[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dox / hnt / hybrid / kohl / lewd / marx / milkers / thesewer ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
8chan Cup Finals - Saturday, January 19 at 08:00 p.m. GMT
Winner of the 65rd Attention-Hungry Games
/cure/ - Your obscure board for medical-tan appreciation

December 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

There's no discharge in the war!

File: 134b3cb00a602d3⋯.jpg (92.56 KB, 900x657, 100:73, he177-dl-aq.jpg)

c6d143  No.638309

This is a bread to discuss military concepts, prototypes and final products apart from everyone's favorite 5th gen multirole fighter following questionable theories/doctrines with great investment put behind them only to end up as massive wastes of time, money and resources for everyone involved.

What was the RLM thinking when they not only wanted to make a strategic bomber, but make it an dive glidebomber so it needs to be twin engined because drag except we don't have any engines powerful enough so let's put two DB601s in each nacelle sharing a single propeller through an autistically complicated gearbox while negating any potential advantages regarding engine redundancy on top of creating considerable difficulties in engine cooling.

5a2bc7  No.638491

File: fcaf512fa767534⋯.jpg (58.63 KB, 1000x442, 500:221, zrzh0oykie7im6555fdg.jpg)

File: 7298bb1376b850d⋯.jpg (52.98 KB, 900x530, 90:53, xb-70-douglas-castleman.jpg)

File: 322e8442d80842c⋯.jpg (218.95 KB, 1360x1110, 136:111, 061122-F-1234P-012.JPG)

File: 3be5ce82d29a286⋯.jpg (100.56 KB, 1024x523, 1024:523, 42030491462_480858bffa_b.jpg)


Then the F-111.

Similarly the XB-70 that even though it was a good design it was unfortunate to be made in the era when it was thought that ICBMs would soon fully replace strategic bombers.

42223c  No.638504

File: c2a2f5b5f00d7b2⋯.jpg (132.22 KB, 1280x620, 64:31, 1.jpg)

File: e80e90a9ac809de⋯.jpg (49.54 KB, 1800x303, 600:101, 2.jpg)

1: The Blish Menace and 2: The Return of Blish.

Very small scale compared to other wastes, but I can never get over the entire concept.

238383  No.638602

File: cd25653d583cd66⋯.jpg (733.8 KB, 2048x1514, 1024:757, qr2FvZq.jpg)

Leopard 2R

>armored mine-clearing vehicle that is presumably supposed to move infront of tanks and other things, meaning that it's probably going to get shot at more than your average tank

>yet it is equipped with light turret armor, which probably can be penetrated by 12.7mm rounds

>no guns except for a single 12.7mm machine gun without a gun-shield or anything else that might protect the guy supposed to be using it

<atleast it looks kinda cool though

I have hard time figuring out as to under what circumstances this vehicle was considered to be a good idea.

97b10d  No.638604

File: e73f8195b2c782c⋯.jpg (45.78 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 1.jpg)


Not nearly as silly and impractical as the T15E1

>we gotta get rid of these mines!

>how about we just put on so much belly armor that it shrugs off those AT mines so you can just clear the field by hitting all of them!

It at least never saw actual field use, but I cant imagine what they would have to bribe the driver with to get him to do such a stupid job.

9d640a  No.638613


Can't be as goofy as the Aunt Jemima

6703d5  No.638803


Those weren't for clearing minefields, they were for finding the edge of the minefield so you could move the flail and plow tanks up to the front (and possibly also penetrating some distance into the minefield to cover the flail tanks while they worked).

e64905  No.638818

File: 74878ca72f8c9c1⋯.jpg (132.55 KB, 1000x603, 1000:603, Airacuda_Bell_XFM-1_(15954….jpg)

File: 32ac09164b53fa2⋯.png (173.84 KB, 442x332, 221:166, ClipboardImage.png)

Perhaps my favorite oddball, the YFM-1 Airacuda, an American interwar bomber hunter armed with a pair of 37mm autocannons. Features include:

>cannot taxi under own power as engines will overheat

>too slow to catch the bombers it was intended to hunt

>loader/gunner pods fill with smoke when guns are fired

>if either engine fails, the aircraft goes into an immediate spin

>auxiliary generator powers everything, if it fails the plane effectively turns off entirely

>loader/gunners can't bail out unless props are feathered

>even when everything was fine, they still controlled like shit

I still love them.


>silly and impractical minesweeper

You've got nothing on the Germans.

97b10d  No.638839

File: d8b7a7095ce6123⋯.jpg (23.12 KB, 500x233, 500:233, 2.jpg)


Aunt Jemima was goofy and nearly impossible to steer, but it could at least clear a safe path through a road or field as it had the fuckoff wide rollers to sweep with. This thing just has its standard width treads.


How is a vehicle with no weapons but possibly a hull gun that never saw service supposed to cover for flail or roller tanks that actually retained their armament? The only book I have that mentioned it said it was simply to clear mines by hitting them so I would like a source on this other tactic.

9d640a  No.638848



Its problems almost mirrors the F35.

edd9b4  No.638874

File: d13e7d9f638cbae⋯.jpg (49.91 KB, 800x575, 32:23, IWM-KID-109-Vickers-Indepe….jpg)

File: 4550e907344166f⋯.jpg (134.95 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, 1024px-HOG_II_(4536666194).jpg)

The whole idea of Landships in the interwar era, at points they even considered giant movable "land docks" that the tanks would dock in for repairs.

8fc522  No.638886

File: 2418fa726b71367⋯.png (229.69 KB, 1001x611, 77:47, messerschmitt-me-163-a-0-m….png)

Aerodynamic and Rocketry studies aside I can't really think how plane related was ever supposed to be viable in its intended role outside a fantasy world where the concept of bomber escorts didn't exist.

They should've put their effort into RATO instead, but alas.


The naval Battleship autism of the 1920s made sense considering that Aircraft only became a serious threat to big boats during the late 1930s, but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

6703d5  No.638887


Every source I could find describes the T15 as being simply a mine-resistant M4A2 rather than a dedicated mine-clearing vehicle, which to me suggests a role more along the lines of the British Matilda/Valentine AMRA.

The bit about fighting in minefields was just speculation on my part. Most of the flail and roller tanks couldn't defend themselves effectively because the mine-clearing gear blocked fire across most of their frontal arc, and in the flail's case also blinded the crew while it was running.


The worst part about that whole design is that almost all of the problems you listed could be fixed by one simple modification (moving the guns from the nacelles to somewhere in the fuselage).

edd9b4  No.638890


>but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

I get the feeling the people who thought landships were a good idea are the same people who think Mecha's would be a good idea today.

