|
aphid_licker posted:Wow, that's interesting. Did not know that. You'd think they'd name them LENINS WRATH or something. Their surface ships had names. The battleships they inherited from the Czarist navy got appropriately Soviet names, like "October Revolution" or "Paris Commune." Other big ships were often named after "hero cities" (Leningrad, Kiev, etc). Others were named after Admirals or Heroes of the Soviet Union. Smaller gunboats sometimes had descriptive names ("Tarantula," "Osa" (wasp), etc). But subs just had letters and numbers. When the USSR died and Russia got the leftovers, they gave subs names. That first Typhoon was renamed Dmitriy Donskoy after a 14th century Russian prince, for example.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Cessna posted:Their surface ships had names. The battleships they inherited from the Czarist navy got appropriately Soviet names, like "October Revolution" or "Paris Commune." Was Any of this purposefully for maskirovka use? One could think that whilst you really cant HIDE your capital surface ships, keeping your subs as anonymous as possible could be useful to hinder the Evil Capitalists from figuring your sub numbers and deployment tempo between individual boat?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
I gotta hand it to those merchant mariners for holding dwarf level grudges Imagine if the F-117 pilot who got shot down held I against the entire nation of Serbia for eternity instead of exchanging cakes every year
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:Was Any of this purposefully for maskirovka use? One could think that whilst you really cant HIDE your capital surface ships, keeping your subs as anonymous as possible could be useful to hinder the Evil Capitalists from figuring your sub numbers and deployment tempo between individual boat? There's no question that the Soviets were less than forthcoming about their sub deployments, but specific designations don't really make a difference there. NATO tracked Soviet subs individually, and it wouldn't matter if the sub's name was TK-17 or Arkhangelsk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Cessna posted:There's no question that the Soviets were less than forthcoming about their sub deployments, but specific designations don't really make a difference there. NATO tracked Soviet subs individually, and it wouldn't matter if the sub's name was TK-17 or Arkhangelsk. Im more thinking before large-scale aerial and satellite recon became a omnipotent thing, my guess is that around 1945-1960 NATO sub tracking is a lot different ballgame than 1975-1985
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Then in 1927 you get the first post-WW1 subs with the O/Odin-class which were big boats for the time (bigger than a WW2 Type IX) and intended for Pacific operations. From then on, and all the way through WW2, British subs were named, with the names starting with the letter of the class. The exception would be the decidedly non-independent midget sub types which went back to the alphanumeric designations. Just as an aside, I've always liked the naming system that has all members of a class share the first letter. So much easier to tell at a glance what you're dealing with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Molentik posted:More sub stuff; here is some very nice colour footage of U.S.S. Cod and the Dutch O-19 which ran aground on a sandbank. John Holland did everything right. The Holland had a teardrop hull and a forward torpedo tube mounted inside the pressure hull. He built the Albacore or the Skipjack back when other goofballs, like Simon Lake and every European, were building poo poo like sideways torpedoes, turret torpedoes, conveyor belt mine laying gizmos, torpedo drop collars, and the Surcouf. The sideways torpedo tube comes from thinking, "WHAT IF A DESTROYER IS CHARGING YOU FROM THE SIDE!?!??!?!?" Cessna posted:That wouldn't have worked, because the Pampanito doesn't have propellers. That was part of the conditions the Navy puts on museum ships, that they can't drive under their own power. There may be (and probably are) exceptions to this, but this was part of the conditions the sub was held under. Back when it was at Fort Mason, they had the cannons unlocked so that ten year old idiots could aim them at passing ferries. One time at a steaming weekend, I thoughtlessly pulled some hanging chain on the flying bridge. This was the chain for the horn, and ten year old me jumped about ten feet into the air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Doing this would strain the engine and transmission more, as you are making both the treads and the overall mass heavier. Would it really improve mobility then? Well it never seemed to be much of a consideration when they were designing new tanks. How much interchangeability of parts were there among tanks? I figure there wasn't much with the Germans given how many variants there were just within one model, but how common was it to make parts that could be used in multiple models versus making them specific to one type?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Just as an aside, I've always liked the naming system that has all members of a class share the first letter. So much easier to tell at a glance what you're dealing with. I agree, although you have to make sure you have enough names in the hat when you commit to a big class. The S-class started well with Swordfish Sturgeon, Starfish and Seahorse but by the last batch you get the impression they were rather desperately flicking through the 'S' section of the dictionary with Sanguine Sleuth, Stratagem and Subtle. Same with the late T-classes : Trump, Tiptoe, Tiara and Token
