|
Milo and POTUS posted: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 Yes, the US and Japan had similar designs laid down before the British started building Dreadnought. Dreadnought was completed first because the British had better ship building facilities. You could argue that the South Carolina was an more advanced design. It had the 2 super firing turrets fore and aft setup you'll see in future BBs. While the Dreadnought had wing turrets. Later British Dreads would adopt a similar setup as the US ships. axelord fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Sep 15, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
axelord posted:You could argue that the South Carolina was an more advanced design. It had the 2 super firing turrets fore and aft setup you'll see in future BBs. While the Dreadnought had wing turrets. Later British Dreads would adopt a similar setup as the US ships. The South Carolina still had reciprocating steam engines, with all the drawbacks mentioned up thread. It wouldn’t be until USS North Dakota that the USN put steam turbines in a battleship, which still predates HMS Orion commissioning as the RN’s first all-centerline-turret battleship over a year later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
Time to ask the obvious question then; why did the all centerline gun arrangement take a while to be adopted over putting guns on the wings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
Danann posted:Time to ask the obvious question then; why did the all centerline gun arrangement take a while to be adopted over putting guns on the wings? The British turrets had their sighting hoods (the bit with rangefinding and observation gear) located in a cabin-like deal built into the roof of the turret, which meant superfiring turrets couldn't fire dead ahead or dead astern. Instead of redesigning their turrets like sane people they just didn't bother with superfiring turrets in their first few dreadnoughts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
Edit: That too, Courbet takes a while but has superfiring guns, and Nassau has similar top hoods.Danann posted:Time to ask the obvious question then; why did the all centerline gun arrangement take a while to be adopted over putting guns on the wings? In part the US was the only navy that was entirely concerned with a fleet battle fought entirely with broadsides, so they were willing to accept lighter end-on fire. Dreadnought has six guns facing front, and pretty much six facing aft to South Carolina's four. The correct response to that was who cares, but they didn't know that then and some fights the UK got into over trade protection and blockade could have made end-on fire make sense. In part because the US had made some very weird early ships back in the predreadnought days that had double decker turrets with 12" guns on the bottom and 8" guns on the top. So they knew for an absolute fact you could fire guns over a turret safely. But there's also some weird transient trends that held at the start of dreadnought building that made wing turrets better and superfiring turrets more troublesome. Because smaller turrets like 12 inchers can be put on structures to get them out on the wing without an excessive amount of weight and these ships didn't have a priority on width for torpedo defense, they didn't have an unacceptable cost that mandated they be placed on the centerline. There was some cost, sure, but if there were downsides to centerline turrets, then they might have a reason. So that brings us to centerline turrets. There's only so much room on the centerline. The ends are normal places to put turrets, but there's only so much you can put out there. That's a lot of weight on the end of the ship which does weird things to the hull's stresses and flexing moment. Worse, superfiring turrets are high up. They have a huge impact on the ship's stability because they move the center of gravity higher. The higher the center of gravity, the less the ship wants to roll back to straight upright. If it's not the very front and very back, any turrets are going between the boilers and the engines, which means their ammo gets to be right by where hot steam gets piped, heating up the ammunition, making those guns shoot noticeably but unpredictably farther. Which is fun and screws with accuracy. That's the context that early battleships get wing turrets in. Their costs are lower than later and the costs of centerline turrets are higher. Milo and POTUS posted: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 Generally the broad strokes were known pretty well, but semi-frequently a lot of the why and how weren't. So for example in the predread era, they knew the US had a habit of putting comparatively much larger 8" guns on, which was considered pretty weird (the US didn't have good quick firing 6" guns, and the 5" guns they had were pretty anemic, so they instead put on guns that could penetrate the enemy's less thickly armored superstructure, and hopefully knock out their secondaries. (In this period the secondaries were a lot of the volume of fire and were expected to wreak havoc on the upper works of a ship, like at Tsushima, rather than the all big gun idea of just plowing shells through armor into vitals). The first time the US and UK exchanged a lot of detail design information was when they were aboard each other's ships as a result of the US sending a battleship squadron to help out the UK during WWI. Later on, the British build the Nelsons as their treaty allowed 16" battleships. They make them very long and cluster their guns together up front. This utterly loving baffles the US. The clustered guns meant that the overall length of the section they had to armor was comparatively short, but the long hull meant they didn't save anything if they protected a given percentage of the ship's waterline like everyone in the Anglosphere had done. If. The US didn't get that the UK had decided to make the ammunition and machinery spaces as small as possible to minimize the weight in protection, and make the hull long so the ships could have lower drag, meaning they needed less machinery, and just lean into it by not protecting much of the waterline, which mean the relatively small amount of machinery made for a comparatively small weight of armor for a given thickness. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
