|
iyaayas01 posted:The AD-4N is a three seater night attack variant. The other two crewmembers rode in the fuselage.  that is one huge aircraft:Here's a better view of the radar controller compartment. http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.c...-Salaun/00.shtm
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2012 21:36 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 08:31 |
|
|
What is flying along this Blackbird?
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 00:45 |
|
|
durtan posted:What is flying along this Blackbird? A photoshop.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 00:47 |
|
|
drat. But with things like this it can sometimes be hard to tell. Thanks. Edit: On closer inspection, the edges do indeed reveal a lovely Photoshop.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 00:51 |
|
|
Flikken posted:A photoshop. Yeah, that's an SR-96 "Photoshop" Reconnaissance plane. 
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 00:59 |
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Yeah, that's an SR-96 "Photoshop" Reconnaissance plane. Is it a recon plane that uses photoshop to find whatever our leaders want to find?
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 01:15 |
|
|
I found my copy of the Communist Weapons and Equipment Handbook today. It's from 1969, and I figured I'd give it a look, and then it occurred to me that it might be of interest to this thread. It's pretty cool to read what they thought of various stuff at the time, compared to now. It's just ground stuff, no aircraft, but I figured that it warranted a post. For example, in the entry for the T-54 it says that "replacement of the old T-34/85 and the interim T-44 continues as rapidly as production permits". This was published in 1969, and they were still replacing their T loving 34's! I had no idea that they stuck around for that long. If anyone wants to know more feel free to ask.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 01:28 |
|
|
Beardless posted:I found my copy of the Communist Weapons and Equipment Handbook today. It's from 1969, and I figured I'd give it a look, and then it occurred to me that it might be of interest to this thread. It's pretty cool to read what they thought of various stuff at the time, compared to now. It's just ground stuff, no aircraft, but I figured that it warranted a post. For example, in the entry for the T-54 it says that "replacement of the old T-34/85 and the interim T-44 continues as rapidly as production permits". This was published in 1969, and they were still replacing their T loving 34's! I had no idea that they stuck around for that long. If anyone wants to know more feel free to ask. They made T-34/85s into the late 50s. There were probably some 3rd line reserve units equipped with T-34/85s well into the 70s.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 01:39 |
|
|
Wikipedia says that there are *still* nations using the T-34/85. I imagine that means they are all rusting away in a forgotten depot somewhere. Except North Korea.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 01:46 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:They made T-34/85s into the late 50s. There were probably some 3rd line reserve units equipped with T-34/85s well into the 70s. Well huh. I didn't know that. Another thing I found interesting was that Mosin Nagant M44s were apparently still common enough with the satellite forces to warrant inclusion in the book. In 1969. I knew that the Vietcong and such used them, but I figured that the Warsaw Pact armies would have upgraded by then.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 01:52 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Wikipedia says that there are *still* nations using the T-34/85. I imagine that means they are all rusting away in a forgotten depot somewhere. Apparently a bunch of African countries use them as well, or at least did in 1996. I can't imagine somewhere like Somalia upgrading its tanks since then.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 01:56 |
|
|
So thanks to this thread I've been re-reading Red Storm Rising and it has actually aged pretty well and for the most part I'm still enjoying it as much as when I read it for the first time a decade ago, but man is the whole Icelandic surprise sex Subplot awkward as hell. Along that line, does anyone have any book recommendations, fiction or nonfiction? I was thinking of picking up Flight of the Intruder next but outside of the Vietnam era I'm having trouble deciding on what sort of nonfiction stuff to pick up.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 02:37 |
|
|
Beardless posted:Apparently a bunch of African countries use them as well, or at least did in 1996. I can't imagine somewhere like Somalia upgrading its tanks since then. Fun fact, when US forces set up at the Mogadishu airport, they found MiG-17s rotting on the tarmac.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 02:41 |
|
|
Beardless posted:I found my copy of the Communist Weapons and Equipment Handbook today. It's from 1969, and I figured I'd give it a look, and then it occurred to me that it might be of interest to this thread. It's pretty cool to read what they thought of various stuff at the time, compared to now. It's just ground stuff, no aircraft, but I figured that it warranted a post. For example, in the entry for the T-54 it says that "replacement of the old T-34/85 and the interim T-44 continues as rapidly as production permits". This was published in 1969, and they were still replacing their T loving 34's! I had no idea that they stuck around for that long. If anyone wants to know more feel free to ask. What kind of info does it have on then cutting edge stuff like Projekt 432/T-64A or the BMP?
