|
3 posted:It wouldn't, and it was cancelled for a reason (okay, several reasons). Sure, it was heavily armed and armored enough to theoretically take on an entire armored division and come out on top, but as soon as the Allies could pin its location down, they could just saturate the area with bombs dropped from B-17s flying well outside of the range of its paltry AA defenses. When the lynchpin of your armored forces is the size of a middling building and moves about half as fast, flattening it from the sky becomes extremely trivial. What if you stationed mobile AA right next to Gigantotank, hmmm? 
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
3 posted:It wouldn't, and it was cancelled for a reason (okay, several reasons). Sure, it was heavily armed and armored enough to theoretically take on an entire armored division and come out on top, but as soon as the Allies could pin its location down, they could just saturate the area with bombs dropped from B-17s flying well outside of the range of its paltry AA defenses. When the lynchpin of your armored forces is the size of a middling building and moves about half as fast, flattening it from the sky becomes extremely trivial. You heard the man. We need rocket interceptors on rails strapped to the top of the Ratte!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
To continue with my scattergun posts yesterday... Rhodesian Jungle Shot It's a 12 gauge shell, although you could sometimes get it in 10 gauge, which is bigger if you didn't know, filled with one large round, a few rounds of buckshot, and a whole bunch of birdshot. I've been told it was used in a war in the ex-country Rhodesia, but when googling it for more history, all I get are gun forums asking if it's a good idea to use the shells for home defense  Nowadays, it's a gimmick cartridge, much like dragonshot (powdered magnesium for a huge fireball, or bolo shells (2 slugs linked by a cable), and the only people who take it seriously as a legitimate cartridge are either huge morons, white supremacists, or both. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM5f6uuErVc&t=56s   Flechette Shells Again, 12 gauge or bigger. Still a gimmick cartridge nowadays. Anyone who regards them highly is again, a moron who's likely never even seen one, a white supremacist, or a sociopath. I was under the impression that they were against international war rules, but Israel still uses them in artillery shells. [quote="Wikipedia Small-arms makers are attracted by the exterior ballistic performance and armor-piercing potential of flechettes. A number of attempts have been made to field flechette-firing small arms. Work at Johns Hopkins University in the 1950s led to the development of the Direct Injection Antipersonnel Chemical Biological Agent (DIACBA), where flechettes were grooved, hollow pointed, or otherwise milled to retain a quantity of chemical biological warfare agent to deliver through a ballistic wound.[1] The initial work was with VX, which had to be thickened to deliver a reliable dose. Eventually this was replaced by a particulate carbamate. The US Biological Program also had a microflechette to deliver either botulinum toxin A or saxitoxin, the M1 Biodart, which resembled a 7.62 mm rifle cartridge. Several underwater firearms were experimented using flechettes. During the Vietnam War the United States employed 12 gauge combat shotguns that were used with flechette loads that consisted of around 20 flechettes per shell.[2][3] The USSR/Russian federation had/has the AO-27 rifle as well as APS amphibious rifle, and other countries have their own flechette rounds. ... Smaller flechettes were used in special artillery shells called "beehive" rounds (so named for the very distinctive whistling buzz made by thousands of flechettes flying downrange at supersonic speeds) and intended for use against troops in the open – a ballistic shell packed with flechettes was fired and set off by a mechanical time fuse, scattering flechettes in an expanding cone. They were used in the Vietnam War by 105 mm howitzer batteries and tanks (90 mm guns) to defend themselves against massed infantry attacks. There was also a flechette round for the M40 recoilless rifle, which was sometimes employed by American infantry. [/quote]  It's hard to tell in this picture due to the low quality, but they're stacked in forwards and backwards and will stabilize once fired.  Used in the early 50s, probably during the Korean War   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdkcEOjkzbc
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