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
The UK also was challenged to name the various destroyer classes in a similar convention, although I think most DD classes were a shorter run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:Was Any of this purposefully for maskirovka use? One could think that whilst you really cant HIDE your capital surface ships, keeping your subs as anonymous as possible could be useful to hinder the Evil Capitalists from figuring your sub numbers and deployment tempo between individual boat? Picturing a 4-boat class of submarines named 1, 2, 3, 11
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The UK also was challenged to name the various destroyer classes in a similar convention, although I think most DD classes were a shorter run. Good point. While the S-class subs were being delivered there were also S-class destroyers coming into service, which used up the names Savage Scourge, Success and - perhaps one which would be great for a submarine - Shark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Picturing a 4-boat class of submarines named 1, 2, 3, 11 The Typhoons (more accurately, Project 941) were designated TK-208, TK-210, TK-12, TK-13, TK-17, TK-20, TK-210. I doubt that this fooled anyone seriously tracking them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
I think Subtle is a pretty good sub name, tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The Soviets kept letter/number designations for submarines. For example, the lead sub of the Typhoon class, bigger than a WWI battleship and carrying 20 nuclear missiles, was named TK-208. I have seen The Hunt for Red October and K-19: The Widowmaker and I know you're wrong White Coke posted:Well it never seemed to be much of a consideration when they were designing new tanks. Perhaps they are not comparable? When you design a new tank you get to design how heavy it is and how much power it needs to move at the speed you feel adequate. When you redesign old tanks you seldom get more traction and mobility, unless you remove large parts of it. I just can't think of a single redesign that decreased the mass, except Kangaroos. quote:How much interchangeability of parts were there among tanks? I figure there wasn't much with the Germans given how many variants there were just within one model, but how common was it to make parts that could be used in multiple models versus making them specific to one type? Armoured fighting vehicles have so many parts and there are so many of different designs, so chances are there is some interchangeability between some types, but not very much overall. Like many AFV's shared guns, engines, optics or radios, but you have to be really specific because chances are some engineer made a slight change to this tank destroyer's gun mounting to make the turret balanced etc. Logisticians would love to have a large share of vehicle parts interchangeable. AFV designers on the other hand must hate such requirements, as they already work within a narrow budget of mass, volume and "shape". Supposedly the new Russian Armata line of vehicles was designed by maximum interchangeability, but it was cancelled under budget constraints so go figure. The idea of using the same chassis for a main battle tank, infantry fighting vehicle and self-propelled gun is certainly... interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Picturing a 4-boat class of submarines named 1, 2, 3, 11 There are pretty massive gaps in the U-xxx name lists the Kriegsmarine used, perhaps in order to confuse allied intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The Typhoons (more accurately, Project 941) were designated TK-208, TK-210, TK-12, TK-13, TK-17, TK-20, TK-210. How did they not make one of these TK-421?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:K-19: The Widowmaker You....realise it wasn't called that before it made the wives of lots and lots of people in it widows, right?  Just K-19.Edit: hell not even then that's just for the film. I now realise you may have been in jest. Edit edit: hang on we've had an HMS Trump? 
feedmegin fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:You....realise it wasn't called that before it made the wives of lots and lots of people in it widows, right? K-19 sounds like the name of a Disney film about a teenage dog, how credible do you think your version sounds?  