I remember people in the threas talking about how metal shields are dumb in the past,but I'm in a museum at the moment and its got several examples of decorated metal shields from 18th/19th century Persia/India. Are these just for show or would they actually be used in combat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:I remember people in the threas talking about how metal shields are dumb in the past,but I'm in a museum at the moment and its got several examples of decorated metal shields from 18th/19th century Persia/India. Are these just for show or would they actually be used in combat? Decorated pieces would be more likely to survive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:their ammo gets to be right by where hot steam gets piped, heating up the ammunition, making those guns shoot noticeably but unpredictably farther. Which is fun and screws with accuracy. I would be interested in reading more about this. What’s the primary factor? Expansion of the driving band?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 08:22
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:I remember people in the threas talking about how metal shields are dumb in the past,but I'm in a museum at the moment and its got several examples of decorated metal shields from 18th/19th century Persia/India. Are these just for show or would they actually be used in combat? But yeah people in India prpbably did use smallish metal shields called dhal in combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I would be interested in reading more about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Like, if I was a trans male (maybe intersex) I’d probably prefer to be a [url= https://allthatsinteresting.com/casimir-pulaski]18th century polish aristocrat from an apparently tolerant, privileged, and well connected family[/url] than a poor POC of similar identity today.  like everything else history produces, augustine's view here is a combination of surprisingly tender towards the individual human (let's give this person the benefit of the doubt) and what we would regard as completely reactionary (and therefore call them a dude, since it's obviously better to be a man) from Keufler, The Manly Eunuch. (I haven't read any further and am hoping this will be solid history.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 11:08
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Later on, the British build the Nelsons as their treaty allowed 16" battleships. They make them very long and cluster their guns together up front. This utterly loving baffles the US. The clustered guns meant that the overall length of the section they had to armor was comparatively short, but the long hull meant they didn't save anything if they protected a given percentage of the ship's waterline like everyone in the Anglosphere had done. If. The US didn't get that the UK had decided to make the ammunition and machinery spaces as small as possible to minimize the weight in protection, and make the hull long so the ships could have lower drag, meaning they needed less machinery, and just lean into it by not protecting much of the waterline, which mean the relatively small amount of machinery made for a comparatively small weight of armor for a given thickness. Yeah, the Nelsons really confused the US. There were a good few years where the USN thought that the Nelsons were hybrid ships, with a carrier deck aft, as they couldn't work out why the RN had done what it did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 13:09
|
|
|
Love how the Nelson looks. What's the armored bit, roughly from the middle of the front turret (it sits on an internal tower made of armor as I understand) to slightly behind the funnel?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
I hadn't heard of this "heated ammunition fires further" thing. How much of a difference does it make?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Love how the Nelson looks. What's the armored bit, roughly from the middle of the front turret (it sits on an internal tower made of armor as I understand) to slightly behind the funnel? The main belt ran from the front of the foremost (A) turret, to underneath the mainmast, ending after the aftmost pair of 6in turrets. The turrets were sitting on an armoured barbette, yes, but the handling chambers at the bottom of the turret needed protecting from shellfire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
Heated propellant fires further because of higher pressures, similar to how tires lose pressure in cold weather because the molecules condense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Heated propellant fires further because of higher pressures, similar to how tires lose pressure in cold weather because the molecules condense. I’m gonna say sort of. Yes, it’s higher pressures, but raising the temperature of the solid propellant a few degrees isn’t going to substantially increase the temperature of the gas generated by that propellant when it decomposes. When you have an exothermic chemical reaction, hearing the reactants drives the equation further to the direction of the products. When you fire a shell, not all the propellant burns. If the propellant is warmer to start with, more of the propellant will react, you’ll get less unburned propellant flying out the end of the barrel, and more gas in the barrel which generates higher