#history
1 messages · Page 125 of 1
wait
I knew you'd have me
Guidoni's catamaran carrier. 3,500 tons, 3 meter draft. 80,000 shp for 33 knots.
the clemson hord
who decided that
Nah just have uh
an entire DD division line up while a flat deck is laid on top of them
Bearn had torpedo tubes on at one point, yes
didnt a bunch of the conversions
torpedo tubes are on so many ships historically that they shouldn't be
plen = unproven concept
you get used to it
I don't recall Lexington and Akagi having it, unless I'm mistaken
No i get that BBs and BCs early on had torps
hmmm
But was Bearn the only carrier to carry torps?
I am now imagining langley with torps struggling to get in range
just wiggling back and forth quickly like a crab swimming
Because I know Lexi's had those 8in cruiser guns and so did Akagi with those forward guns on the 2nd (or 3rd) deck
But torps is just wut
WAIT
THEY WEREN'T UNDERWATER?!?!?!
I thought they'd be underwater or like casemated or smth
Ah
It's common practice on many cruisers of the time.
I thought they were swiveled launchers on the flight deck
Trento had it, Myoko had it until their big reconstruction
Which Myoko version in your opinion was better?
the 155mm one or the 203mm gun version?
....Myoko with quad 203s is a based design though, shame it didn't went through

Yeah from 155 vs 203 Mogami
The guns aren't really the problem, I feel
it's the ship being lightly built and welded that's the main issue
and in general, I don't like the RN/IJN practice of having zilch armour on the guns
literally 25mm plating
actually why was that their doctrine
what was the reasoning making the guns paper thin in armoring
I thought the entire concept was fast battleships
Actually
I’m forgetting that Britain entered WW2 with like a hodgepodge mesh of different battleship types
hits to gun mounts regardless of armor tend to knock them out for the fight
Yeah
So why put armour
the difference being the massive disparity between a jammed mount and a catastrophic loss of mount... and ship
because uh
trying to find Choukai's diagram
the IJN cruisers had 25mm barbettes as well
"oops, we had an ammo train fire in the turret stalk due to a DD SAP shell"
vs
bonk
how much did the IJN hate turret crews lol
not enough to deny them a sunshade
it's like they want the turret to die
very much it seems
on the fubuki-class they didnt even give them assistive loading mechanisms and it was incredibly cramped
to stop the main plate from turning into an griddle
"this is fine"
meanwhile other mounts have actual thermal mass
The shell ripped the 25-mm armor,
penetrated the turret, and exited through the rear without
exploding, as seen in drawing 7 .1. The shell damaged the
aiming sight of the gun and destroyed compressed-air pipes,
electric wires, and an electric motor. Moreover, the blast of
the ship's own 20-cm guns caused superficial damage to the
superstructure, and the blast of No.4 turret damaged the exhaust ventilation fan of the starboard fonvard engine room.
@eternal veldt Friend sent me this and how real is this actually. Did the Japanese really plan to put torps on an amphibious landing craft?
that doesnt really look legit tbh
Not too familiar with landing craft, sorry.
what would you need torpedoes on amphibious landing craft?
Aight. because I'm trying to read up on this and I can barely find any info
to sink the IJN, their mortal enemy, duh
Their plan was apparently to sneak near the naval atolls in the pacific to sink US BBs
By the time development had been completed, it was proposed that the Ka-Tsu be used to attack US battleships anchored in atolls (such as Ulithi), which could not readily be attacked using conventional means. It was proposed that a Ka-Tsu armed with a pair of torpedoes be dropped off by submarine away from the atoll, propel itself to the outer reef using its tracks, and then enter the lagoon on the inside of the reef.
Was just wondering if there were any more sources on this
Also no it isn't IJA
it's IJN
Psst Silver
If I wanted a certain battleship to be very comfortable when sailing around
What engine and fuel would I use
I'm not the machinery expert here, you're better off asking Sirene or Riche
Sirene's obvious answer would be diesel, but still
I mean diesel is pretty based
I also just learned earlier that apparently one of the rejected designs for the Ford class was a stealth CVN
and looking at its design makes me wish for death
RAMMING SPEED
you see, when Nimitz loves Independence very much...
it looks like it was conceieved by a Nimitz and an Independence while the Sea Shadow watched
the missile knows where it is
it is in the ocean
it is a ship now
the missile knew where it was, but not what it would become
oh god I didn't notice
remember kids, you can be anything you set your mind to
are those vls cells on the nose
Kuznetsov: I was right after all
An arsenal ship is a concept for a floating missile platform intended to have as many as five hundred vertical launch bays for mid-sized missiles, most likely cruise missiles. In current U.S. naval thinking, such a ship would initially be controlled remotely by an Aegis Cruiser, although plans include control by AEW&C aircraft such as the E-2 Ha...
canada
Definitely Canadians
?
canadian war crimes
I see
Legally not a war crime if there is no trial but holy fuck
That some fucked up shit
Holy shit what y’all do without me


killing overhyped battleships for one
“Borrow” ship from the French 
British carrier aviation was pretty good to my knowledge
esp given how, funding wise, it was basically playing second fiddle to land-based aviation for a good while
@delicate beacon
Common ancestry?
