|
MrYenko posted:Are you talking about south-pointing chariots? A differential is really only a thing when you start to try driving an axle, or in the case of a south-pointing chariot, you would like to drive something off of the axle. No, though the south pointing chariot is pretty cool - had to google that. I'm pretty sure it was just regular fighting chariots. It seemed to make sense, cos a turning chariot would seem to benefit from a differential as much as something with a driven axle.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Elissimpark posted:No, though the south pointing chariot is pretty cool - had to google that. They wouldn’t have a differential though, they’d just have free wheels on a solid axle, which accomplishes the same thing without any of the complexity of a differential.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:They wouldn’t have a differential though, they’d just have free wheels on a solid axle, which accomplishes the same thing without any of the complexity of a differential. Okay, that's pretty much what I was thinking, though the idea of ancient Chinese dudes with their chariots up on bricks while they fixed the "diff" was appealing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:No, though the south pointing chariot is pretty cool - had to google that. There's a lot of scepticism about how practical the south-pointing chariot was and if it was ever used for its supposed purpose of navigating overland trade caravans on the steppes and plateaus. They would have to be built to tolerances and standards that would be difficult today, let alone then. And even if both wheels were perfectly identical in size, it would only take one wheel bumping over a stone or briefly skidding to throw the 'direction finding' out of whack. After only a few miles on a normal road surface the direction indicated would have drifted beyond use. There's also the more basic issue that there was probably no need for a south-facing chariot; caravans or armies didn't set out across the land off known roads or routes, not knowing where their destination was. It's most likely that, like Hero's steam turbine, sacred water vending machine and vacuum-operated automatic temple doors, they were either novelties and/or they were intended for religious ceremonies as demonstrations of divinity or power. Or they were clever devices (that bit is indisputable!) to impress people with your technical prowess even if there was little practical application.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
Here's a classic milhist thread type of question: At some point in Hardcore History, Dan Carlin claimed that when the HMS Dreadnought was built, it rendered all other battleships obsolete. Given Wikipedia has separate pages for Dreadnoughts and Pre-dreadnought battleships, I figure there's at least something to the claim. How was the Dreadnought superior? What made it so much better that it defined subsequent battleships? Assume I know basically nothing about 1900-era sea warfare, except that the ships were coal-fired and that shoveling coal was actually a skill-intensive task (thanks, last few pages of previous milhist thread).
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
It's a couple things. First is the 'all big gun' layout. Prior to Dreadnought most battleships had one or big guns, and then a bunch of intermediate sized guns, and then some small ones. The guns are mostly casemated as well, so they can only fire to one side of the ship. Dreadnought does away with that, and her armament is pretty much all big guns, and in turrets. Not all of the guns are capable of firing to either side, but she is clearly an anti-battleship battleship that's going to bring very powerful weapons to bear at very long range, and older designs simply won't be able to compete. Second thing is hull layout and powerplant. The hull shape was new, and enabled unmatched speeds, especially when combined with her steam turbines, also a first. So not only does it hit hard, but it can out run pretty much anything too. Now neither of these ideas were new, really. Navies of different countries had been drifting towards these concepts for a while. Dreadnought was a collection of modern ideas, then combined in a very competent design, and it was clearly superior to what had come before. Compare it to the emergence of the MBT after the second world war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 20:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
What he said.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:Here's a classic milhist thread type of question: With its turbines Dreadnought was faster than any other battleship and, unlike pre-dreads which could only maintain their maximum speed for a few hours at most, could hold its higher max speed until it's fuel ran out, making its real-world speed advantage even more stark than an on-paper comparison would suggest. Dreadnought did away with mixed main armament - instead of four big guns for long range, six medium guns for medium range and a dozen small guns for close-range, she just had ten even bigger guns. This made better use of weight, allowing Dreadnought to pack more punch than a pre-dread and still have weight and space to spare to also carry more armour. Unified armament also made fire-control and fall-spotting easier, more effective and more accurate. In short Dreadnought was better-armed, better-armoured and faster than any battleship afloat, even if other nations had had the same idea and had similar ships on the stocks. Until then she could basically chase