erik
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by erik on Nov 22, 2016 9:44:48 GMT
what about your accuracy? or are you some sort of super robot what about your accuracy while standing upright on a rocking boat? lets see how good your balance is what about your accuracy while standing on a rocking boat with the target 15km away (btw that is past the horizon, so you can not even see it)? YOU HAVE ESP DON'T YOU! and while I myself am a proud Brit, I as a occasional student of history have to say this:
what, where, when? seriously the only reason the world won against the Nazi's is because Hitler was phenomenally stupid and invaded Russia, that in tern eventually allowed D-day by spreading Germany too thin. Really Stalin was pretty cool with Hitler killing of the west cause you know, western nations were kinda dicks to the soviets? If Hitler did not invade Russia, and Pearl Harbour did not happen you would be proudly flying the Nazi flag and frog marching everywhere with a little Hitler tash... or we would have gundams, really depends what japan decided to do with its half of the planet. I can get within that accuracy when prone or kneeling using just myself and sling for support. 0.0018 degrees is about one minute, I can achieve that when kneeling and often get within 1/2 minute when prone. Accuracy is kind of fuzzy because ambient and barrel temperature have both effect on the point of impact and weather conditions can change within minutes, there can be a tempoerary gust or some mirage between the shooter and the target and so forth. I have not properly tested true mechanical accuracy or dont even know for sure what the best load for that gun is. A purpose built machine would, of course, be vastly superior to me at pointing and shooting, and it could be built to take motion into account. Apparently the Hubble Space Telescope, an aging satellite, has pointing accuracy of mere 7/1000 of an arc minute. Thats some precision! If you researched the subject, you would find that most of these problems including aiming and stabilizing the guns and range finding were solved over a century ago. For high visibility weather any way. Big guns would never have been put on ships had their long reach been unavailable due to lacking accuracy or mere waves. In general some advantages of guns firing dumb projectiles is that they tend to be, in real life, cheap, lightweight and can achieve high rates of fire. Things have improved since those days and stuff has become ever lighter and more accurate since then, of course.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Nov 22, 2016 10:53:32 GMT
-snip- If you researched the subject, you would find that most of these problems including aiming and stabilizing the guns and range finding were solved over a century ago. For high visibility weather any way. Big guns would never have been put on ships had their long reach been unavailable due to lacking accuracy or mere waves. In general some advantages of guns firing dumb projectiles is that they tend to be, in real life, cheap, lightweight and can achieve high rates of fire. Things have improved since those days and stuff has become ever lighter and more accurate since then, of course. For high visibility weather any way... please google "horizon at sea level", your not shooting past about 12km using LOS even on the biggest boat in because the earth is curved sorry to burst your bubble so... now that we have acknowledged the need for spotter aircraft, your fleet now has a battleship and an aircraft carrier now why don't you just get rid of the multi billion dollar battleship and stick some bombs on said aircraft, I guarantee you its gonna be cheaper ...instead of bombs, you could even arm it with missiles (trollface) you know I think we have wandered off topic with the battleship fan-boysback on to the topic of whether you would set foot on a giant flying space coffin and go to war!