Vls ford
Cute
That depends on what you are talking about
The British had a lot of experience with the mechanics of carrier aviation, their newer carriers were good enough, and the armored carrier doctrine does make sense given what Britain was trying to do. Furthermore Britain had far and away the best fighter direction and coordination
That being said, the carrier planes themselves kinda sucked
Now I wouldn´t say that, the Harrier is widely regarded as one of the best 3rd gens. And its service record shows that.
I presumed we were talking WW2 era
Iam deeply sorry for my lack of context
That being said I would contest claims that Harrier is one of the best 3rd gen jets
Harrier is a very niche aircraft
It was definitely the best VTOL fighter of its time
But that's not exactly hard
Yes it has to be used correctly.
If you are talking in the WWII era, then you have to give the RN points for night combat.
They were generally more practiced at it than most other navies going into WWII and I suspect would have given the IJN some rather significant kickings had they more opportunities to actually engage them in surface actions.
Yeah
I feel like there are times the british come out on top through a suprising amount of luck like with the sinking of the Bismarck and then there are times where they just dominate through sheer skill like with the battles in the meditteranean
I mean, there's an element of luck or chance to everything in naval warfare.
They were just quite good at shaping scenarios so that the odds were in their favor before they actually fought.
Eh, I'm not sure I would attribute them sinking Bismarck to good luck, like there were ways things could have gone worse for the RN, but there were definitely ways they could have gone better too
I wouldn´t either, but I don´t think it´d be the sinking of the Bismarck then but instead the almost sinking of the Bismarck. If it wasn´t for the swordfish attack or the interception of that one personal message from land it is likely she wouldn´t have been taken out.
If you meant the message Lutjens sent out, he was under the belief that the RN was still shadowing him
as it turns out, people make mistakes based on the fog of war
That plane was one of the reason Falklands performance was mediocre (losing 6 ships)
Because harrier caused you to build ships without catapult
If British had F-4 and Awacs instead Harriers during Falklands
It would have been much better
It´s a sidegrade by design. It´s less expensive to maintain and build the ship which severely helped with the economy.
And the war was just a humiliation to the Argentines, they lost more men than the outnumbered british and had to yield the seas to a nation which was a literal ocean away.
It’s doesn’t look like that at the beginning of the war. It was actually very bad for the Brit with them have to pull force from all over to form the task force and they take heavy losses when Argentina air force doing bombing run on their anchored transports and warships
Calling it an absolute Brit win is a stretch
I would note that Harrier isn't what caused them to build VTOL carriers, money is
Oh I didn´t, if anything this helps the point that Argentina was humiliated. The British had several things go wrong, the whole war was pretty poorly planned from a modern standpoint but the British did quite well with what they had.
Harrier enabled them
Well, the Argentine Navy was really in no position to oppose the RN. RN naval blockade was never breached and well, Phoenix lost really take a toll on Argy Navy.
But yeah, Brit war plan was a bit of a mess. I always loathe Journo but actually broadcast your attack plan to the enemy? Yeah, BBC can go suck it.
Argy actually fuck themself by invading, territorial dispute is one thing, invasion is another thing entirely.
Dictators going to do dictator things I reckon, can only put them in their place from there
Any anti colonial claim they have was throw outside of the window when they declare war.
The Regime was really unpopular, the Junta only rule by fear and they barely hold on to power at the time.
Yes isn´t that why they invaded? To increase opinion? Dictator logic of "look we took territory that´s good right?"
Yeah, kinda
It was the time when Brit was retreating from all of their colonies so they think they can do some “anti colonial” sentiment. Problem is, those islands inhabitants are all British descent and Argy was really never actually own the Island. It was the Spanish then the Brit.
But Argy can’t really renounce their claim. It will be political suicide to do that so you still see they complain about it till this day.
Yeah, and even then the claim doesn´t really make sense as you delve into it
That's the thing tho
You are forced to build a normal carrier if you have no vtol
I wouldn't call the Kuznetsov normal
Then again I don't know if it counts as a carrier anymore either
It has slope like QE, it's elevators are large enough
It has arresting gear
Only difference is it has Granit anti ship missile launchers
Which makes her a cruiser by name as well
Doesn't qe exclusively use stovl planes
F-35B yes. But in theory she could handle planes that can use ramp
But British stopped building naval planes since
Sea Harrier
Return to flying boats when
F-18 had ramp tests for India for example
Pros of ramps
Literally no maintenance
Extremely reliable
Easy to design and build
Fast plane launches
Cheap
Cons
Planes can't carry full load weapons and waste more fuel
Can't launch AWACS
There was a proposal to launch an F/A-18 off of QE
As a demonstration
Didn't happen as no one involved really wanted to foot the bill, however
But it would have been an interesting proof of concept for a STOBAR arrangement
Tbh, General Belgrano's loss is kind of overstated in terms of its impacts on the Argentine Navy
Their planned pincer attack had already failed, as a lack of wind prevented their A-4's from taking off of V. de Mayo, so they were already pulling away from the combat zone.
They obviously knew the RN had SSNs in the area, and V. de Mayo's group - which was equipped with the more modern ships of the Argentine Navy at the time and actually knew what they were doing when it came to ASW - ended up playing a cat and mouse game with one of the British subs for much of the rest of the time they were at sea.
