52 comments posted · 7 followers · following 0

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - China Echoes U.S. Warn... · 4 replies · +8 points

Ofcourse you can. Right after you solve these 2 very minor points:
1. How are you going to stop them from firing their 13.000 artillery pieces they've got aimed at Seoul?
2. How were you planning to feed and house 25 million starving refugees fleeing towards South Korea and China?

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - Marine Corps Prepares ... · 3 replies · +23 points

Nice to see those stealthy rotor blades in action.

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - CNO: Railguns and Hell... · 0 replies · +1 points

I know how they work. I'm just wondering how the munition can be guided. I see all these articles about railguns and GPS guided rounds but they tell me nothing about the electronics that must survive the acceleration (might be doable) and the massive EMP burst through which they are fired.

I guess you can shield the round and have the shielding drop away with the sabot when it leaves the barrel (do we still call it a barrel?) but I haven't found any confirmation.

I don't see much use in an artillery piece that can shoot 80-100 miles without guided munition. That's a lot of distance in which weather and atmosphere effect your aim.

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - CNO: Railguns and Hell... · 2 replies · +2 points

That answers exactly none of my questions.

Let's start simple. What will be the target?

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - CNO: Railguns and Hell... · 8 replies · +2 points

Ok. Railgun. Cool and all. I'm all for it.

But can someone please explain what it's going to be used for? Shore bombardement, point defense? And what trajectory do these rounds use? I'd think shooting things in line of sight is pretty much covered already.

If used as artillery. Since it relies on speed as it's destructive component, won't it bleed speed at longer ranges? I also guess it won't be shooting guided rounds, it'll fry all electronics. And what if I want to shoot something close by? (Like the bastard at the other side of town who's burning tires up wind) I can't shoot it slower because it'll do less damage doesn't it?

9 years ago @ Defense Tech - Report: Navy's New Sub... · 0 replies · +6 points

So the variant we're talking here about doesn't have a MAD.

Oh. And the variant that's bought by people halfway around the world who actually ARE threathend by the chinese and actually want to be able to USE the thing they're buying does have a MAD.

9 years ago @ Defense Tech - Report: Navy's New Sub... · 7 replies · +8 points

To simple and effective. When you sell a MAD boom it'll keep working for the next 50 years. If you sell 'em a software based gizmo you sell 'em an expensive contract for software updates and upgrades for the whole service life.

9 years ago @ Defense Tech - Navy Contract Will Pro... · 3 replies · 0 points

Hitler really wasn't that interested in England except for getting it out of the war.

- He was an anglophile and admired the english for their empire and culture.

- He hated France and blamed them for the Versailles treaty.

- In Mein Kampf (I've only read excerpts of the filthy (and boring) thing) he only refers to lebensraum in the east.

When I said historically I meant before the 20th century. And I didn't mean super close allies, more like shared interests. Which is really the only thing a state should have.

9 years ago @ Defense Tech - Navy Contract Will Pro... · 6 replies · 0 points

Now you're starting to slip.

The Vergeltungs (sorry, I'm not a teacher but I had to correct you) weapons were a distraction. No more. Just like most of those high techy things that they were famous for.

The weapons that mattered were the simple Stug III, Panzer IV and Me-109/FW-190.

Good point about ball bearings but they got most of them from neutral Sweden. Good old British politicking finally stopped that.

They were in France to knock the French out of the war so they could concentrate on Russia. I've read (sorry, no sources yet) that Hitler more or less hoped that they could come to an agreement with England. Historically England and Germany have mostly been allies. As were France and Russia. And Churchill was even more anti-Red then anti-Nazi.

9 years ago @ Defense Tech - Navy Contract Will Pro... · 1 reply · -2 points

Maybe I should have said "America centric view" instead of overly patriotic. No matter.

I was looking for this quote earlier in response to your "artillery killed more germans" post:

"The Jeep, the Dakota airplane, and the landing craft were the three tools that won the war."
General Dwight Eisenhower, Allied Supreme Commander, Europe.