NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Taihei Tengoku]

Zeros were beaten by aerodynamically inferior planes tho

[Danternoust]

yes randc i have

pilsudski world empire control of all oil vs. the neo-yamato co-prosperity sphere's fifty million infantry divisions

the only good options are 1985 and random placement/???

???? is when the year integer overflows and civilization collapses

everyone worships the glitching clocks, creating a new society focused on timelessness.

Zeros were beaten by aerodynamically inferior planes tho

A-10s, replace engines with ramjets

[The Akasha Colony]

Had it entered regular service, would Curtiss's XP-55 Ascender have been a useful fighter, or tasty food for Zeros?

Hard to say. On paper it looks fairly good. 4 .50 cal machine guns in the nose, giving it a narrow arc of fire plus being a bit faster than the Zero. However, as it was cancelled at the flight test stage, we don't know much about its flight characteristics, so it could have been very good or an absolute piece of shit.

It was subpar for its time. We know a good deal about its expected flight characteristics because we know its basic aerodynamic properties and from there can figure out how well it could be expected to perform.

The exotic pusher-propeller designs failed to achieve success not because of any nefarious international conspiracy on the part of fighter manufacturers, but because they generally were not very good.

[United Earthlings]

Same here. My progression of rounds is something like this:

1890 - 7.5x55 Swiss
In all its developments right up to and including GP11.
1930 - 7.5x55 GP30
Basically a lightened version of the same cartridge so that it's ballistics are similar to an intermediary but still retains the case and bulk of the full power one. Think 6.5 Italian. The goal was to get a new lighter cartridge without breaking ammo comparability with GP11. And strictly speaking all weapons that can shoot one can also load the other just fine. Although self loading ones need a different gas setting. Through WW2 my MG's and snipers and the like used GP11 and rifles used GP30.
1955 - 7.5x42mm GP50
Literally identical to GP30 but now finally in a new shortened case that matches its needs. Dramatically drops weight and generally makes things better. GP11 stays on for snipers and MG's.
1989 - 5.5x42mm Purpelian
The new light intermediary to replace GP50. GP11 still stays on for snipers and MG's.

1892|7.7×56mmR
The first smokeless powder cartridge adapted within Commonwealth service, early experience with the cartridge proved less than satisfactory resulting in the cartridge having a short service life as technologic developments proceeded apace.

1906|7.62×63mm
Designed and introduced into Commonwealth service to compete with other major foreign powers adopting lighter-weight higher velocity rounds. Within a decade, the round had fully replaced the previous 7.7×56mmR cartridge and was standardized as the Commonwealth’s military primary rifle, Gatling gun and later machine gun cartridge for nearly 50 years before being replaced as the Commonwealth’s longest serving cartridge. Even then, the round would still continue to see limited military use for another decade and popularity among civilian shooters up to the present.

1954|7.62×51mm OTAN
The first new cartridge {round} adopted in almost half a century, within a decade was standardized within Commonwealth service as the primary round. By the mid 2000s, the round had fallen slightly out of favor within the Commonwealth reduced to a more supporting role for SAWs, snipers and Designated Marksmen Rifles.

1984|5.56x45mm OTAN
Finally submitting to international pressure into adopting an intermediate cartridge family, these new cartridges become the standard round in use for all manufactured Commonwealth assault rifles up to the present.

1990|8.6×70mm or 8.58×70mm
Designed in the 1980s as a high-powered, long-range cartridge for military snipers initially to fill a gap between weapons chambered in 7.62×51mm OTAN and large, heavy rifles firing the 12.7x99mm OTAN cartridges, the new rounds by the early 2000s had become the standard sniper rifle round within Commonwealth service as well as eventually replacing 7.62×51mm OTAN in use for the Commonwealth’s GPMGs.

My current thoughts are on a downward ejecting bullpup rifle with about 5-6dm of barrel and an integrated suppressor for the main rifle role. Supported by PKM lookalikes firing 7.5x55 GP11 and an XM-25 style gun per squad to serve as the DMR. Because nothing says long range accurate fire suppression like a 25mm grenade.

Long reply to other post incoming.

Edit: Half way done. Am tired. Will finish it later.