Belgrano's group, on the other hand, was composed of older ships, and they were handled poorly - they did not even take the bare minimum of precautions against submarine attacks, and paid a steep price for it.
Well, or you could just build not carrier at all
and looking at the British govt and their procurement, I can totally see them going that route
@shrewd pecan Gun but Dino
It´s more of a political requirement. Carriers over a certain tonnage can´t go through the Bosphorus. The thing with the Kuznetsovs needing the ramp/ski-jump/cope slope whatever you wanna call it is the fact the soviets didn´t really know how to incorporate catapults at that point, the Ulyanovsk was expected to incorporate that but we all know how our favorite ship concept ended up.
Which torp mount does laffey (dd-724) use?
The quad mark 35 or the quintiple mark 17?
Quint
I wouldn’t say no maintenance
Ok thanks this should make my laffey 100% historicaly accurate (except for the auxiliary slot)
Yes Kuznetsov class was a stopgap until Ulyanovsk were built
Soviets valued the potential of AWACS so Ulyanovsk was going to get it as Yak-44 with side catapult
And yes
She was also a cruiser
Thus granits vls on bow
every soviet carrier was a cruiser that just happened to carry fix wing aircraft
I still love that story about the Kiev where they apparently sent her into the atlantic with 6 aircraft and they just scrambled them so often it looked like she had 60
Fake or not it´s funny
Is the kuznetsove the one got on fire at dockyard and eventually get scrapped or am I remembering the wrong one?
I think you´re messing it up with the LHD Bonhomme Richard
caught on fire with nothing onboard to save her, got scrapped.
Though the Kuznetsovs track record with breakdowns isn´t that great either...
After a not-so-stellar service record might I say
If my attitude towards it wasn´t obvious yet, I concur.
Laffey in game is not DD-724
Rather the Benson class USS Laffey DD-549
Thats Uss Bonhomme Richard as Mig said
She burned for days so nothing much was left
But hey
Missile
As I said
She was a stopgap
Nuclear Ulyanovsk was the real plan
But it wasn't. Meaning a ship already definitely not set up for success was now an astronomical unit from it.
Yes carriers are expensive
The "overspending on your military pretty much non-stop right after a devastating war" didn´t help much I reckon
Not non stop, size were significant reduced for all vehicles
Soviet navy peaked at 1985 (1561 ships in total and the second largest in the world after the US Navy), the fleet of the Russian Federation gradually weakened in the 1990s and 2000s and decreased in number to 136 ships in total in 2010 year
X10 size reduction
This is a fault of all the large capacity shipyards being in Ukraine
Part of the reason on why the Kuznetsov is widely considered decrepit is the lack of a shipyard large enough to service her, until recently as you let me know.
Uhh not all
For black sea yes
Oh yes sorry, all the shipyards that do not freeze over
Yes her drydock used to be Nikolayev
She lost access to that
Only option was using a floating dock
Which caused to be most problematic on her when it sank from her weight
I believe it was actually one of the pumps failing and the dry dock flooding
Wait shit that´s technically the same thing
You know
If I was Russia at that point I would rather leave Ukraine with all that weapons
Or sell it all
What
Then Ukraine would sell all it to China later or sell it back to Russia to pay debts
Specifically the carrier
Russian pride wouldn´t allow that, as a slav I have intimate understanding of this. None of us will let a grudge go unless circumstances call for it. We hold on to lost glory under the false pretense we´ll rise back to it one day.
And you don´t just see it with the Russians, you see it with the Poles, the Ukrainians and especially with all the ex-yugoslav states
Balkans yeah
Yeah I was referring to their doctrine
history channel
It's not
General Electric estimated its XA100 engine would increase the F-35’s range on internal fuel by 30 to 35 percent and thrust by 10 to 20 percent over F135
oh I’m posting that since I find it funny
That there’s ads for that in the DC metro
From what I managed to get from the wiki on the damn thing, it´s designed as an upgrade for the F-35 with capability to be used in US sixth gen programs
Btw engine upgrades are the norm in US planes
Planes*
But that´s what I wrote?
Bro
US planes on top
Are you implying
The Air force with most money in the world makes the most engine upgrades?
Impressive
no im just saying that US jet aircraft are generally better than most others
they also happen to be the same airforce which got scared of a thing with big engines, then engineered something for no reason
so i mean do with that what you will
Mochi
you summonedme
I don't know why you have to mention US jets are superior with the concept of engine upgrades being possible with non US planes
idk man i got nothing else to do today
That's more than 4 decades worth of wooden planking
Not exclusive, correct, but name a US plane and it probably had an engine upgrade. And I do not count technical upgrades where it´s the same engine just uprated or something like with the Russians. I mean whole new engines/engine upsizes.
Mig are you baiting
Do you know "upgrading" engine is usually uprating it as well. Changing the engine is not a new concept special to US either
How is saying that the US usually changes out the engine baiting?
An upgrade is defined by Oxford dictionary as "raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components."
You act like it's a special concept for US only
adding or replacing
Do I?
The concept is not. But upgrading every planes engine like this is exclusive to the US, I think
Feel free to correct me.

I do not see your problem with the statement, do you have evidence to the contrary?