0a462a  No.638893


You have to remember that the tank doctrine of the interwar period only knew infantry and cavalry tanks. Even the Germans used it, as the Panzer III was meant to be the cavalry tank, and the Panzer IV's job was to support the infantry. Then the soviets made the T-34, a cavalry tank that could spearhead an attack or support the infantry, and that started an arms race that led to the MBT. But in the interwar period all of it was completely unimaginable, and you didn't even have light, medium and heavy tanks. In that context it wasn't that insane of an idea to make a mobile bunker.

6743cd  No.638901


>land dock

I'm going to need some recommended reading material on this. Also sponsons should never have gone away.

9e9169  No.638902


>moving the guns from the nacelles to somewhere in the fuselage

Apparently the gunners in the nacelles weren't even the ones firing them. They had the ability, but it was normally done by someone in the central fuselage, and the gunners just loaded the thing, which as far as I know is a role that usually isn't necessary. Meaning the entire concept of the crewed nacelles was useless in the first place, which in turns means you could make it tractor-driver and avoid the shitty flight characteristics and heating issues of a pusher, on top of saving two crew members' worth of weight, possibly making it fast enough to do its job.

The APU was just irredeemably retarded. There's no reason for it to be that way.

edd9b4  No.638907

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


I'm fairly sure it was J. F. C. Fuller (interesting guy actually, big Hitler fan and occultist) who had the idea but I'm not 100% sure, I've read about it in a book years back but it comes up in this video at some point as well.

8fc522  No.638947

File: e7f9b8387109173⋯.jpg (62.62 KB, 700x554, 350:277, semple-tank.jpg)

File: 2ab8b0d6b5e5fe1⋯.jpg (84.67 KB, 700x537, 700:537, semple rear.jpg)

It didn't cost a whole lot of money, time or resources to make but I think it still counts.

Was there anything better in terms of ghetto tank design New Zealand could've devised from locally available resouces that would've been capable of destroying/annoying invading Japanese tankettes?

1633d9  No.638979


>What was the RLM thinking

"Gee, wouldn't it be cool if we had a long-rang, high payload strategic bomber with divebombing accuracy?".

Same reason the early E series Do 217s had a tail mounted air break for dive bombing which was discontinued because it had a nasty habit of ripping the whole tail from the aircraft.

The biggest issue the Greif had was not immidiately ditching the dive bombing and redeveloping it into a four engine design (something that was explicit forbidden yet done by Heinkel on their own dime).


Except bomber escorts were powerless against the rocket and jet aircraft, the real problem the 163 had was the small engagement window with the heavily arcing Mk108s, the nasty propellant and the short burn time.

Two of these could be rectified by giving it different guns and the more advanced version was supposed to be fitted with a seperate cruise engine with 8mins of fuel.

8fc522  No.639003


>bomber escorts were powerless against rocket aircraft

They weren't so powerless once the Me 163 had to glide back to base after expelling all of its fuel in a mere 7 minutes.

>Two of these could be rectified by giving it different guns and the more advanced version was supposed to be fitted with a seperate cruise engine with 8mins of fuel.

Don't forget actual landing gear.

46845d  No.639042


They may have been useless but i still love the concept, imagine on of those giant trucks they use for mining but with armor and turrets, slowly moving towards the enemy, have an enemy behemoth also approach to duel the first, would've been cool as fuck.

Also airships, but those are even less realistic.

8fc522  No.639069

File: 884e64e425286bc⋯.jpg (414.98 KB, 2000x1181, 2000:1181, USS Macon docked.jpg)

File: 44dc962f254e173⋯.jpg (611.22 KB, 2000x1601, 2000:1601, USS Macon lewd.jpg)



I'm still sad things like pics related weren't around during the great war.

If the Akron and Macon hadn't crashed with no survivors and lived to see Pearl Harbor, would they have had any viable use at that point in time?

9d640a  No.639072



Yeah to be scrapped for the valuable aluminum frame like every other airship of the time.

8fc522  No.639083

File: e049b4663873791⋯.jpg (144.69 KB, 537x452, 537:452, bullied so hard.jpg)


Why is the world so cruel to rigid airships.

9d640a  No.639084


Because navy faggots need to stay on the ocean, don't need them gaying up the sky any worse than the chairforce does already.

de1e44  No.639086

File: ddee08263cd2491⋯.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 29.11 KB, 480x360, 4:3, seaman.jpeg)



airships are giant seamen balloons

e64905  No.639111


I'm willing to give a very hesitant maybe. They had damn long range and were considerably faster than any surface ship, so I suppose using them as a dedicated scout carrier isn't actually that bad of an idea. Problems I see is that with aircraft maintenance I don't see you being able to maintain their ability to do so unless you want to scout with the airship itself, which to me seems like inviting disaster. And of course, their materials were in high demand and I don't see two of them being enough.

467e14  No.639153


>sponsons should never have gone away.

That reminds me: modern weapon stations should be armoured, so that they look like small turrets.

73e5b2  No.639280

File: 06e440284680902⋯.jpg (116.73 KB, 1280x810, 128:81, VK4501_Tiger(P).jpg)

File: 5629af8083b1339⋯.png (651.94 KB, 1327x658, 1327:658, vk3001p.png)

File: 8d437df33d52644⋯.jpg (17.16 KB, 478x202, 239:101, image002.jpg)

Another questionable endavour would be Ferdinand Porsche and his attempts to build a tank with a gasoline-electric drive system.

While idea (simplify the drive system by omitting the gearbox transmission) was sound, all his attempts were hindered by high gasoline consumption, resource shortages and overheating problems.


Still these would be alleviated by installing the new rocket motor with the cruise engine and pretty much all the redesigns (Me163 C/D and the 263) replaced the skid with proper landing gear.

The skid was a holdover from the aircraft being the result of glider research.

467e14  No.639286


There were attempts even during ww1, but the technology was simply not there. What's even worse is that it's been ready for decades, just nobody bothered with it.



b9eaf1  No.639297


Would they be any more resource intensive or vulnerable to attack than a surface ship of similar capability? The Macon carried five planes and had a length of 785 feet. I do wonder, for the planes carried, what would their minimum runway distance be on a traditional aircraft carrier?

We know from the Zeppelin bombing campaigns of WWI that a rigid airship, even a hydrogen one, can sustain a lot of small arms fire before going down. It wouldn't stand a chance against modern missile technology, but would it fare any worse than smaller navy vessels? How effective would CAWS systems be mounted on an airship? Are we in the wrong direction, and an airships true martial calling is as a floating artillery platform?