6 dm of barrel length would be closer to what you would find in a SAW or LMG. A 20 in or 5.08 dm barrel length is generally the largest you see in use for assault rifles.

Your nation sees long range accurate fire suppression, mine sees pissed off soldiers having to lug around useless weight. You can guess which viewpoint wins in a democracy.

Already waited one year, what’s another, so take your time because I have a feeling the one question I actually wanted an answer to, you’ll miss or skip.

My apologies if there is anything wrong with this query , but I was thinking about writing a dispatch about a realistic modern war. I'm not sure what to take into account when writing about an invasion in a dispatch. I want the invasion to take place in 1994. The defending country is landlocked with a small military. The invaders are a coalition of nations and they have the technological and numerical advantage.

None of the invading countries share a border with the country being invaded and the people of the invading country are supportive of the government.

I'm looking for examples of how an invasion might be undertaken in just less than a year. If there are examples from history you can point me to, possible tactics or things you know I might need to include in an account of the war, that would be great.

If you would like to know anything more, I'd be more than happy to tell you.

First stab in the dark, the closest would be Implementation Force (IFOR) that was deployed to enforce the peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, minus your scenario being less peace and more war making.

There’s also probably some lessens you could draw from the Coalition build-up phase during the first Gulf War.

So what you're basically saying that I could get away with it being intended as a tank buster in say 37-38 but by the time the shooting actually starts the gun would only be good for hitting soft stuff like trucks and not actual tanks? I can live with that.

Here’s the part Gallia left out, even late war tanks* can still be knocked out even by 37mm guns if your nation has, which I’m assuming it has, developed AP or APCR rounds to fire from said 37mm guns.

*Even going by the M4 {T9} designed 37mm autocannon found specifically on the P-39 had in its inventory a AP round that could penetrate up to 25mm of armor which covers {overmatches in the majority of cases} every German tank up to their heavies starting with the Tiger I. Even factoring in the non-binary nature of penetration and angling, a 37mm AP round should still penetrate even the vertical armor of a Panther in a top attack profile when conducted by a skilled pilot with good aim.

It’s not that hard to find the information on various World War 2 tanks turret top and hull top armor thickness.

And I’m still leaving a lot of information left out since I don’t wish to turn this post into a book.

[Triplebaconation]

The engine intended for the XP-55 never made it off the test stand. The substitute engine only developed half the horsepower and exacerbated the plane's stability issues, so we'll never know its full potential.

Engine availability was also the J21's main problem.

In any case the XP-55 was an interceptor designed for raw performance instead of dogfighting.

[Manokan Republic]

Helicopters produce lift by spinning their rotors, the rotors are spun by the helicopters engine. So "the power transferred from the engine to the rotors," is what lifts the helicopter. Because you need more lifting force than the force of gravity, and a vertically taking off helicopter doesn't have any fixed wings to produce lifting force, the engine must produce all of the force.

Parachutes don't really create lift, they create a large amount of drag.

Gliders don't produce lift by falling, they produce lift via the airflow over the wings, which requires forward velocity.

One thing I've tried to get across is that drag induced lift is a thing. Lift is the force that directly opposes the weight of the vehicle and holds the aircraft in the air, so drag if it does this, effectively contributes to or equals lift. The reason why paragliders use wing-shaped parachutes is the same reason why aircraft use wing-shaped wings. They perform in exactly the same way, which is why drag helps assist with flight.

Air moving past the wings doesn't necessarily result in flight, which is why aircraft can be put in to high speed wind tunnels and not necessarily take off flying. It is the resistance to falling to the ground that causes it to fly. It requires less force to stay afloat if you can resist falling more efficiently. While a glider or plane may not seem as obvious, a parachute which achieves essentially the same effect will. Helicopter rotors act both as wings that create lift and as mechanisms to produce thrust. The aircraft can glide without any power on it's rotors in autorotation to potentially safely land, and they don't just fall straight down. This is the same effect a parachute uses to slow itself down, albeit done in a different way. Thus drag helps produce lift by giving the wing something to push off of, be it of whichever type, a paraglider, helicopter blade or traditional fixed aircraft wing. A helicopter blade can produce lift or thrust, and thus acts like a wing, but doesn't require an aircraft fly forwards first. An aircraft taking off from a runway is capable of building up speed and eventually using the wings to provide extra lift, which is how a boeing 747 can lift three times the weight that it's thrust would suggest. Helicopter blades also slowly build up speed, but the aircraft itself can stay motionless while this occurs. This allows it to provide extra lift, and gives it wings to fly off of, independent from the main body of the aircraft.

