/k/ - Weapons

Firearms, militaria, military history

Winner of the JulayWorld Attention-Hungry Games™, Week 5

/retro/ - 1990s ans[sic] 2000s nostalgia

Nominations for week 6 coming soon.


Report your front-end woes 2: Electric Boogaloo

What is the Imageboard Federation?

JulayWorld onion service: bhlnasxdkbaoxf4gtpbhavref7l2j3bwooes77hqcacxztkindztzrad.onion

Max message length: 32768

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


There's no discharge in the war!


Open file (710.80 KB 1281x718 Britains Biggest Fuckup.png)
Britains Biggest Fuckup Strelok 11/13/2019 (Wed) 21:24:27 No.2509
So for those who don't know, the BBC, the British Broadcasting Communist organisation, has made a series highlighting the UK's newest carrier as it goes down on a shakedown run. It has the typical shit you'd expect from the BBC i.e. focusing on minorities and the carbon footprint of the Royal Navy I am not making that shit up. However there are some parts of the show I am frankly amazed were aired.

Here are some of the highlights so far:
>The F-35B quite literally cannot land with a payload on the ship unless said ship is sailing at full speed
>The F-35B cannot really land or take off if the sea is a little choppy
>The F-35B cannot really land or take off if there is small birds or tiny bits of dirt on the deck which is fair enough but read next point
>The HMS Queen Elizabeth engine exhaust rips itself to pieces cause the vents are made of thin sheets of badly welded stainless steel held together with duct tape, the end result is that it pumps bits of burnt fibreglass onto the flight deck and into the air.

This is just a few examples of the things they did show which just makes you wonder all the things that they were not allowed to show. Been watching this and nobody has asked why they didn't go with catapult assisted take off which was originally intended for the vessel.
>>2534
>price
>>2926
There are more countries than Taiwan, each with their own specifics. Taiwan in particular is quite different due to the one China policy and due to being especially vulnerable, being located so close to China.
Look at Philippines with Duterte for example. I mean, the guy has his charm, but it's plain to see that difficulties regarding military access aren't unrealistic. Not having any contingencies for such situations can screw you over quite thoroughly.
Generally, it's not too uncommon for US allies to have somewhat different priorities. It's not as much of a problem with Turkey and Syria, since Israel and Iraq exist, but the US doesn't have as many alternatives everywhere (not to mention UK and France).
>>2922
>>2917
><"no, lets destroy everything in LEO instead"
I keep reading that as Law Enforcement Officer.
>>2945
That works too :^)
What about STOVL/VTOL aircraft carriers? Are they as much useful/useless compared to CATOBAR carriers either in a confrontation or full scale war?

