits coming in. The industrial base thing was a result of the entire war industry running full tilt boogie for almost four years around the clock, with little thought put into long-term maintenance because making guns for the immediate survival of the Soviet Union was sort of more important in the short term. All good points, but can you imagine better propaganda than the western allies re-arming Wehrmacht units and advancing east? The KGB couldn't invent such a galvanizing enemy if Stalin asked them to. On the other side, basically any war with the USSR would have probably gone very one-sided in early to mid-August, as a continuing war in Europe would probably have encouraged the use of nuclear weapons there, instead of in Japan. The whole thing is pretty much Gay Black Stalin territory, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:This came up in the D&D GOP thread for some reason and I didn't think it was really the proper venue for my question: do VTOL aircraft have any advantages aside from obviously not requiring a landing strip? I know that that's a huge plus, but I'm wondering whether there's any advantage once it's in the air. If you want to do a job with an airplane, it will cost X. If you want to do the same job with a helicopter, it will cost X*3=Y. If you then want to have some of the same characteristics of a fixed wing airplane in a VTOL platform, that will cost Y*Z=V, where Z is the number of senators you have to buy to ram the project through congress. Basically, a VTOL aircraft can do everything a fixed wing aircraft can do, less effectively, but at least it costs a whole lot more!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I thought the Harrier kinda filled an important strategic niche for Britain nu? Its not like they could afford super carriers. Britain's baby-carriers were certainly better than nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that powered-lift is dumb and dangerous, and single-engine powered-lift is borderline suicidal. Besides, CATOBAR carriers don't HAVE to be a thousand feet long, and weight a hundred thousand tons. We simply choose to build them that way, to fulfill our specific needs. France built a perfectly serviceable ~40,000 ton nuclear carrier. Can it do all the things a Nimitz can do? No, but it's light years ahead of an Invincible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:
Whatever you think of the war and it's results, the states most certainly went in separately (both secessionist and union,) and came out as a unified nation, (and a collection of occupied states that would be readmitted after reconstruction,) for better or worse. The effects of the American Civil War go far and beyond "ENDED SLAVERY, BURNED ATLANTA."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Shelby Foote had a nice quote about that. "Before the war, it was said “the United States are.” Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always “the United States is,” as we say to day without being self-conscious at all. And that’s sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an “is.”" And it's a testament to how powerfully and finally it resolved that question, in that a very solid majority not only doesn't remember the US any other way, but has a hard time comprehending that it COULD BE any other way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Did they ever try to make warships along a more modular design that could be refitted more easily? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
The helicopter is more heavily armed than the ship, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:War seems such a condition outside of the norm that we're used to in the western world. We've had numerous wars since WW2, but go and ask somebody which ones. We go to work every day, sit at our desks and take it for granted that it's like this everywhere. Water comes out of your faucet and you can drink it (at least here in Europe) or flush down your poo poo with the same water. You'll probably just grab some food if you're hungry or go for a walk in the park. People have no concept of war, unless they touch it. How many people in this thread fought in a warzone, were shot at, or were in a brawl where they feared for their life? Ok, some people long for extreme situations or emotions, but it is revolting and perverse. This guy gets it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The Enterprise is the one that always depressed me. Fixed that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Love Stole the Day posted:What are some examples of new strategies or tactics used to overcome significant problems in the history of war? Specifically, ones that can be considered analogous to a breakthrough or discovery? Aircraft. Fixed wing, lighter than air, tethered balloons, whatever. The ability to get up above the battlefield and see past the next hill was an enormous change in warfare.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:To bring the thread back on track, I believe the GBS has found the ultimate answer to the question of "how would the war turn out if Gay Black Hitler" OperationSeaLion.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Bottomline? Such is life in glorious Arstotzka.