maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:23 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 700 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 ... 70  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:47 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19269
Reputation points: 18052
Kameolontti wrote:
NefariousKoel wrote:
I suspect the problem with mounting those big long barrels, at such a high elevation, would cause problems such as instability and structural weakness on such a small hull. That ship is tiny.

Obviously they only named it a "cruiser" because it's bun barrels were so large, but the hull looks to be the size of a much smaller gunboat. With the higher center of gravity such a fixed gun angle would lend to the ship, there would be some real danger of tipping in choppy seas or when firing.


Check monitor type vessels, they carry some big guns because they're designed to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_coastal_defence_ship_Ilmarinen

Displacement: 3,900 t
Length: 93.0 m (305.1 ft)
Beam: 16.864 m (55.33 ft)
Draught: 4.5 m (15 ft)

Armament:
[design]
4 × 254 mm (10 in)/45 cal Bofors guns (2 × 2)
8 × 105 mm (4 in)/50 cal Bofors DP guns (4 × 2)
4 × 40 mm/40 cal Vickers AA guns (4 × 1)
2 × 20 mm/60 cal Madsen AA guns (2 × 1)

[1941]
4 × 254 mm/45 cal Bofors guns (2 × 2)
8 × 105 mm/50 cal Bofors DP guns (4 × 2)
4 × 40 mm/56 cal Bofors AA M/36S guns (1 × 2, 2 × 1)
4 × 20 mm/60 cal Madsen AA guns (4 × 1)


3900 tons and a nearly 17m beam is a fairly large, and quite fat, ship. That's larger than most WW2 destroyers, and is the same size as Pre-WW1 Cruisers (which is the era the air cannon ship came from).

Monitors, back in the 19th century, sat VERY low in the water. Due to that, they had much lower centers of gravity and more stable buoyancy. For that same reason, they were also very prone to high seas & weather. They were also pretty slow. These are reasons they remained just an anomaly; they weren't practical and had too many limitations, so they went out of use.

That glorified air cannon gunboat did not sit low in the water, however. It also appears to be pretty thin-beamed, judging by the photo. Trade-offs. ;)

Also note that the gun barrels on monitors are much shorter. The air gun barrels are so long, they had to be mounted through the length of part of the hull.

While the air cannon ship was experimental, I doubt they just mounted the guns willy-nilly without any planning as to the factors involved in the ship-building or the guns' use. Either way, it was obviously sub-optimal, as the idea was abandoned.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:17 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 16151
Reputation points: 720
NefariousKoel wrote:
Kameolontti wrote:
...
Check monitor type vessels, they carry some big guns because they're designed to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_coastal_defence_ship_Ilmarinen

Displacement: 3,900 t
Length: 93.0 m (305.1 ft)
Beam: 16.864 m (55.33 ft)
Draught: 4.5 m (15 ft)

Armament:
[design]
4 × 254 mm (10 in)/45 cal Bofors guns (2 × 2)
8 × 105 mm (4 in)/50 cal Bofors DP guns (4 × 2)
4 × 40 mm/40 cal Vickers AA guns (4 × 1)
2 × 20 mm/60 cal Madsen AA guns (2 × 1)

[1941]
4 × 254 mm/45 cal Bofors guns (2 × 2)
8 × 105 mm/50 cal Bofors DP guns (4 × 2)
4 × 40 mm/56 cal Bofors AA M/36S guns (1 × 2, 2 × 1)
4 × 20 mm/60 cal Madsen AA guns (4 × 1)


3900 tons and a nearly 17m beam is a fairly large, and quite fat, ship. That's larger than most WW2 destroyers, and is the same size as Pre-WW1 Cruisers (which is the era the air cannon ship came from).

Monitors, back in the 19th century, sat VERY low in the water. Due to that, they had much lower centers of gravity and more stable buoyancy. For that same reason, they were also very prone to high seas & weather. They were also pretty slow. These are reasons they remained just an anomaly; they weren't practical and had too many limitations, so they went out of use.

That glorified air cannon gunboat did not sit low in the water, however. It also appears to be pretty thin-beamed, judging by the photo. Trade-offs. ;)

Also note that the gun barrels on monitors are much shorter. The air gun barrels are so long, they had to be mounted through the length of part of the hull.

While the air cannon ship was experimental, I doubt they just mounted the guns willy-nilly without any planning as to the factors involved in the ship-building or the guns' use. Either way, it was obviously sub-optimal, as the idea was abandoned.

To build two of those useless monsters was the biggest folly, biggest waste of money in the Finnish military history.

Image

Then Finland bought Bofors AT guns without optical sights, because there was not enough money. Brilliant. :roll:

But I reckon this no way a unique phenomenon. ;)

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:23 pm 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
The other one was leading the fleet in parade formation - in front in mined waters - and what do you know, it ran into a mine, capsized and sunk.