Also what about helicopter carriers? Are they any useful?
>>3039
>What about STOVL/VTOL aircraft carriers? Are they as much useful/useless compared to CATOBAR carriers either in a confrontation or full scale war?
I'd assume just about as useful for bombing kebab but much less useful in a serious conflict against a comparable power.
>>3039
Probably the same fundamental problems as supercarriers but expressed to a lesser degree. They're less expensive and thus less of a white elephant compared to supercarriers, but like >>3050 implied their utility is severely limited if you're not guaranteed air superiority.
>>3039
>STOVL/VTOL aircraft carriers
The F-35 burns a hole in the deck in VTOL mode.
Has anyone ever tried putting a human inside a cruise missile?
For paradropping operators behind enemy lines after launching them off a plane or a dedicated airborne assault troop carrier.
>>3061
What exactly would be the point of that? The only advantage Cruise missiles have over airplanes is they travel at higher speeds so they can't be shot down. If you used a missile to deliver a man as its payload you're taking away the one big advantage of using a missile, because humans can't physically handle the G-forces needed to actually make that option viable.
>>3062
>What exactly would be the point of that?
It would be faster and generate less attention than a conventional paradrop.
I know it's a meme but the thought of Houthi wingsuit operators flying in to capture their objective while striking fear into hapless Saudi oil field security is just too good to pass up, pls no bully.
>g-forces
Japs in WW2 didn't seem to have much trouble constructing manned suicide rockets whose pilots did not black out from the craft's own acceleration, with Jet engines and modern guidance systems it should be far from impossible to construct a cruise missile capable of delivering a conscious human payload to its target.
>>3064
And Astronauts don't have an issue with accelerating to massive speeds either, but trying to deploy a chute and stop (within a given time-frame to make the delivery method worth the effort) is a whole different ball-game.
>>3062
>What exactly would be the point of that?
Fun.
>>2509
God, I hate this fucking joke of a country.
>>2651
>so the US military reputation emerged intact.
tell that the vietnam vets getting spat on when they returned and shunned by the public
>>3115
He means reputation amongst other nations in regards to capabilities, not gay voter base.
>>3115
Imagine being so wrong that there is a more than 20 years old book about how wrong you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image
>>3114
>God, I hate this fucking joke of a country.
No, you don't. You will love this country in a minute now.
Stop derailing the fucking thread.
>>3150
M8, the moment any country gets mentioned, the thread will devolve into shitposting.
/k/ is just a shitposting board with a weapons wallpaper. We don't actually care about guns or military stuff here.
>>3153
fuck off retard
>>3153
20 bucks this is the same tard claiming that /v/ is just a random board with videogames on it and that shitposting getting deleted is being rulecucked
If you wanted this place to devolve into cuckchan, you should go there
>>3153
>we
Speak for yourself asshole I want to talk about guns and military stuff
If you want to shitpost, go to a shitposting board
Was the Anglo-Kraut naval arms race prior to WWI a mistake?
>>3228
For the Germans yes. It was never going to achieve much other than pushing the UK into the arms of France. But then you can argue everything Wilhelm II did post-Bismarck was a mistake.
>>3228 Yes and no. They were trying to compete with quantity which they could not afford nor maintain, or even risk losing in an open confrontation as Jutland proved where it was more a miracle for the Germans that Brits didn't sink their entire fleet. Subs really were the way to go for Germany in such a scenario.
So it might still be useful if the Poms can launch drones off of it. Might as well have contracted useless privateers. Reckon that's the point of such an incompetent navy, those in power want to sell it off.
>>3228 >Was the Anglo-Kraut naval arms race prior to WWI a mistake? It was a mistake for the British, because they basically wasted a huge sum of money and resources on a fleet that was useless for their political situation. If you look how the British Empire had grown against other Navel Powers(Spain, France, Portugal, Netherlands) in the past, you could see that the British never had the biggest fleet with the strongest ships, but instead they had a lot of fast maneuverable warships which they used for strategic expeditionary warfare. With the naval arms race, they practically locked themselves into a production race with continental nations which is impossible for an island nation. On top of that, the Entente Cordiale with France meant that the British Empire would have to intervene directly into the fighting between major Land Powers(France, Germany, Russia) and they would have to grow their army from an expeditionary force of medium size to a symmetric Land force big enough to be a deterrent for these Land Powers. This concentration on two fields in which their nation was notoriously weak lead to the disaster that were the World Wars for the British Empire, their Navy became close to being useless and their Army wasn't an obstacle to the German Army beating other European Powers into a bloody pulp. The places where the British actually managed to defeat the Germans were their traditional fields of operation.
Open file (304.67 KB 1206x1706 Pensacola-Azur-Lane.jpg)