Why does this remind me of the Combine train from Half-Life 2?
Given how many migs models are still in service I wouldn't call it an exclusively American thing (upgrading/retrofitting engines), but I also don't think the US has upgraded the engine in every plane they've used and in general all or nothing statements like that just cause issues 
True enough but point is that the Americans really do ridiculously overspend
The foxbat didn’t single-handedly cause the F-15 to exist
Yes it spurred a lot of its design decisions but the Air Force already knew it was going to need to design a new fighter
it changed the requirements of the new design
The USAF was already planning on a new aircraft to start phasing out the F-4, the Foxbat simply made them change some of the requirements and provided a big publicity and funding boost.
There was also the Air Force picking the A-7 which meant they absolutely needed something for their air-superiority role
This is a good statement
They needed something better than the F-4 phantom, which had a pretty damn horrible kill ratio and time to turn
time to turn wasn't what hurt the phantom
the phantom was designed to intercept soviet bombers from a distance with missiles
not contest a crowded airspace
And the star fighter wasn’t much better
The star fighter generally didn’t have a good reputation for safety
and that was down to pilot training more than anything
True
What was wrong with the German usage of it anyways?
They used it wrong
if I remember correctly
it was the pilots not being used to its low speed performance
And also they tried to fly it a certain way iirc but I may be wrong
All I know is the F-15 and the F-18 come about because Robert McNamara was a dumb shit and tried to make aircraft that BOTH services could use
Which ultimately hurt the US military as a whole
Obviously that’s a grossly oversimplified version of the story but you get what I mean
"One contributing factor to this was the operational assignment of the F-104 in West German service: it was mainly used as a low-level fighter-bomber, as opposed to the original design of a high-speed, high-altitude fighter/interceptor. Furthermore, the installation of additional avionic equipment in the F-104G version, such as the inertial navigation system, added distraction for the pilot, as well as extra weight that further hampered the flying capabilities of the plane. In contemporary West German magazine articles highlighting the Starfighter safety problems, the aircraft was portrayed as "overburdened" with technology, which was considered a latent overstrain on the aircrews.[163]"
Why on gods green earth would you use a STARFIGHTER as a low level bomber
those didn't exist yet
They were in development
Weren’t they also the direct replacement for the Luftwaffe?
Like they replaced the star fighters
Okay yes they replaced them with phantoms
Then after the phantoms came the tornado
For some reason I’m thinking there was one European nation still using star fighters
Was it Italy?
For some reason I think Italy
the F-104s stayed in West German service till 87
Okay that explains it
Pain
not exactly sure why they lasted so long in Italian service since they had the ADV versions of the Tornado
but eh it was still a capable interceptor I suppose
Phantoms performed fine in dogfights in Vietnam
The issue was poor C&C
That’s what I meant
Missile fights were great
Anything closer than missile range and the phantom sucked ass
North Vietnam had way better fighter vectoring
that is a myth
For most of the war
No guns in the first few versions
the issue was a lack of reliable missiles
Which I still don’t know why they did that
No even in turning dogfights Phantom performed quite well
I crave the forbidden heat signature
USN Phantoms, which notably didn't have guns, had an exceptional kill ration throughout the whole war
That's true, but it also got resolved fairly early on
primarily because they equipped AIM-9s whereas the USAF was using a far less capable and far less reliable missile
Idk I really just think the phantom was the ugly duckling
Mainly because the navy got way better C&C than the USAF did
And the Tomcat/F-15 was the golden children
Even after the USAF got Sidewinder
I’m more of a gulf war guy myself
It's notable that kill ratios totally flipped on their heads when Teaball went up
Navy Fighter Weapons School helped as well
USAF Phantoms started going like 15 to 1 after Teaball
Was it the Mig-21 or the 17 that the phantom went up against
i dont get why people mock the F-4s A2A performance which was pretty respectable throughout the whole conflict, when the USAFs CAS and bombing campaigns in Vietnam were so utterly atrocious
it was effective at teaching navy pilots how to make better use of their missiles in the kind of engagements they were getting into
People remembered Sabre going like 10 to 1, and were wondering why Phantoms was only doing 2 or 3 to 1
because ig the idea was the US was invincible?
idk
The myth of PAVN aircraft superiority needs to die. The Fishbed was not some kind of particularly better platform, it was just intelligently deployed by the North Vietnamese as they adapted and launched attacks against bomb-loaded F-105s and other strike aircraft.
That and North Vietnam had a formidable network of ground-based radars and communications that knew when to send their fighters up against viable targets.
You have multiple cases during the war of F-4s showing up and fucking bitchslapping PAVN fighter units.
7 years
11 planes
over 870 strikes
all to take out a bridge for all of barely a year
I guess the US's main problem wasn't the equipment but mainly strategy
The impact of Top Gun is probably overblown, Red Baron found that after Falcon was ditched, basically every time Phantoms saw the enemy first they killed them
And we only took it out cuz TI came in clutch
US airpower has a very respectable air combat record over Vietnam
A2G on the other hand...