As an American, I wouldn't laugh too hard at the Ratte. I find the F-35 quite humbling. A plane that can't fly! And we're producing it. I for one would like to see the Ratte revitalized and upgraded, as a cavalry counterpart to our newest multirole fighter. Slap a nuclear engine in there so you don't need to refuel, replace the materials with newer, lighter, tougher ones, and kit it out with all the modern electronics and gizmos it can hold. It can be like the Pentagon Wars, but bigger, tougher, and infinity+1 times cooler, which is what really matters. I'm talking a ring of machine gun turrets for close, soft targets, a handful of missile racks and Big Guns for harder/further off targets, and a pair of no-poo poo suborbital loving railguns for the main turret. poo poo with today's technology I bet we could even get that thing up to a face-melting 10mph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Tiberius Thyben posted:You heard the man. We need rocket interceptors on rails strapped to the top of the Ratte! Well, first of all, that's a much better idea than mine of stationing mobile AA next to it.  There's plenty of room on top for it to fit.Humor the idea, but what if a country like the US were to develop a giant fuckoff tank like that? We don't have to worry about getting bombed, we hardly ever engage a country with an air force, and when we do, we cripple the AF first things first. I could totally see us developing something like that as a mobile HQ for artillery, tanks, and infantry. If you want to say it would cost too much, look at the F-35 that Son of Thunderbeast posted a minute ago  It would be mostly immune to any kind of IED or RPG, due to the massively thick armor and treads, and, I would assume, the reactive armor on top of the thick-rear end regular armor. It would also have plenty of area to station different types of weaponry in different sizes, depending on the local difficulties, including the AA issue mentioned earlierIt could have a med bay, ammo dump for infantry and artillery, a small kitchen, local intelligence, and even possibly area enough on top for a helicopter to land on, and all sorts of other poo poo I've definitely seen our military/congress make worse decisions on things to blow billions on, like, once again the F-35 blunt for century has a new favorite as of 01:27 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
I'd have to fit in a C-130, wouldn't it? Unless you want to assemble it on-site. Or invade Mexico. Or canada. Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind their poutine to become my poutine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
It will lead us into Mexico or Canda.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
you rat bastard
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:I'd have to fit in a C-130, wouldn't it? Unless you want to assemble it on-site. Or invade Mexico. Or canada. What about having it be delivered by some kind of large naval ship, and assembled on-site IKEA style with giant machinery?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:I'd have to fit in a C-130, wouldn't it? Unless you want to assemble it on-site. Or invade Mexico. Or canada. Who cares? It's gonna be super cool and can do everything. But in reality it could be delivered by ship (edit: as pointed out by blunt) and assembled on-site, they do that with plenty of other very large equipment (though usually in the civilian sector). poo poo, it'd be just like an RTS. GEN AUSTIN: All right, we've retaken Tikrit, we've got a fairly secure perimeter set up, and we've finally got enough lumber and oil to build the Gerbil. *clicks mouse* *waits 2 years for champion unit* Son of Thunderbeast has a new favorite as of 01:35 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Introducing the new flat pack war machine! Dréadnööhst. But last I heard, we sub out all large steel constructions to Japan because we don't have any mills that can create large bits anymore so maybe we should just launch the invasion from there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:What about having it be delivered by some kind of large naval ship, and assembled on-site IKEA style with giant machinery? Clearly it would just need to be a Voltron-style combining tank built of half a dozen smaller tanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
What about modifying a few existing war ships to have one of these built into one end? They just putter up to the shipyard, have the rear end of the ship winched off, spend a couple days getting the treads and other stuff added on, then roll on up Kim Jong Un's backyard Actually, now that I mention it, another war in Korea would be pretty much the only feasible place I could even come close to imagining such a machine actually being built. It could be assembled in South Korea, using the help of nearby Japan for their giant metalwork helping reduce cost slightly from shipping, and it would be immune to the mines and stuff on the DMZ if it were to just roll up the front door of North Korea blunt for century has a new favorite as of 02:02 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Clearly it would just need to be a Voltron-style combining tank built of half a dozen smaller tanks. This is also a decent idea we should consider
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Yeah but then the marines would demand their own VTOL version
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:Yeah but then the marines would demand their own VTOL version jesus christ, they totally would