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 02:45 |
|
|
Koesj posted:What kind of info does it have on then cutting edge stuff like Projekt 432/T-64A or the BMP? Nothing about the T-64. The manual is a non-classified one, meant for use by students. My Grandfather (I assume the manual was his) was in the NSA, but his specialty was North Korea and/or China. Edit: they have some information about the T-62, but not a detailed description. Beardless fucked around with this message at Jun 4, 2012 around 03:12 |
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 03:08 |
|
|
Okay cool. The 76mm D-56 is a whole lot different than the BMP's 2A28 though which is more like a recoilless gun. Funny to see how the amphibious elements of the BMP might have made people believe that it was to be a niche light tank kind of thing instead of a new kind of troop transporting vehicle. By the late seventies there was a lot of info around on stuff like the T-62 like in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NffRGPIQ7s (You Can Beat the Soviet T-62 Tank). This knowledge probably came through FME and whatnot so that shouldn't come as a surprise but the exclusively USSR-used T-64 seems to have remained an enigma for a considerable time though. Koesj fucked around with this message at Jun 4, 2012 around 03:28 |
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 03:26 |
|
|
I believe the T-64 didn't appear in Moscow parades till the eighties.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 04:00 |
|
|
Beardless posted:Apparently a bunch of African countries use them as well, or at least did in 1996. I can't imagine somewhere like Somalia upgrading its tanks since then. If you want to see rusty tanks in action, Somalia is definitely the place to be. 
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 06:14 |
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:If you want to see rusty tanks in action, Somalia is definitely the place to be. Man that picture makes the Russian Steppes look like rolling hills. Who operates those tanks? The "government" or one of the warlords? How are they used?
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 06:35 |
|
|
That one is from the Transitional Federal Government apparently, from this series: http://www.reuters.com/news/picture...=USRTR32MY8#a=6 . The African Union/Ugandan tanks seem in somewhat better shape: I don't know how they're used, but I imagine as fire support for infantry.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 06:51 |
|
|
70 years ago today:    the most significant battle in the history of naval warfare took place. John Ford's documentary is well worth watching if you haven't seen it before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OBw0r28qC0 As is his less known short film about VT-8, the torpedo squadron that suffered 29 out of 30 KIA during their attack on the IJN fleet (39 out of 42 if you count the detachment operating 6 Avengers out of Midway, 5 of which were shot down): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsK1PeoMfNQ I like the music in that one better, but if you desire to watch the original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL_2saZlNjQ "If there is only one plane left to make a final run-in, I want that man to go in and get a hit. May God be with us all. Good luck, happy landings, and give 'em hell." - LCDR John C. Waldron, commanding officer of VT-8 at Midway. e2: Someone was asking for reading recommendations...A Dawn Like Thunder is about VT-8 and is very good and well worth reading. The squadron was reconstituted literally from scratch after Midway and was thrown into battle at Guadalcanal, operating out of Henderson Field as part of the Cactus Air Force after their new carrier, the Saratoga, was disabled at the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. The squadron operated to the point where it had no serviceable aircraft remaining, then operated as a single aircraft squadron (by salvaging parts from all the damaged/destroyed aircraft around the Field) before it was withdrawn and disestablished. In its short year long existence it was awarded two PUCs and over 50 individual medals for valor. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at Jun 4, 2012 around 09:53 |
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 09:33 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Wikipedia says that there are *still* nations using the T-34/85. I imagine that means they are all rusting away in a forgotten depot somewhere. Even an old tank would be devastating against lightly armed and poorly trained 3rd world rebels. Their only real defense would be RPGs and IEDs. How effective is an RPG-7 is against a T-34?
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 12:39 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:70 years ago today: I understand it was the first battle fought beyond line of sight, and this question is obvious nonsense along the lines of "who would win a fistfight between Napoleon and Hitler", but why would you say Midway was more significant than Salamis, Lepanto or Trafalgar?
