The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by fredgiblet »

icekatze wrote:Concerning the use of tanks in WW2: from what I have been told, the Americans had several big advantages in artillery that, as long as they had accurate maps, made them very effective. It is also my understanding that they knew about their advantage and pressed it regularly.
I once heard someone say about the Germans "They laughed at our infantry, sneered at our tanks and shat themselves at our artillery." The biggest difference IIRC was that any American infantryman with a radio could call in an artillery strike, while the Germans needed someone of a relatively high rank to get authorization for artillery.

That's all IIRC though.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

Here is the best general overview of artillery I could find. It explains in reasonably layman's terms the methods and reasons behind the differences in artillery tactics between German, British and Americans. (Make sure to read the errata at the end for full accuracy, as the body text does contain some mistakes.)

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by fredgiblet »

Soviet artillery practices:

Build 10 million artillery guns
Point them in the rough direction of the enemy
Fire them for a while
Drink Vodka for the friendly casualties

EDIT: Interesting read thanks for posting it.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

Artillery is definitely a case where quantity provides plenty of quality.

User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:04 pm
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Charlie »

Nemo wrote:On the Sherman/Heavy tank there was no one reason things turned out that way, but one thing I dont think I saw mentioned, maybe overlooked, was that there were two fronts in this war. I skimmed, admittedly, but every mention I saw was of Panzers Tigers and Europe but the Sherman was in every way superior to the tanks available to the Japanese. Also a match for early and mass produced Panzers, had greater range than the m-26, the A2 version ran on diesel as opposed to gasoline which was a logistical blessing. The Army was set on its operating doctrine, the researchers were going after pet projects like electric drives, and the Sherman was simply good enough.
I did skip the Pacific theatre, I didn`t think it was worth while. The first Amercian tanks to fight Japanese tanks were M2 Stuart Light Tanks. While the M2 was newer the Japanese Light Tank they both had roughly the same statistics. The Japanese also had a medium tank, but it too was roughly comparable to he M2. By the time the M4 Sherman got to the Pacific, it out classed all Japanese tanks completely. It was new and more modern, far out striping the aging Japanese tanks. I do know the Japanese made two or three new tanks to combat the Sherman, but they made them in very low numbers and held them all on Japanese mainland, they did not enter service against the M4.
I read somewhere that for M4 tankers in the Pacific the danger from a Lunge Miner, suicide device - think bomb on a pole, was more deadly than enemy tanks.

As for the Panzers, yes, the M4 did out class the Panzers I - III. The Panzer IV was made in two primary versions, the short barreled and long barreled. The short barreled was out classed by the heavier gun of the M4 when they clashed in Northern Africa. However the long barreled edition was an even match for the M4. Yet, American tank designers knew that their capabilities in production was far greater than Germany`s therefore they decided that the M4 could win the war against the Panzer IV on it`s own.

As for the Panthers and Tiger I and IIs the Sherman swarmed them to death. The German heavy tanks suffered from what most German made things did at the time, they were too good. Because of the stringent regulations in production of the tanks they were produced slowly, more over, they could not be easily repaired in field conditions.

The M-26 and M4 were in different roles and weight classes, the lighter tank natural had higher millage. The M-26 had roughly equal statistics to the Panther and Tiger II, it may have been able to fight them head on, one on one. The M4 could not.

It is hard to say what the "best" tank of the war was.
Do we say it was the Tiger II for being the the biggest baddest tank in the war until near the end?
Or perhaps we say it was the M4 Sherman, and it`s variants, for it`s simplistic, yet excellent design, multiple upgrades, high speed, good mobility, relatively good fire power.
Maybe it was the T-34, which had a lot of what the Sherman had and more.
And I'm not even thinking about; Iosif Stalin Tank, T-44s, Jagdpanthers.