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:Yeah but then the marines would demand their own VTOL version I don't know about you, but a hovering/flying Voltron of tanks sounds pretty good to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:What about modifying a few existing war ships to have one of these built into one end? They just putter up to the shipyard, have the rear end of the ship winched off, spend a couple days getting the treads and other stuff added on, then roll on up Kim Jong Un's backyard But you've got a great notion there. What if--and bear with me here--what if it was amphibious? What if it WAS the ship  Bhodi posted:Yeah but then the marines would demand their own VTOL version god DAMMIT you're right EDIT: I just realized I'm kind of derailing the thread here, esp right after blunt's great posts. I'll stop pitching highdeas to the DoD now Son of Thunderbeast has a new favorite as of 02:36 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Fat Loser posted:I don't know about you, but a hovering/flying Voltron of tanks sounds pretty good to me. And when it inevitably comes crashing to the ground, it'll probably kill all the Marines inside. A win-win!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:Picturing this made me laugh hard IRL. Also the flat pack war machine Dréadnööhst If you ask me, it's still well within the thread's idea Having it AS the ship is still a better idea than the Avengers having a flying aircraft carrier for some reason e. Also, the last time the DoD wasn't entirely a horrifying cash grab was when they were still working on highdeas. Bat bombs, Ice ships, Projects Pluto and Thor, nuclear recoilless rifles, gay bombs, etc. Pretty much this entire thread is made up of highdeas of a DoD in one country or another! 
blunt for century has a new favorite as of 03:28 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:If you ask me, it's still well within the thread's idea 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
I only see one main cannon, scrub  Ours would have 2, and that's twice as good. *polishes shoulder stars* EDIT: Okay so this one isn't as crazy out there as the other weapons in this thread, and it's in actual use by militaries, but the concept is still pretty loving crazy to me--the H&K 40MM Grenade Machine Gun (Granatmaschinengewehr, so still GMG in both languages) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Tk4m-9Zco Skip to 3:30 for the actual shooting of it. Firing fuckin 40mm grenades at ~360 rounds per minute, which isn't terribly fast, except for the fact that it's firing goddamn grenades Slap a few of these on our supertank and we're near invincible I think Son of Thunderbeast has a new favorite as of 03:37 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:I only see one main cannon, scrub 2 pairs of megacannon 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:2 pairs of megacannon  case closed
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
at this point, i'm essentially imagining an offshore oil drilling platform, except covered in armor and guns and rockets of varying sizes, and with tank treads reminiscent of those on the space shuttle launch platform with garages on to deploy tanks and humvees out the back and with helicopters on top and it's cool as poo poo *only problem is, with lowest bidder mentality, it would be five times more flammable than Deepwater Horizon
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Well, first of all, that's a much better idea than mine of stationing mobile AA next to it. We already have an unarmored version of it. In fact it even fires rockets as-is!  Kind of puts it into perspective doesn't it? The USA could literally build the Ratte, except nobody wants to shell out the money for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Rorac posted:We already have an unarmored version of it. In fact it even fires rockets as-is! That was something that always confused me. Why didn't they build underground launch facilities for the space shuttle like they did for ICBMs? Having a mobile launch platform seems like a stupid waste of money to me, it always felt like there were so many other options to launch shuttles to me
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
New Zealand really has a Do-It-Yourself mentality. It's in our blood. The stereotypical bloke at the time could make anything out of anything. It wouldn't look pretty but she'd be right. So at some point we have contributed to warfare around the world in exactly this manner. The Bob Semple Tank  It's WWII and New Zealand needs to defend itself from the yellow menace. So we built corrugated Iron around a tractor base and it was equipped with seven Bren machine guns. each with an individual gunner. One gunner had to lie on a mattress on top of the engine to fire his one. They were extremely heavy (20–25 ton), unstable, restricted by tractor gearing to slow speeds, and had to stop to change gears. Shooting the guns was also a coin-toss because the top heaviness and vibrations made it hard to achieve anything resembling accuracy. In the end, due to their impracticality, the tanks were rejected for use by the New Zealand Army, dismantled, and restored to their previous state as tractors. -- blunt for century posted:at this point, i'm essentially imagining an offshore oil drilling platform, except covered in armor and guns and rockets of varying sizes, and with tank treads reminiscent of those on the space shuttle launch platform with garages on to deploy tanks and humvees out the back and with helicopters on top Apologies for continuing the derail but Ya'll need to read Mortal Engines 