And civilian record
cough
vietnam was also just
30,000–65,000.\
not the type of war the US had anticipated having to fight
a war the us did not need to be in
Unironically the british and Japanese had a better time of dealing with Ho Chi Minh just after WW2 ended
then the french came
I mean we armed Ho Chi Minh during ww2
He originally looked to the US to guarantee Vietnamese independence
Australian forces had performed exceptionally well in Vietnam thanks to having extensive counter insurgency experience in Borneo and Malaya, with many of the most senior officers having experience fighitng Japanese guerilla tactics in New Guinea towards the end of WW2, but were not deployed in the numbers necessary to make a major difference, combined with the US military throwing its diplomatic weight around, forcing Australian forces to effectively follow American practice
i was literally about to say this
the aussies were fucking amazing at jungle warfare
We could have told De Gaulle to fuck himself and forced France to give up their colonies
The US threw its lot in with the French instead of backing Vietnamese independence
everyone's gangster until the south koreans showed up
But we did not
fun fact, my grandpa fought in malaya during the malaya crisis
And that was quite a bad decision in hindsight, although it was probably necessary considering the situation France was having post-WWII
he even had his medals displayed at the imperial war museum
the mutual distrust between American and Australian forces prevented both sides from presenting their individual superiorities in various areas
which i still never understood
at least not in detail
Australia was at the time still very close to the British and was very reluctant to completely shift its foreign, and defensive policies
and the Americans were unwilling to listen to a nation which they saw as a junior partner
i guess the whole imperialism thing was a major turn off for the US
and this
the US likes to assume they know best
Yet somehow we were fighting in Vietnam
it's something still being grappled with to today
both sides also had rather different objectives
my grandpa's unit in borneo
The one good thing is that the US and Vietnam have managed to reconcile today
fundamentally they both wanted to stop the southern expansion of communism but while the US saw it as protecting their South Vietnamese allies, and thus prevented them from engaging with a more aggressive set of rules of engagement, Australia more saw it was protecting themselves, the homeland itself was at risk if communism came further South
you also had the shift in US strategy from Westmoreland to Abrams
this created many irreconcilable disagreements in operational planning that basically resulted in Australia being relegated to its own section of South Vietnam (which it fought in very well), while the Americans were fighting their own individual actions elsewhere
...?
who on gods green earth thinks fishbeds are better than phantoms
the ribbing the USAF gets is the fact fishbeds were able to do as much damage as they did despite being outdated
which they really shouldn't have been able to do given the US's tech advantage
jesus i talk like english is my 2nd language
yeah the fact the air war wasn't a complete massacre is the brow raising part
they're essentially an aircraft generation up and still frequently getting rolled by airborne rice farmers in soviet hand me downs for the first chunk of the war
yurd
questionable doctrine and training in comparison being to blame obviously though the F-4D existing didn't really help
one of the biggest disadvantages the Americans had was their overly restrictive rules of engagement
F-4D rolls "worst ordinance package ever"
Asked to leave Vietnamese airspace
(the rules of engagement thing is cope)
You cracked a better one than I could
i mean
(they wouldn't even have a chance of hitting the chinese beyond identification range)
its big funny
and likewise
they would not be able to hit the vietnamese
if anything it saved them from wasting missiles
fuck you i don't give a shit about your embassy in serbia, china
Im an f-117 nighthawk i literally do not give a shit
like
at the range they arent allowed to fire
a sparrow is about as effective as an unguided rocket
well, vietnam era sparrow, they got better later
but you get my point
yurd
they would've been uselessly sprayed at nothing
thats fine tanks are dope
horse, serious question
"Bro bro, look i put my ammo rack AROUND the crew how dope is that shit"
I only found out last week that uh
Urban warfare package
i would say why but id get banned
same reason why it has chains on the back
yurd
didn't the mk1 have it tho
not anymore
shouldnt be said
an unspoken thing we all know
they know when you deleted something
i know
merks are just heavily anti infantry
was the idea that they'd cut down on manpower requirements by combining the tank and mortar team roles?
hence the million machine guns
more destruction, in short
I guess it makes some sense
the merkarva was originally designed with more urban combat in mind
though thats later versions
the earlier ones idk
gimme a sec to confirm I'm remembering right
weren't they often used hull-down in defensive positions
hence the hatch at the back
iirc i haven't seen merkarvas used in large quantities, like pitched battle for example
so that it'd be easier to keep them stocked up on shells
The hatch is for the ammo to be continued to be loaded if they're dug down, yes
or, if the situation demands it, medevac
I guess a mortar is kinda handy if you're already dug down
certainly not as an IFV as the IDF portrayed it, because it's fucking awful
yeah the israelis are a bit
strange when it comes to tank design
great in terms of tank usage, but
chains are to cover up a spot on the back of the turret
prevent it from being a shot trap iirc
Chains are used to detonate/disrupt HEAT rounds
useful against something like an RPG
That’s actually very distasteful to mock the dead that way
family guy actually
just say south park
I love racism and stereotypes ™️
As I understand it, aside from the obvious recoil reduction, it's shaped like that to aggressively redirect the gas to the sides out of the way of the sights and to avoid kicking dirt up in the way of the gunner too
slat armor is incredibly aesthetic
a bit odd that it's not continued then - maybe just fume extractors solving the issue entirely
iirc yeah they just streamlined it
I don’t really like slat that much, I understand it effectiveness but don’t like it
just a giant block
though some times the US just drops good ideas for a while
Embassy was a B-2
The M48 doesn't appeal to me visually, M60A1 and M103 are alright for me
like M4s having cool proto stabilizers, then the US becoming the latest adopter of all for full stabilizers
It's a B-2, F-117 was famous for being shot down by Serbia
it's very strange
Serbia was also famous
for losing that war
and you know
being one of Europe's last Fascist states
also genocide that was a major one
IIRC it's more that the Pershing's 90mm gun is too heavy for the stabilizer
you know there's something strangely aesthetic about the stryker
tato that was the like, tiniest slither of bait
They had it on the T25 prototype IIRC
c'mon
like the hull is so geometric, and then you've got all the equipment slapped on
if you let people get away with bait too much, people might believe it
they didn't get another one going until like, half way into the m60s lifetime though
it's bizarre
the comically large air conditioning unit
...they did shoot one down though
it keeps me cool, while engine keeps hot dog warm
one F-117 got damaged
Honestly, I blame Tito. Dude is GOAT but he really have a illusion that somehow Balkans won’t kill each other without a Iron Fist rule after he die.