|
|
erik
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by erik on Nov 22, 2016 11:13:03 GMT
For high visibility weather any way... please google "horizon at sea level", your not shooting past about 12km using LOS even on the biggest boat in because the earth is curved sorry to burst your bubble so... now that we have acknowledged the need for spotter aircraft, your fleet now has a battleship and an aircraft carrier now why don't you just get rid of the multi billion dollar battleship and stick some bombs on said aircraft, I guarantee you its gonna be cheaper ...instead of bombs, you could even arm it with missiles (trollface) Please, do research yourself. An armored guns-only battleship is for the time being a dated, obsolescent concept yes. But not because its toothless. I think you severely underestimate what was possible with what was, radar excepted, basically 1920's tech. Hood was destroyed at a range of approximately 17 km. Duke of York's decisive shot on Scharnhorst was fired at a similar range (and in a storm, at night, using radar to guide fire). At Surigao Strait, US BBs' radars spotted the IJN task force at 42 km out and at a range of 21 km, the very first salvo was fired, and it hit the Yamashiro that would sink in 20 minutes. In none of these cases were there spotter aircraft to guide fire used. Just imagine what will in the far future be possible with near light speed particle beams combined to Hubble-like or better, precision! I'm a missile man myself too, but they do have their limitations and weaknesses both in real world and in CoaDE.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Nov 22, 2016 13:49:59 GMT
most of those 61 kills were done by torpedoes fired from cruisers/destroyers, surface ships firing torpedoes, go figure... and there are 2 or 3 kills by ramming, yes apparently ramming your enemies was a legit tactic in ww2 once you were out of torpedoes . on the subject why battleships failed, and will likely always suffer from issues: to hit something with a cannon, that cannon has to be phenomenal accurate, to put this in to perspective at 5km range (about as far as its possible to see) being off target by 1 degree is being off target by 80m. Conversely the weight of a weapon system that can launch an effective amount of ordinance that distance accurately is huge, as in 111 tones(for Bismark c/34) not counting propellant and munitions weight. WWII Ship launched torpedoes were used at ranges similar to and less than cannon. Its not a proper analogy to compare this to a hypersonic missile swarm launched at extreme range. And it is still capships engaging capships, or a smaller torpedo boat as the aggressor. To call a WWII torpedo guided is generous. Cannon/kinetic weapon systems are heavy, but a 50% mass fraction of missiles on a unarmored ship can't be considered anything but heavy.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Nov 22, 2016 16:33:03 GMT
The thing about torpedoes (up until the cold war, when guided torpedoes really started to becone the rule) is they let a 300 ton pt boat (or an airplane, or submarine) threaten a 35kt battleship.
|
|
|
Post by subunit on Nov 22, 2016 17:08:03 GMT
most of those 61 kills were done by torpedoes fired from cruisers/destroyers, surface ships firing torpedoes, go figure... and there are 2 or 3 kills by ramming, yes apparently ramming your enemies was a legit tactic in ww2 once you were out of torpedoes . on the subject why battleships failed, and will likely always suffer from issues: to hit something with a cannon, that cannon has to be phenomenal accurate, to put this in to perspective at 5km range (about as far as its possible to see) being off target by 1 degree is being off target by 80m. Conversely the weight of a weapon system that can launch an effective amount of ordinance that distance accurately is huge, as in 111 tones(for Bismark c/34) not counting propellant and munitions weight. WWII Ship launched torpedoes were used at ranges similar to and less than cannon. Its not a proper analogy to compare this to a hypersonic missile swarm launched at extreme range. And it is still capships engaging capships, or a smaller torpedo boat as the aggressor. To call a WWII torpedo guided is generous. Cannon/kinetic weapon systems are heavy, but a 50% mass fraction of missiles on a unarmored ship can't be considered anything but heavy. T5s were guided in '43 and worked ok. Generally though, yeah. Anyway, the only point in talking about naval weapons systems in the context of CoaDE is to demonstrate how difficult it actually is to build something like an effective all-missile fleet. I mean look, the USN has been in "all-guided-missiles" mode for 30 years and still A) doesn't have a deployed AShM that's newer than the Harpoon (that is, nothing supersonic- maybe soon, but as it stands neither of a CSG's surface or air components has anything that a rival power can't swat down) and B) doesn't have anything better on tap to lob them than Burke refits, and C) is still slinging SMs as their anti-missile-missile. This is the best-funded Navy ever; it has a planetary empire behind it whose resources probably exceed any of the CoaDE factions. There are lots and lots of reasons why the USN is now in the uneviable position of scrambling to deploy LRASMs while arming their supply ships with Harpoons and pretending that a hypersonic railgun on the DDG1000 will make a difference, but almost all of them are political, organisational, and doctrinal.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Nov 23, 2016 0:12:48 GMT
To be fair the USN(and US) has been in a fucking bizarre situation these thirty+ years, especially after the fall of the soviet Union the whole military industrial complex has essentially ouroboro'd it'self in every department (thanks as well to congress). The decline of american industry country wide has led to a compensation game were those workers instead toil in the A1-Abraham's plants and the R&D costs skyrocketed to cope. No Russia world power meant less justifiable orders for new projects. Combine that with the way "modern" weapons have been laughably developed(Zumwalt, F-35, Bradly's replacement etc...) and you can see were a penny pinching greedy M.I.C. would fuck it'self over.
Personally im still mad at congress for what they fucking did to the shuttle.
