Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
The Lone Badger
Sep 24, 2007



Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:

So, what's the problem with the f-35?

Haven't heard of it, so I'm wondering why it's a bad thing.

Most expensive weapon ever, about to enter active service, still can't fire it's weapons.
Occasionally catches fire.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Waroduce
Aug 5, 2008


Not through the thread yet, but lot of nuke discussion on the first page. This is a great article talking about backpack nukes

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/30/the-littlest-boy/

quote:

As a first lieutenant, Davis got his own A-team. His team sergeant suggested they volunteer for training with what the Army called Special Atomic Demolition Munitions -- tactical nukes designed to be used on the battlefield in a war with the Soviets. "What the hell. Why not?" he responded. Their company commander forwarded their names and the team was accepted for training.

......

"Of course everybody would volunteer. That wasn't a problem," said Capt. Davis. "We did it because, hey, it was gee-whiz. It was a neat thing to do, and I wanted to learn about it." But when Green Light team member Ken Richter began interviewing potential candidates, he said, not everyone was as enthusiastic: "I had a lot of people that I interviewed for our team. Once they found out what the mission was, they said, 'No, thanks. I'd rather go back to Vietnam.'"

When he was introduced to the weapon, Richter could hardly believe what the AEC had come up with. "I think that my first reaction was that I didn't believe it," he said. "Because everything that I'd seen prior to that, World War II, showed this huge weapon. And we were going to put it on our backs and carry it? I thought they were joking."
.....

Nevertheless, Powers said, "we always figured we'd go through all these meticulous procedures on this device, set the timer for several hours to get away, but really when we turned that button, we were going to disappear."

gotta love the special forces

DumbparameciuM
Feb 23, 2015

TOASTIN CONES AND BLASTIN FOES
LOWER HOUSE | LOWER SIXTH


Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:

So, what's the problem with the f-35?

Haven't heard of it, so I'm wondering why it's a bad thing.

It's got a bunch of issues. The development went overlong and they spent way more than they projected in the process. Still has lots of design issues that made it through - like it can't be loaded with warm AvGas.

Hooray for loving loving gently caress fuckedy fuckwit Tony Abbott for ordering a bunch more while screaming about all the money we don't have.

C.M. Kruger
Oct 28, 2013


Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:

So, what's the problem with the f-35?

Haven't heard of it, so I'm wondering why it's a bad thing.

Basically the idea was to augment the F-22 with a lighter, lower cost fighter, as the F-16 and F/A-18 are to the F-15, that would be used by the Air Force and Navy. France has done the same thing with the Rafale, which has around 90% parts commonality between it's naval and land versions as I recall.

Except Congress and the marines got the bright idea that it needs to also replace the Harrier, so it's been hit with a poo poo ton of bloat and "compromises" that reduce it's capabilities and only exist because the Navy's Army's Air Force thinks they're gonna be flying million-dollar stealth fighters off of dirt runways. Additionally there've been a number of design flaws and poo poo related to Lockheed being incompetent. Here's a Pentagon summary from March:

quote:

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth;
The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and “unacceptable workarounds”;
Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35;
The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and
Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix.

Oh, and it won't have the capability to actually fire it's gun system until the Block 3 software patch is released in a couple years. Until then the software can only handle two AIM-120s and four bombs.

Of course we're basically stuck with it. No time to design a new airplane with Russia and China getting more belligerent, we've already spent a shitton of money on it, and the F-16 and F/A-18 are only becoming more vulnerable to new SAM systems.

spog
Aug 7, 2004

It's your own bloody fault.


Oh hey, that reminds me of a funny (ish) movie with Carey Elwes and Kelsey Grammer




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

the :psyduck: part is that da wiki says that the full movie (available on youtube) is disturbingly accurate.

moller
Jan 10, 2007

Swan stole my music and framed me!


spog posted:

Oh hey, that reminds me of a funny (ish) movie with Carey Elwes and Kelsey Grammer


Son of Thunderbeast posted:



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.