pressures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted: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. The Swordfish's career was extremely odd. It had as you said excellent flying characteristics, and because Germany didn't field carrier based aircraft, it really took the pressure off for finding a replacement. This lasted until a squadron of attacking swordfish was annihiliated trying to attack the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as they did their channel dash. (The Swordfish were supposed to have air cover, but the whole counter by the British was a gong show mistakes and bad communication.) This probably would have been the end of the Swordfish, but a new area opened up that they were extremely good at. Escort carriers could use the Swordfish's excellent flying characteristics, and continued as ASW aircraft for the rest of the war, even getting radar. Rockets and People: Hunting for Traesure So Chertok has set up a missile and rocket institute in that amazing luxury house, and are attempting to secure as much intel and personel as they can. When they first arrived in the Nordhausen area, the team heard a rumor that an old forest cabin had valuble machinery or something stashed in it. They'd been unable to find the cabin, but pieced together it'd been a hunting lodge for Nazi bigwigs, who lost their taste for hunting in the war's last year. Now, a SMERSH officer has put them back on the trail.... quote:The Smersh officer continued, “I think that the Americans visited these areas, but did they find everything? I won’t be able to help you.We’re being transferred to the east.They’re about to begin the demobilization and reduction of Smersh. According to our information, the last vestiges of Vlasov’s men are hiding somewhere in these forests. They are considerably more dangerous than the German Nazis. If you go looking for the “forester’s cabin,” I’d advise you to arrange an armed escort with the commandant’s office or the Seventy-fifth division. Just in case.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Nature preserves maintain feeding spots for animals so that more animals make it through the winter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Nature preserves maintain feeding spots for animals so that more animals make it through the winter. Ah. Is this just for hunting preserves or is it more common?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
Sorry but I don't know, I'm not familiar with the German practice. In Finland we don't really have hunting preserves, you just need the landowner's permission (and a hunting permit) so the feeding spots get built anywhere people regularly hunt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I hadn't heard of this "heated ammunition fires further" thing. How much of a difference does it make? Approximately 0.5% increase in muzzle velocity per 10°F increase in propellant temperature
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted: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. Couldn't you clear it just blowing up the trucks and managing to land? Now, if you want a real challenge... "There I was, in my P51 Mustang, at 40,000 feet, when I was jumped by 2 F4 Phantoms. The quality of the pilots was excellent."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
Going back through Friedman's illustrated design history reinforces what I was saying about stability, apparently the captain of the Michigan reported that she rolled and pitched more than other battleships under similar circumstances, including the Kearsarge and Illinois which he'd served. This in spite of a great metacentric height which gave a short period on those rolls, which was adopted to try and increase survivability against underwater attack. Interestingly it looks like on the next US battleships, the Delawares, they tried making the third turret the aft superfiring turret because its greater weight could be supported better amidships than the two turrets on the relatively fine end aft. So 3 was aft facing and superfiring, 4 was front facing and low, and 5 was aft firing and low. In theory this gave a superfiring pair, but in practice the number 3 turret was unable to fire dead aft because of blast effects on the sights of the number 4 turret. The Great White Fleet's cruise calls into highlight the US emphasizing long, efficient cruise. Their priority isn't enforcing the North Sea blockade against Germany, it's War Plan Orange where they sail to take on Japan in the west pacific, and being able to cruise effectively is important to not making it a repeat of the Russian experience. This is a lot of why they wait until reduction gearing and other advances are made to allow efficient cruising with turbine power. I'm still looking to see if there's any hard numbers for battleship guns on how much of a difference heated ammunition makes. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:"There I was, in my P51 Mustang, at 40,000 feet, when I was jumped by 2 F4 Phantoms. The quality of the pilots was excellent." Sounds like an incredibly frustrating engagement. The P-51 can't hope to touch the Phantoms, but early Sidewinders are going to struggle to get a good tone, and when they do, the P-51 is can easily turn into the Sidewinder to break the lock. Early Sparrows were infamously poor on the best of days and the P-51 should be able to pull enough Gs to toss them off. Result: either the Sparrows win with a lucky AIM-7 hit, or a draw as the Phantoms go home with no weapons left. (I'm assuming early Phantoms with standard Sparrow+Sidewinder loadout, e.g. USN Phantoms vs. FAR Mustangs in the 60s.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Sounds like an incredibly frustrating engagement. The P-51 can't hope to touch the Phantoms, but early Sidewinders are going to struggle to get a good tone, and when they do, the P-51 is can easily turn into the Sidewinder to break the lock. Early Sparrows were infamously poor on the best of days and the P-51 should be able to pull enough Gs to toss them off. Result: either the Sparrows win with a lucky AIM-7 hit, or a draw as the Phantoms go home with no weapons left. Oh sweet summer child.