8fc522  No.639347


Burger airships were filled with Helium so they wouldn't have Hindenburg'd themselves even when hit by incendiary rounds, though I doubt they'd last long against 1940s autocannons.

Would the Macon have made for decent transport and supply ship/FoB for seaplane patrol bombers with most of its parasite aircraft removed?

dd4d04  No.639447


Why not just modify existing bombers into gunships for this role?

97b10d  No.639457

File: 30dabc235c5c9a8⋯.jpg (77.38 KB, 864x691, 864:691, blimp-landing-on-carrier.jpg)





They would have been lost to storms in the pacific if they were deployed there. Much like how all other rigid airships were lost to storms anywhere else during peacetime. The navy used non-rigid blimps to spot submarines and sweep for mines in all theaters with a VERY strict do not engage policy on surfaced ships and for good reason. The only blimp dumb enough to attempt attacking a surfaced U-boat was shot down by its 20mm AA-gun. Though as I stated before, that particular craft was a modern blimp and not rigid. They were mainly used to supplement the PBY fleet by taking tasks the float plane couldn't do such as hunting during the night with its radar and mine sweeping.

def48e  No.639460


A bipedal gun carrier wouldn't be all that crazy in an urban warfare environment, if it had a compact enough and powerful enough engine.

Still, it'd be a small niche outside of which it would make no sense at all to field.

3722b4  No.639461


The idea at the time was that fighters would be useless at intercepting bombers unless they had a 40-50% speed advantage. This was in the infancy of radar, so it was assumed fighters would be launched in response to sightings and would mostly be doing tail chases.

e64905  No.639465

File: e642b13b57bc8b9⋯.jpg (53.49 KB, 834x544, 417:272, 0118c99f11b29ab69853562680….jpg)

File: 680ea28bc825a89⋯.jpg (12.91 KB, 338x230, 169:115, p_JW9c_XH.jpg)


>Would they be any more resource intensive or vulnerable to attack than a surface ship of similar capability?

Resource intensiveness I have no idea. Since they were twice as fast as any surface ship, as long as they kept their scouts in the air and don't get surprised by a wing of Zeros they'd probably be pretty difficult to pin down.

>The Macon carried five planes and had a length of 785 feet. I do wonder, for the planes carried, what would their minimum runway distance be on a traditional aircraft carrier?

The Independence-class light carriers were 623 feet long and carried about 30 planes. Keep in mind though, is that the Macon and Akron were limited to small biplanes rather than the modern fighters and bombers the carriers were.

>airships true martial calling is as a floating artillery platform?

Don't like it. Carriers took over for battleships because people realized that the value of not exposing yourself to enemy fire outweighed simple volume of fire. Using an attack airship in the period accomplishes neither.


>Would the Macon have made for decent transport and supply ship/FoB for seaplane patrol bombers with most of its parasite aircraft removed?

Maybe. My vision was to have them patrolling a few hundred miles ahead of the carrier fleet while keeping their scout aircraft patrolling in an arc in front of them. Best case scenario would have one of the scouts spot the Japanese fleet, then scamper off using it's speed to avoid retaliation. At that point, the carrier fleet can launch a strike while safe from attack.


>They would have been lost to storms in the pacific

Yeah, that's probably the worst part.


>Why not just modify existing bombers into gunships for this role?

Perhaps you would be a fan of the YB-40. Just cram as many .50 cals (or up to 40mm) in a B17 airframe as possible and turn the entire bomb bay into an ammunition magazine. Toss some extra armor plating on then put them in your bomber groups to protect them. Then realize they're too slow for the most part.

9d640a  No.639468

File: 951caeda20b87a0⋯.png (465.08 KB, 832x602, 416:301, I've seen things that have….png)

6703d5  No.639802


There's actually no technical reason why an Akron-sized zeppelin couldn't be fitted to instead recover 3-4 F2As or F4Fs. The Macon's planned replacement would have even carried SBDs, exploiting the airship's own speed and altitude to launch planes with fuel and weapons loads that would be impossible for surface ships without the use of a catapult (which was a huge deal in 1935).

405f71  No.639810


A cruel Vicker's thesis

c10992  No.639816


They were cool but they were always novelties. Only thing they could have been used for is to drop tanks on the decks of Jap ships

452801  No.639830


>paradropping heavy armor from zeppelins directly onto the decks of battleships

This is the future we could have had.

1e94d4  No.639831



Why is everything you post so cute

dd4d04  No.639834

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

67e98d  No.639847


blish lock thompsons are a million times nicer than m1a1s and later versions.

9e9169  No.639892


You make it sound like you think dropping tanks on the decks of Japanese ships isn't an important tactic.

c18d29  No.639940


I like soviet aproach to getting thru minefield. Dont use specialised equipment. Just drive forward with battle tanks. Yes, you propably lose some percentage of vehicles, but you dont stall assault, doing so you negate main purpose of minefield.

Yes, I know that soviets had mineclearing tanks in WW2

8d306e  No.639946


Pretty good, but could be better.

Instead of your own tanks, just force prisoners that you were probably going to execute anyway to form columns and march across the minefield.

You get to clear the field, save money that could be spent on repairs or new vehicles, and get rid of undesirables all at once. Three benefits in one! What a deal!

ae1ec7  No.639950


We did something that was a lot less drasting, as they had to clean the minefield without dying on the process, but we still used undesirables to clear minefields.


c18d29  No.639951


Human weight is not enough to trigger AT mine. El Goblino could, but it's not high tech like some 10 trillion DARPA project.

294c62  No.639954


Just force feed el goblino or other prisoners enough lard so they'd be heavy enough to trigger the AT mines.

Hm. Is there a way to weaponize fat as hell goblins? Like stuff them with explosives and disease before launching at your enemies via catapult? Might as well try to get all use you can out of them, yeah?

f07227  No.639971


>but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

I imagine the idea was something along the lines of

>"It will be a moving fortress. Steel ten metres thick so that no artillery can even dent it; it'll be an invulnerable machine of death"

ea9d9a  No.639984

File: f1887fa165a35ba⋯.jpg (51.27 KB, 718x480, 359:240, 8832f31aa49a34d8445d0f6698….jpg)


The US Airforce has already perfected dropping tanks onto the enemy via airplanes.