other got shot down
Maybe a belief that it couldn't be sufficiently stabilized
just like the whole premise of the Strv 103
Wonder why 
they saw the really early ones kinda sucked then didn't bother
the
the laser shorad stryker
I mean they kind of did it to themselves
until basically all of NATO had them working
ECM where
they did have it coming
I love metal gear
Like how on earth do you suddenly expect to not lose to nato
What's the last war US fought alone
uhhh
Grenada
we had
Ah
this one's easy
god this beautiful thumbnail
a lot of Latin American states
the us civil war duh
with us in Grenada
look at it go
France: Oi
weeeee!
I can hear the extra maintenance time
that's the revolutionary war
didn't France kinda get involved in both
Only need that video of 4 dude inside
just not as much
many nations tried to soft influence the latter
Do the confederates getting boats from the UK count as "fighting alone"
The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party Revolts of the 1950s were a series of coordinated insurrections for the secession of Puerto Rico led by the president of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, Don Pedro Albizu Campos, against the United States government's rule over the islands of Puerto Rico. The party repudiated the "Free Associated State" (Est...
Emperor Napoleon III realized that a war with the United States without allies "would spell disaster" for France.[1] However, the textile industry used cotton, and Napoleon had sent an army to control Mexico, which could be greatly aided by the Confederacy. At the same time, other French political leaders, such as Foreign Minister Édouard Thouvenel, supported the United States
albeit illegally
didn't the tsar iirc tell everyone to fuck off
Tsar send navy ye
those 3 australian dudes that snuck aboard a confederate ship:
which is incredibly dope
I guess there's also Panama
The United States invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, began in mid-December 1989 during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto ruler of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, who was wanted by U.S. authorities for racketeering and drug trafficking. The operation concluded in l...
yeah I was about to say
Brit selling tons of guns to the CSA while Union agent being dumbass and buy poorly manufactured Enfield
Just Cause was probably the last one the US fought alone
Bruh
Shit why discord
Oh nvm
The two Russian navy expeditions to North America during the U.S. Civil War, one to the West Coast and another to the East Coast, and the Kalevala expedition in 1861-1862 were the only concrete foreign military support received by President Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army during the course of the entire war,
since they don't make sense to do
Oh wow
broke: cold war
bespoke:
Optics doesn’t look good
it goes against the US's foreign policy aims
true bespoke is Zhukov and Eisenhower 
we were so close
until it turned out that the intel agencies fucked up
Wait
"I will give you coke"
I love how Zhukov was so sure of his position and prestige that he genuinely don’t give a fuck.
Didn't the last one just ended last year?
iraq wasn't solo
Afghanistan was a multi national operation
Nah, new war coming soon
same with Iraq
nor was afghanistan
yeah because he's fucking zhukov
he could pretty much slap stalins head off his shoulders with his dick after the war with germany ended
Even the supposed comedic depiction of him is a dump down version of how chad he was
Canada, UK, Australia and local forces all partook in the 2001 invasion
Play the music
and plenty of other countries joined in for anti insurgency operations
“I fucked Germany…” such a good line
why are there no pictures of ACVs next to strykers
Why it isn't called Striker
The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF–I), often referred to as the Coalition forces, was a military command during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and much of the ensuing Iraq War, led by the United States of America (Operation Iraqi Freedom), United Kingdom (Operation Telic), Australia, Italy (Operation Ancient Babylon), Spain and Poland, responsible ...
The Swag of that man
Stryker is a name
why does russia name everything after the most random shit?
