maddogdrivethru.net
http://maddogdrivethru.net/

Military Thread
http://maddogdrivethru.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19165
Page 17 of 22

Author:  Kameolontti [ Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

chijohnaok wrote:
At about the 48 second mark I saw what looks like a fixed coastal gun emplacement being fired. (And it didn't exactly look that old either)
I thought most countries had given up on coastal guns.
Does Finland still have/use those?


They're cheap and we have conscripts :twisted:

Initially we inherited Czar's coastal artillery in 1917 when we declared independence. Currently we have a limited number of coastal guns, mainly because "why not" and because they were cheap. They are being phased out by 2020 by which time the Coastal Target Practice units will cease to exist. Already the primary maritime defenses rely on mobile anti-ship batteries, these batteries are constantly on the move even during peace time. Other defenses are obviously sea mines and stealth missile boats.

Btw. The Finnish Jehu-class transport is 19m tall and carries 25 coastal jägers at 40 knots. fully sealed from the environments.

Anthropoid wrote:
You guys should support the separatist movements in Karelian Republic, and Murmansk Oblast! :mrgreen:

There are significant, oppressed Finnish minorities there aren't there!?

St. Petersburg Subyekty is probably pushing it though . . . Start small. Move at a moderate pace, consolidate your gains and keep going . . .


Come now, Karelians tried to rebel against Russians in 20's, some Finnish volunteers went to help them out but some of the Karelians fought for commies as they were promised autonomy. Instead when the freedom movement was crushed many of the remaining Karelians and Finnish communists who had sided with the Soviets were killed in the purges - just in case.

Not that this doesn't mean that camrad dealio can't use this incident to still justify everything Soviets and Russians ever did as obviously volunteers involving themselves in a war for independence is the same as firebombing cities of a country you have non-aggression treaty with in order to crush their resistance, commit genocide and replace their population with Russians. Obviously the exact same thing, never mind that the Fenno-Ugrian peoples that failed to secure independence were largely wiped out and their survivors assimilated in the glorious Soviet Union.

Author:  mdiehl [ Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

Russian account of lend lease tanks. Why he like the Sherman a whole lot.

http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

Quote:
If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?”

(After having his tank hit and set on fire by Germans) “We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires… …We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives.


Quote:
I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.


There's other stuff about the nature of occupation that I wonder if they sugar coat the way they treated civilians but the au has no reason to lie about his experiences with the tank itself.

Author:  chijohnaok [ Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

https://warisboring.com/45796-2/

Quote:
The U.S. Navy is seriously considering reactivating as many as seven recently-decommissioned Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigates in order to quickly boost the size of the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet.

But the Navy would not significantly modernize the recommissioned frigates, nor add heavy weaponry, Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer said.

Rather than sending them into harm’s way in the Middle East or into the crowded, dangerous waters of the Western Pacific, the Navy would assign the 4,100-ton Perrys to the Caribbean in “a limited drug-interdiction mode,” Spencer said.

In a drug-interdiction role, the frigates could free up guided-missile destroyers and Littoral Combat Ships for more high-end missions. But Congress has been skeptical of adding lightly-armed warships to the fleet.


Continued at above link

If the US Navy can bring some of these decommissioned ships back, at minimal cost, and place them in roles that don't require cutting edge technology (such as for drug interdiction.....or even for things like the pirate patrols off the Horn of Africa) so as to free other more modern ships for more important duties, then why not?

Author:  jwilkerson [ Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

It sounds like a serious issue is that that class's primary weapons system is inert due to no more ammo ...

Quote:
... One single-arm Mk 13 Missile Launcher with a 40-missile magazine that contains SM-1MR anti-aircraft guided missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Removed from the U.S. Navy ships starting in 2003, due to the retirement of the SM-1 missile from American service ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate

Author:  chijohnaok [ Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

jwilkerson wrote:
It sounds like a serious issue is that that class's primary weapons system is inert due to no more ammo ...

Quote:
... One single-arm Mk 13 Missile Launcher with a 40-missile magazine that contains SM-1MR anti-aircraft guided missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Removed from the U.S. Navy ships starting in 2003, due to the retirement of the SM-1 missile from American service ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate



Well, that could be a problem if you are putting the Perry's into theaters of war..
On the other hand, if their primary use is for things like drug interaction in the Caribbean or off the coast of South America, then they should be ok.
How many anti-aircraft or Harpoon missiles has the US Coast Guard had to fire in the last 20 years?

Author:  Zad Fnark [ Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

Keep in mind, with their single screw. they only did about 29 kts.

Author:  jack t ripper [ Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

Perhaps you post them at the edge of a battle group to absorb incoming cruise missiles. ;)

Author:  Kameolontti [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

Confirmed, Finnish F-18 tailhooks do work as intended.

An F-18 belonging to FAF suspected a possible glitch with the brake system and as a precaution flew to Denmark for a wire landing.

