|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 7, 2016 10:27:59 GMT -6
ERA regarding armored vehicle defense stands for Explosive Reactive Armor. Not really a practical idea for coating the side of something the size of a warship or considering the size difference between a HEAT round and an anti-ship missile. I meant a anti missile system that does to missiles what ERA has done to HEAT, ie made firing it at a vehicle fitted with significant amounts of it pointless. With the exception to RPGs which are troop carried, HEAT is not fired at MBTs anymore do too a serious effectiveness drop off caused by modern counter measures
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 7, 2016 8:19:12 GMT -6
I agree with the earlier post about counter measures, so if someone developed the ship equivalent of ERA (on tanks to negate HEAT) for missiles then we may see the return of the big ship with a relatively heavy gun armament. Note the relatively, in that # of guns and size will be reduced I feel due to radar guidance and shell tech. I however feel they will not be the same size as the modern capital ship (carriers) due to cost. Tho I find it extremely funny to note that modern cruisers and some "destroyers" are already bigger than a lot of battleships that were made.
Side note can anyone imagine what a modern AMC would look like with the size of both merchant ships and cruise liners nowadays?
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 6, 2016 16:24:00 GMT -6
Well you can always bring your fleet close and shell the harbor... Remember Mers el Kebir... Yes, but that kind of attack carried some risk. The British, as far as I know, never shelled Kiel, and the Germans never shelled Scapa flow. And for that matter, the British never shelled Toulon. The fear that generally prevented port shelling was batteries, and later aircraft. One only has to look at Gallipoli to see their fears carried out. Relatively light shore guns 8-10" and s lot of 105-77mm absolutely tore the **** out of the bombarding ships during the naval campaign with several almost sinking due to sheer cumulative damage on the upper works and hull ends
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 6, 2016 5:40:21 GMT -6
Okay? Typically if you are trying to argue a point you provide your own arguments instead of linking to some possible research materials and asking your audience to make the argument for you. If you had bothered to read my last post you would know that A: I summarised on short the pages, and B: stated that my normal access to the stuff I have is non existent. So I repost ". So they made less than I remember, but the ones produced were a success and where a valid contribution to the conversation, not just late war derpyness. Just as well as I have no clue where the book is at home other than it is in the house somewhere ."
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 5, 2016 19:46:00 GMT -6
Didn't Canada have carriers at some point? Might be late cold war tho, and I suspect we (me being Canadian) didn't build them
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 5, 2016 14:46:54 GMT -6
Heh, funny. When I moved I had to leave all but one of my history books behind, and discussions on this forum regularly make me regret the decision to bring clothes instead of books
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 5, 2016 14:26:25 GMT -6
I'm going to have too look it up (post will be in a new thread to avoid being off topic) when I get home from university, so in a couple days. However as far as I recall the autogyros (note not the true helis) provided a reconissance aid for the larger uboots late war, and the actual helis were used in their intended role of rear area transport, as the kriegsmarine didn't exactly launch any big ship sorties late war. Note: neither the Wehrmacht nor Luftwaffe used them. Here is a web page on German Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe - www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/secret-weapons-of-the-luftwaffe.aspThe helos and autogyros are on this page. Bah, I have been one upped! (Joking) I was planning on including the sources the book sites, but I believe this site is correct so I won't even bother. So they made less than I remember, but the ones produced were a success and where a valid contribution to the conversation, not just late war derpyness. Just as well as I have no clue where the book is at home other than it is in the house somewhere .