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Let's talk about why people need flash protection, and the horrors of getting cut off in a ship by a fire (or just the uptakes, that's awful too). At Dawn We Slept is not only an excellent collection of first and second-hand accounts of the attack on Pearl Harbor, it also has a pretty comprehensive assortment of all the different terrible things that modern naval warfare can do to the soft meaty things inside the ships.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:...and the F86 sabre kept 8 .50s well into the 50s as primary armament. F-86s, like almost all US fighters of the period, had six .50s.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:High caliber cannons on planes had a different problem though in that they tended to be rather low velocity. That's not as much of a problem when you're tossing rounds at relatively slow or even immobile ground targets, but when you're talking about throwing rounds at planes that are traveling at a rather fast clip themselves, that greatly limits the effective range of such weapons. Cartridge size besides projectile diameter, and barrel length are still huge factors on gun performance. The 30x173mm ammo used by the GAU-8 in the A-10 is on a completely different planet in terms of penetration from the 30x113mm used by the M230 on the AH-64. It's like comparing a .30-06 rifle cartridge to 9mm parabellum. That said, putting a high-velocity large caliber weapon like that in an aircraft literally required designing the aircraft around the gun.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:In general a larger cartridge also needs a longer barrel to take advantage of the extra propellant, but a longer cartridge doesn't necessary mean that there's more propellant. And of course the negative effect that a longer barrels has due to risk of droop, greater heat due to extra friction, etc... I was a bit unclear, I was trying to draw a comparison between a low-velocity auto cannon like the Mk108, or the M230, and a true high velocity weapon like the GAU-8. They all fire a 30mm projectile, but a projectile from a GAU-8 has more than two and a half times the muzzle energy of one from an M230. The projectiles are much heavier, and traveling quite a bit faster. This doesn't take into account the GAU-8s extremely high rate of fire, but as you said, that is a large part of why the thing is so enormous. WWII aircraft cannons were almost always relatively low-velocity, more akin to the M230, and their penetration (and projectile trajectories) reflected that. The M61 Vulcan was revolutionary in the US, not just because of it's very high rate of fire, and relative compactness compared to a pack of AN/M3s, but because it fired a 20mm projectile at velocities similar to the smaller .50BMG. (Actually a twitch higher.) That just wasn't possible, as has been mentioned, within the limitations of WWII technology and aircraft capabilities. The 20mm threshold is important as well, as projectiles that large begin to offer you the ability to add a bursting charge or other payload to the projectiles, which can be devastating against aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What's the largest calibre gun that has been mounted on a plane? I think it's the 105mm artillery on the AC-130E, H, and U. This, though, might win the title of most firepower per pound. Really, it's a dark blue paint job and COBRA markings away from being a best selling GIJOE toy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I'm a nuclear war nerd, but does anyone have any declassified plans or at least a general idea of either what the US was targetting or the USSR, or their general preparedness plans? IIRC, This is from a mid-late eighties FEMA brochure. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:This is an example of counter-force vs counter-value targeting, an ongoing argument in nuclear weapons policy. Traditional nuclear doctrine in the US and USSR has been to strike military targets (air bases, missile silos, etc.) to minimize the opposing side's ability to attack. However, shelters, ABM defenses, and hardened silos require many warheads to do this effectively, solid-fueled ICBMs can launch before your missiles get there, and SLBMs may make it impossible to neutralize the enemy's ability to counter-attack. Somebody figured out that if you targeted population centers you could use many fewer warheads (and have less nuclear fallout, etc.) The ethics of targeting civilians in a war when attacking military targets is likely to cause more civilian casualties remains under debate. This. The 2000 warhead scenario is a first strike against military targets. The 500 warhead scenario is the opposite sides last-gasp, likely delivered by SLBMs, and whatever remains of the rest of their forces. It's also a good demonstration of MAD: Even after suffering massive losses to nuclear forces, the defensive side of the conflict could still ensure that it would be a Pyrrhic victory, at best. Any strikes on US missile fields would be doubly destructive, because it is widely believed that Soviet weapons would be fused to detonate at (or below) ground level, to kill the hardened facilities, which is basically the recipe for massive amounts of radioactive fallout. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