0891e0  No.639991

File: 03bb723b64f4853⋯.jpg (44.31 KB, 629x383, 629:383, Soviet anti-tank dog.jpg)

>be Soviets

>be inhuman filth

>want to train dogs so they carry explosives to german tanks and then run away

>delayed fuzes don't work

>fuck it let's just put an impact detonator on the dog and call it a day, dogs aren't even human so it's fine

>start training dogs loaded with explosives to run under tanks

>train the dogs with surplus tanks standing around inna field

>Barbarossa happens


>send out heroic socialist patriot dogs to crash the nazis with no survivors

>doggos get scared by machine gun and cannon fire, run back to their trenches killing everyone inside

>those that don't run away refuse to duck under the enemy tanks

>they try to run towards waiting for them to stop only to get shot and die

>other dogs run towards Soviet tanks instead of German ones due to being trained on Soviet tanks with diesel engines

>dog trainers quit en masse after having to shoot their frightened dogs so they don't run back towards friendly lines

>NKVD removes filthy traitors from service

>anti-tank dog training continues until 1996

1e94d4  No.639994


>Is there a way to weaponize fat as hell goblins?

Let them migrate into the rival country.

42223c  No.640071


What does better fit and finish have to do with the core concept of the system not physically working?

b3f231  No.640074


>not physically working

Just because the Blish principle is complete fiction doesn't mean the guns didn't work, it just means they were actually interrupted-thread-delayed blowback.

476e2d  No.640160


bullshit myth, it worked most of the time with very few friendly fire incidents. they just ran out of dog, and it takes longer to breed and train a dog than a single grenadier that can attack multiple tanks

c10992  No.640168


>unknown flag

de1e44  No.640184


google translate of http://army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/sobaka-mina.shtml - selected passage starts with "Первая группа собак-минеров…"

> The first group of miner dogs (30 dogs, 40 instructors, 4 cooks, 6 drivers, 10 soldiers of the miners) was sent to the front in the late summer of 1941.

>Already at the front, they tried to train dogs on real terrain against real tanks. As a result, of the twenty dogs released, no task was completed. The dogs scattered across the field and hid. Four of them could not be found. Two [were] crushed by tanks.

>The report of the group of the miner dogs captain Viporassky (Vinogradsky (?)) In the GUVI, written by hand and dated October 16, 1941, has survived:

"… 1. Most dogs refuse to work immediately and strive to jump into the trench, endangering infantry (six accidents).

2. Nine dogs after a short run in the right direction began to rush from side to side, were afraid of breaks artillery shells and mortars. , tried to hide in craters, pits, climbed under shelters. Three of them exploded, two were not revealed, the rest, because they began to go back, had to be destroyed with rifle-and-machine-gun fire

3. The fascists destroyed three dogs with guns fire and zab Ali himself. Trying to fight off and get killed by the dogs do not.

4. Presumably four dogs exploded near the German-fascist tanks, but confirm that they have disabled the tanks do not have … "

2ccc97  No.640196

How retarded would it have been if the Germans tried to convert Mk108's to be used on the ground against infantry? It seems it would be a little to heavy to transport for infantry, but on vehicles it would be extremely effective I would think. Would there be any political issues of obtaining an air weapon for ground use?

53d652  No.640218


>igor living inside his fantasy world again

452801  No.640247


If they had used it it would definitely have been vehicle mounted. The army would have had trouble getting them, however. Göring didn't want anything getting in the way of Luftwaffe procurement and would not have agreed to give up the guns very easily. The Wehrmacht generally took precedence when it came to manufacturing time, however and may have overruled him. The interservice rivalry for materials support was intense and it no doubt would have worsened with this request. It may have panned out differently toward the end of the war when the planes were grounded for lack of fuel anyways, but I'm not so familiar with that period. I did find a reference saying that Luftwaffe MG81s were transferred to ground use toward the end of the war, however how this occurred and the politics of such is unknown to me.

dda2b5  No.640252


They already had 20mm and 37mm autocannons mounted on half-tracks and tanks, and they were used against ground targets. Oftentimes those AA units were attached to the main group of an attack, so they were certainly effective. But the problem is that you'd introduce an aircraft weapon that can't be used as an AA weapon from the ground. Best I can imagine is mounting it on a Sd.Kfz. 250 or 251.


It's like you forgot the most glorious ground troops known to man: the Luftwaffe Field Divisions. I'm sure if Göring got serious about ground troops you'd see all manners of aircraft weapons used by the boys-in-blue. I can even see them using grounded aircraft as assault vehicles. Yes, it would be a horrible idea that is incredibly wasteful and ineffective, but so were those divisions.

2ccc97  No.640258


I think it would arc too much for use as an ai gun. I was thinking more in the role of the ags 30 or an autocannon mounted on a troop transport vehicle

452801  No.640349


>heavily armed aircraft flying within ground effect in order to bring autocannon fire to the front line while avoiding detonating landmines


6749c2  No.640394


To be fair, the F-111 did a few things well and some not so well. I mean how can you expect a plane to do everything from A to Z? The lancer is still in use to this day, so it couldn't have been that bad.

dd4d04  No.640395


Had said that could also become the case for F-35 if they turned it into a devoted ground attack aircraft but the .pdfs do not leave much ground for hope given its overheating and weapon bays shaking issues.

6703d5  No.640412


The F-111 was actually great as far as actual performance went, it was just a huge pain in the ass to maintain. Even the fighter variants probably would have been fine, it just had the misfortune of being developed while USN leadership was still freaking out about our early-Vietnam WVR losses and wanted dogfighting capabilities on a fleet-defense interceptor that should never be allowing hostiles into visual range in the first place.

dd4d04  No.640467


>Even the fighter variants probably would have been fine


Interceptor*. It would suck as a fighter. Plus the Navy's demands created the F-14, an air superiority fighter that if modernized would outperform all existing fighters even today (and unlike the F-35 and F-111 could be a true multi-role).

720168  No.640497

File: b71758b34de173f⋯.jpg (1.21 MB, 1338x765, 446:255, McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin_USA….jpg)

File: 727b640f72a84b3⋯.jpg (75.22 KB, 800x588, 200:147, XF85-Goblin2.jpg)

Would parasite fighters have been a viable addition to Battleships or was the whole concept a meme?

dd4d04  No.640504

File: 7e59e5d82772048⋯.png (49.29 KB, 640x300, 32:15, 240de49a1e04626063ffc49052….png)


Parasite fighters were theoretically the most agile dogfighters back in the 70s.

c18d29  No.640524


>Hans learning about WW2 from Enemy at The Gates and CoD

476e2d  No.640557


They still are. Most fuel is used raising to altitude, and then traveling to the enemy and back. Having something larger carry you there means you can remove two thirds of the fuel stores. And not having to land on the ground or deal with the stresses of landing means removing half the structural struts and the very heavy DEAD WEIGHT of the landing gear.