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 12:48 |
|
|
grover posted:Hell, North Korea is still using, literally, WWI surplus artillery, and claiming those guns as active when they make threats about leveling Seoul. An RPG-7 would rip right through the armor of a T-34. Like it's not even close. If you got a hit, anywhere, you'd get penetration. Might not make a kill first shot, but chances are the crew would bail unless they have a suicide wish. Of course there's always the issue of getting within a distance where you're able to reliably hit the tank, but that can be surmounted.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 12:50 |
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:An RPG-7 would rip right through the armor of a T-34. Like it's not even close. If you got a hit, anywhere, you'd get penetration. Might not make a kill first shot, but chances are the crew would bail unless they have a suicide wish. poo poo, T34s, even up-gunned and armored ones like the 34/85, were easy prey for Panzerfausts in WW2, and those were just way early generation disposable RPGs. Soviet armor losses from all the Panzerfausts being cranked out and dispersed among infantry and Volksturm were really, really terrible. Read any account of soviet tankers from '44-45 and they all mention how their buddies were getting killed off left and right by random assholes popping up out of bushes and rubble with those things. As for the "who the gently caress still uses the T34?" argument, they saw some limited use in the Yugoslavian Civil War as well. There are tons of ex-warsaw pact nations that had them on 2nd line detail as of the collapse of the Soviet Union, although I imagine by now most of those have been sold off or turned into monuments or whatever. They're basically the m91/30 of the tank world. If you want to own real-deal armor a decommissioned T34 is one of the cheaper ways to do it. THere's a reason why half the time you see a non-American tank in any movie it's either a T34 variant or a T34 with a body kit slapped onto it. Remember the Tiger from Saving Private Ryan? T34.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 13:40 |
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:An RPG-7 would rip right through the armor of a T-34. Like it's not even close. If you got a hit, anywhere, you'd get penetration. Might not make a kill first shot, but chances are the crew would bail unless they have a suicide wish. Christ, RPGs have gotten through-and-through hits on M1s. I'm talking penetrating the side skirt, entering the tank, passing through it, and then penetrating the other side of the tank on the way out. Even the single-stage, non-tandem warheads can penetrate something like 10 inches of RHA. Hell, the 25mm chain gun on a Bradley could rip the poo poo out of a T-34. Bradleys were killing MBTs in the Gulf War with 25mm hits to the turret rings.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 14:31 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:As is his less known short film about VT-8, the torpedo squadron that suffered 29 out of 30 KIA during their attack on the IJN fleet (39 out of 42 if you count the detachment operating 6 Avengers out of Midway, 5 of which were shot down):     On the right there is Ensign George Gay, the only survivor of VT-8. John Gillispie Magee posted:Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 14:53 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I understand it was the first battle fought beyond line of sight, and this question is obvious nonsense along the lines of "who would win a fistfight between Napoleon and Hitler", but why would you say Midway was more significant than Salamis, Lepanto or Trafalgar? Midway is one of those rare moments in military history where you both have a defeat that is so decisive that it completely turns the momentum from one side to the other AND is the high-water mark in terms of enemy advances. Not only did we stop the Japanese invasion of Midway cold in its tracks but the battle also: 1) decimated the IJN air arm. They never made good on the loss of experienced pilots that they suffered there, and this had long term consequences for everything from future battles to training efforts. This was equally as bad as their losses in terms of CV hulls, if not worse. 2) Royally hosed over the IJN CV fleet at the very moment in the war when they were at their strongest and the US was at it weakest. If they ever, EVER stood a chance of getting CV dominance in the pacific, it was the summer of 1942. Past that it just became a logistics game of who could crank out more hulls faster. 3) Kept american supply lines secure so the rest of the war could happen as it did. If Midway hadn't been the loving miracle it was and the Japanese had gotten troops ashore the garrison probably wouldn't have lasted long. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have been nearly the safe anchorage it was for the vast majority of the war, and the sea lanes heading west from there would have been a nightmare. Even assuming that the Japanese never directly operated against Pearl, a squadron or three of Betties with their rather long-range and very good anti-shipping capabilities would have been a loving nightmare when it came to getting food and supplies to soldiers in the Pacific. At the very least it would have required hard-core carrier escorts on mundane supply runs, carriers which we didn't have to spare. This is ignoring the value of the island as a submarine anchorage. Basically, it was Stalingrad at sea. The same way that the destruction of the 6th Army started a cascade of failure which resulted in the entire German southern flank disintegrating and being in steady retreat for two years, Midway put the IJN on bad defensive footing that they never recovered from. We could sit here and argue about whether or not this makes it more important than Lepanto, Salamis, or Trafalger, but the fact that you had to pick what are easily the most decisive, important naval battles of their respective eras of naval warfare tells you something. It's certainly the most decisive battle in the history of modern naval warfare (say, post-1900). Most of those battles either ended in fairly muddy way where both sides beat each other up without truly decisive losses to either side, or happened at a point in the war where the outcome, while important, wasn't earth-shattering (see the Battle of the Philippine sea). Also, Midway wasn't the first battle fought by carriers beyond visual distances. That would be the Coral Sea. edit: it also helps that Midway is a battle where, on paper, the US should have had it poo poo shove in. I don't know how true this is or not, but I've heard from more than one source that it's a favored scenario at USN tabletop wargames and that the side assigned the US has yet to win it since the actual battle. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at Jun 4, 2012 around 15:18 |
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 15:15 |
|
|
Beardless posted:
Who probably had the best seat in the house to watch the climax of the battle from, floating in the ocean and periodically diving under to hide from being strafed. John Thach was flying one of the escort fighters, and said: quote:I was utterly convinced that we weren't any of us coming back because there were still so many Zeros.... And then I saw a glint in the sun that looked like a beautiful silver waterfall. It was the dive-bombers coming in. I could see them very well because they came from the same direction as the Zeros. I'd never seen such superb dive-bombing. The thought of Gay floating there and seeing that beautiful silver waterfall of dive-bombers falling on the carriers like wolves on a herd of sheep gives me the loving chills.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 15:39 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Cyrano being Cyrano Back in High School I read a book of counterfactuals called, appropriately, "What If?"* There was some pulpy BS in there, but I remember their chapter on the Battle of Midway. In it, the author said that, even if the US had lost Midway, the war was destined to end in Japanese defeat, just not as quickly. The US advantage in production of hulls and planes was so overwhelming, that the Japanese would have succumbed eventually. The author envisions a northern Pacific route through Canada and Alaska (  ) to support an invasion of Japan from the north, in which atomic bombs were not used, because production was diverted into building an even larger army and navy. IIRC, the invasion of Japan involved Soviet troops, resulting in a divided Japan and Tokyo, a la Germany. The author doesn't consider several of the points you brought up (using Midway as a base to threaten supply lines) and I think his assessment is flawed, to say the least. The US can crank out hulls and planes, sure, but as the Japanese discovered, rebuilding the massive body of institutional knowledge it takes to run a carrier air group is not easy when all of your trained pilots and crews are at the bottom of the sea. Also, the owner of the barbershop I went to as a kid was a sailor at Midway. The definition of Cool Old Guy. *Link: http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Forem...s/dp/0425176428
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 15:46 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:Who probably had the best seat in the house to watch the climax of the battle from, floating in the ocean and periodically diving under to hide from being strafed. Gotta imagine it was a real change in spirits for him too, to go from getting shot down and seeing everyone else in his wing killed and the Japanese fleet looking invulnerable to watching the dive bombers wreck some serious poo poo.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 15:52 |
|
|
Myoclonic Jerk posted:The US can crank out hulls and planes, sure, but as the Japanese discovered, rebuilding the massive body of institutional knowledge it takes to run a carrier air group is not easy when all of your trained pilots and crews are at the bottom of the sea. Part of the problem was doctrinal; the IJN didn't (so far as I know) pull off skilled pilots and assign them to training duty so they could pass on what they knew. The USN did. You did a tour/couple tours, then you got pulled stateside for training. So the crew the IJN lost at Coral Sea was bad enough, Midway was a complete body blow with a disproportionate effect even beyond the loss of four carriers and their complete air wings. As such, the US in some hypothetical Lost Midway solution would still be able to bounce back better than the IJN ever could have (or did).