The term you're looking for is "dick-hardeningly amazing." We should be firing one of those off during every meeting of the UN general assembly, just to emphasize that we've given the bird to physics itself, and that we can't be bothered with their piddling bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Infantry manuals show how to dig while prone. This, combined with self preservation as a motivator.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:What I find weirder to contemplate are the two ends of the line. What it was like to be the last soldier before the sea, or right up on the Swiss Border. If you're on the ocean end, at least you cant get flanked from that side.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
I saw a documentary somewhat recently, about WWI trench archeological excavation, and one of the things that I took away from it was that in many cases, on at least a smallish, tactical scale, the Germans dictated the positions of their trenches, and so picked slightly higher ground, that consequently drained better, and allowed more effective fortifications. The Allies were forced to build near this line to avoid giving up any ground, which in many cases meant that they were literally building trenches that served as drains for the hills the German trenches were dug into, with predictable results in regards to quality of life. Can anyone confirm this on a more than Discovery channel level?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Regarding Hegel's Cromwell post, what the heck is a firelock? Does that mean a matchlock? I've heard the term firelock used to describe matchlocks, wheellocks, and flintlocks. It's a broad term that I guess could be used to separate those types from hand cannon or later firearms.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
The M1903 uses a fixed box magazine, not a removable one, so the mag cut-off lever is as dumb as it sounds. Also, if you lack ammunition on stripper clips, there is nothing preventing you from loading them into the magazine individually, like the M1's en-bloc clip. I am aware that there are removable magazine M1903s. They are an abomination, and should never be considered in polite conversation. Amusingly, the SMLE No 1 Mk III has a detachable ten round magazine, and early variants also had a magazine cut-off. The weapon was issued with a single magazine, and standard practice was to reload it with five-round stripper clips, which is how ammunition arrived at the front. That all said, I can personally reload my SMLE with stopper clips faster than I can do the same with a fresh magazine, so I see the point. It was just a very confused time for firearms development. Bottom line: Mag cut-offs are  of the highest order.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Helmets of ww1/2 vintage do piss all to stop all but the lowest velocity shrapnel. They were issued to protect against dirt and debris kicked up by HE, largely as a result of increased casualties caused by concussions. Same principle and construction as early 20th c safety helms. I mostly agree with you, but a helmet at less has a chance to deflect a chunk of high velocity shrapnel moving at an oblique angle which otherwise would open someone's head up like an orange. There's a reason helmet shape evolved so much, even without significant advances in materials technology. Edit: StashAugustine posted:The book version of Black Hawk Down noted that the Delta Force soldiers preferred using plastic hockey helmets. US Special Forces operating in the third world have slightly different operational concerns than a field army in a war versus a peer military.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:The 'Smoking me be hazardous to your health' warnings that started appearing on packs during Vietnam tend to show up a lot in memoirs as a source of great amusement to men who are trying to avoid being blown up/shot on the reg. My father saw one of those labels for the first time in a C-119 over Norway, during a night-time combat-equipment jump. He's said that the whole stick was still giggling when they made the jump a few minutes later.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
I'm also reasonably sure that the anti-circular-run gyro disarmed the torpedo, not detonated it. I know standard practice for a hot run (in the tube) is to immediately turn the boat 180° to disable the torpedo. There is evidence that Scorpion was making such a turn just before she was lost in 1968. Early MkXIVs didn't have this, of course, and at least one boat was lost to a circular run (Tullibee,) with three more possible (Grunion, Tang, and Triton,) before anything was done. In fact, I can't find anything to indicate that the MkXIV was EVER altered to reduce the possibility of a circular run. The post war MkXVI had it, and was the primary anti-shipping submarine weapon of the immediate post-war, despite large stocks of wartime-production MkXIVs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Magni posted:In addition to all the other things brought up, there's a very small and humble thing that was revolutionary back in the day. And you're likely to have one in the trunk of your car. God, I loving wish this were true:  Betterer, and saferer.  Also complete loving trash. Give me a real jerrycan any day.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 23:04
|
|