In other words it makes the aircraft more than TWICE lighter, so if it's using the same engines as the land variant, it's going to have OVER TWICE the thrust-to-weight ratio! Meaning being faster and being able to travel at higher altitude, it can feed more power into a turn meaning tighter turns as well, and it can tell missiles to fuck off. At the same cost.

There's a reason industry > crafts, there's a reason rocket staging > SSTO, splitting a task or operation into smaller bite sizes rocket staging is efficient, the same reason airplane staging would be more efficient.

a11107  No.641645

File: cdaa70cf1f8a24f⋯.jpg (549.13 KB, 2589x2002, 2589:2002, t-35.21205.jpg)

File: 4b2590271dac041⋯.jpg (228.22 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, t35 f69050e20462215cd40006….jpg)

File: 0fec924c28ba08c⋯.jpeg (1.33 MB, 3543x2181, 1181:727, t-35-iz-67-tp-34-td-3.jpeg)

File: a0194b353236e69⋯.jpg (65.21 KB, 591x423, 197:141, t35szembol.jpg)



Russian inferiority complex never fails to deliver.

<I don't care if its obviously retarded, we must show everyone that we can do it!

>Now let's have a turret farm on treads, where the bustles and barrels block egress, with isolated fighting compartments without internal comm, and give it the steering and gearbox of a light tank! That will show them!

e619b4  No.641647


A shame instead of some crappy and barely useful mechas we get the F-35

cea7c1  No.641648


>Also, let's not armor it enough to stand up to anything but distant AT rifles, because otherwise it won't even be able to move.

a11107  No.641650

File: 7b2512cdb1de7fa⋯.jpg (3.99 MB, 2761x1841, 2761:1841, Tupolev_Tu-4_01_red_(10255….jpg)

File: 14ab4426b5b82d8⋯.jpg (413.47 KB, 1024x688, 64:43, tu-144 0790453.jpg)

File: e2865d2b1c6b65f⋯.jpg (972.35 KB, 1994x1944, 997:972, buran Gateway_to_space_201….jpg)

File: 6e2cdfd1ed9cc81⋯.jpg (44.89 KB, 720x412, 180:103, buran-b-image01.jpg)


Some more manifestations of this pathology.

The Buran was meant to work as an orbital bomber, because they speculated the STS was too stupid to work as anything else but a military project.

452801  No.641659


>Tu-144 looks upon the jeering crowd in disdain.

b26869  No.641751

File: adc8fc01edf2d2b⋯.jpg (51.59 KB, 377x480, 377:480, Curved Barrel.jpg)

File: 079bf83510d8876⋯.png (146.69 KB, 383x501, 383:501, LMG11.png)

File: be8b9aa105e8bb3⋯.jpg (28.3 KB, 660x340, 33:17, PPSh-Curved-Barrel.jpg)

File: d9994574ac324ce⋯.jpg (20.71 KB, 800x333, 800:333, XM106-prototype.jpg)

Whats with people and curved barrels? did they ever work?

e30221  No.641755


They do work, but some of the kinetic energy is lost if I recall.

Decent enough for closer ranges.

9d640a  No.641765


They worked until they barrel wore away. 300 or so rounds as the Germans found out.

452801  No.641767


God damn that PPSH made me laugh. Fucking pure autism just get rid of the barrel jacket.

c18d29  No.641774


>copy of B-29

>equivalent of Concorde with smaller range

>equivalent of Space Shuttle but better


2ccc97  No.641825

File: 4cc3239a4f03847⋯.png (233.39 KB, 650x378, 325:189, ClipboardImage.png)

I think the FW 190/ Ju 88 Mistel is one of the most questionable last ditch efforts by the luftwaffe to stall the allies. After seeing quitea bit of footage of it being used in Il-2 against a bridge and trying to use it myself, I wonder why they couldn't have just used a large bomb against a bridge. I heard it was also used against shipping, I could see reasonable use here given a good angle of attack because it would be much faster than a torpedo and thus it could be launched at somewhat of a greater range I assume.

f77a0e  No.641828


They would work if pansies would suck up their pride and go back to the tried and true round balls

fc783c  No.641829


Wouldn't a musket ball work fairly well considering the range? I guess it would have shitty terminal effects though.

fc783c  No.641830


And would it work with a shotgun? The breakup of the wad as it goes around the bend seems like it would be an issue there.

cea7c1  No.641839

File: a58c3688f2eb0df⋯.jpg (63.39 KB, 599x864, 599:864, B1Hc-h5CEAAPE3d.jpg)

File: 82d495fc0391535⋯.jpg (18.06 KB, 514x258, 257:129, indexfgadfgad.jpg)

Toss bombing always seemed to be rather questionable.


Those things…I remember as a kid trying to knock out a bridge in the mission you use them and getting utterly screwed every single time. My worst experience, one that has stuck with me forever, went like so:

>fifth or so try attempting to hit the bridge

>decide I'm making it happen this time, no matter what

>approach the bridge from a higher altitude than normal

>go into a 45 or so degree dive

>"ah hah" my brain thinks, "even if I miss the bridge the impact with the water will set the warhead off"

>release bomb and pull off, activate autopilot

>swap camera to bomb

>trajectory looks to be almost perfect

>just a hair low, but it'll crash almost directly below the bridge

>nose and fuselage miss edge of bridge by a couple feet

>vertical stabilizer hits edge of bridge, snaps off

>impact jolts nose upward

>bomb almost skims surface of the water

>watch bomb fly serenely off into the distance

>exit mission

>never attempt mission again

2ccc97  No.641843


I wish I had the childlike persistence, I tried about 3 or 4 times, I was pretty good about lining up with the road, but most of my shots were low and as a result I blew myself up before I could peel away.

c18d29  No.641849


>I wonder why they couldn't have just used a large bomb against a bridge

Because bridges are small targets easier to hit with guided bomb

a11107  No.641987

File: 322f7c3d260f964⋯.jpg (198.29 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, ekr lun tumblr_nw2uec3qRl1….jpg)

File: 720a5d0d02bd365⋯.jpg (207.66 KB, 1373x900, 1373:900, ekr lun tFelIPu.jpg)

File: 35bffeefba3d2c0⋯.jpg (49.11 KB, 833x486, 833:486, Ekranoplan.jpg)

File: 1c1da81e1f94bf2⋯.jpg (134.65 KB, 1800x925, 72:37, ekrano 04136402.jpg)

File: 87849770b5de3d6⋯.jpg (112.01 KB, 1240x696, 155:87, ekr lun original.jpg)

One might wonder why nobody picked up the ground-effect vehicle after the Soviets.