There are oversimplified analysis that paint drag in a very specific light, or lift and so on, and it may be easy just to say that lift is thrust upwards. But the important distinction of why lift is it's own specific thing is to explain why something can fly or fall more slowly, even without any thrust at all. Wings achieve the same effect as a parachute, only when they fall they can also move forwards. The same is true with helicopter blades, rotor blades and other things. Thus while helicopter blades and propellers produce thrust which allow something to move forwards, they also allow it to fly. Even without any thrust at all, they still provide some lift. This is how helicopters fly without needing to produce as much power as a rocket in order to go straight up. The ability to push off of the air gives the aircraft less thrust needed to achieve flight. You just need to build up to a certain speed for the aerodynamic drag to be high enough to produce sufficient lift. This is why at higher altitudes rotor blades have to spin faster to stay in flight.

[Gallia-]

*Even going by the M4 {T9} designed 37mm autocannon found specifically on the P-39 had in its inventory a AP round that could penetrate up to 25mm of armor which covers {overmatches in the majority of cases} every German tank up to their heavies starting with the Tiger I.

If it makes you feel better the M9 37mm can penetrate about 3" of armor plate at 500 yards, which is almost good. Not that it means anything, since the M9 was never mounted on any fighter, weighed twice as much as M4 37mm, and probably wouldn't fit in any mounting designed for it anyway. Besides that, you aren't killing Tigers or whatever with 37mm shot except in video games.* A Mollins or 75mm M4 would work, though, and quite handily so, at least until the mid-1950s.

*One time during the MOWAS 2 beta test I managed to beat a German player with nothing but US conscripts armed with Springfield '03s and 37mm AT guns because I am a toxic multiplayer partner who goes big or goes home during no-stakes games with meme strats. This win included blowing up a Tiger I at point blank after shooting through a wooden wall, charging an MG-42 with two dozen conscripts, and causing my MP partner to quit in frustration, because I'm awful at video games.

An alcopop a day keeps the doctor away.

[Danternoust]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_41

Actually the German 3.7 cm PaK-36 could penetrate 180mm of armor if properly equipped.

Regardless of meme strats, the infantry half-kilometer can be taken back with lower-level artillery.

[The Manticoran Empire]

How about we just use nuclear hand grenades and power armor?

[Danternoust]

How about we just use nuclear hand grenades and power armor?

I keep hearing the meme of nuclear hand grenades, but it isn't even funny. Nuclear implies supercriticality which isn't feasible in such a small size. HOWEVER due to presumed efficacy, it is useful as an offensive weapon (in the same regard as a fragmentation grenade) from prepared cover or suitable difference in altitude.

[The Manticoran Empire]

How about we just use nuclear hand grenades and power armor?

I keep hearing the meme of nuclear hand grenades, but it isn't even funny. Nuclear implies supercriticality which isn't feasible in such a small size. HOWEVER due to presumed efficacy, it is useful as an offensive weapon (in the same regard as a fragmentation grenade) from prepared cover or suitable difference in height.

Well how about radiological hand grenade? A metal case around some Uranium and some TNT?

[Arkandros]