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There are pretty massive gaps in the U-xxx name lists the Kriegsmarine used, perhaps in order to confuse allied intelligence. I took a look at the massive name list on the German Wikipedia. Turns out the name gaps show up later, with notes like "Bauauftrag nicht vergeben" / "construction contract not given", or "construction aborted" and "construction aborted due to bombing", so the real reason is the Nazis losing the war.  The naming list goes up to U-4870, a type XXIII which actually was officially ordered, but the construction could not begin in time before the war ended. The Deutsche Werft started working on some parts, and then it was over. The last U-Boat actually making it into the water was U-4714, another type XXIII. Launched on 26th April 1945, could not be readied for action, self-sunk on 3rd May 1945. If you are interested and have some (a lot) time to waste, here's the complete list of all German U-Boats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The Typhoons (more accurately, Project 941) were designated TK-208, TK-210, TK-12, TK-13, TK-17, TK-20, TK-210. How is anyone supposed to keep TK-210 separate from TK-210?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There are pretty massive gaps in the U-xxx name lists the Kriegsmarine used, perhaps in order to confuse allied intelligence. Wasn't that the reason given behind naming it Seal Team Six as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Carillon posted:Wasn't that the reason given behind naming it Seal Team Six as well? I’ve heard the same story about 10th Special Forces Group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:How did they not make one of these TK-421? Because they didn't deserve the coolest name. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Was it really that different in the variations of everyone else except the US? I know I read a Russian tank commander (on here?) commenting on how every single T-34 factory would have minor variations that must have made parts replacement a nightmare (or not worth worrying about because the tank has a life expectancy less than it would be for the parts being needed). In 1940-mid 1941 there was no issue since there was really only one factory who built the T-34 (STZ barely built any with the same parts used by #183). After the war started and industry was evacuated, plants arrived in the Urals with a slight (sometimes not so slight) difference in workers and equipment, so they had to make do. Simplifications started to happen, but you also see stuff like #183 starting to implement solutions they designed for the T-34M. In January of 1942 the newly established People's Commissariat of Tank Production foresaw this exact issue and hit the brakes on any modifications. Each tank had a design bureau responsible for it (in this case it was factory #183's bureau 520) and any changes that could affect parts compatibility had to be signed off on by the lead designer. You still see different hulls and turrets, but you could take a turret from one factory, hull from another, and drivetrain from a third, put them all together, and get a working tank. Life expectancy was another thing. Components had vastly different lifespans: the engine was good for 100-150 hours in 1941, which translated to about 3000 km of peacetime driving, but the tracks and wheels were only guaranteed to last 1500 km. In wartime the tanks drove quite a bit slower as a rule so you'd get about 2000 km out of a T-34 without external factors coming into play, but a knocked out T-34 could be pretty easily repaired or stripped for parts by battalion or brigade level workshops. White Coke posted:On the subject of the Panzer IV, were there ever attempts to make them larger in some way, like lengthening the chassis and adding extra road wheels? Seems like if they were getting heavier throughout the war someone would have wanted to give them better weight distribution. Nope, the chassis was so hideously overweight by the end of the war that this was not possible. Even relatively minor hull changes (like sloping the front plate) were too much. This doesn't usually work since making the chassis longer adds a lot of mass. The only "successful" project of the sort I can think of is the A.30 Challenger, and that wasn't an amazing vehicle. White Coke posted:Well it never seemed to be much of a consideration when they were designing new tanks. How much interchangeability of parts were there among tanks? I figure there wasn't much with the Germans given how many variants there were just within one model, but how common was it to make parts that could be used in multiple models versus making them specific to one type? There were standard components like observation devices and radios, but almost nothing was fully interchangeable. This idea was supposed to be implemented first in the Panther II/Tiger III duo, then in the E-series, but never really got off the ground. Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The "jerry can" has already been mentioned. I'm reading a new book, The Secret Horsepower Race, all about aircraft engine development and honestly despite their thread reputation German aircraft engines had some very good points. They used fuel injection instead of carburetors, which meant they could fly inverted (try this in a Merlin-engined aircraft and you die because the engine gets starved of fuel) and pilots didn't need to be as mindful of fuel mixtures while flying, which means less distractions from their concentration during air combat. Unfortunately this was more than balanced out by using worse aviation fuel (because Germany had no natural source of oil other than Romania, which was nowhere near enough, so they had to make do with synthetic oil made by hydrogenating coal, and they didn't have good coal to begin with) and having to build them inferior materials (again, because of a lack of rare earth metals and even not-quite-so-rare metals like nickel). And from a naval history perspective, the Type XXI submarine was genuinely revolutionary although, once again, its development was completely hamstrung by production problems. Their conventional submarine designs, the Type VII and Type IX, were certainly more than fit for purpose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
I am disappointed that there was pages of Gato vs Type IX talk and no mention of the biggest elephant in the room: The Mark 14 Shitpedo. If that thing has actually worked as a normal torpedo then the IJN may not have even made it past '43. And Japan's merchant fleet may not make it TO '43.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
Weren't there also multiple Japanese warships that got clunked by Mk 14s as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I'm reading a new book, The Secret Horsepower Race, all about aircraft engine development and honestly despite their thread reputation German aircraft engines had some very good points. They used fuel injection instead of carburetors, which meant they could fly inverted (try this in a Merlin-engined aircraft and you die because the engine gets starved of fuel) and pilots didn't need to be as mindful of fuel mixtures while flying, which means less distractions from their concentration during air combat. Unfortunately this was more than balanced out by using worse aviation fuel (because Germany had no natural source of oil other than Romania, which was nowhere near enough, so they had to make do with synthetic oil made by hydrogenating coal, and they didn't have good coal to begin with) and having to build them inferior materials (again, because of a lack of rare earth metals and even not-quite-so-rare metals like nickel). Yeah, our own bewbies has commented before on the Germans actually getting a lot out of their existing aircraft engines. While looking through WW2 Life Magazine, they had a shot of a Bf 110 in a British field, commenting on its weird "fuel" "injection." Which I find wild, simply because domestic automakers didn't completely ditch carbs until the 1990s
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
Someone used Phoenix Command to model an M1 Abrams vs Tiger II fight in the LP subforum. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3959659
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
dublish posted:How is anyone supposed to keep TK-210 separate from TK-210? That's a typo, one of those should be TK-202.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 02:09
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Weren't there also multiple Japanese warships that got clunked by Mk 14s as well? Yes, a fleet carrier at Midway IIRC. I think the biggest wtf is some tanker that got hit by a US sub's entire complement - 1 of MK14s. Imagine being a sailor and just watching something like 14 torpedos hit your ship and bounce off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Yeah, our own bewbies has commented before on the Germans actually getting a lot out of their existing aircraft engines. While looking through WW2 Life Magazine, they had a shot of a Bf 110 in a British field, commenting on its weird "fuel" "injection." From what I know I'd also agree with the basic premise that German aero engines were decent-through-to-excellent, but with development and production increasingly hampered as the war progressed by fuel, material and labour shortages. In 1940 the DB V12 not only had fuel injection but a variable-drive supercharger, while the Merlin and the Allison had carbs and a fixed-speed blower. The DB601's fuel injection has been rather over-egged. It was crude even in comparison to the injection systems put on cars in the 1960s, never mind a 1980s EFI system. It was basically just a fixed nozzle feeding a stream of fuel into each cylinder via an individual plunger pump - adapted diesel truck engine technology - and it was pretty a 'dumb' setup. It poured more fuel in the more the pilot opened the throttle and it had a barometric device which wound the fuelling back a little to compensate for altitude. It didn't sense engine speed, charge