You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ITT: I will answer questions about military equipment/history.
- Thread starter Kurayami
- Start date
More options
Who Replied?
what
#1: You aren't sinking a ship (especially during WW2. When they were actually heavily armored) with 20mm. The M61 would be useless against anything but perhaps a DD or DDE.
#2: The F-14 only carried A2A missiles, so it has zero capacity to engage surface targets at standoff range.
#3: The "precision weapons" that the F-14 could carry (namely JDAMs and Paveways) would be utterly useless since they rely upon GPS (which didn't exist) or laser guidance (which would be impossible to utilize since there'd be nobody to paint a target.)
#4: All of this essentially means that an F-14 in this retarded scenario would be confined to using the exact same tactics that TBDs and SDBs used at the time (I.E., dumb bombs from low altitude at relatively low speeds.) And it's pretty clear that people don't have a clear conception of just how many dozens of pounds of AAA fire a CV battlegroup can put out every second--a single CV alone is going to generally have close to 30 larger caliber (~25-40mm) AA weapons and possibly dozens of smaller caliber (.50) mounts. Couple that with flak and the fact that every ship in the group is similarly armed and you begin to understand why flying a torpedo bomber in WW2 was all but suicidal.
And if you want to hit a ship, you'd have to get in range of all of that.
And when thousands of rounds are flying past you a second, some of them are going to hit.
They'd be far better employed for recon. Their radar and speed would actually enable them to make a real contribution in that role. Certainly a better use than sending them flying through curtains of lead to be bomb trucks.
The carrier would have its full supply of armament from the get go, so there is nothing on a semi modern day carrier that could sink a WW2 era ship? You would know better then I, but I find that hard believe. Realistically all they need to do is take out the carriers and the USS Nimitz was not limited to only Tomcats in 1980, it had A7 Corsair 2's, A-4's and maybe a few F4's?
I dont think we had precise weapons in 1980 when the supposed time travel of the Nimitz took place so the that argument is not really valid.
The scenario I previously describe about sending up a force to intercept the attacking Japanese all the while sending out another to sink the Jap carriers would have probably ended the pacific war before it even started.
SirBatesAlot
Veteran X
So don't stop me now
don't stop me now
cause i'm having a good time
having a good time
don't stop me now
cause i'm having a good time
having a good time
I wasn't aware of a timeframe. I thought the scenario was a Nimitz class CVN and a compliment of F-14s?The carrier would have its full supply of armament from the get go, so there is nothing on a semi modern day carrier that could sink a WW2 era ship? You would know better then I, but I find that hard believe. Realistically all they need to do is take out the carriers and the USS Nimitz was not limited to only Tomcats in 1980, it had A7 Corsair 2's, A-4's and maybe a few F4's?
I dont think we had precise weapons in 1980 when the supposed time travel of the Nimitz took place so the that argument is not really valid.
The scenario I previously describe about sending up a force to intercept the attacking Japanese all the while sending out another to sink the Jap carriers would have probably ended the pacific war before it even started.
As for the carrier itself, AFIAK a Nimitz only has SAMs and a few CIWS for armament.
JDAMs weren't around in the '80s, but LGBs were.
I like the new Finnish uniforms.answer my fucking question shtihead faggot sdajigsdfgsdfg
No idea.what role did castles play in William the Conqueror's...conquer... of England?
English history bores me.
They aren't really analogous regardless of what movies would have you think. A better comparison is the AK-74 vs the M16, since that is what the Russians have been using for the past few decades.which is better: the ak-47, or the m-16?
The AK-47 is far more reliable. The 7.62x39mm round has more stopping power than 5.56x45, but lower velocity. By all accounts it's far easier to fire the M16 in burst mode than it is to fire an accurate burst from the AK in auto, especially in combat.
The AK-74 is basically the same, just with a different round (5.45x39mm) and slightly less stopping power than the M16.
The M16 is fairly mediocre as far as rifles go.
The G36 is a far better weapon in the same caliber.
I wasn't aware of a timeframe. I thought the scenario was a Nimitz class CVN and a compliment of F-14s?
As for the carrier itself, AFIAK a Nimitz only has SAMs and a few CIWS for armament.
JDAMs weren't around in the '80s, but LGBs were.
we are talking about a movie, The Final Countdown (1980)
what role did castles play in William the Conqueror's...conquer... of England?
I'll step in the for the kind Dr. here,
To be honest, if we talking about the Battle of Hastings, not much...
in fact to be honest, Harold would have wonif his men had exercised better discipline.
The Norman knights under William's command, charged a hill defended by Harold's infantry.
Cavalry going up-hill against well defended infantry can generally hold their own and win. But Harold's men lacked disciplined. As the Normans began to retreat after having been repelled several times from Harold's infantry, Harold's men broke ranks and began to chase the Norman cavalry onto an open plain. The lost unit cohesion and terrain advantage in doing so, and all the Norman Knights had to do was turn back around and carve them back up.
They had the battle won if they held their ground lol.
Easy way to think of the AK-47 vs M-16:
The AK-47 is a machine gun that's been made rifle-ish.
The M-16 is a rifle that's been made machine gun-ish.
Different philosophies went into their design & creation.
The AK-47 is a machine gun that's been made rifle-ish.
The M-16 is a rifle that's been made machine gun-ish.
Different philosophies went into their design & creation.
Are you aware of any unusually decorated or otherwise historically significant C-47 Dakotas? I am building a 1/14th scale model to fly , and haven't selected a final scheme. D-Day or Vietnam Era Gunship (Spooky) are obvious choices.
dot . dawt
I forget, was the Nimitz by itself or did the entire carrier group get transported back in time as well?we are talking about a movie, The Final Countdown (1980)
I'll step in the for the kind Dr. here,
To be honest, if we talking about the Battle of Hastings, not much...
in fact to be honest, Harold would have wonif his men had exercised better discipline.
The Norman knights under William's command, charged a hill defended by Harold's infantry.
Cavalry going up-hill against well defended infantry can generally hold their own and win. But Harold's men lacked disciplined. As the Normans began to retreat after having been repelled several times from Harold's infantry, Harold's men broke ranks and began to chase the Norman cavalry onto an open plain. The lost unit cohesion and terrain advantage in doing so, and all the Norman Knights had to do was turn back around and carve them back up.
They had the battle won if they held their ground lol.
It was kind of a trick question because there weren't castles (by technical definition, there were forts) in england until william built them.
Not really.Easy way to think of the AK-47 vs M-16:
The AK-47 is a machine gun that's been made rifle-ish.
The M-16 is a rifle that's been made machine gun-ish.
Different philosophies went into their design & creation.
An "assault rifle" is basically an SMG crossed with a rifle.
Their common root is the StG 44, which the AK-47 is the direct descendant of.
It was kind of a trick question because there weren't castles (by technical definition, there were forts) in england until william built them.
thats a douchebag question
It was kind of a trick question because there weren't castles (by technical definition, there were forts) in england until william built them.
That depends on your definition of castles....
Early moated forts existed in commonality in England throughout 700s and 800s- technically castles, but the Castle (common usage) was exported to England after the Norman invasion.
--chaingun
Veteran XV
Why is the A-10 Warthog so badass?