-snip-

As we have already said several times, you have your causation of lift and drag incorrect. Both are produced by “pushing off” air, as you have put it, but they are produced as two separate components of a vector force and are described this way to easily quantify and compare them to other values such as weight and thrust.
As you adjust your wing’s angle of attack relative to its direction of motion (whether that motion is induced by engines, wind, or gravity) it forces more or less air under the wing. This applies a force roughly perpendicular to the wing’s axis, which is then broken up into two components: lift (the vertical component) and drag (the horizontal component that opposes the wing’s direction of motion). Using this as our basis, it is easy to explain gliders (which convert the potential energy of their altitude into kinetic energy in the form of forward motion, and are limited in range primarily by the drag applied as air moves past and off the wings), helicopters (which is functionally a long rotating wing, which applies drag counter to the direction of rotation and applies lift vertically), and planes (where the wing is moved through the air by an engine, providing lift and applying drag that acts counter to (but does not necessarily equal) the force applied by the engine).
To shift to your next point regarding parachutes, you have somewhat misunderstood how parachutes (specifically the traditional rounded canopy) work. They do not supply lift because they do not control airflow across their surface to produce lift. Some parachutes (which are more properly called paragliders) do produce lift because of their use of wing shaped canopies. The primary mechanism of a parachute is drag, which, to be as simple as possible, is merely an object’s opposition to movement through a fluid. A large rounded canopy provides significantly higher opposition to airflow than the person it carries does.
Finally, we come back again to helicopters. As previously discussed, helicopters do indeed produce a TWR greater than one to achieve vertical takeoff. I believe your misunderstanding here is that you interpret a helicopter’s engine rating to be the lift, which is not accurate. Engines are rated in watts or horsepower, a measure of work, while lift and weight are both forces.

[The Manticoran Empire]

-snip-

As we have already said several times, you have your causation of lift and drag incorrect. Both are produced by “pushing off” air, as you have put it, but they are produced as two separate components of a vector force and are described this way to easily quantify and compare them to other values such as weight and thrust.
As you adjust your wing’s angle of attack relative to its direction of motion (whether that motion is induced by engines, wind, or gravity) it forces more or less air under the wing. This applies a force roughly perpendicular to the wing’s axis, which is then broken up into two components: lift (the vertical component) and drag (the horizontal component that opposes the wing’s direction of motion). Using this as our basis, it is easy to explain gliders (which convert the potential energy of their altitude into kinetic energy in the form of forward motion, and are limited in range primarily by the drag applied as air moves past and off the wings), helicopters (which is functionally a long rotating wing, which applies drag counter to the direction of rotation and applies lift vertically), and planes (where the wing is moved through the air by an engine, providing lift and applying drag that acts counter to (but does not necessarily equal) the force applied by the engine).
To shift to your next point regarding parachutes, you have somewhat misunderstood how parachutes (specifically the traditional rounded canopy) work. They do not supply lift because they do not control airflow across their surface to produce lift. Some parachutes (which are more properly called paragliders) do produce lift because of their use of wing shaped canopies. The primary mechanism of a parachute is drag, which, to be as simple as possible, is merely an object’s opposition to movement through a fluid. A large rounded canopy provides significantly higher opposition to airflow than the person it carries does.
Finally, we come back again to helicopters. As previously discussed, helicopters do indeed produce a TWR greater than one to achieve vertical takeoff. I believe your misunderstanding here is that you interpret a helicopter’s engine rating to be the lift, which is not accurate. Engines are rated in watts or horsepower, a measure of work, while lift and weight are both forces.

Dude, people keep trying to explain physics to him. I don't think he understands it.

[Arkandros]

How about we just use nuclear hand grenades and power armor?

I keep hearing the meme of nuclear hand grenades, but it isn't even funny. Nuclear implies supercriticality which isn't feasible in such a small size. HOWEVER due to presumed efficacy, it is useful as an offensive weapon (in the same regard as a fragmentation grenade) from prepared cover or suitable difference in altitude.

Depending on your element and design, a nuclear hand grenade is possible. High isotopic purity transuranics can have exceptionally small bare sphere critical masses, some even under 10 lbs. this, however, would use elements like Californium, which is extremely expensive and a strong neutron emitter, meaning your grenades would probably cook your troops before they could be thrown and would definitely cook your troops when detonated. I will also draw you back to my first sentence: Nuclear hand grenades are possible. They are, however, not at all practical, or a good idea.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I keep hearing the meme of nuclear hand grenades, but it isn't even funny. Nuclear implies supercriticality which isn't feasible in such a small size. HOWEVER due to presumed efficacy, it is useful as an offensive weapon (in the same regard as a fragmentation grenade) from prepared cover or suitable difference in altitude.