<copy of B-29

A reverse engineering effort that was equivalent of five original bomber projects in work hours because the commissar insisted they have to copy every piece of equipment instead of using off-the-shelf domestic ones.

<equivalent of Concorde with smaller range

It was a bullshit vanity project rushed through development because the commissar wanted to shout "FIRST"

<equivalent of Space Shuttle but better

Equivalent of the Soyuz and UR-500 systems already in service, but worse. Glushko went out of his way to build anything but a copy of the idiotic burgerplane, but the commissar wanted it to resemble, because "otherwise the world will think we can't build a proper space shuttle".


d84a74  No.641988

File: 5218a4b110ea772⋯.jpg (100.32 KB, 795x941, 795:941, 1542133995749.jpg)

File: a3014eb32f2b456⋯.png (4.94 MB, 1900x1280, 95:64, ded.png)


>One might wonder why nobody picked up the ground-effect vehicle after the Soviets.

a11107  No.641998

File: c92ec9b75e566e7⋯.png (70.99 KB, 669x441, 223:147, hultgreen.png)

File: 1a8ee330de8c9d7⋯.png (1.2 MB, 1353x3592, 1353:3592, hollygraf.png)

File: 84643eadf72c19a⋯.png (62.12 KB, 734x468, 367:234, fitzgerald collision.png)

File: 6e874da2e7475be⋯.webm (6.96 MB, 320x240, 4:3, women in military.webm)


Women are indeed a strange piece of military hardware. The loons who want to see them everywhere are even stranger.

fd25e6  No.642010


I know I've seen that webm posted before, but please tell me its some celeb they have on there for a stupid show or something.

97b10d  No.642029

File: bab2972dece7d75⋯.jpg (157.2 KB, 1024x689, 1024:689, Navy_Hydrofoil007-copy-e13….jpg)


Ground effect is a very specific thing that will only work in calm waters in specific parts of the globe. Such as the seas around Russia. They don't do bad weather and they have a terrible tendency to suddenly nose down if you hit a bad pocket of air meaning you are flying on pins and needles the entire time. Though we also adopted a fast moving anti-ship missile platform in the Pegasus class hydrofoil as it had much better seakeeping in open ocean than ground effect craft. Granted its role was to fire harpoons at small missile corvettes like an extra fast frigate whereas the erkranoplans were to be used as extra fast missile corvettes.

bbcda8  No.642061


Dear lord why did they scrap those things? The only things they needed extra were a pair of anti air missiles and they would have been excellent border patrol boats.

Also if the arsenal ship actually came to life they could have had a target designator for it

97b10d  No.642080

File: fc8992a58e1c3ef⋯.jpg (43.24 KB, 680x408, 5:3, bang.jpg)


They were actually proposed to be operated in the gulf of Mexico for that purpose after the cold war ended but Clinton put a stop to that in a hurry.

mfw one still survives today as a private yacht

d84a74  No.642139


Would Ground Effect vehicles work in the Sea of Japan or the Mediterranean?

9a205e  No.642248


>Ground effect is a very specific thing that will only work in calm waters in specific parts of the globe.

This. Is. Bullshit.

Ground effect exists everywhere, it happens because the air is trapped between the wing and the ground and thus produces a compression resistance in addition to usual lift.

This happens to every aircraft trying to land ever the ground effect is well known as something the pilot fights against every time he lands.

It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land. No such thing as "bad air pockets", that isn't how it works.

It doesn't stop a few inches off the ground either, ground effect is there 6-10m off the ground, which is sea state 6-8. A ground effect aircraft can fly over virtually all seas much better than any ship connected to the fucking water.

Oh, and any aircraft that can fly in ground effect can also rise out of ground effect and fly normally. It's just wastes as much fuel as a normal aircraft when it does that, which kind of defeats the purpose.

The Wright Brothers likely made their first flight entirely in ground effect.

WIG can even land on water and sit there like a trimaran boat doing everything a boat does.

The literal only downside of a WIG over a boat is that the WIG can't move as fast once it lands.

97b10d  No.642285

File: c5176879588fba5⋯.png (26.03 KB, 132x213, 44:71, dude.PNG)


They would probably work in the med as I believe I read somewhere that some fuckoff money Saudi was planning on making a ground effect cargo liner across it. The sea of Japan is a bit iffy as its still mostly connected to the Pacific which is not a calm ocean despite the name.


Why do you have the absolute worse reading comprehension out of anyone on this entire site? Aircraft trying to land do so over flat ground or very calm seas you dipshit. This is why pure ground effect only craft can only operate in calm seas or very flat plains like salt flats. I can't believe the lengths you go to in misunderstanding to get upset at people here.

97bbba  No.642289


>a pair of anti air missiles and they would have been excellent border patrol boats

The Italians have been developing some pretty nifty shells for that 76mm gun, therefore I think it wouldn't even need those missiles. Of course we don't know how much of this is just marketing.


>if the arsenal ship actually came to life they could have had a target designator for it

Not just that, if you use it to patrol your own waters, then you can use them together with anti-ship missiles to get rid of anything from smugglers to invading fleets.

d84a74  No.642294

File: 0a677ca109eaf7c⋯.png (122.54 KB, 292x389, 292:389, takagi_smug.png)


>It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land.

<his speed management is so poor he has to actively push the nose down on landing

<he's never landed a taildragger

Sasuga leaf-kun, you never fail to disappoint.

9a205e  No.642321


>It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land.

<his speed management is so poor he has to actively push the nose down on landing

>apply lift force DOWN

<actively push the nose down

>has to actually point nose at the ground in order to apply aerodynamic force at the earth

>is riding in a 18th century 11-winged failplane

>has never heard of flaps

The fuck are you trying to prove?


>This is why pure ground effect only craft can only operate in calm seas or very flat plains like salt flats.


Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!

cc2f43  No.642351


No its not you double nigger, air pressure is significantly lower the higher you go up

9a205e  No.642373


>at any given altitude

First learn to read. Then pick up a middle school science textbook.

90e786  No.642424


>Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!

You are one dumb nigger. Have you never looked at a weather report where they talk about pressure systems? Have you never wondered why altimeters are adjustable? If pressure was uniform at a given altitude, then there would be nothing causing the air to flow horizontally. You know, that "wind" thing. Pressure would be uniform IF THE ATMOSPHERE WERE IN EQUILIBRIUM, WHICH IT IS NOT. That is why weather exists.