Beaten by the person that brought up the F-35. And yeah, as I understand it that film errs on the side of presenting the procurement process as less of a corrupt cluster gently caress than it is in reality.

EDIT: The Bradley, in a way, ended up getting a starring role in the turkey-shoot called the Gulf War by blowing up more Iraqi vehicles than the Abrams.

Its much more practical replacement the Crusader Stryker MRAP meanwhile has a glorious history of possibly absorbing an IFP hit without everyone losing their genitals and being handed out to rural sheriffs and campus police to sit around looking threatening.

moller has a new favorite as of 08:57 on Apr 16, 2015

Chas McGill
Oct 29, 2010


They should've just updated the Harrier, always thought that was a pretty cool design.

spog
Aug 7, 2004

It's your own bloody fault.


moller posted:

Beaten by the person that brought up the F-35. And yeah, as I understand it that film errs on the side of presenting the procurement process as less of a corrupt cluster gently caress than it is in reality.

I missed that reference - since I wasn't referring the plot of a movie. Which I guess is scary

quote:

EDIT: The Bradley, in a way, ended up getting a starring role in the turkey-shoot called the Gulf War by blowing up more Iraqi vehicles than the Abrams. being destroyed more times by friendly fire than enemy action. 17 vs 3

So, I guess my favourite system would be some time of large sign saying, 'Please don't shoot me, I am on your side'

Something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxC3ecGVIgo#t=38s

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



Chas McGill posted:

They should've just updated the Harrier, always thought that was a pretty cool design.

Or they can just keep using the A10 in the ground support role, instead of failing to solve problems that never needed to be fixed.

Mr. Gibbycrumbles
Aug 30, 2004

Do you think your paladin sword can defeat me?

En garde, I'll let you try my Wu-Tang style


Tiberius Thyben posted:

I want to imagine how civilians felt seeing that thing trundling down the street

"Oh, for gently caress's sake"

BogDew
Jun 14, 2006

E:\FILES>quickfli clown.fli

"It's a better attempt than the last time"

blunt for century
Jul 4, 2008

I've got a bone to pick.



Tiberius Thyben posted:

Or they can just keep using the A10 in the ground support role, instead of failing to solve problems that never needed to be fixed.

The A-10 could replace 90% of our Air Force, and it would be cheaper, would last longer, and would generally be better in every way

The Lone Badger
Sep 24, 2007



Isn't it hideously vulnerable to ground-based missiles now?

blunt for century
Jul 4, 2008

I've got a bone to pick.



The Lone Badger posted:

Isn't it hideously vulnerable to ground-based missiles now?

Oh, I genuinely don't know. I didn't think so, but I really have no idea. Maybe just replace the f-35 with it instead. :v:

Son of Thunderbeast
Sep 21, 2002



Unf, the A-10 is my favorite jet ever. I even got to work on the ones at Pope AFB (23rd Fighter Group) when I was stationed there! That was probably my favorite part of my tour. Fun fact (IIRC): The 23rd FG is the only unit allowed to wear the shark teeth anymore, so I not only did I get to maintain A-10s, I got to maintain the only ones left that looked like the jets I played in video games/flight sims as a kid.



Side note about the A-10 and one of its best pilots, Kim Campbell:

That's her after getting shot to hell and back and still landing the thing. She's such a fuckin boss. You can't see the shark teeth in this picture, but when this pic was taken in 2003 she was flying with the 23rd FG, and this was one of my jets.

The A-10 is the closest thing the world has to a flying tank. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll make an effortpost later about the A-10 because I could go on forever about that thing.

Nth Doctor
Sep 7, 2010

Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!





I don't know what's more unnerving: Richard Schiff without a facial hair, or Cary Elwes' American accent.

Ogive
Dec 22, 2002

by Lowtax


Son of Thunderbeast posted:

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.

