Old War/Dad Power: Clancey chat (both types)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Old War/Dad Power: Clancey chat (both types)

«‹›13 »

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Notably the War of 1812 didn't go well for the Royal Navy despite a vast superiority in capabilities.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2021 19:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:26

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

The deck of a battleship is a lot more photogenic than a flight deck. A flight deck is just a featureless expanse. I don't know how they select ships for signing things on though.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2021 09:34

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

"What if The L O A F but bigger?"

# ¿ Jun 27, 2021 01:00

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

You'd think you could slap a new guidance package on a Spearfish and get a decent intercept envelope.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2021 22:29

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

priznat posted:

How can you fight proxy wars on the moon?!?

Basically by sitting in your moon base across the crater from the Soviet moon base for months and going insane.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2021 01:31

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

People with names like Ulf Henricsson have a long tradition of cracking skulls in the Balkans.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2021 18:28

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

MazelTovCocktail posted:

Apologies for tossing this here, but I couldn�t think of a better place, when do people think the Soviet leadership abandoned trying to achieve (even if only subconsciously) communism and just became a totalitarian state with communist window dressing? I know this is kind of a huge question, but I always wonder if people like Brezhnev, Stalin (although I think he�d rationalize it as being the stronger man who needs to have the most power to make everyone equal), or Grobachevs two predecessors.

When Lenin disempowered the Soviets in 1918? Didn't take long!

# ¿ Jul 4, 2021 04:06

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Uncle Enzo posted:

I find early-stage ad-hoc Chinese propaganda and apologism so fascinating. Someone points out something they did that all the world can see (major silo-building spree with presumably new missiles and warheads to match) and they write these kinds of strange denials. Except they don't deny it.

-People pointed out something about China
-Except they've got no right to do that
-But anyways if we were doing that we'd have every right to
-But we're not saying we are doing it
-But also the analysis that we are doing it is wrong anyways
-And even if we were doing it, it's none of their business
-Anyways we have a legitimate reason to increase our nuclear deterrence
-Not that there is anything wrong or lacking about our current deterrence, mind you
-Anyways lots of countries have missiles
-Not that we're anything like those other countries
-We should just ignore the published evidence
-Or we could admit it, although there may or may not be anything to admit and we don't have to admit anything anyways

I kind of wonder if this article and others like it are the media people trying to cover their bases in advance of an "official" line. They need to be shown as having always been saying whatever they decide to say. Since they have to say something but they don't know what to say, they kind of just shotgun whatever for now.

And finally I think they only thing the article actually asserts:
-The US having lots of missiles is because they're evil warmongers but China significantly increasing it's missiles is just poor innocent little China trying to protect itself (by invading Taiwan and threatening the US with nukes if they try to intervene)

To understand this genre of media article you have to know that the most important reader, sometimes the only important reader, is the author's boss. Often someone with strong technical English but no understanding of foreign audiences.

It doesn't make sense to you because the author doesn't care whether it makes sense to you.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2021 23:57

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

InAndOutBrennan posted:

Ok, there seems to be more words than I remember so I'll do this in stages.

All credits to Magnus Ernstr�m. Original text and more here:
https://morgonsur.wordpress.com/stupni_do/

"We fired the warning shot last Thursday".

LMAO absolute mad lads

# ¿ Jul 5, 2021 18:00

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

https://twitter.com/CivMilAir/status/1414201418010054656

# ¿ Jul 11, 2021 16:43

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Somebody Awful posted:

This came up in my YT recs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV5FGTxIU4Q

Apparently the US Navy lied when it said Thresher imploded and everyone died instantly?

E: reading further, there's plenty of skepticism about this.

This guy's channel rules because clearly he experienced the Cold War as the world's most expensive game of tag.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2021 22:21

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

priznat posted:

Agreed but at the same time just throwing your hands up and saying we're post military or whatever is a silly plan. Even extremely limited capability (and that is what it would be) is still better than nothing. It's just a question of fixing the system so money isn't just flushed down the crapper through a combination of inaction and incompetence.