down and sink any other battleship at will with little risk to herself. In the long term the Dreadnought ironically destroyed Britain's naval lead which it had built up over the previous century. It basically caused a reset of naval warfare - a dreadnought was so superior to an older ship that you could (like the RN) have a hundred pre-dreads and they were rendered entirely useless if your enemy built a handful of dreadnoughts. The RN had built itself up to the two-power standard (being bigger than the next two largest navies combined) but once they had Dreadnought then a rival only had to build a single battleship of a similar design to have achieved parity. Edit: Beaten, like an unprotected cruiser being engaged by a dreadnought! BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Dreadnought didn't make all existing battleships obsolete, she made their design obsolete and that isn't the same thing. "Pre-dreadnoughts" were the backbone of most battlefleets until just before the outbreak of war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
The case studies in this example are illustrative: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-076.php A fleet of dreadnoughts has considerable advantage in terms of long range gunnery, but both in the sense of adding hulls and adding (admittedly fewer) barrels pre-dreadnoughts still count until they're too slow to drag to battle. After decades of arms racing, the Germans still brought pre-dreads to Jutland. Also, Dreadnought was going to happen. The British didn't obsolete their own ships on their own, they were the leaders in the technologies that would obsolete their ships. As of 1903, the US is working on battleships with an all main gun battery in a set of four superfiring turrets that allow an equal eight gun broadside, among others. This is happening. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:Here's a classic milhist thread type of question: Pitt already explained the reasons, but just to hammer the difference here's what the predecessor class of Dreadnought looked like on the armaments: Majestic class (1890): 4 × BL 12-inch (305 mm) Mk VIII guns 12 × QF 6-inch (152 mm) guns 16 × 12-pounder (76-mm) guns 12 × 3-pounder (47-mm) quick-firing guns 5 × 18-inch (450-mm) torpedo tubes All that firepower, and yet only four slow firing guns could sink the enemy battleship. Maybe the quick firing 6-inchers could also damage the superstructures, but then you come to problems with fire control as those guns have totally different ballistics. Then look at the Messiah: Dreadnought class (1906): 10 × 12 in (300 mm) guns (5x2) 27 × 12-pdr (3 in (76 mm) guns (27x1) 5 × 18 in (460 mm) torpedo tubes (5x1) Just two calibres of guns plus torpedoes. Dreadnought had fewer guns, but they packed more firepower (more than twice as much in the main calibre), had quicker fire solutions and logistics and training were also simpler than before. Incidentally, some designers of "land battleships" forgot about all of this. T-35 was awful enough but the Krupp engineer that dreamt up P.1000 Ratte thought that a tank should carry 2x 280mm naval guns, a 128mm tank gun and then 8x 20mm FlaKs because the said engineer was realistic enough to realized that Luftwaffe was not going to provide any sort of cover for it. Vincent Van Goatse posted:Dreadnought didn't make all existing battleships obsolete, she made their design obsolete and that isn't the same thing. "Pre-dreadnoughts" were the backbone of most battlefleets until just before the outbreak of war. This is also true. By WW1 they were pretty much obsolete and generally not worthwhile to use for 1st line duty, but they still had a quite long service life after HMS Dreadnought was launched.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Dreadnought didn't make all existing battleships obsolete, she made their design obsolete and that isn't the same thing. "Pre-dreadnoughts" were the backbone of most battlefleets until just before the outbreak of war. Isn't this a bit like saying that the Bf109 didn't make biplane fighters obsolete, it just made designing new ones pointless (unless you are Italy)? The fact that plenty of air forces were still fielding biplanes - and often very good ones- in 1939 doesn't change the fact that the air force with biplanes is going to be virtually wiped out by the one fielding modern monoplanes. Just as a battle fleet of dreadnoughts was going to rout one of pre-dreads? Obviously there was a transition period as the new design replaced the old one at sea when both types were deployed together but the worry was always that your rival would get seriously ahead in the dreadnought count. Or have I just introduced a whole other question and discussion in the attempt to make an analogy? Or are we working of slightly different definitions of 'obsolete'?