Me looking at new startup companies that have "Y" instead of "I"
they have a 240mm siege mortar
Uss Enterprise is not random
they named it tulip
All theirs ship are “Admiral…” something
because who gives a fuck

actually enterprise is cool
Come now, name a instrument of death after Flower is a Russian tradition
The more deadly the weapon is the more sweet sounding it name is
all the early carriers after langley were given revolutionary war names
You didn't realise artillery is called flowers. 203mm is Pion (Peony)
what the fuck does manul mean again
oh no i do
its just weird
Like "Grandma" or whatever "Katyusha" is
somewhere out there
Pion
, only need better mobility, hydraulic system and gun ramming, and it will be the best SPG again.
there is a civilian owned Pion
Tunguska is better than Pantsir as name ngl
Note here that I don't remember what weapon is called "Grandma" in Russia
imagine naming your AA pants bruh
Shame about the warcrimes cos Australian troops looked dope in Afghanistan
It means Carapece
LRRP jeep?
say what you will about the GWOT
well yeah its fucking tunguska
they kinda like
the drip was immaculate
capped out on AA naming there
except ucp fuck that shit
“Tor”, “Kub”
LRPV
i swear UCP is like
Wish Tor was Thor
actual trolling
Based on the Land Rover
I mean it's a textbook tale of an ambituous program failing
Jeep is only good in a base
the plan was to develop a 'bank' of digitally-generated camo patterns for different environments
Jeep are fine in open terrain, kinda nightmare in mountain terrain
except funding got cut
Mine? Dead
Bullet? Dead
Mud? Dead
so they decided to make one for all
The Land Rover Perentie is a nickname for the Land Rover 110 produced by JRA Limited for the Australian Army, and part manufactured and assembled in Moorebank, New South Wales, during the 1980s and 1990s. There were two build contracts; the first was in 1988 and the second a decade later. The Perentie was based on the Land Rover Defender 110, an...
...which didn't work in any environment
my favorite weird russian colloquialism is that thermobarics count as incendiaries
i.e
Chadian would like a word
TOS is literally "heavy flamethrower system"
Tos is called flamethrower ye
here's your flamethrower toot toot
I still not sure is the Tunguska is named after the location or the event
I'll take a Hilux or a Navara any day
i think its a case of "both"
Hilux, those thing won’t die
Navs are better
also im just sending this one because it looks cool
They just break easier
I prefer Tos-2, it gets the needed mobility
remember to not stand behind your local MRLS
How long is the the reload on this one
- faster reload
god i dont even want to know what the hell reloading these is like
Better FCS?
look now its a cute house
...
wait whats up with the tiny prop plane toy
They have special reloading vehicles with cranes and crap
ye ofc
Ngl, it look better than most cage field modifications
It is equipped with a more powerful TBS-M3 rocket and its own crane. It has also an increased range
You don't need precision for Tos lmao
its just a cute house now
Man, TOS-1 range is bad
Unironically seaplanes offer a critical capability that militaries cannot afford to ignore
Her spread is the point
Looks better, but frankly it's significantly less useful
correct
Wot
It changes nothing
holy shit this is from my dad's op
Hell it's better against drone drops
thats rad
Then we launched satellite with cameras
the SEALs and the Grom in 2003
Since I doubt TOS has the roof protection to survive the remnants of a heat warhead the way a tank does
Yeah, but when a TOS is down the range, I will get the hell out
Since I can be asked repeating myself, here's what I said in another server
It's for drone drops lad not ATGM why people always think ATGMS 
I'd like to see a satellite perform ASW or Search and Rescue
No IK, most drone grenades are heat though
Oh that
Japan has seaplanes still? 
make jet seaplanes real again
no no but Hit, A2/AD makes them untenable
which means....
we need stealth seaplanes
I thought you talking about recon role only
The ShinMaywa US-2 is a large Japanese short takeoff and landing amphibious aircraft that employs boundary layer control technology for enhanced STOL and stall suppression performance. Manufactured by seaplane specialist ShinMaywa (formerly Shin Meiwa), it was developed from the earlier Shin Meiwa US-1A seaplane, which was introduced during the...
seaplanes are good because they do tons of stuff
The cope cage on a normal tank probably will stop drone grenades, on TOS though it's likely even grenades that are damaged could still kill the system
It really doesnt
oh thats fucking rad
common JSDF W
that's mostly a joke
The Beriev Be-10, also known as Izdelye M, (NATO reporting name: Mallow) was a twin engined, turbojet powered, flying-boat, patrol bomber built by the Soviet Union from 1955. The Be-10 is sometimes referred to as the M-10, though this designation is believed to apply only to the modified Be-10 that established 12 FAI world records in 1961, Bort ...