A 100 M2 light tanks could have disabled a single Tiger II by ramming it until it was completely enclosed. The fact was that the mighty American war economy steam rolled Germany.
icekatze wrote: On the topic of drones and their vulnerabilities to ground fire:
• Wind speed increases with altitude, and not always evenly. What may seem like calm air at ground level may be blowing 10+ mph at 100 feet above ground level. And often times not in exactly the same direction as at ground level.
• Small objects in the sky without any reference points have a tendency to vanish.
• Predator drones can cruise at 7620 meters
• Light helicopters can, on average, hover at around 1900 meters.
• They're quiet.
• They're quick.

Thats not to say shooting down drones would be impossible, but they have some pretty good advantages vs ground targets. I suspect in a real contest between air and ground, they would both be using computer calculated firing solutions. Even if a real war between major powers manages to not kill every last human being on the planet, we're almost certainly going to see a Kessler Syndrome. Optical targeting is getting pretty advanced these days, and I think if there were ever a big need (like no more GPS satellites) it would ripen very quickly.
I've shot everything from finches, guinea fowl, pigeons, Har-Dee-Dars, cats, rabbits, I've managed this not because I'm a decent marksman, but because I can ambush them. By this logic alone, people watching the drones gathering intelligence on how they move and operate will learn enough that taking pot shots at them will score a hit, eventually. Even by Murphy`s Law alone it should be possible.

While as you said, the advantages to drone remaining undetected are considerable, especially their size speed and the difficulty of motion as you pointed out, I think you may be underestimating the Mark I Eyeballs. Given that many people might be looking for these new terror drones of the future, it would not be impossible for many look outs scanning the skies to see them.

As for major powers, if the drones became a real threat to Infantry troopers I would expect some kind of new weapon to deal with them. A compact missile launcher comes to mind, designed only to kill small drones.

I think you are right about need for these type of drones, at the moment there really isn`t a need, but as you said with fewer operational satellites, drones would be able to take up some of the slack. And if it makes you feel better about World War 3, in whatever it`s form, if it involves China it would draw South Africa in to whatever conflict it was. So even me sitting here on my farm, many kilometers distant from anything more stressful than frequent violent crimes, would not be spared by global conflict.
fredgiblet wrote: I once heard someone say about the Germans "They laughed at our infantry, sneered at our tanks and shat themselves at our artillery." The biggest difference IIRC was that any American infantryman with a radio could call in an artillery strike, while the Germans needed someone of a relatively high rank to get authorization for artillery.

That's all IIRC though.
While I cannot attest to the phrase, I do know the Americans had the best Infantry fire support of the war, and the second most accurate heavy bomber planes. I have also been told that the Marine Close Air Support was quite good. As icekatze pointed out, with that fairly in depth source, American artillery was more than likely the best.
fredgiblet wrote:Soviet artillery practices:

Build 10 million artillery guns
Point them in the rough direction of the enemy
Fire them for a while
Drink Vodka for the friendly casualties.
Да, товарищ.
Soviet artillery practices ( At Stalingrad ):

Have 7 million shells.
Have 9000 artillery pieces.
Fire roughly 1.2 million rounds in one day.
Gunners keep mouths open or face medical consequences.
City already smashed to rubble.
Vodka anyway.

That'll learn those beer drinking Fascists the power of Potato based Alcohol!
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Karst45 »

just play World of tank and get it settled that way!

arcmite
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 9:18 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by arcmite »

Interesting discussion. Just wanted to throw into the mix a book called "David's Sling" by Marc Stiegler. Synopsis is that a tech company uses off the shelf parts to create cheap autonomous military hardware to disrupt the other side - which has some real possibility to today's warfare. Lotsa parallels to where the military are looking at going today.

User avatar
Cy83r
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Cy83r »

I'm waiting to see how they start utilising the plausibility of multiple crew UAVs. As far as I know, every drone is operated by one guy, maybe two for surveilance, but I'm pretty sure every single UAV station is a one-man affair.

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by fredgiblet »

For the most part they don't really need to. The reason for multiples in planes is because of workload, if the workload is sufficiently automated then adding more people isn't going to be necessary and if it's not necessary then it's probably going to be detrimental.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

Pakistan has combat-certified its first female pilot, Ayesha Farooq.