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Isn't this a bit like saying that the Bf109 didn't make biplane fighters obsolete, it just made designing new ones pointless (unless you are Italy)? The fact that plenty of air forces were still fielding biplanes - and often very good ones- in 1939 doesn't change the fact that the air force with biplanes is going to be virtually wiped out by the one fielding modern monoplanes. Just as a battle fleet of dreadnoughts was going to rout one of pre-dreads? Obviously there was a transition period as the new design replaced the old one at sea when both types were deployed together but the worry was always that your rival would get seriously ahead in the dreadnought count. A Majestic is still a hull and four twelve inchers. Inside twelve inch range, that's still going to be able to shoot back, in a way that biplanes frequently aren't able to shoot back against considerably more energetic monoplanes. A battle fleet of dreadnoughts would rout one of pre-dreads, but for a good long while there the pre-dreads were absolutely worth dragging along because the choice wasn't between 12 dreads and 12 pre-dreads, it was between 4 dreads and whether or not to bring all the pre-dreads as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Isn't this a bit like saying that the Bf109 didn't make biplane fighters obsolete, it just made designing new ones pointless (unless you are Italy)? The fact that plenty of air forces were still fielding biplanes - and often very good ones- in 1939 doesn't change the fact that the air force with biplanes is going to be virtually wiped out by the one fielding modern monoplanes. Just as a battle fleet of dreadnoughts was going to rout one of pre-dreads? Not necessarily. There's a lot more issues involved than just speed and number of guns on each side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Isn't this a bit like saying that the Bf109 didn't make biplane fighters obsolete, it just made designing new ones pointless (unless you are Italy)? The fact that plenty of air forces were still fielding biplanes - and often very good ones- in 1939 doesn't change the fact that the air force with biplanes is going to be virtually wiped out by the one fielding modern monoplanes. Just as a battle fleet of dreadnoughts was going to rout one of pre-dreads? Obviously there was a transition period as the new design replaced the old one at sea when both types were deployed together but the worry was always that your rival would get seriously ahead in the dreadnought count. The Soviet biplanes served a very effective asymmetrical warfare niche until the newer replacement fighters and a stable front made their monoplanes relevant again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Seems like one of the differences between an obsolete ship and an obsolete plane is that (until we were recently blessed by the beauty of modern military procurement) it was way easier to junk or replace a plane, or even a couple dozen planes, than a ship. Even if your goal is to immediately do a crash program, cost be damned, to replace all your ships with the latest model, you still would want to have the old ships around for a while -- strategically speaking "complete withdrawal of forces" tends to have negative consequences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:A Majestic is still a hull and four twelve inchers. Inside twelve inch range, that's still going to be able to shoot back, in a way that biplanes frequently aren't able to shoot back against considerably more energetic monoplanes. I know it’s just a game, but one of the Korean War missions in Chuck Yeager Air Combat had you in a P-51 vs a MiG-15. That was a hard loving mission, even against the brain dead AI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Isn't this a bit like saying that the Bf109 didn't make biplane fighters obsolete, it just made designing new ones pointless (unless you are Italy)? The fact that plenty of air forces were still fielding biplanes - and often very good ones- in 1939 doesn't change the fact that the air force with biplanes is going to be virtually wiped out by the one fielding modern monoplanes. Just as a battle fleet of dreadnoughts was going to rout one of pre-dreads? Obviously there was a transition period as the new design replaced the old one at sea when both types were deployed together but the worry was always that your rival would get seriously ahead in the dreadnought count. The issue is that if you have a bunch of pre-dreads (or biplanes) in an area where they have none you still have a capability advantage by default. A pre-dread works fine for station keeping on a blockade, for example. It probably doesn’t want to be around if a dread shows up, but if can tool on merchant shipping or shell an unprotected port or beachhead just fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Not necessarily. There's a lot more issues involved than just speed and number of guns on each side. Are we talking command/control? Intelligence? Tactics? Fire control? Ammunition characteristics? Seaworthiness? Armour scheme? Damage control abilities? This is all meant in a spirit of genuine enquiry, if that wasn't clear, by the way  Short of a major tactical fuckup or some weather condition that eliminates the dreadnought's advantage in speed and/range what could let a (theoretical) pre-dread fleet have over (theoretical) dreadnought opponents? I mean, the RN appointed a signals officer to a battle squadron who wasn't trained in signalling and who, at a key point in an action, accidentally told his ships to go in the wrong direction, so anything's possible, but I doubt it relies on such a comical lack of competence... Cyrano4747 posted:The issue is that if you have a bunch of pre-dreads (or biplanes) in an area where they have none you still have a capability advantage by default. A pre-dread works fine for station keeping on a blockade, for example. It probably doesn’t want to be around if a dread shows up, but if can tool on merchant shipping or shell an unprotected port or beachhead just fine. This is a good point that seems really obvious once it's spelled out. I was working entirely in the mindset of 'obsolete for fighting a death or glory fleet action on the high seas'. Now, why aren't those watertight door jambs polished to a mirror finish? 
BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Are we talking command/control? Intelligence? Tactics? Fire control? Ammunition characteristics? Seaworthiness? Armour scheme? Damage control abilities? The 12" gun on a pre-dread (B) is no less effective than the 12" gun on an early dreadnought (BB). The BB will have superior weight of metal, and better maneuverability, but it will still be exposed to fire from the B any time it can shoot at the B. If you're putting a BB against two or three Bs, you come close to parity in firepower (although splitting the guns between ships has fire control disadvantages), and it takes years to build a giant warship. This is the difference between your fighter example and warships. A BB versus a B is firing 8 or 10 guns against 4, while (for example) a Bf-109 against a Sopwith Camel is firing six guns against zero because it is impossible to get the Camel into a firing position. There is no reason to build new Bs after the first BB hits the water, but the large numbers you already have still provide functionality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Did china ever come close to breaking apart permanently like Rome did
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Are we talking command/control? Intelligence? Tactics? Fire control? Ammunition characteristics? Seaworthiness? Armour scheme? Damage control abilities? All or none of the above, and sometimes other things entirely including simple random chance. It's hard to give examples because there were very few battleship duels in the dreadnought era, but one battle saw five Russian predreadnoughts using a specially-developed fire control system give a kicking to a German battlecruiser with a ten-knot advantage in speed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The 12" gun on a pre-dread (B) is no less effective than the 12" gun on an early dreadnought (BB). The BB will have superior weight of metal, and better maneuverability, but it will still be exposed to fire from the B any time it can shoot at the B. If you're putting a BB against two or three Bs, you come close to parity in firepower (although splitting the guns between ships has fire control disadvantages), and it takes years to build a giant warship. Again, excellent point. I had also forgotten that Dreadnought (and up to the Orions, I'm figuring without being bothered to check...) had the same main guns as the last of the pre-dreadnoughts. Had it in my head that it was 12" v. 13.5" from the start. Thanks for the correction and insight. Edit: Vincent Van Goatse posted:All or none of the above, and sometimes other things entirely including simple random chance. It's hard to give examples because there were very few battleship duels in the dreadnought era, but one battle saw five Russian predreadnoughts using a specially-developed fire control system give a kicking to a German battlecruiser with a ten-knot advantage in speed. Same to you. I'd never heard of this engagement before... BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Did china ever come close to breaking apart permanently like Rome did
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Isn't this a bit like saying that the Bf109 didn't make biplane fighters obsolete, it just made designing new ones pointless (unless you are Italy)? The fact that plenty of air forces were still fielding biplanes - and often very good ones- in 1939 doesn't change the fact that the air force with biplanes is going to be virtually wiped out by the one fielding modern monoplanes. Just as a battle fleet of dreadnoughts was going to rout one of pre-dreads? Obviously there was a transition period as the new design replaced the old one at sea when both types were deployed together but the worry was always that your rival would get seriously ahead in the dreadnought count. Biplanes weren’t obsolete. They ended Bismarck. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Biplanes weren’t obsolete. Biplane torpedo bombers crippling an overgrown project of German WWI era naval design specifically because of one of the recycled aspects of its design is hilariously apropos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Did china ever come close to breaking apart permanently like Rome did There are two Chinas right now. But also, yes, and they did in fact several times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
At this point I'd like to remind the thread of the word Obsolescent:Collins English Dictionary posted:If something is obsolescent, it is no longer needed because something better has been invented. Dreadnought rendered all other battleships obsolescent, they weren't useless but they were no longer needed in the procurement sense. Obviously Pre-Dreads did sterling work in coastal defence, shore bombardment, minor fleet engagements, involuntary minesweeping and many other second line tasks but nobody was going to go out and order a Pre-Dread. Also in 1941 the Swordfish was obsolete as a dive bomber, obsolescent as a torpedo bomber and state of the art as a carrier anti-submarine aircraft all at the same time. That's where they really excelled, lifting significant loads from short decks and keeping them aloft for extended