>>3228 The Washington naval treaty was signed because the USA and the Anglo-Japanese alliance both realized that if they keep building up their fleets, then they have to go war in the 1920s to pre-emptively stop the other side from taking over all the sea lanes and control all naval trade. Had Kaiser Wilhelm the Second not decide to piss off the Eternal Anglo with his fleet building program, then it's probable that this war between the USA and UK-Nippon would have happened. because the UK has no reason to waste all those resource in a European land war that doesn't threaten her naval interests. Now imagine a world where both the US and the UK remain neutral during ww1, and immediately after that go to war with each other. No matter who wins ww1, the world would be an objectively better place if those two totalled each other in the 1920s instead of working together to take down Germany twice in a row. >>7805 >Navel Powers Stupid sexy boats and their stupid sexy navels.
>Now imagine a world where both the US and the UK remain neutral during ww1, and immediately after that go to war with each other. As larpy as it might sound if Wilhelm II. had decided to reign in Tirpitz' battleship autism and instead aimed for numerical parity with the french in terms of surface warships but not submarines in order to maintain cordial relations with perfidious Albion, would the Anglo perhaps have been inclined to stay neutral at the outset of WWI then join forces with the Central Powers once it became clear that neither France nor Russia could survive a prolonged war against Germany? Anglos surely wouldn't mind grabbing some territory in Frog-occupied Africa and Ruskie-owned central Asia, creating Israel as an Ottoman dependency would be possible and German shipbuilding could be a great boon to deter the Burger-Jap-Russian? alliance in the 1920s.
>>7809 >Burger-Jap Unlikely. Britain and Japan had a formal naval alliance that was ended by the Washington naval treaty. After defeating Russia they knew that their next rival in the region is going to be America, and their relationship with Britain soured because, instead of being treated as an equal during those negotiations, the US and UK decided to maintain an 1:1 parity among themselves and basically told Japan to fuck off, because they are only allowed to build 60% of what they can build. That's one of the chief reasons they went full waito piggu go homu in the 1920s and 1930s, and then decided to grab those British colonies during ww2.
>>7809 >perhaps have been inclined to stay neutral at the outset of WWI then join forces with the Central Powers once it became clear that neither France nor Russia could survive a prolonged war against Germany? Also, just after typing out the previous post I remembered something that had in my head a few hours ago. I imagine during the great Germany-AH versus France-Russia showdown Britain would first support the former simply by trading with them while refusing to entertain the other side. America I think would just try to be a good capitalist and sell anything and everything to the highest bidder. Depending on the situation, I can see Britain blockading France (it's not that hard if they are on the other side of that channel, and they control Gibraltar), and that could trigger a naval war between them and the US of A. Of course Japan would immediately join the fun on the British side, and then we'd see some fun things happening. Even more, I imagine that if they can win the initial naval battles, then Japan would go the extra mile and declare war on Russia and France to grab French Indochina and as much of Siberia as possible. And it would happen well before the Second Sino-Japanese War, therefore they could throw their full weight into these conflicts, especially to the Siberian conquest. And it's only natural that they'd try to get the Philippines, but that's not important here. Still, just imagine if Japan actually managed to get the parts of Siberia that had some actual resources, and then started a war against China. And one more thought: Canada was still a British dominion in those times, therefore they'd be obliged to declare war on the USA. Now imagine all that clusterfuck, especially if the Japs also decide to land in Alaska.
>>7810 >the US and UK decided to maintain an 1:1 parity among themselves and basically told Japan to fuck off, because they are only allowed to build 60% of what they can build Realistically speaking that was a great deal for both the UK and the nips. Compared to what the US could construct and indeed did during WW2 either 1:1 or 2:3 is a generous ratio.
>>8002 There is quite a lot of difference between what a country is capable in theory and in practice. In theory both Hungary and Japan could manufacture nuclear weapons, but in practice it's unlikely to happen for now. Before the birth of the military-industrial complex during ww2 the US had a very small armed force, and the Navy was constantly underequipped because the congress was always reluctant to give them the congress they needed. There was some naval expansion in the 1910s, but (as far as I know) in practice they built only barely enough battleships to have a naval presence, but there weren't nearly enough cruisers to protect the battleship divisions. So they would have needed to go on a mad cruiser-building campaign first, and then start building up the battleship force while also keeping building the cruisers needed to screen them. And that would have provoked the Bongs and the Japs to strike first. Congress obviously didn't want to spend even more money on the navy when it barely wanted to spend the money the already spent on it, and so they decided to just have a talk with Britain and the Washington naval treaty is the result of that. Of course it all changed with Pearl Harbor, and then the Cold War happened. But the 1920s was a different world.
