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
Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


3 posted:

IJN Carrier Shinano


Most folks are aware of the Yamato-class battleships built for the Imperial Japanese Navy. These monsters were the largest battleships ever laid down, armed with the largest guns ever put on a naval craft. Originally designed for what the IJN envisioned as a grand naval battle where top-tier battleships slugged it out on the high seas, they actually ended up being the collective gravestone for the age of the battleship. Both Yamato and Musashi were ignominiously sunk not in glorious naval combat, but by swarms of carrier-based airplanes who made short work of the two behemoths using air-dropped torpedoes and bombs. Perhaps somewhat ironically, there was a third Yamato hull that was converted to what, at the time, was the largest aircraft carrier ever built, but unfortunately it was terrible garbage.


Guess what the second largest naval gun was? Most people would probably think the 16"s on an Iowa, but they would be wrong. The royal navy built a mere 6k ton monitor in WW1 for use bombarding the occupied Belgian coastline, and fitted it with a gun a mere 3mm less than that carried by a battleship weighting well over 10 times as much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_General_Wolfe_(1915)


Since this is a royal navy post, obligatory HMS Warspite. Most decorated battleship in British history, did doughnuts infront of the entire German high seas fleet at Jutland due to a damaged rudder, drawing so much fire on herself that a heavily damaged cruiser nearby was able to limp away. She was hit 150 times at Jutland, by survived long enough to regain control and escape into the dark. Limping home she came under attack by a uboat, which she promptly charged at full speed before arriving for 2 months of repairs. Despite suffering permanent problems with her rudder gear from then out, she was modernised in the 30s and went on to server in WW2, socring the (at the time) longest ranged gun hit in naval history on an Italian battleship. She did this using optical rangefinders, Iowa later broke her record, but only by a few hundred yards and using a radar directed sight.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:

Firecracker katyusha? Nope.


Not at all. It's basically a congreve rocket, albeit with probably a smaller warhead. Congreve rockets were used by the British, especially during the Napoleonic wars to reasonable effect. I don't think they were ever very effective at killing people, but they were good for breaking up mass formations and disrupting advances, which was 90% of the objective in a battle at the time anyway. Also used to chase off the raggle taggle mob defending D.C. so we could burn it down

Werther or not the Koreans ever managed to use their rockets to good purpose I have no idea, but the basic idea is sound.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


Jonathan Yeah! posted:

DU is amour-piercing, so it's generally used to penetrate MBT/ thicker armour, so it would probably just go right though a lesser-armoured vehicle (creating a very big hole). For more efficient blue-on-blue killing action, they should probably use HEAT or HE, which'll explode/ spray molten metal on impact.

Actually it will make a very very small hole. The point is that the aluminium "armour" of a bradley doesn't pose enough resistance to cause spaling or to make the DU round fragment, so it just drills a neat little hole in both sides. Unless you are unlucky enough to be directly in the path of it's flight, in which case it will make a neat little hole in you too.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


C.M. Kruger posted:

I figure that by Block 20-30 the majority of the problems with the F-35 will be fixed. And unlike the Rafael or Typhoon it'll have better chances against modern SAM systems.



Atleast the Rafael or typhoon might stay airborne long enough to get shot at. I suppose the plan is to deny the enemy any kills by ensuring that all planes self destruct a maximum of 10 minutes into their flight. Think of the economic benfits to the MIC for contracts for all these planes to replace the ones that tried to take off!

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


Probably all that weight at the back would pull it over if it went up forward.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


The problems, iirc, arose from the fact that the drivers seat couldn't be in the middle of the turret, since then he'd get in the way of reloading the gun. Therefore he had to be in his own cupola off set ot the side, that would rotate relative to both the turret and the chasis whilst keeping him facing the same direction. Drivers found this too confusing and would get motion sick and/or loose their sense of orietation.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


Atmus posted:

Am I understanding that right in that the driver's position was essentially fixed to the base in that it rotated counter to the turret's rotation? If so, there's no way you'll convince me that graphic is to scale AND that the tank is only 6' tall.

You couldn't fix the drivers cupola unless it was exactly in the centre of the turret, which would get in the way of the gun too much. The probelm they experinced wasn't with stabilising the drivers direction of view, it was with the drivers getting sick becasue their periferal vision of the inside of the tank was telling them the opposite of what their main vision through the stabilised view blocks was showing. Also because as the turret rotates, the offfset cupola moves around a circle, even if it is always facing foward probably contributed majorly to the driver's problems.

Even today I doubt you could do it without working a way of having the driver in the exact centre of the turret. Having your ears/peripheral vision tell you one thing whilst you're seeing another is a good recipe for throwing up down the back of the gunners neck.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


Comstar posted:

Why is there a secondary turret/gun, and who was supposed to use it?

Secondary guns always creep into theoretical tanks from some reason and then get ditched when it turns out that yes, they are still a waste of space with extra weak spots. Judging from the position I'd say it was intended for operation by the loader, although maybe it was supposed to be used by the commander with some kind of cctv system?

  • Locked thread