periods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The 12" gun on a pre-dread (B) is no less effective than the 12" gun on an early dreadnought (BB). The BB will have superior weight of metal, and better maneuverability, but it will still be exposed to fire from the B any time it can shoot at the B. If you're putting a BB against two or three Bs, you come close to parity in firepower (although splitting the guns between ships has fire control disadvantages), and it takes years to build a giant warship. Speed/range/rangefinders matter too though. The final Russian surrender at Tsushima was because the Japanese battleships could shoot accurately further than the Russians and also were faster than them. Precisely as you say, they had the same size guns but couldn't bring them to bear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:There are two Chinas right now. The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Did china ever come close to breaking apart permanently like Rome did It did, like 3 or 4 times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Speed/range/rangefinders matter too though. The final Russian surrender at Tsushima was because the Japanese battleships could shoot accurately further than the Russians and also were faster than them. Precisely as you say, they had the same size guns but couldn't bring them to bear. Quite true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Navies tend to be (or they should be) more cautious about taking chances anyway. If an airplane type is inadequate against its opponent, you might lose several pilots, maybe dozens, before you really grasp that you're in trouble. If your ships are no match to the opponent then you're bound to lose hundreds or thousands of sailors in one go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Did china ever come close to breaking apart permanently like Rome did There are several periods where different regions were ruled by different dynasties. The most famous of these is the Three Kingdoms period, where what we'd call China was split among three different dynasties which regarded themselves as legitimate successors to the defunct Han Dynasty. There is also the Sixteen Kingdoms period, the Northern and Southern Dynasties period, and the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period (10th century). There are more. There were also other dynasties of non-Han Chinese origin that viewed themselves as legitimate successors to previous kingdoms. The Mongols in the Yuan Dynasty viewed themselves as successors to the Liao, Song, and Jin Dynasties, although the Song did not hold the same view of the (Khitan) Liao Dynasty and the (Jurchen) Jin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Having worn replicas as part of LARP/reenactment, I'd say it's more like a metal corset. Properly fitted, a lot of the weight gets carried on the torso. It's quite comfortable: moreso than the hamata, which is a heavy mess hanging off ones shoulders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Aside from the idea of splitting apart, it's also worth considering how the borders of what counts as "China" kinda wax and wane over time. Although present day China's done a fair amount of waxing. Which is mostly just how it's weird to think of a single state hovering in like a void, because borders will often roll back when an empire is in decay, and there's still people living in that former territory, just now it's either ruled by somebody else or it's gone independent. An empire in decay losing territory isn't exactly a bad thing from that perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Aside from the idea of splitting apart, it's also worth considering how the borders of what counts as "China" kinda wax and wane over time. Although present day China's done a fair amount of waxing. Well it depends, the existence of a state primarily deals with protecting its people. So if for example a particular Empire was protecting a particular minority client-state, it's decline could spell doom for that people. The decline of the Inca was probably a net negative for the people that lived there. The decline of the British/French colonial power in North America hurt the natives a lot as the USA was a whole of a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:involuntary minesweeping
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:*checks the news a second* Yeah sorry, should have been more specific. Did the U.K. share grand strategy details with the Commonwealth countries sending forces to a front?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:Also, Dreadnought was going to happen. The British didn't obsolete their own ships on their own, they were the leaders in the technologies that would obsolete their ships. As of 1903, the US is working on battleships with an all main gun battery in a set of four superfiring turrets that allow an equal eight gun broadside, among others. This is happening. Were the British aware of this? Even if they just rightly assumed that it was going to happen? I doubt they were as close at the time as they would be in successive decades but I don't know the extent of that eras cross the pond spygames
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:59
|
|