Since they allow dispersion on a level that conventional ASW assets cannot achieve
worth a shot tbh
Seaplanes are..interesting
it's a dirt cheap modification
Bring back the Erkoplan
might as well give it a whack on the off chance it works
Yeah
Hailed as the aircraft of tomorrow back then when there arent that many airfields
The P-8 is exceptional but needs perfect airfields, and perfect airfields will be hard to find
I need to ask my dad if he's got any pictures from his deployments
The guys in The Drydock think US-2 isn't very useful
he's told me he's got one when his group went through the Minsk mid-scrapping
There's been talk of RAAF buying US-2s but given Japan's export policies it may be difficult
posing in front of the island and everything
I don't really know enough about it to comment
Isnt there that one
US-2 specifically may not be exceptional but the capability of flying boats as ASW assets is unrivalled
Given that just about every airfield in the Indo Pacific will be wiped out in hours of any SCS conflict, P-8s will have a very hard time operating from usable airfields
speaking of, Hit, I saw Australia just put out this year's Defense Strategic Review
Soyuz Jumpscare
was giving it a read at work earlier
And satellite recon and bombardments will create a very difficult position for P-8 operations
Came out months ago
ah
Navy review is the next big thing
our australia guy was reading through it so I assumed it was new
Hopefully sooner rather than later since Hunter class is looking increasingly like a failure
It's pretty good, outlines a lot of stuff I've been saying for some time
Government accepted or accepted in principle most recommendations
And there is a model for it on tabletop
Holy fuck shit
I'm very excited for LCM and LCH
Epic
Prototype for LCM is down at Henderson rn
Shipyards are ramping up
Navy needs its review soon though
And there is even a bigger one
Ah the carrier
I don't mind rts game with this since I know damn well that I can't play table top
Can't wait for her in war thunder
But yeah defs read the DSR it's very interesting and informative @strong plank
I’m currently waiting on Challenger 3 and/or KP51 Panther tank
Warthunder ships don't have guided missile I think
My love of tanks shows through
Germany should stop naming their tanks after cats
Also I think it’s really funny that the Germans made another panther
im mostly waiting for WT to start doing stupid prototype shit when they run out of new tanks
Katze when
Mouse
Goliath
Atp just remake the WW2 tanks
Yes that gone so well
Challenger 3 is backed by a govt, it is coming. Panther is just a tech demo
Will do
Unfortunately
I mean it’s by Rheinmetal iirc so it Def has some credibility
But most likely not all
isnt rheinmetall trying to peddle panthers off on everyone under the sun
its just nobody wants to buy it
They do
I guess naming tank mouse and Goliath is German humor
Yes
Yeah, because they were being sidelined by KNDS in MGCS
But they managed to strongarm the German govt in putting them in MGCS, which has caused that program to stall
Classic European procurement moment
there's a reason there's two Ls in Rheinmetall
Which is fucking ugly
btw @shrewd pecan apparently the Army Science Board is putting out another study on a future M1-follow-on tank
will let you know when it drops
It has fucking no turret armour
Again huh
👁️ AMERICAN K2 EQUIVALENT
Though tbf not that it needs it if the Personal defence works well
How many Abrams replacement projects will be created and die
the french is the redeeming part
That's EMBT, a tech demonstrator from KNDS, which is probably tangentially related to what MGCS will end up being, but is not MGCS
(it does)
Like I don't get what US wants from next tank
APS will absolutely never replace bog standard armor
Is that supposed to take a hit in the turret?
the last one was in 2019
Nothing is supposed to take a hit to the turret
no this is the ASB
It's just a study, not an actual replacement program
they're basically a thinktank for the army
Ah
it's a study of what requirements an M1 replacement would need
The US Army doesn't either, it's why they keep doing these studies
The KV-2 when no one have a good enough gun:
never do fucking anything like this
I may or may not be directly related to a board member
Too late, ACE will be on everything hehehe
the neo abrams tech demo pivoting from an ancient turbine to some chieftain level garbage is
baffling
mmm mmyaes lets make an american 5TDF
The thought process is to increase concealment
the style of engine that made every soviet mechanic want to dome themselves every time they woke up in the morning
Yeah idk why they thought that was a good idea
Memes
thought Abrams X just had a diesel engine
But also power density
Though my favourite tank will still always be the Challenger
It's got an opposed piston diesel
Diesel that can power a battery
ah
So we wouldn't seeing the new Abrams for the next 10 years or not at all?
which the tank can run off of
yeah it's basically an american 5TDF
It's also hybrid electric
and the 5TDF is fucking horrendous
They’ll probably work on it, as the US does
The US has a habit of being ahead
Because of some unfounded concern about something
Such as Cough cough hypersonic missiles
In 1959, the Leyland L60 19 L (1,159 cu in) six-cylinder diesel engine was introduced. The L60 was produced in the United Kingdom for use in the Chieftain tank. The Soviet T-64 tank, produced from 1963-1987, also used an opposed-piston diesel engine 5TDF
No we wont
The US is still in the wooly ideas phase
abrams still has a lot of life left in her
Unfounded?
The idea behind diesel-electric is that you can stay concealed and run off the battery
I would concern if it actually hypersonic and can maneuver mid fly at that speed
you haven't really been following US tank development for very long then because they kind of wobbled around for the whole 1944-mid 1980ish stretch
Since any tank that can be spotted can be killed
the diesel-electric idea is fine
the specific kind of diesel is like
the height of hubris
hybrid abrams
Mig 25
actually horse I’d unironically recommend giving the first report a read
the hybrid idea is one i like
The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) is a medium-range surface-to-surface hypersonic weapon for use by the United States Army in 2023. The United States Navy intends to procure a ship/submarine-launched variant of the missile as part of the service's Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) program. The weapon consists of a large...
just dont make it a chieftain hell diesel
It explains a lot of the choices that went into Abrams X
Which report?
When talking about concerns I talking about Russia equipments
unless they found some kind of special sauce opposed-piston diesels are like
warcrimes upon mechanics
^
ill give it a look in the morning
Zircon can change course irrc
im about to sleep
the main takeaway from the abrams x memery is
however
autocannons are based
put them on your tanks
There is a reason US wants hypersonic defense. Since China also has DF smh I forget the number
all this talk about hypersonics has made one thing clear