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 5, 2016 11:33:02 GMT -6
As to the German helis and autogyro's they had quite a lot in service Name a few of the battles they played a role in to help us see what a lot of service means. I'm going to have too look it up (post will be in a new thread to avoid being off topic) when I get home from university, so in a couple days. However as far as I recall the autogyros (note not the true helis) provided a reconissance aid for the larger uboots late war, and the actual helis were used in their intended role of rear area transport, as the kriegsmarine didn't exactly launch any big ship sorties late war. Note: neither the Wehrmacht nor Luftwaffe used them.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 5, 2016 6:13:10 GMT -6
There, now which plane would have won a fly off? The one with the best and smartest pilot. This is all well and good but my argument was not nearly that broad. I was just holding out the engine as an example of the Germans rushing a prototype into service when it had a major flaw, the short service life. From this I conclude that the German military during WWII was overly optimistic about the ability to put high tech equipment into service. So when he says the Germans were confident about helicopters I say that doesn't count for a lot. The German military consistently overestimated the ability of German engineers during WWII. I wasn't just talking out of my arse the book used sources from both sides to calculate combat losses and kills. I apologize if my response was confrontational, but I felt you were being overly dismissive of both my initial contribution(which was on topic) and my response which along with yours has gotten quite off topic. As to the German helis and autogyro's they had quite a lot in service considering the meager resources allocated to the kriegsmarine outside of uboots from 43 onwards. I can't quote the numbers right now as I will have to look them up from a more detailed source than wikiped when I get home from university. Also kudos to oldpop on his post, which if feel was probably aimed at getting back on topic and stopping the incipient fight over the jets of ww2 (all 2 of them:))
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 4, 2016 18:35:44 GMT -6
The Germans had both auto gyros and real helicopters in ww2, with a number being used by the kriegsmarine. They didn't see widespread use cause the Luftwaffe were derps and "saw no possible combat use for such an aircraft" Or they didn't see real use because there is a difference between having a prototype that kinda works and having something that is actually fit for adoption. If the Germans in WWII were not willing to shove money at a wunderwaffen it had to be really, really obviously non functional. For a demonstration of this, look at the type XXI uboat. 118 were built, 3 were seaworthy. 0 of them actually had any impact on the war. For another example see the German jet program. They built way more then the British. Their engines were specified for higher thrust. And their engines also destroyed themselves almost immediately when flown and needed to be replaced after 10% of the service hours of a British jet engine. People really, really, really exaggerate German technological sophistication in WWII. They loved sending half finished prototypes into mass production. It makes their technology look really advanced on paper but those advanced designs didn't work. The way I read it in a book I have back in Ottawa (not where I'm living at the time.) The Navy used them quite a lot for reconissance, and the army wanted them for supply transport but the Luftwaffe cockblocked them. And the light choppers had been in development since the 20s and where quite reliable. I do acknowledge that a lot of the German wunderwaffe were crap, but I would debate your statement with the jets. Yes they broke down a lot but most were out of service due to fuel shortages. It is impossible to judge the true effectiveness of equipment when at any one time less than 100 can fly due to lack of fuel. Also the Metors were much less effective despite more being in the air at any one time. Heck it wasn't that much faster than some prop aircraft at the time.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 4, 2016 11:53:35 GMT -6
The Germans had both auto gyros and real helicopters in ww2, with a number being used by the kriegsmarine. They didn't see widespread use cause the Luftwaffe were derps and "saw no possible combat use for such an aircraft"
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 3, 2016 15:35:31 GMT -6
Yeh I am far to familiar with it. Stems from my tendency to have an AAR open in another tab while I work, and taking a break to read every once and a while. And well I know I find that one interesting and know it is a good read, so I find myself coming back to it a lot.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 3, 2016 7:51:52 GMT -6
"The result, as one observer so memorably put it, was the same a throwing four angry men armed with revolvers into a small, dark room." Awwww you changed it from axes to revolvers. Axes are a much funnier mental image.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 2, 2016 23:16:41 GMT -6
I would like to say that I absolutely love the turns of phrase your AARs have, and envy your writing skill. Of course I could work on developing my own, but prefer to get drunk and in one sitting read the entirety of your essay set in galciv2
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 2, 2016 23:13:27 GMT -6
I think (don't quote me on this) that the 500 tonners are more effective, and have heard that maybe having some destroyers has an effect
|
|