Sure it can fly! You just need a trebuchet so it can be flung at our enemies. Kind of like the Canadian Forces' strategy of dropping Sea King helicopters on our enemies. And allies. And anyone in the general area.

CroatianAlzheimers
Jun 15, 2009

I can't remember why I'm mad at you...




Son of Thunderbeast posted:

Side note about the A-10 and one of its best pilots, Kim Campbell:

That's her after getting shot to hell and back and still landing the thing. She's such a fuckin boss. You can't see the shark teeth in this picture, but when this pic was taken in 2003 she was flying with the 23rd FG, and this was one of my jets.

Campbell is awesome and her story is awesome.

Col.: That looks real bad, you better bail out. The Marines'll come and get you.
Campbell: Bail out? In this neighborhood? gently caress that, I can make it home.
*Proceeds to fly crippled Warthog home by sheer force of will*

blunt for century
Jul 4, 2008

I've got a bone to pick.



CroatianAlzheimers posted:

crippled Warthog

Does not compute

Robokomodo
Nov 11, 2009


Kazinsal posted:

My favourite thing about it is its main guns had an effective range of half its maximum hourly travel distance. It could fire reliably at a target it would take half an hour to drive to.

That's loving metal.

CroatianAlzheimers
Jun 15, 2009

I can't remember why I'm mad at you...




blunt for century posted:

Does not compute

Poetic license. Here's a halfway decent write-up of her action over Baghdad.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/kimcampbell.html

dangittj
Jan 24, 2006

The Force is strong with this one

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

Some of it has to do with reuse and not destroying itself. Missile silos are designed to be used once, the shuttle launch towers were designed to be reused and had a whole bunch of infrastructure installed to make them reusable. For example, on the 1st shuttle launch, vibrations from the engines during takeoff damaged the shuttle and the launch tower, so a sound/vibration suppression system was designed that dumped 300,000 gallons of water into the launch pad five seconds before launch.

raverrn
Apr 5, 2005

Unidentified spacecraft inbound from delta line.

All Silpheed squadrons scramble now!



The A-10 is old though. And dies in basically any environment where enemy missiles exist. And can't fire precision anything for garbage. And we can't build any more, and hell it's even getting hard to fix the ones we still have.

Not that we need a mojillion dollar stealth jumpjet, to fill in for it, but we do need something else.

blunt for century
Jul 4, 2008

I've got a bone to pick.



dangittj posted:

Some of it has to do with reuse and not destroying itself. Missile silos are designed to be used once, the shuttle launch towers were designed to be reused and had a whole bunch of infrastructure installed to make them reusable. For example, on the 1st shuttle launch, vibrations from the engines during takeoff damaged the shuttle and the launch tower, so a sound/vibration suppression system was designed that dumped 300,000 gallons of water into the launch pad five seconds before launch.

Ah, thanks for the info!

I didn't know that silos were meant for one use only, but I guess it makes sense, they'd only be used in a "we're hosed anyway, launch everything" scenario. That, plus the digging a silo and keeping it dry in a swamp in Florida with a water table of "my feet are already damp on the surface" would probably end up being much much more expensive than a mobile launch platform.

blunt for century
Jul 4, 2008

I've got a bone to pick.



raverrn posted:

The A-10 is old though. And dies in basically any environment where enemy missiles exist. And can't fire precision anything for garbage. And we can't build any more, and hell it's even getting hard to fix the ones we still have.

Not that we need a mojillion dollar stealth jumpjet, to fill in for it, but we do need something else.

Get the engineers for Porsche to assist in making the A-10 mark 2 (A-11?) so it's pretty much the same thing but better

:iiaca:

blunt for century has a new favorite as of 17:04 on Apr 16, 2015

Aphrodite
Jun 27, 2006



The most important part is the shark teeth anyway. Paint those on drones and go wild.

The Imp of Nipples
Jul 24, 2007



Grimey Drawer

Chas McGill posted:

They should've just updated the Harrier, always thought that was a pretty cool design.