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 15:55 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:Christ, RPGs have gotten through-and-through hits on M1s. I'm talking penetrating the side skirt, entering the tank, passing through it, and then penetrating the other side of the tank on the way out. Even the single-stage, non-tandem warheads can penetrate something like 10 inches of RHA. RPGs of some kind, perhaps. I've heard about an RPG-29 getting front penetration on a Challenger. But RPG-7s? Not that I've heard of. I'm also not sure how a HEAT warhead would pass through a tank and go out the other side, considering that they penetrate armor by exploding.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 16:01 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:Gotta imagine it was a real change in spirits for him too, to go from getting shot down and seeing everyone else in his wing killed and the Japanese fleet looking invulnerable to watching the dive bombers wreck some serious poo poo. They even killed his gunner. Couple shots from over the weekend: Dauntless:  SB2C:  Avenger:  Yeah, one of these: 
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 16:04 |
|
|
Myoclonic Jerk posted:Back in High School I read a book of counterfactuals called, appropriately, "What If?"* Yeah, I read the same one back in HS as well. There are actually some pretty heavy hitting historians in there. I know Keegan had a bit, and I'm pretty sure a couple of the bits on ancient battles were done by some big names. While I usually loath counter-factuals it's a fun read, and something that almost every historian indulges in a bit while BS'ing with friends over drinks. The Midway one was a bit ridiculous, though, as it also completely ignored the fact that the northern Pacific, especially the far northern Pacific around Alaska/Russia/N. Japan, is a loving nightmare for six months out of the year and only marginally nicer during what passes for a summer up there. The Japanese had a rough enough time of it steaming east through winter storms to strike Pearl Harbor in 1941, and their route only took them about as far north in latitude as the PacNW sits. Any kind of realistic invasion more or less had to come from the south. Even if you buy into the basic premise that the US would still just outproduce Japan a very truncated set of island hops along the Hawaii -> Midway -> Wake -> Okinawa axis would have been far more feasible than loving around anywhere near the Bering Sea.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 16:07 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The Midway one was a bit ridiculous, though, as it also completely ignored the fact that the northern Pacific, especially the far northern Pacific around Alaska/Russia/N. Japan, is a loving nightmare for six months out of the year and only marginally nicer during what passes for a summer up there. I'm getting queasy just imagining being in a destroyer, let alone an LST, in Deadliest Catch style weather. They would have needed all the mops in the world.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 16:11 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:If Midway hadn't been the loving miracle it was and the Japanese had gotten troops ashore the garrison probably wouldn't have lasted long. This at least is probably not true. The authors of Shattered Sword did an analysis, and basically it comes down to the fact that Japanese naval landing doctrine was atrocious when it came to landing on a beach occupied by the enemy. They had no radios to coordinate support, and never trained in doing it. Additionally the troops on midway would likely have enjoyed a very high margin of superiority in terms of firepower, due to the Japanese having to wade several hundred feet through the surf from their disembarkation point to get to the island. Also the IJA commander for the invasion was ill-starred.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 16:29 |
|
|
Myoclonic Jerk posted:Back in High School I read a book of counterfactuals called, appropriately, "What If?"* There was some pulpy BS in there, but I remember their chapter on the Battle of Midway. Hey, I remember that book! I should dig it out and read it again sometime. As to Japan, there's a good article by one of the authors of Shattered Sword as to how hosed Japan really was in regards to production disparity. The most telling statistic is merchant ship production-in the first four and a half months of 1943, the US built more merchant shipping than Japan did throughout the entire war. It's absolutely ridiculous.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 16:40 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:This at least is probably not true. The authors of Shattered Sword did an analysis, and basically it comes down to the fact that Japanese naval landing doctrine was atrocious when it came to landing on a beach occupied by the enemy. They had no radios to coordinate support, and never trained in doing it. It depends on the details. If the Japanese inflict a crushing defeat on the USN, then Midway falls. You can only defend an atoll against an enemy with control of the oceans for so long. The experience of the Wake defenders suggests that Midway might defeat the first wave, but if something doesn't drive off the attackers, eventually one wave or another will capture the island. On the other hand, if the hypothetical Japanese victory leaves them with decimated airgroups and only one carrier, then they won't be hanging around for too long, and the invasion might well fail.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 16:46 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 08:31 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:Christ, RPGs have gotten through-and-through hits on M1s. I'm talking penetrating the side skirt, entering the tank, passing through it, and then penetrating the other side of the tank on the way out. Even the single-stage, non-tandem warheads can penetrate something like 10 inches of RHA. Bradleys MIGHT have killed a few t-55s at close range with the 25mm but, more likely, they were TOW kills. T-34s wouldn't be much of a challenge for Bradley; the armor is thin enough to be penetrated by 25mm, the armor is inferior, and the firecontrol is obsolete. Also, I'd be extremely leery of any claims being made wrt RPG-7s scoring penetrating kill shots on M1s. I've only read of a few M1s being disabled by shots to the rear.
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2012 16:59 |
|