>>8270 >the congress was always reluctant to give them the congress they needed I mean the budget they needed. Also, watch this to get the general attitude of congress: https://invidio.us/watch?v=zvGL5ozHSCA
>>8270 >Budget they needed "needed" more like. The USA should not have been involved in expansionist practices and most certainly should've stayed the fuck out of both world wars. The entire 20th century (and very late 19th) saw a shifting of the US foreign policy that made sense based on what the country was into the perversion it is to this day. It reminds me of mid-era Roman Republic, where they'd invade nation after nation claiming its for their own defense when in reality it's just to expand. Difference being Roman citizens one could argue actually benefited from that expansionism, US citizens are merely paypigs for an ever-greedy arms industry. I'm not against an arms industry (obviously, I'm on fucking /k/) but I just can't help but hate the narrative that congress wasn't giving the military what it "needed" because congress' job is to work for the citizenry, NOT the military, you seem to have that backwards.
>>8372 Just to clarify, I'm not saying you claimed that or that you even believe it, just the fact that using that phrase as if congress was somehow trying to fuck over the military is what people seem to extrapolate from that statement. What was happening during that inter-war period and even before WW1 was a shifting of power and structure from a less tax and debt heavy nation into the mess that is the US republic today and it just upsets me is all. If congress had told that faggot FDR to go fuck himself, who knows, maybe the Axis powers would've defeated communism and sued for peace and non of that military spending (nor Pearl Harbor) would've happened.
>>8372 >>8373 It's easy to say this looking back from more than 100 years after all of this happened, but in the first half of the previous century it was widely accepted that a maritime nation needs a fleet to protect its trade routes from anything and everything, be it pirates or an uppity country. Remember, autarky wasn't simply wasn't an option, it wasn't even an idea entertained by most thinkers, let alone politicians. And if we consider the size and coastline of the US, and don't forget that its navy has to operate in two oceans, then consider the technology available at the time, then we can say that the US Navy didn't have the ships it needed to defend itself from everything. Again, looking back we can see that it wasn't a problem, but military officers are trained and paid to worry about the worst case military scenarios.
Speaking of the Washington naval treaty and the Anglo-American naval war of the 1920s that didn't happen, if it happened then everybody would have started to escalate their battleship design to the point that classes like the Yamato or the Montana would have been standard. A ship of that size could carry enough anti-air artillery to break up an 1940s air attack. Truth to be told, in the late 1930s-early 1940s aeroplanes were not good enough to reliably sink a capital ship, that only happened when the next generation came into service, and Japan opted to use that ineffective 25mm gun. A Yamato armed with 40mm Bofors might have survived the attack that sink that ship. Even more, Japanese doctrine was to build bigger ships than the enemy, so they would have been forced to build some true leviathans if such an escalation happened. Here are two sketch designs, the first one has 12 510mm guns.
Open file (62.54 KB 314x429 ClipboardImage.png)
>>3061 >Has anyone ever tried putting a human inside a cruise missile? yes
>>8616 >kamikaze >god-wind
>>8618 >>8616 The Americans used to call them "baka-rockets" or something
>>8554 >tfw Nip/UK-US war happens in the mid-late 1920s since no one wants to enter gay naval treaties >everyone tries to outbuild each other in terms of battleship >war ends in 1930 with Japan annexing the Philippines and Anglos losing the eastern half of New Guinea but gaining Cuba >France stays neutral as it doesn't have the resources to compete with 3 industrial mega autists after all the manpower losses incurred during the great war >the inconclusive end of the war coupled with a series of stock jewings gone wrong causes an economic recession in the US which sweeps into France, Weimar Germany and elsewhere causing massive civil unrest >Hitler seizes power in 1933, Frogs try to annex the Rheinland but they are stopped by SA volunteers and some old Freikorps veterans, fierce clashes erupt in the Saar with Germans constructing primitive guided rocket artillery to hit groups of French tanks in urban areas while minimizing collateral damage >French pull out after Anglo pressure, Soviets try to coup Hitler but they fail >Hitler lets KPDniggers flee to France knowing that they'll cause considerable dissent among French politics and industry >Germany starts to revitalize itself, annexes Austria in 1938 and accidentally all of Czechoslovakia after getting permission from Anglos and Frogs for the Sudetenland >At the outbreak of the second great war the average Battleship is Super-Fujimoto sized, Battlecruisers/light battleships are Yamato sized and heavy cruisers are Bismarck sized with aircraft carriers/seaplane tenders being primarily used for scouting and anti-submarine purposes due to the miserable battle performance of CVs in anti-ship roles during the 1920s >Unlike its contemporaries Germany has invested serious resources into dedicated aircraft carriers wielding the new Ju-87T Stuka and its new experimental Heinrich and Franz guided anti-ship munitions, with