Yep it is a system that is hugely broken and needs fixing, not just giving up on though. I mean we've been lucky being a country next to the US but at the same time there needs to be some semblance of being a real country with an ability for some kind of territory defense.

The US is the world's largest arms exporter and Canada's largest trading partner and closest ally. I am pretty sure the US would be happy to sell Canada all the military hardware it can afford. Spending $30 billion dollars to not buy a destroyer can't be justified.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2021 06:43

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Kaal posted:

Yeah they seem to have had all sorts of difficulties with their pistol procurement. For a long time they were trying really hard to make sure there was a domestic production requirement, but they couldn't get any manufacturer to bite. I'm sure at this point they just want to move on and get what the Americans got. What's interesting about that is for all the discussion about modularity, the Marines went from having all sorts of different pistols to only getting the carry-sized M18 in 9mm - presumably the reduced weight and simpler logistics trumped all the other concerns.

Of course all these issues are likely going to be at play in the rifle upgrades that the US militaries have been pushing for. The Marines swapped out their M4s and M249s for the new M27, while the Army has continued pressing for a new 6.8mm design. Right now they're in the midst of a Next Generation Squad Weapon competition that will make its vendor selection in November 2021 - assuming it doesn't all come to nothing like past efforts. Hopefully they've figured out the legalese well-enough that it doesn't devolve into a bunch of lawsuits. I ended up doing a deep dive into this program since more details have been coming out over the last couple weeks, but wasn't really sure which thread to chat about it.

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/sig-sauer-next-generation-squad-weapon-prototypes-hands-on/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoBOuv6qJNU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm0XId4kftg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7MV0H8235o

Jesus Christ plastic casings is such a cursed hell-timeline idea.

The PFAS battlefield - brought to you by General Dynamics.

Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jul 22, 2021

# ¿ Jul 22, 2021 01:14

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Brass isn't bioactive.

# ¿ Jul 22, 2021 04:55

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

https://twitter.com/Jamie24272184/status/1418583418045140996

Somebody's in trouble!

# ¿ Jul 23, 2021 19:44

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

zoux posted:

What would be the biggest danger a modern-outfitted A-29 would face over Europe in 1943

bird strike

# ¿ Jul 27, 2021 22:35

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

https://twitter.com/FireAviation/status/1420519637834469383?s=19

tl;dr all operational planes are busy, we're taking loans from the Australians and the Air Force, the Canadians can't spare any, and the availability numbers were inflated with double booking to the point that of 18 flex contract planes only five could be produced.

Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Jul 29, 2021

# ¿ Jul 29, 2021 00:18

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

It's going to be increasingly difficult to separate national security chat from climate chat.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2021 23:42

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Cyrano4747 posted:

Seconding this:

Draw a line under waterchat. It's an interesting tangent, but it's pretty far afield from the cold war and airpower.

And no, I don't care about whatever tenuous link someone wants to make about crop dusters or whatever. We're not going to six degrees of Kevin Bacon this thread into it being about any topic. Water bomber chat was certainly in this thread's wheelhouse, but we've strayed pretty far away from that when we're arguing about the economics of water rights.

The economics of water rights are the most likely trigger for World War 3 in South Asia.

Though it's hard to see how India doesn't get totally clowned in that scenario.

# ¿ Aug 2, 2021 22:13

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Nebakenezzer posted:

Trolling the Barents Observer:

This is pretty WTF: A Oscar II class was sailing through Danish waters (from the Baltic to Murmansk) when it had a propulsion failure. A *complete* propulsion failure, which is sort of weird because the honky has two propellers and two reactors. Still, apparently a fleet tug was escorting it, so it couldn't be totally unexpected.

Also lol, almost Canadian: "The press service of the Northern Fleet is not allowed to speak directly to foreign media, including the Barents Observer."