Tiberius Thyben posted:

Or they can just keep using the A10 in the ground support role, instead of failing to solve problems that never needed to be fixed.
The solution is just to recreate the COBRA Rattler. Problem solved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwDVHaghawQ

LostCosmonaut
Feb 15, 2014



I think Sprint already got mentioned (if not, you should go look it up), but here's its more insane cousin HIBEX.

Choice quote;

quote:

HIBEX was designed for low level intercept of entry vehicles below 3 km altitude within 2 seconds of launch. Hibex' neutron-generating warhead would disable the fissile core of the incoming enemey re-entry vehicle. It would also kill all living things within a 5 km radius of detonation.




Edit: Looks like Sprint actually hasn't shown up yet. Back in the 70s, the US actually had an operational ABM system for a brief period of time. It had two missiles; Spartan and Sprint. Spartan was an exoatmospheric interceptor (a very evolved Nike Hercules) that would have killed MIRVs hundreds of kilometers out with a 5 megaton warhead (the W71). However, it was realized that Spartan probably wouldn't have a 100% kill rate. That's where Sprint comes in.

Sprint was design for terminal defense. Essentially intercepting Soviet nukes at point blank range. It had utterly ridiculous acceleration, somewhere in the neighborhood of 100g. The warhead was a W66, an enhanced radiation (neutron bomb) with a few kilotons yield. It would have killed enemy warheads by putting out a massive pulse of neutrons, which would have fast-fissioned the uranium in incoming warheads, thereby rendering them useless (probably would've hosed the electronics too).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA

LostCosmonaut has a new favorite as of 21:59 on Apr 16, 2015

Dr. Benway
Dec 9, 2005

We can't stop here! This is bat country!

blunt for century posted:

Get the engineers for Porsche to assist in making the A-10 mark 2 (A-11?) so it's pretty much the same thing but better

:iiaca:

Radar, fire control systems, and ejection seat would be considered add ons if that happened.

DumbparameciuM
Feb 23, 2015

TOASTIN CONES AND BLASTIN FOES
LOWER HOUSE | LOWER SIXTH


blunt for century posted:

Get the engineers for Porsche to assist in making the A-10 mark 2 (A-11?) so it's pretty much the same thing but better

:iiaca:

Honestly, given the incredible things you can do with a C-130 gunship, I'm amazed that the A-10 is still in use. A-10s rule though, GAU 8 Avengers all loving day son:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sALiuWg_I1k


30mm Gau 8 Avenger round next to a .30-06

It fires 70 of those rounds per 1 second burst.

The recoil from the weapon is so great, that...

wikipedia posted:

Each barrel fires when it reaches roughly the 9 o'clock position, when viewed from the front of the plane. Because the gun's recoil forces could push the entire plane off target during firing, the weapon itself is mounted laterally off-center, slightly to the portside of the fuselage centreline as seen from above, with the actively "firing" barrel in the 3 o'clock position, so that the firing barrel lies directly on the aircraft's center line. The firing barrel also lies just below the aircraft's center of gravity, being bore sighted along a line 2 degrees below the aircraft's line of flight. This arrangement accurately centers the recoil forces, preventing changes in pitch or yaw when fired.

wikipedia posted:

Precision: 80% of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200 m) range hit within a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle


Gau 8 next to a VW Beetle



Would still love the effort post from Son of Thunderbeast, especially since I have been eyeing off RAAF and RAN technician jobs recently...

3
Aug 26, 2006

The Magic Number




College Slice

spog posted:

So, I guess my favourite system would be some time of large sign saying, 'Please don't shoot me, I am on your side'

You joke, but the risk of accidental fratricide was one of the most important lessons carried over from Gulf War 1.

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



Son of Thunderbeast posted:

The A-10 is the closest thing the world has to a flying tank. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll make an effortpost later about the A-10 because I could go on forever about that thing.