Now in the Context of COADE, the UFP would seem to be in a hypothetical post WW2 but better scenario, were because they control the majority of the system and it's resources things could hypothetically become super corrupt with no opponent to justifiably keep the shirts tucked in for.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Dec 1, 2016 8:42:07 GMT
Personally im still mad at congress for what they fucking did to the shuttle. Frankly speaking, the Shuttle is an obsolete design. I'm far more mad at our fucking treehuggers killing off everything with 'Nuclear' in its name.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Dec 1, 2016 12:55:09 GMT
Personally im still mad at congress for what they fucking did to the shuttle. Frankly speaking, the Shuttle is an obsolete design. I'm far more mad at our fucking treehuggers killing off everything with 'Nuclear' in its name. I interpreted "what they did" as "how they cut funding and slapped new requirements in the name of 'savings' until they got a ridiculously expensive Rube Goldberg contraption instead of the intended cheap access to space". Frankly, that only two were lost in four decades of service is a testament of the skill of NASA's engineers and maintenance team. But yeah, without the N-Scarce, we would have better deep-space designs, probably including working manned interplanetary ones. Interestingly, even Orion-style ENPP is sort of viable, environment-wise: yield is far too low to cause EMP effects, fallout at the spaceport can be caught by, for example, covering it in graphite, fallout in high altitude pretty much won't affect the surface, what does is significantly cut if you launch as close as the poles as possible (northern Norway would be a good place to launch, for example) and if we really can't afford atmospheric detonations at all, we can still replace them with external conventional explosive launched by cannons from the surface at the craft: the atmosphere significantly enhance the effectiveness of the explosion, meaning it is within reach of conventional explosives. But nope, N-Scarce it is.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 2, 2016 1:13:18 GMT
You should notice that the Brits were on the winning side of the war, causes of loss were different to what Imperial Japanese Navy or Kriegsmarine had. Anyway, about that accuracy. 0.0018 degrees actually is not very accurate. My rifle, nitrocellulose powder, brass cases and copper-jacketed lead projectiles going through thick air at supersonic velocity that is, has mechanical accuracy much better than that, and it'd only get better with a thicker barrel and/or more consistent or higher quality ammunition than what I've used. (...) seriously the only reason the world won against the Nazi's is because Hitler was phenomenally stupid and invaded Russia, that in tern eventually allowed D-day by spreading Germany too thin. Really Stalin was pretty cool with Hitler killing of the west cause you know, western nations were kinda dicks to the soviets? If Hitler did not invade Russia, and Pearl Harbour did not happen you would be proudly flying the Nazi flag and frog marching everywhere with a little Hitler tash... or we would have gundams, really depends what japan decided to do with its half of the planet. I find your astonishing over-generalizations and lax grasp of economics disturbing. Read The Wages of Destruction if you get the chance - Hitler's little adventure was not self-sustaining, and was utterly dependent on resources imported from the USSR. He knew Stalin had him over a barrel, Stalin knew he had him over a barrel, and he went for total conquest in the hopes of actually getting the resources he needed to function, but it wasn't realistic. Beyond that, Sealion was a pipe dream, and the German economy was dependent on plunder to function, plunder which was rapidly becoming thin on the ground. They couldn't have broken the UK, as any invasion by land would necessitate both naval and airborne supremacy over the Channel to be something other than a turkey shoot, and that wasn't happening. The UK would certainly outlast them, even without direct American involvement. Similarly, Japan needed war with the western allies if it was to keep itself running, because of the American et al oil embargo and the cost of their ongoing adventures in China. There wasn't an alternative, and it was a pretty distant hope to begin with, much like the German campaign against the Soviets. Militarism in the face of industrial supremacy tried, and failed. Both times.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 2, 2016 4:04:22 GMT
Yes indeed, militarism tried and failed... that is pretty much paraphrasing me.
I never said the Nazis could take Britain, or Japan had any chance vs the US. I said if hitler and the Japanese army/navy were not insane and stopped trying to invade, instead focusing on consolation of their claims in 5-10 years time they would have stabilised the conquered regions of China, Europe and the Middle East without any real opposition.