Solus has a new favorite as of 04:27 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Solus posted:New Zealand really has a Do-It-Yourself mentality. It's in our blood. The stereotypical bloke at the time could make anything out of anything. It wouldn't look pretty but she'd be right. So at some point we have contributed to warfare around the world in exactly this manner. What do you mean by "they". Were they stupid enough to build more than one of those?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:That was something that always confused me. Why didn't they build underground launch facilities for the space shuttle like they did for ICBMs? Having a mobile launch platform seems like a stupid waste of money to me, it always felt like there were so many other options to launch shuttles to me You can't do assembly of the stack in the silo. So the shuttle, SRBs and fuel tank would still have to be mated in the vehicle assembly building at which point you still gotta move it to the silo and build a second bigass crane to lower it in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:You can't do assembly of the stack in the silo. So the shuttle, SRBs and fuel tank would still have to be mated in the vehicle assembly building at which point you still gotta move it to the silo and build a second bigass crane to lower it in. Why couldn't they build a special silo just for the space shuttle, where you could do those things? I feel like you could still have room for a crane up on top for doing crane stuff
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Why couldn't they build a special silo just for the space shuttle, where you could do those things? I feel like you could still have room for a crane up on top for doing crane stuff Also I feel like reusing the Apollo VAB and crawler was way, way cheaper than digging a special silo would be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Also I feel like reusing the Apollo VAB and crawler was way, way cheaper than digging a special silo would be. Yeah, you might be right, I just figured that we were already digging silos all over the midwest, why not do a nice big one in Texas and one in Florida? Especially because manufacturing and maintaining the crawler is pretty expensive over time
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:What do you mean by "they". Were they stupid enough to build more than one of those?  Multiple. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-nSxFimoHg
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
I want to imagine how civilians felt seeing that thing trundling down the street, thinking that this was what they were hoping would hold back the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Also I feel like reusing the Apollo VAB and crawler was way, way cheaper than digging a special silo would be. Also, you know, the whole issue of that Cape Canaveral is right on the shore and probably has a water table of 5 feet or less. As I recall, at Vandenberg the USAF set it up so that they'd use a sliding platform, but after the Challenger disaster they decided they had built the vehicle buildings too close to the launch site, so not only would they have been potentially damaged by the launch, they were worried that hydrogen gas from the launch would build up and set everything on fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Yeah, you might be right, I just figured that we were already digging silos all over the midwest, why not do a nice big one in Texas and one in Florida? Especially because manufacturing and maintaining the crawler is pretty expensive over time Not to mention the logistical problems of keeping dry a giant hole in a swamp right next to the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:at this point, i'm essentially imagining an offshore oil drilling platform, except covered in armor and guns and rockets of varying sizes, and with tank treads reminiscent of those on the space shuttle launch platform with garages on to deploy tanks and humvees out the back and with helicopters on top Still cheaper than the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Tiberius Thyben posted:I want to imagine how civilians felt seeing that thing trundling down the street, thinking that this was what they were hoping would hold back the Japanese. "We are completely and utterly hosed aren't we?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
So, what's the problem with the f-35? Haven't heard of it, so I'm wondering why it's a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 06:21
|
|