How about the original Flying Tank, the Il-2.

It had up to half an inch thick armor in a tub all around the engine and cockpit, though the gunner was left unprotected with the logic that a dead pilot would kill both of them. This was enough to block almost any projectiles under 20mm. As for weapons, in addition to twin 23mm cannons and 7.62mm machine guns, it, had, well, according to wikipedia...

quote:

To compensate for the poor accuracy of the Il-2's bombsight, in 1943 the Soviet Command decided to use shaped-charge armor-piercing projectiles against enemy armored vehicles, and the PTAB-2.5-1.5 SCAP aircraft bomb was put into production. These small-calibre bombs were loaded directly into the bomb bays and were dropped onto enemy vehicles from altitudes up to 100 meters (328 ft). As each Il-2 could carry up to 192 bombs, a fire carpet 70 meters (229 ft.) long and 15 meters (49 ft) wide covered the enemy tanks, giving a high "kill" probability.[21] Pilots of 291st ShAP were the first to use the PTAB-2.5-1.5 bombs. During one sortie on 5 June 1943, six attack aircraft led by Lt. Col. A. Vitrook destroyed 15 enemy tanks in one attack, and during five days of the enemy advance the 291st Division claimed to have destroyed or damaged 422 enemy tanks

C.M. Kruger
Oct 28, 2013


The Lone Badger posted:

Isn't it hideously vulnerable to ground-based missiles now?

Yes. Basically modern air defense systems like the SA-11 Buk and SA-15 Tor are designed to kill helicopters and cruise missiles flying 30 feet off the ground, while the close-range follow-ons to the SA-7 and Shilka are more effective and mount bigger guns. The A-10 can't be sent in until the majority of enemy air defenses have been neutralized, and even then stuff like man-portable SAMs and IR directed guns will be a major threat.

Anyways, for a short period before WWII, the US operated a airplane straight out of Crimson Skies: The YFM-1 Airacuda Bomber Destroyer. It was a pusher-prop airplane that had a 37mm cannon and a gunner mounted in front of each engine, the idea being that it would be a "mobile anti-aircraft platform" that could fly out and destroy enemy bomber formations beyond the range of regular fighters. They actually formed a single squadron of them but it turned out to be poorly designed and mechanically flawed, and sometime in 1942 they were scrapped after spending a period being used as ground trainers for bomber pilots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_YFM-1_Airacuda

Gridlocked
Aug 2, 2014

MR. STUPID MORON
WITH AN UGLY FACE
AND A BIG BUTT
AND HIS BUTT SMELLS
AND HE LIKES TO KISS
HIS OWN BUTT
by Roger Hargreaves




This is the Wiesel AWC.

I dono why I like it so much, maybe because it's like a baby tank. Basically they were 2-3 man tankettes (if that is even a word) that could be outfitted with everything from TOW launchers to your SAMs of choice and communications gear to be used as a command post to a 20mm autocannon.

The Lone Badger
Sep 24, 2007



^ That's straight out of XCOM.

Pile Of Garbage
May 28, 2007





LostCosmonaut posted:

I think Sprint already got mentioned (if not, you should go look it up), but here's its more insane cousin HIBEX.

Choice quote;





Edit: Looks like Sprint actually hasn't shown up yet. Back in the 70s, the US actually had an operational ABM system for a brief period of time. It had two missiles; Spartan and Sprint. Spartan was an exoatmospheric interceptor (a very evolved Nike Hercules) that would have killed MIRVs hundreds of kilometers out with a 5 megaton warhead (the W71). However, it was realized that Spartan probably wouldn't have a 100% kill rate. That's where Sprint comes in.