>It doesn't stop a few inches off the ground either, ground effect is there 6-10m off the ground, which is sea state 6-8

Your entire argument here is based on the idea that the vehicle will maintain exactly the same altitude at all times, and it can be considered "safe" as long as nothing is taller than that exact altitude. That's a load of bullshit.

If the ground isn't flat you'll get turbulence that will bump you around. If turbulence is bumping you around, your height will change. If your height is changing, you might hit things that are sticking up from the surface. And since you are flying less than 10m above the surface, you have absolutely no time to react. Even if your craft can land on the water, flying through waves at full speed is not a good thing.

69f4ad  No.642426


delete this picture in an instant

9a205e  No.642430

VPNs are a fucking cancer


The air pressure that makes weather systems doesn't change the density of the air enough to drop an aircraft out of the sky. It does not work that way.

>muh turbulence

Ekranoplans are uniquely suited to deal with it, they have larger control surfaces, mass more, have stub wings and more engine power than necessary. This isn't an issue.

d84a74  No.642550

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Show me where the Pilots use downforce outside the elevators to make their planes land and how flaps decrease aerodynamic lift somehow.

90e786  No.642685


>Holly Graf

Interesting that her Wikipedia article has a notice at the top saying the entire article may get deleted because it doesn't meet "notability guidelines". I'm sure there's no other interests at play there.

>For instance, while she was commander of the Churchill, a propeller snapped just as it was leaving port, leaving it dead in the water. Graf grabbed the navigator and dragged him to the outdoor bridge wing while cursing at him. According to chaplain Maurice Kaprow, many Churchill sailors, knowing that Graf's career would have ended if the Churchill had run aground, started jumping for joy and singing Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead on the fantail.

>Ultimately, the entire crew broke out in cheers when she was relieved in 2004.

2ccc97  No.642865

Alright, generally speaking using bombs on a airstrip is generally effective especially If it's made of concrete. If you bomb a dirt/grass field it cam be quickly repaired, so what if we mined it? Mines can be launched from the ai, getting near an airstrip would be tough especially with engine noise. I figure you could turn your engine a way off from the target and glide in, drop your ordnance, and leave. This would be done at night, of course. I reckon this process could render an airstrip unusable thus forcing enemies to either relocate without being able to ferry aircraft, wasting time and logistics vehicles. At best it could blow off the gear of a returning or taking off aircraft. This is in more of a world war 2 context

cea7c1  No.642869


During WWII (and in other wars I'm sure), bombing airfields usually consisted of impact bombs combined with time fuzed ones. These fuzes could be anywhere from minutes to days long, which made attempting to repair the field hazardous. As far as mines go, I don't see it being that helpful, since I'm 90% sure airstrips would be inspected prior to use.

9a205e  No.642916


Do you see that giant thing hanging off the back of the airplane? It's called a flap, it increases drag and creates nose dive pitch, both of which reduce WIG.

6-7 seconds you can see him struggling with WIG effect, he bounces in the air twice trying to set it down.

a62731  No.642929


>It's called a flap, it increases drag and creates nose dive pitch, both of which reduce WIG.

While not entirely wrong, you are certainly not right either.

Flaps increase the surface area of the wings and increase the angle of attack on the rear portions of it too. This generates more drag but also generates a lot more lift. This is why flaps are used for landing and takeoff procedures. Using them in fast flight would generate so much lift that the wings would rip off. The drag they produce is not generally used for slowing down. You can see this especially immediately after touchdown. Pilots often immediately retract flaps after touchdown to decrease lift and give the wheelbrakes more weight on them.

Because wings are mounted near the center of gravity of any aircraft, flaps will generate very little extra Torque on the aircraft.

You could possibly be thinking about airbrakes, which are meant to produce drag and not lift, in order to slow the plane down.

WIG (Wing in ground, or ground effect) is not really a major issue for most fixed wing aircraft. A wing generates lift by increasing the static air pressure underneath the wing and increasing the dynamic pressure above. This causes an imbalance of forces acting upon the wings and generates an upwards force.

If the aircraft is close to the ground the pressure below the wing will be even greater, because air has no way to move out of the way downwards. This generates even greater lift even if the wing is moving slower than normal.

If pilots encounter this problem shortly before touchdown they can usually glide it out and wait until they have slowed down enough, or deploy airbrakes. Pulling up slightly increases AoA and makes the plane slow down a little faster, so it's not a bad idea, as long as you don't stall entirely or manage to tailstrike.

If you are still far too fast near ground it is recommended to do a go around. What speed is too fast is determined per model of aircraft individually.

0eef83  No.642979


If you could get the shells to work well, they could certainly do as a high caliber CAWS. The reason I said a pair of AA missiles is because it uses existing munitions and launchers, and would reduce the contractor sponging to a minimum. You could even attach a towed sonar bouy, a targeting system and swap two of the harpoon missiles for asrocs and you have an all purpose, cheaply made, fast as all fuck fighting boat.

d84a74  No.642987

File: f978e9fae157a81⋯.jpg (2.94 MB, 2100x1500, 7:5, Independence class.jpg)

File: 36d126f7294c50b⋯.jpg (1.4 MB, 2700x1795, 540:359, Freedom class.jpg)


>sensible, cost effective shit that works

Why bother with such unprofitable fallacies of theoretical military engineering instead of buying a fleet of these?


6703d5  No.643046


Exactly. That's why we also use flaps during takeoff, where the goal is to minimize both speed and lift.

9a205e  No.643060


>This generates more drag but also generates a lot more lift.

No, it doesn't. If it generated more lift that way, the airplane would rise into the sky not land.

Lowering flaps just maintains some level of lift and control at a lower speed, so you aren't stalling and falling like a rock. This is obvious because even with flaps down you're still reducing altitude, so it can't be producing "more lift". Once you're in WIG mode it's just for drag, and they get popped up when the wheels touch the ground to prevent flipping the aircraft over. You can see this on some much larger aircraft which don't reduce the flaps when wheels touch the ground, as they're too massive/stable to flip over.

>Because wings are mounted near the center of gravity of any aircraft, flaps will generate very little extra Torque on the aircraft.

What? Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

>Using them in fast flight would generate so much lift that the wings would rip off.

It would just nose you over into a rapid dive.