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Oh sweet summer child. Since this is an Ask/Tell thread, can I ask you to tell me what you're on about? "Oh sweet summer child" isn't terribly enlightening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Shields in general were kind of obsolete by the 18th and 19th centuries. The main issue with metal for shields is that it is heavy, but the trade off is that it can give you better protection. You can use metal shields, you just have to accept some trade offs. That means either keeping the weight down by making the shield smaller relative to what you could bare with a wooden shield, or keep fatigue down by supporting it with extra straps in exchange for sacrificing maneuverability and reach. So in Medieval Europe of course we see all metal bucklers, which are small enough that the weight is not a serious issue. Then in the Renaissance as armor gets heavier generally we start to see the use of larger, predominantly metal shields which are strapped to the forearm. These are sometimes called targets, or confusingly, they’re also called bucklers, even though they are used very differently from the medieval buckler.  This is a 16th century Norwegian example. The relief depicts Amazonian warrior women. This was produced for the royal household but this style of shield was used by professional soldiers of all levels. Here’s the bare bones version:  The metal on this example is definitely not just there for show. Look close and you can see the bulletproof.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i think i mentioned just how violent early modern/medieval college students were Seriously, what's with all the clerk violence?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Since this is an Ask/Tell thread, can I ask you to tell me what you're on about? "Oh sweet summer child" isn't terribly enlightening. Chuck Yeager's Air Combat isn't a high fidelity sim that simulates all those issues so essentially you just get vaporized by a hail of sidewinders and sparrows in the first 30 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Chuck Yeager's Air Combat isn't a high fidelity sim that simulates all those issues so essentially you just get vaporized by a hail of sidewinders and sparrows in the first 30 seconds. I was just talking about how such an engagement would go in real life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Seriously, what's with all the clerk violence? Town/gown tensions are a thing even today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I was just talking about how such an engagement would go in real life. The Phantoms have all the initiative and can come and go as they want. The Mustang could only chase after them like a mall rent-a-cop chasing some kids on bikes. So even if it got dicey, they could just disengage. The game also is modeling the Phantom with the cannon so they can just use the RADAR to tell them exactly where to shoot. The Mustang doesn't have any chaff except for the bits of superstructure getting ripped off by the shells. In the game, I got damaged by a nearby Sparrow explosion but managed to down both by using a mountain as a barrier to basic swiping attacks. This was because the AI just insisted on staying in the fight until I had dented the Jets enough that they weren't airworthy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Town/gown tensions are a thing even today. I have never heard this term (though the concept is pretty self explanatory) but it has an actual wikipedia page.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Seriously, what's with all the clerk violence? so Fulco Neyermyt really could pick up his bow and arrows and go shoot some townies until he ran out of ammo at least in late 16th century germany the profs would sometimes join the roving bands of fighting students. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:do you remember college? now get those bastards even drunker and weapons are EVERYWHERE Definitely do not remember this level of engagement from my profs
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Was there anything wrong about ball turrets? Aside from escapability and being extra weight and drag when speed mattered. Obviously they're irrelevant now in the era of aircraft using long-range missiles for everything, but was there any other reason against their use? I ask mainly not because of any historical reason, but because I was playing a space game, and it felt real nice being able to maneuver while a turret gunner was firing instead of handling everything at once, and that general idea seems nice to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Definitely do not remember this level of engagement from my profs
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Was there anything wrong about ball turrets? Aside from escapability and being extra weight and drag when speed mattered. Obviously they're irrelevant now in the era of aircraft using long-range missiles for everything, but was there any other reason against their use? Weight and drag are a drag, and remote turrets eventually got good. Even before missiles, planes like the featherweight B-36s show a decided trend towards being able to go higher and faster being a higher priority than any defensive guns other than rearwards. Part of that is making it harder for interceptors to make an intercept happen, part is that at higher speeds, closing shots become incredibly hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
Chieftain has an autoloader video up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x-8NheU1E
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 00:19
|
|