air temperature, manifold pressure, exhaust mixture, cylinder knock, fuel temperature or anything like that. It worked reliably under negative-G (but the oil system still didn't work for sustained periods inverted), it let the engine start easily (especially in cold weather) and it reacted better to sudden and large changes in throttle setting. In return it was hugely more complex, skilled and arduous to make, used more fuel-per-hp and reduced the maximum boost that could be applied to the engine and thus the maximum power output. By the time the injected DB601 was in service most carb-fed aero engines also had automatic mixture adjustment. Rolls-Royce looked at making a fuel injection system along the DB lines and concluded that it wasn't worth it - the cooling effect of the stream of atomising fuel coming out of the carb sucked 25 deg. C of heat out of the intake charge, allowing the supercharger boost to be higher and significantly increasing power - the 27-litre Merlin made 1300hp and the 34-litre DB601 made 1100hp. Yes, the Merlin had its issue with faltering under negative-G but it could be circumvented with simple tactics (half roll before pulling into a dive), was alleviated by the fitment of 'Miss Shilling's orifice' to the carb and was solved completely by the development of a pressure-action carburettor which had all the advantages of fuel injection while being much simpler, quicker and less material-intensive to produce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Yeah, our own bewbies has commented before on the Germans actually getting a lot out of their existing aircraft engines. While looking through WW2 Life Magazine, they had a shot of a Bf 110 in a British field, commenting on its weird "fuel" "injection." To be fair, if you're trying to drive a car upside down, you have some bigger problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
How did the Stug-III fare against tanks in a head on confrontation? I know they made tons of them and generally used them in an ambush or support capacity but if they were face to face with a t-34 or Sherman were they up to the task?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 06:05
|
|
|
MILHIST QUIZ TIME: MY GIRLFRIEND gets the engineers union periodical, which had this find in it:    Dude got it from his dad who was at the Danish school of naval artillery, and they figure it's from at least the 1900 hundreds. A later editorial found out what it was and what it was used for, but can you tell? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 10:51
|
|
|
fat bossy gerbil posted:How did the Stug-III fare against tanks in a head on confrontation? I know they made tons of them and generally used them in an ambush or support capacity but if they were face to face with a t-34 or Sherman were they up to the task? Sure. Their main problem is that they had a very limited degree of rotation on the gun. The vehicle could be rotated, but that would cause the gun to shake sigificantly, taking time to settle down and requiring re-aiming. Turreted tanks had less of an issue with that on traverse. However, in the context of just rolling up to fight other tanks, it would pretty much come down to who stopped and engaged first. At longer ranges, the stug's armor might prove somewhat effective in resisting the AP shells of the earlier T-34s and Shermans, though meeting engagements almost never happened at these ranges. The stug battalions were Germany's answer to the need to get armor in the infantry formations. Though they never reached the level of, say, the US having 1-2 independent tank battalions for each infantry division, they provided valuable armored support in both offensive and defensive engagements for an increasingly poorly trained infantry arm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
If you want to take apart that Merlin engine this is a fun way to kill a few hours https://store.steampowered.com/app/803980/Plane_Mechanic_Simulator/
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:If you want to take apart that Merlin engine this is a fun way to kill a few hours Seconded (although it's a real resources-hog - rather like a Merlin on a warm summer day my PC kept overheating trying to run it at a decent setting). Soon you too will be venting frustration at Rolls-Royce putting over 40 tiny screws holding the valvegear covers on, and experiencing the authentic rage of RAF ground crews at why early Spitfires required all the panels on both the upper and undersides of the wing to be removed (and then replaced, with half a dozen awkward fixings each) to restock the ammo. Here's the real thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HIFc9xpguc The original, much longer and more detailed version is also on YouTube, but in multiple low-quality parts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Tias posted:A later editorial found out what it was and what it was used for, but can you tell? Is it a slide rule for calculating angles and distances?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 14:44
|
|