The US never wanted to get involved in a brawl cross the oceans and had no interest in waging war in Europe half the globe away. Stalin was a moron and would never invade Germany without provocation, the rest of the world consisted of England, the colonies, and a few remaining countries in the Middle East and Europe that while hostile to Germany but simply didn't have the manpower or weapons to challenge them and win ground.
Hitler's mistake was over reaching, not any real issue with what he already conquered.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 2, 2016 5:04:14 GMT
Yes indeed, militarism tried and failed... that is pretty much paraphrasing me. I never said the Nazis could take Britain, or Japan had any chance vs the US. I said if hitler and the Japanese army/navy were not insane and stopped trying to invade, instead focusing on consolation of their claims in 5-10 years time they would have stabilised the conquered regions of China, Europe and the Middle East without any real opposition. The US never wanted to get involved in a brawl cross the oceans and had no interest in waging war in Europe half the globe away. Stalin was a moron and would never invade Germany without provocation, the rest of the world consisted of England, the colonies, and a few remaining countries in the Middle East and Europe that while hostile to Germany but simply didn't have the manpower or weapons to challenge them and win ground. Hitler's mistake was over reaching, not any real issue with what he already conquered. Let me rephrase. Economically, keeping what they had going was just not feasible. It was well on its way to collapsing under its own weight, in both cases, because of lack of critical resources their territories simply did not contain, let alone at a scale sufficient to maintain the occupation of their holdings over stiff local resistance. US didn't need to actually send manpower to Europe, though I suspect they would have anyway - simply backstopping Britain, the Commonwealth and the various governments in exile with industrial supplies and equipment, as they were already doing to an unprecedented degree, would have been enough to hold on until the whole edifice came crashing down. Case in point - US total casualties were about a quarter million. The UK and Commonwealth wouldn't have been destroyed by that much extra load. And I find your idea that Stalin would have been happy in perpetuity with his half of Eastern Europe a touch comical. Which is not to say that the German attack was some sort of self defense, as some apologists do - rather, it was a desperate effort to keep their campaign of aggression moving against the inevitability of its collapse.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 2, 2016 9:55:16 GMT
You do realise Stalin was actively against war with anyone? His policy was isolationist industrial modernisation for Russia, most of that "expand the USSR" sentiment was post war effects rolling on the success of WW2.
And really all those "governments in exile" and "resistance movements" mostly amounted to nothing but massive amounts of infighting... there is a reason the British explicitly did not involve any French leaders in organising the French resistance, and the various French resistance groups themselves probably inflicted just about as much damage to each other as they did to any occupying forces due to infighting and rampant criminal activity they engaged in.
cource it's more complicated then that, it would depend on how fast Germany could get peace with England, and a bunch of other factors that matter like if he could take the Suez Canal asap, exactly how long it would take to fully consolidate holdings, political climate, and when the ussr would start making noise (that would still give hitler until 1944-48 to get his shit in order)
also instead if Hiroshima/Nagasaki we would probably have a few European cities getting nuked eventually, not by US but Germany or Russia... so there is a good chance we would have a nice bit more neuclear wasteland out there then we did in original.
|
|
erik
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by erik on Dec 2, 2016 10:54:55 GMT
amimai, I'm not sure where to start, your views on ww2 seem to be either very revisionist or uninformed. I think its better to move the discussion elsewhere - do we need an area for non-CoaDE topics?
On long-term weightlessness: I believe that the related health issues must be solved somehow or the crew provided articifial gravity if the deployment or mission is going to last longer than 6 months. Additional problem is, that the when the crew is "at port" or base, they also are likely to be under zero g. Some ships can probably be spun for artificial gravity, but thats going to demand more from the structures and reinforcing ships is going to add mass.
Are there other means being developed? Medication, diets, nanotechnology even? Will the space sailors of the far future perhaps be genetically modified to resist both physical effects of extended microgravity and the demanding psychological challenges of spending years in a steel can?
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 2, 2016 11:44:42 GMT
I really don't care much for the ww2 topic, I'm not sure how we even got onto it... but discussing history 70 years gone is interesting, different people with different info on the subject makes it fun. Who is right or wrong wholy depends on where and when you learned your history from.
Mmm... genetically engineered space squid do seem like they would be awsome starship crew! (Hey it worked for the Daleks!)
But really that is one of the many reasons robots make ideal spaceship crew, much more convenient then meat bags!
|
|