I'm mostly concerned why we cannot bolt a couple of wires on the runway ourselves? Is it beyond our technical capabilities or is it too 'warlike'?

Author:  chijohnaok [ Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htair ... 70929.aspx

Quote:
Air Transportation: Last Day For C-5A

September 29, 2017: The U.S. Air Force retired its last C-5A transport in early September. The C-5 is still in service as a much modernized C-5M. The first production version of the C-5M transport entered service in late 2010 while the last of the 52 refurbished C-5Ms arrived in 2017. These are expected to service until 2040. About the same number of older C-5s were retired to the air force “bone yard” where they were used for spare parts or scrap.

The C-5M upgrades (new engines, cockpit and electronics) proved to be more successful than expected. The refurb also replaced any worn structural components, replaced existing engines with more powerful and fuel efficient ones, and installed new electronics. This included digital controls, a much nicer looking cockpit, all-weather capability and better communications. The C-5M is easier to handle than the older models, and costs a third less to fly as well. The upgrade costs about $120 million per aircraft. While the M model can carry more weight over longer distances, that was not the main goal of the upgrade. The primary objective was to create an aircraft that was cheaper to fly and operate, and was more reliable and easier to maintain. The new engines are not only cheaper to operate but also much quieter (max sound is 105 decibels, versus 120 with the old engines.) The C-5As were notable for the distinct engine sound, which is now gone forever.

The C-5A entered service in 1970 and production ended in 1973 with 81 delivered. It was a 380 ton aircraft that could carry up to 122 tons (but usually 100 tons or less, to reduce metal fatigue.) Max speed was 930 kilometers an hour. It could fly 4,400 kilometers on internal fuel, and refuel in the air. The C-5M refurbishment program is considered the last one and is actually a culmination of an upgrade program that began in the 1980s when C-5 production was resumed as the C-5B with 50 delivered by 1989. Thus the total production of C-5s was 131 aircraft.

While the C-5 had many technical problems that were addressed in numerous upgrades, there were also political problems. In 2009 the U.S. Congress finally agreed to let the U.S. Air Force retire its oldest air transports. The air force had 59 elderly C-5As, that were introduced in the early 1970s, and Congress insisted they be kept flying because otherwise some key legislators would lose jobs in their districts. Keeping these old aircraft in the air was getting so expensive, that it became embarrassing to Congress, and the air force was allowed to retire them. There were still 52 C-5Bs models, built in the 1980s, that had some (economically) useful life left in them. Congress agreed to have these upgraded to C-5Ms. Before the latest decision, the air force was going to spend a lot of money upgrading the C-5As. But now the air force could build more C-17s instead.

Before 2009 the air force looked into a replacement for the C-5. The most attractive proposal was a military version of the already planned freighter version of the new Airbus 380. While the C-5 can carry up to 122 tons of cargo on one deck the 380F could carry up to 150 tons of cargo on three decks. At that point (2007) Airbus already has 25 orders for the freighter version. The first passenger version of the 380 had just entered service. Boeing offered the latest version of the 747, the 747 8F, as a C-5 replacement. This aircraft can carry 140 tons in 854 cubic meters of cargo space. Neither of these proposals worked. The 380 freighter was never built because it turned out it was not economical to operate. The passenger version of the 380 entered service but demand was not what Airbus expected. The Boeing 747 8F was more successful commercially and entered service in 2011 and is still in production with 71 in service by 2017. The 747 8F can carry 132 tons on a single deck. But the 787 8F needed some modifications for military service and it was feared these would drive the cost per aircraft to nearly half a billion dollars each. As it is the 747 8F already cost $380 million each and the experience with “militarizing” commercial transport for military use indicated the process could be time-consuming as well as expensive.

Meanwhile it turned out there was a market for larger air transports, just not for a lot of them. This was demonstrated with the Russian (now Ukrainian) An-124. The An-124 is the world's largest production aircraft and can carry a payload of 120 tons and had a lot more interior volume than any other transport. It first flew in 1986 and only 55 have been built so far. New ones will cost over $100 million each. Russia has been trying to get it back into production for over a decade but needed to work out a deal with Ukraine, where the An-124 is built. In 2103 Russia and Ukraine had worked out a deal to build 20 new commercial An-124s but the contract had not been signed yet. Apparently a contract to build ten new An-124s for the Russian Air Force was closer to signing but that deal was cancelled when Russia went to war with Ukraine in 2014, a conflict that is still unresolved. The Ukrainian manufacturer wanted to build new aircraft as An-124-150s and upgrade some existing ones to that standard. That would reduce crew size from six to four and increase carrying capacity to 150 tons. The An-124 has been very successful as a commercial transport, especially for military purposes. Even NATO leases An-124s for moving military cargo. Ukraine needs the work and Russia needs the An-124s but until the current conflict is resolved that will all have to wait.

Author:  Zad Fnark [ Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Military Thread

That's the A model. The Ms will still be up.

Page 17 of 22 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/