Sprint was design for terminal defense. Essentially intercepting Soviet nukes at point blank range. It had utterly ridiculous acceleration, somewhere in the neighborhood of 100g. The warhead was a W66, an enhanced radiation (neutron bomb) with a few kilotons yield. It would have killed enemy warheads by putting out a massive pulse of neutrons, which would have fast-fissioned the uranium in incoming warheads, thereby rendering them useless (probably would've hosed the electronics too).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA

Russia still operates 53T6 ABMs as part of their A-135 anti-ballistic missile system surrounding Moscow. The 53T6 has a 10 kt nuclear warhead, is capable of reaching speeds of Mach 17 and can intercept re-entry vehicles at a distance of 100km. They used to test them once a year but haven't done so since 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBto1aVOQwE

ToyotaThong
Oct 29, 2011


Gridlocked posted:



This is the Wiesel AWC.

I dono why I like it so much, maybe because it's like a baby tank. Basically they were 2-3 man tankettes (if that is even a word) that could be outfitted with everything from TOW launchers to your SAMs of choice and communications gear to be used as a command post to a 20mm autocannon.

Oh tankette is a term that was used. Almost every country had them in the inter-war years.

blunt for century
Jul 4, 2008

I've got a bone to pick.



Gridlocked posted:



This is the Wiesel AWC.

I dono why I like it so much, maybe because it's like a baby tank. Basically they were 2-3 man tankettes (if that is even a word) that could be outfitted with everything from TOW launchers to your SAMs of choice and communications gear to be used as a command post to a 20mm autocannon.

This thing seriously reminds me of the Ferret Armored Car









I actually know a guy who's got one of these. He got it for $700, and actually has a 1919 he mounts in it periodically. He got it so cheap because the previous owner thought it was broken and unfixable. My bud just replaced the gas tank, the fuel line, and all the filters, and it started right up. I got the chance to drive it around a couple of times. It drives quite nicely, much smoother than you'd expect, with a good response time and excellent turning radius. It has an interesting transmission though, it's a "pre-select transmission", meaning you use the shifter to change gear, then press the "select" button and it switches the gears for you, without the need to let off the accelerator. It has 5 forward and 5 reverse gears, meaning it can travel just as fast in either direction, which is pretty unique and fun. It's also an adorable little baby tanklette :kimchi:

Nckdictator
Sep 8, 2006
Just..someone



Can't decide if this thing is so ugly it's beautiful or simply ugly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_Ney-class_monitor

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Chopstix
Nov 20, 2002

That's a rib gone. Not broken. Gone.

Time for some Korean weapon system history, designed by what were probably equivalent to crazy scientists hoping for the next superweapon back in the day

Meet, the Turtle Ship


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_ship



quote:

His turtle ships were equipped with at least five different types of cannons. Their most distinguishable feature was a dragon-shaped head at the bow (front) that could launch cannon fire or flames from the mouth. Each was also equipped with a fully covered deck to deflect arrow fire, musket-shots, and incendiary weapons.[7] The deck was covered with iron spikes to discourage enemy men from attempting to board the ship.[7] Claims that it was iron-plated remain controversial.

Yes folks, that dragon's head in the front wasnt just for show, it was also a motherfucker flamethrower,smoke screen and shot cannonballs. There are claims that it was iron-plated as well but it is not very likely this is true. Only about forty were built. What made this ship so effective? Initially when Japan was invading Korea, Japanese naval warfare consisted of small arms fire (muskets,fire arrows, catapults) and boarding ships; their ships were not armed with artillery. The Korean ships at the time however, were larger, more armored, and were also armed with artillery and mortars. The cover of the ship with the spikes prevented boarding and grappling hook techniques from being used, and the cover made it almost impossible to set one ablaze. The strategy for the Korean navy at the time, was to stay out of range of the Japanese ships, and therefore did a great job of wrecking ships.

Then, we have, the Hwacha



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwacha

Tie some rockets to the end of up to 200 arrows and throw them on a cart, and fire them all in a barrage, because, what the hell, why not. They were particularly effective against massed infantry because not only would you get hit with an arrow, but it would also explode on impact

  • Locked thread