Busted feed water system?

# ¿ Aug 10, 2021 03:51

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Let's see:

US Army - Fighter
USN - Rogue
USMC - Barbarian
USAF - Cleric
USSF - Wizard

Considering Space Force didn't take any offensive spells I guess they could use a warlock.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2021 11:17

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

I agree. Money should be different colors.

# ¿ Aug 23, 2021 23:01

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Nebakenezzer posted:

So for once, have what I think is a pretty normal procurement story: Some new machine guns have defects and are being returned to Colt Canada.

In the CF they are called C6A1 Flex (improved version of the FN MAG), and the contract was awarded without competition to Colt Canada, which has been deemed "Canada's center of firearms excellence". I post this mostly because I don't know much about firearms and can't say if the problems are egregiously dumb or entirely normal. This *is* one story that apparently was from people in the CF.

The FN MAG is a 60-year-old design. loving it up is an accomplishment.

# ¿ Aug 25, 2021 02:30

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Nebakenezzer posted:

Something I never expected to see outside of a video game: Cartel Leader assassinated by helicopter minigun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5d8eZsgKrg

(death implied, not shown.)

who did this guy piss off??!

# ¿ Aug 31, 2021 00:01

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

https://twitter.com/RAF_Luton/status/1433351522411323392

# ¿ Sep 3, 2021 00:14

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Cyrano4747 posted:

Ok, follow up question, why was this so necessary on these carriers and not on every other aircraft carrier I've ever seen pictures of?

(I'm sure one of you will find some random escort carrier from the 20s or something or a training carrier with two or whatever, but you get my point)

Having the flight operations tower further back is desirable for reasons I don't know. They put it further forward so they could have more deck edge elevators. In the Nimitz class they found that one of the two after elevators never got used due to flight operations issues anyway, so there's no penalty to putting the tower further back. The Ford class is designed the same way with the tower further back.

I don't know why the British decided they needed to see out of the front to drive the ship, it's never bothered the Americans navy.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2021 19:32

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

hobbesmaster posted:

Ehhhhh....

edit: wow the enterprise really liked running aground

And no one was bothered! At least, no one who matters.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2021 20:39

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Cat Hatter posted:

I'm guessing it'll get tied to a pier until they sell it to the Canadians, only for the Canadian navy to discover that all the plumbing and moving parts need to be replaced from not running for so long.

This scenario imagines that the Canadians successfully purchase an aircraft carrier.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2021 23:30

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

JcDent posted:

So how much panicky nonsense is this post?

https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1434625531861876738?s=20

We sold Blackhawks to China. We sold Blackhawks to China. We sold Blackhawks to China.

all these guys suck

lol our precious pickup truck and AR15 technology

# ¿ Sep 6, 2021 19:40

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Politifact 2015 total federal spending

Health spending is 18% of GDP. The ACA slowed it down but the US healthcare system is still slowly strangling everything else.

Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Sep 6, 2021

# ¿ Sep 6, 2021 19:45

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Didn't Iraq and Afghanistan get a lot of funding that went outside the normal budgeting process? I'm not sure if that's captured on those graphs.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2021 02:41

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Raenir Salazar posted:

It'll be interesting if in 100 years having access to tall mountains becomes a strategic resource for space flight in the way having access to horses was critical for technological progress for early civilizations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oazwTDeqF54

# ¿ Sep 10, 2021 01:35

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Haha anyway launching from high altitude is such an important strategic advantage that literally no one does it.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2021 02:04

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Captain von Trapp posted:

Drag loss for space launch vehicles is very slight next to the rest of the delta-v budget, typically on the order of 100 m/s or so. Trying to reduce it further is usually not worth the effort.

While moving to your launcher to the equator gets you about 300 m/s for free.

But yeah I'm just not paying attention, if you're talking about railguns or whatever who cares. Nobody in 100 years is going to build a space railgun while they're starving.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2021 03:12