Image

What I find amusing is that she's flying a F-7PG, which is the Chinese knock-off of the MiG-21. Welcome to 1959, Pakistan.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Grayhome »

Well good for Pakistan! Slow and steady wins the race.

User avatar
Smithy
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:10 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Smithy »

Ha!

What do you expect? Pakistan spends all it's military funds on building Nuclear warheads to the everlasting mantra of:

"MUST KILL INDIA; MUST KILL INDIA; MUST KILL INDIA"

Roeben
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Roeben »

A Fishbed? Those things still fly!?

Suederwind
Posts: 772
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Suederwind »

Yes Roeben, quite a few nationsstill use them.
Btw: We Germans retired our last McDonnell Douglas F4F on 29 June 2013. Thats not so much better...
Forum RP: Cydonia Rising
[RP]Cydonia Rising [IC]

Roeben
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Roeben »

Apparently I live in one of the few nations where we don't spend money maintaining useless craft!

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

I think it is important to note that there are still quite a few countries that don't allow women to serve in the military, let alone as a fighter pilot. The United States didn't have a female fighter pilot until 1993 with Col. Jeannie Leavitt. So in that sense, their fighter craft are more antiquated than their social restrictions.

For reference: Which countries allow women in front-line combat roles

User avatar
Smithy
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:10 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Smithy »

It's not so clear cut...

For example it was scientific belief until recently in the Royal Navy that the higher levels of carbon dioxide in submarines over a 6 month tour was dangerous to women's health, and extremely dangerous if they were possibly pregnant (Due to the nature of RN submarine operations). It turns out that some of these fears weren't true, and as such women are now allowed to serve on RN Submarines.

When in a firefight, and when performing combat maneuvers such as pepper potting, and finally when assaulting a position, you only help the wounded after the completion of the assault. As it reduces combat effectiveness. According to the Israeli's, Men struggle to maintain this doctrine when in combat with women.
In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948. The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of female soldiers, and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness.


And finally many Commanders are unwilling to accept the risk of the capture of female combatants, their possible torture, and the likelihood of rape, or sexual assault. Such as in the case of Major Rhonda Cornum and Specialist Melissa Coleman in the First Gulf War. Not to say men can't be raped, but the occurrences appear to be rare. Especially in the context of the Gulf war were all 23 US POW were abused, but only the two servicewomen where abused sexually also.

I guess men just aren't keen to see women killed in combat. Positive discrimination I guess. But to simply say that the unease to allow women to serve in direct combat is antiquated, I think is a major simplification of the issue. It's complicated, and as such I'm not prepared to take a personal stance on the issue at this time till I can read a bit more about it.

User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:04 pm
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Charlie »

I've been brought up on Men are the ones who fight. That been said my dad always used to say that if a Women fights like a Man, she is a Man. I'd have no problem with Women in front line positions if they could pass the exact same physical and mental tests.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Nemo »

If you think about it, theres sound reason for such an instinct. Throw two cultures into war with the standard human 50/50 mix of sexes. Send a portion of each population to the battlefield with one side sending a mixed sex group while the other sends only a male group. Incur loses. Rinse wash and repeat in a generation. In another... Every iteration one side is losing some of its maximum reproductive potential. Long term success is destined to the group who better protects and utilizes that potential. Loroi circumvent this by having an overabundance of reproductive capacity that they must limit. As descendants of the successful, we get programmed to protect the future.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

My amusement was at the antiquity of the aircraft rather than the gender of the pilot.

I think there are some legitimate arguments against having women in front-line infantry units, having to do with physical, social and logistical limitations. However, as a fighter pilot, I don't really see those limitations applying. Pilots usually fly from comfortable bases with ample facilities for both genders. In the air, the pilots can't even see each other, much less the enemy. And physically, the feminine body shape is better at withstanding G-stresses than the male. As long as she can pass the same tests and demonstrate the same aptitudes, there's no reason a female pilot can't be just as good (if not better) than a male pilot.

Post Reply