You're also using your elevators during takeoff which make sure your nose is up, and your engines which pump power into the system which otherwise would be crashing. For fucks sake…

cea7c1  No.643069

File: 02db457b85ef269⋯.png (38.68 KB, 692x313, 692:313, airfoil-terminology-2.png)

File: d7265fd482ad1c8⋯.jpg (58.18 KB, 657x230, 657:230, flapsonangle.jpg)


Lets get the absolute basics established.

>Chord Line

Draw a line from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge, that is a chord line.

>Angle of Attack

Difference between the chord line and the Relative Wind. The larger AoA you have, the more air you are scooping with the wing. Larger AoA = more lift.


Trailing edge device that adjusts the Chord Line, and thus increases the AoA. Flaps are used in landing because they allow a pilot to approach at a steeper decent angle while maintaining a slow speed.

>Once you're in WIG mode it's just for drag

So you've never done a soft-field takeoff, have you?

>they get popped up when the wheels touch the ground to prevent flipping the aircraft over

>It would just nose you over into a rapid dive.

What the fuck? Have you ever flown an airplane, this is the exact opposite of what happens.

>Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

Which is my ailerons, elevators and rudders are all mounted as close to the center of an aircraft as possible, right?

t. pilot

90e786  No.643085


At this point I hope you're just baiting, and not actually this stupid.

If flaps tend to flip the aircraft over, then why are they left extended for soft-field landings? If flaps increased lift, then keeping them extended makes sense, since it stops your wheels digging into the ground (which actually could cause you to flip over), but since you insist they don't then what's the reason?

If flaps only increase drag and not lift in ground effect, then why are flaps particularly extended for short-field takeoffs? If they increased lift and reduced the stall speed, then it makes sense since you'd have a lower takeoff speed, and thus need less runway. But since you insist they just increase drag when in ground effect, you would accelerate slower, and need MORE runway to get up to speed, making flaps counterproductive.

>even with flaps down you're still reducing altitude, so it can't be producing "more lift"

What are you even trying to say? With flaps extended you produce more lift than you would with flaps up in the same conditions. That is true when you are ascending with flaps extended during takeoff, and it is true when you are descending with flaps extended during approach.

>Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

τ = r x F you absolute nigger.

9a205e  No.643208


>posts a picture that proves full flaps cause a more rapid descent

The absolute basics for you guys seem to be "when something is falling down, it isn't achieving more lift than when it's flying level"


>τ = r x F you absolute nigger.

Grab a hammer by the bottom of the grips. Lift the head, note how difficult it is.

Now grab it by the head, closer to the center of mass, and lift the handle.

Which is easier?

Applying force closer to the center of mass produces stronger results, this is why swords are balanced so the center of mass is near the tip of the grips ffs.

How do you fail at things babies can figure out.

8c587e  No.643246

File: 220c62c98c8449b⋯.gif (3.21 MB, 400x225, 16:9, 220c62c98c8449b24ede1b9b99….gif)


You don't understand the point and you don't know what you're talking about, flaps in the landing position generate more lift but also generate a lot more air resistance, slowing the aircraft down. Make a guess why there's takeoff and landing flap positions, and why takeoff is somewhere around half the angle of landing.

973e99  No.643257

File: a86066c8a7f5c03⋯.jpg (30.68 KB, 449x546, 449:546, 1455588303328.jpg)


I could never understand it, why didn't they made the front turret to be a main armament of some heavy fighter. If there's a front turret it's always some shit machinegun, usually 7.62 mm, some have 12.7 mm but that's it, just barely sufficient to scare off some fighters in frontal hemisphere. They should've put B-17 ball turrets in there, with targeting computers and shit, but equipped with a pair of belt fed 20 mm autocannons and a 35 mm coaxial auxiliary gun. And they did had heavy twin prop fighters with a shitload of frontal guns in the nose, yet they didn't took one more logical step of turning that shit into a turret so that the aiming is not limited by airplane's maneuverability. No, they just used the turrets for defense and put super shitty guns on them too, and when they seriously attempted this concept they did it in the most retarded possible fashion like you have there, it baffles me.

973e99  No.643269

File: 2ae09282fd98f4e⋯.jpg (192.68 KB, 1011x548, 1011:548, Vickers_Wellington_Mk2.jpg)

File: 11ca292d2cf5a43⋯.jpg (149.75 KB, 1600x702, 800:351, BeaufighterUSAAF1.jpg)


Take these two pictures of a fighter and a bomber, completely out of context. It doesn't takes a genius to immediately see that if a bomber can benefit from having articulated frontal guns, a fighter will too and to a much greater extent.

973e99  No.643271


>low fuel efficiency

>heating issues

Probably was winding the motors for too much speed, so at low speed they ate shitload of electricity and produced shitload of heat for very little mechanical power output. Or he did something retarded like using resistive voltage regulator instead of simply controlling motor RPM. Something simple like generator directly connected to the engine, wired through a breaker box to the sprocket-driving universal motors, would have no problems whatsoever bar minor arcing in the breaker and on the motor brushes.

a62731  No.643277


>No, it doesn't. If it generated more lift that way, the airplane would rise into the sky not land.

I seriously hope you don't belive that.

Airplanes already slow down a lot during approach. It's travel speed is a lot faster than it's landing speed.

Deploying flaps allows you to

>maintain[s] some level of lift and control at a lower speed

because it increases lift drastically. Without deploying flaps you would be close to stalling and certainly pushing the nose of the aircraft much higher than with flaps. This would make landing harder for the pilots and designing the landing gear much more difficult for the engineers, because you still have to prevent a tailstrike.

>What? Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

Yeah, this is bait.


>he doesn't know the difference between force and torque

This is hilarious.

cea7c1  No.643302


>posts a picture that proves full flaps cause a more rapid descent

Except that's not what the image shows, which you would know if you understood the mechanics behind flaps and their effect on flight.


The Blackburn Roc and the Boulton Paul Defiant were kind of close to what you're talking about, but I would assume that having a rotating pair of 20 mils and a 35(?)mm would take up too much space as opposed to a fixed mounting.

973e99  No.643307

File: 004f51a577c0f15⋯.jpg (145.67 KB, 654x539, 654:539, 1437633101688.jpg)


To their credit, they actually made a superior version of Shuttle, and again to their credit, they realized it was a complete and total waste of money as early as its maiden flight and pulled the plug on it.


Limited operability at sea. It can't fly in stormy weather for crap, can't swim either. It can rise to aircraft altitude but if it can't land on water then it's utterly fucked. Also very poor fuel efficiency - these 8 giant engines are not for show.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dox / hnt / hybrid / kohl / lewd / marx / milkers / thesewer ]