the larger radar-guided Fritz bomb undergoing testing >this was largely due to Germany lacking the huge drydock and repair facilities needed to service fleets of warships with 90,000+ t of displacement after a battle, smaller aircraft carriers on the other hand could be at times be "serviced" without even entering port simply by flying in replacement aircraft+crew from land >they field 2 CVs, 3 CVLs+6 CVE seaplane tenders, but have no battleships with their heaviest surface action assets being the 38,000t Scharnhorst class CA, 14,520t Deutschland class and new 18,500t Admiral Hipper-class CLs compared to the Nipponese Oda-class BB at 95,500t displacement, the British Hastings-class BB at 93,100t and the American Grant-class BB with 100,076t displacement >the UK on the other hand only fields 17 CVEs and 2 CVL for banana ops, Japan similarily has 2 CVLs+10 CVEs Nips prefer the use of reconnaissance aircraft carried by battleships and their screens and the US fields 25 CVEs with no CVLs >most of the Kriegsmarine surface contingent is made up of weird "missile destroyers" like the 9000t Kolberg class whose primary armament consist of long-range flying bombs >Germans also field radar-assisted fire control systems on all their corvette-sized or higher surface assets, the US, UK and Japen instead preferring optical rangefinders mounted on balloons due to crappy high wavelength radar sets and aggressive signal scrambling with disposable picket ships during the 1920s war >only the UK has actually caught up with German radar research due to the chain home system and started mounting apertures on their cruisers, France and Japan on the other hand don't field radar on any of their ships >the US and Japan also field multiple aircraft-carrying scout airships to patrol the seas and coordinate fleet actions, they served well for a time but were relegated to rear line duty due to the appearance of heavy submarine AA in the latter half of the war and are now kept in service due to old men running the world, the British retired their last military airship in 1937 to focus more on carrier construction to counter the growing german aerial threat >France isn't allied with Poland as they don't want the Syndicalists and Commies to usurp power by entering a war against an enemy the French nation probably couldn't defeat in time, hopes that the US allies with them for lend-lease, sealane protection and keeping the Germans in check >Anglos ally with Poland as they don't want the uppity Krauts to attack the Soviets and become a superpower, hope the French will come to their sensibilities and let go of the Burger devils before Albion finds itself outmatched in a two-front war between the US and Germany even just driving the Germans back would cost resources the Empire just can't afford to lose in the geostrategic standoff with the US >US are still pissed about the Anglo-Nip alliance taking sacred Burger lands, they don't like Hitler much but wouldn't mind him grabbing some land and bleeding himself and Anglos dry as long as he doesn't go beyond a point where Burgers can no longer replace him with a puppet of their own >Nips hate Burgers with a passion, don't like Soviets but are fine with their Siberian+northern Chinese clay and not terribly interested in some meme European land war >Chiang-kai Shek hates everyone but Hitler as he's the only one that doesn't seem to squeeze the starving Chinese people dry at every oppurtunity >Soviets hate Nips and want to reconquer the far east, but they are too weak so they seek to bully Finland and Poland for clay instead, Hitler might invade but he wouldn't make it far before getting bogged down in the mighty Russian winter on top of very likely being stabbed in the back by some other greedy capitalist power >Hitler wants Poland and France to return their rightful german clay, the Anglo to recognize germans as legitimate owners of said clay then crash the Soviet Union with no survivors to gain world relevance >Italy wants Ethiopian clay from Anglos and will ally with anyone who seems stronk enough to help them achieve that goal, wether it be through war or diplomacy Sounds fun.
>>8706 If Britain and America didn’t join World War One why is there a Weimar Republic?
>>8706 Is this a Rule the Waves game you played? >>8836 His autistic scene started at 1920s so I assumed he meant WW1 still happened just that negotiations fell apart for the naval treaties.
>>8270 This is why it was to the nip's benefit to agree to the Washington Treaty. The longer the burgers stayed isolationist instead of industrial power the better for them. >And that would have provoked the Bongs and the Japs to strike first. After WW1 the Bongs were in no position to start another major conflict. Internal dissent over that would be way, way too high unless you could provide a really obvious justification to the public and that wasn't going to happen with an ex-ally like the burgers. The nip government thought they got a raw deal but the smarter naval nips realised this worked for them. The big fuck up was losing the British as an ally since they slid towards the US instead.
>>8706 >38,000t Scharnhorst class CA The Scharnhorst class were pocket-battleships/battlecruisers.
>>8877 Pocket battleship iwas not a real classification, just something the Bong media used to mock the Deutschland-class for having disproportionally large guns for its size, and being much heavier than what naval treaties permitted for Germany to build.
>>2534 >lack of military advancement of science means we'd probably be at 50's level tech right now, guess that idiotic meme will not die as long as brainlets keep repeating it, hm

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?