#FinlandNavalPeople
#FinlandNavalPower

Which reminds me

https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp

Finland is #8 in Naval Power with 270

France is #21 with 118
UK is #32 with 76

Time to start some viking raids on west Europe I says.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:32 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31671
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Kameolontti wrote:


Which reminds me

https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp

Finland is #8 in Naval Power with 270

France is #21 with 118
UK is #32 with 76

Time to start some viking raids on west Europe I says.


What an idiotic list? To "rank" "Total Naval Strength" by # of ships. :roll:
My country has a ton of 50 yr old diesel subs and tiny outdated torpedo & patrol boats so that makes me more powerful than you (you have modern CVs and other ships) are...

In another section of their website they indicate that Germany has 543 "Combat Tanks"....I've posted in another thread that as recently as January 2018 Germany was only able to field "Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224". So Global Power more than doubles the total # of tanks and then doesn't take into consideration that more than half of Germany's tanks were combat ineffective. :roll:

I think globalfirepower.com is a website that I will NOT be visiting again

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:41 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19269
Reputation points: 18052
nero wrote:

Then Finland bought Bofors AT guns without optical sights, because there was not enough money. Brilliant. :roll:

But I reckon this no way a unique phenomenon. ;)


What really astonished me was the Beam-to-Length ratio of that thing.

Ship's so fat, it would make ChickenSalad puke broccoli just looking at it! :P

What could it do? About 12 knots on a calm day, with the wind at the tail? May as well have just spent the money on coastal batteries (that don't sink).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:47 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19269
Reputation points: 18052
I guess they DID end up being coastal batteries.. of sorts.

Big-boned

Image

Image

https://laststandonzombieisland.com/tag ... attleship/

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:04 pm 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
chijohnaok wrote:
Kameolontti wrote:


Which reminds me

https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp

Finland is #8 in Naval Power with 270

France is #21 with 118
UK is #32 with 76

Time to start some viking raids on west Europe I says.


What an idiotic list? To "rank" "Total Naval Strength" by # of ships. :roll:
My country has a ton of 50 yr old diesel subs and tiny outdated torpedo & patrol boats so that makes me more powerful than you (you have modern CVs and other ships) are...

In another section of their website they indicate that Germany has 543 "Combat Tanks"....I've posted in another thread that as recently as January 2018 Germany was only able to field "Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224". So Global Power more than doubles the total # of tanks and then doesn't take into consideration that more than half of Germany's tanks were combat ineffective. :roll:

I think globalfirepower.com is a website that I will NOT be visiting again


I brought it up to highlight the idiocy of that website. It was asserted elsewhere that it's perhaps a troll site.

Just as a reminder given that some idiot elsewhere at some point referred to their listings.


NefariousKoel wrote:
nero wrote:

Then Finland bought Bofors AT guns without optical sights, because there was not enough money. Brilliant. :roll:

But I reckon this no way a unique phenomenon. ;)


What really astonished me was the Beam-to-Length ratio of that thing.

Ship's so fat, it would make ChickenSalad puke broccoli just looking at it! :P

What could it do? About 12 knots on a calm day, with the wind at the tail? May as well have just spent the money on coastal batteries (that don't sink).


14.5 knots.

If I remember correctly they were optimized for minimum draught while maintaining sufficient balance that they won't tip over if they fire their reasonably large guns.

Two were built, at least one of them spent most of the war serving as a 'permanent' anti-air battery in Turku harbor so that AA equipment could be delivered elsewhere. "Hey, where are you taking those batteries" -"where they're of more use than defending a place like Turku for crying out loud. But hey, you get this small ship to provide you with air defenses ;) "

Our sea is very shallow one and the ships were built so they could maneuver around the archipelago. When you're dueling actual battleships and real world cruisers with your toy boat you don't want to get stuck on any underwater rocks or so. Anyone who's played World of Warships knows that pain all too well.

Soviets really wanted to sink Väinämöinen, they thought they spotted it in Kotka and immediately sent 132 bombers after it, fortunately it was a German vessel they found. It was then given away as part of war reparations.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:06 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31671
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
NefariousKoel wrote:
I guess they DID end up being coastal batteries.. of sorts.

Big-boned

Image

Image

https://laststandonzombieisland.com/tag ... attleship/


I think that is the first (and only) time I have seen a naval vessel with evergreen camo.

When will we see pine tree camo in World of Warships?

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:23 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
That's an actual wartime photo.

There are a few reasons Finns went to extraordinary lengths with the camouflage.

#1 Soviet air power dominated the skies
#2 Soviet aircraft were hunting this specific ship
#3 Soviet navy
#4 Much of the ship's theater of operations was archipelago

Essentially, it's a unique combination of circumstances that led to it.

We've kept up the tradition ever since and most of our fleet is designed around the concept of moving fast and unseen in the archipelago while delivering lethal firepower on any fool to enter the archipelago. And lots and lots of mines and land based launchers and combat divers.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:45 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19269
Reputation points: 18052
'ware the intro volume, but it doesn't last long ..

The h-k boat breaching the ice is damn entertaining, especially the vid from on top of the ice as it's coming through and vibrating everything on top. 8-)


_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 700 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 ... 70  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group