Depending on your element and design, a nuclear hand grenade is possible. High isotopic purity transuranics can have exceptionally small bare sphere critical masses, some even under 10 lbs. this, however, would use elements like Californium, which is extremely expensive and a strong neutron emitter, meaning your grenades would probably cook your troops before they could be thrown and would definitely cook your troops when detonated. I will also draw you back to my first sentence: Nuclear hand grenades are possible. They are, however, not at all practical, or a good idea.

They don't have to be a good idea. It's all about really sweet special effects and bad-ass scenes of heroism and coolness, OK? This is Hollywood, man.

[Arkandros]

Depending on your element and design, a nuclear hand grenade is possible. High isotopic purity transuranics can have exceptionally small bare sphere critical masses, some even under 10 lbs. this, however, would use elements like Californium, which is extremely expensive and a strong neutron emitter, meaning your grenades would probably cook your troops before they could be thrown and would definitely cook your troops when detonated. I will also draw you back to my first sentence: Nuclear hand grenades are possible. They are, however, not at all practical, or a good idea.

They don't have to be a good idea. It's all about really sweet special effects and bad-ass scenes of heroism and coolness, OK? This is Hollywood, man.

If you just want cool explosions, then you don’t need a hand grenade. You need a nuclear rocket launcher.

[Danternoust]

Oh, if we're talking about how militaries don't plan for troop survival for more than ten days on a post-nuclear battlefield:

https://www.thenation.com/article/seven ... -in-court/

But her nose wasn’t bleeding. Nor was there blood in her mouth, though Cooper was sure she tasted it. It felt, she said, “like I was licking aluminum foil.”

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


Besides, throwing something that weighs ten pounds doesn't seem too feasible.

[The Corparation]

Dude, people keep trying to explain physics to him. I don't think he understands it.

I recommended the "manga guide to physics" to him which is an unironically good physics 101 book but sadly I don't think Manokan reads.

[Manokan Republic]

-snip-

As we have already said several times, you have your causation of lift and drag incorrect. Both are produced by “pushing off” air, as you have put it, but they are produced as two separate components of a vector force and are described this way to easily quantify and compare them to other values such as weight and thrust.
As you adjust your wing’s angle of attack relative to its direction of motion (whether that motion is induced by engines, wind, or gravity) it forces more or less air under the wing. This applies a force roughly perpendicular to the wing’s axis, which is then broken up into two components: lift (the vertical component) and drag (the horizontal component that opposes the wing’s direction of motion). Using this as our basis, it is easy to explain gliders (which convert the potential energy of their altitude into kinetic energy in the form of forward motion, and are limited in range primarily by the drag applied as air moves past and off the wings), helicopters (which is functionally a long rotating wing, which applies drag counter to the direction of rotation and applies lift vertically), and planes (where the wing is moved through the air by an engine, providing lift and applying drag that acts counter to (but does not necessarily equal) the force applied by the engine).
To shift to your next point regarding parachutes, you have somewhat misunderstood how parachutes (specifically the traditional rounded canopy) work. They do not supply lift because they do not control airflow across their surface to produce lift. Some parachutes (which are more properly called paragliders) do produce lift because of their use of wing shaped canopies. The primary mechanism of a parachute is drag, which, to be as simple as possible, is merely an object’s opposition to movement through a fluid. A large rounded canopy provides significantly higher opposition to airflow than the person it carries does.
Finally, we come back again to helicopters. As previously discussed, helicopters do indeed produce a TWR greater than one to achieve vertical takeoff. I believe your misunderstanding here is that you interpret a helicopter’s engine rating to be the lift, which is not accurate. Engines are rated in watts or horsepower, a measure of work, while lift and weight are both forces.

As I have already pointed out, lift is literally just the force that directly opposes the weight of the vehicle and holds the aircraft in the air, where lift comes from is irrelevant. Lift primarily comes from drag downwards, or any force that keeps something up. Thus the drag from a parachute, is lift. Lift is not thrust, and thrust downwards is not equal to lift nor is it lift. This is where people's confusion seems to be. Rockets for esxample which primarily fly through raw thrust, produce very little lift, where as aircraft which rely on lift, don't require as much thrust. This is why aircraft tend to be more efficient than rockets, and consume less fuel to travel the same distance. Being able to push off of the air gives you more lift, which reduces how much thrust is needed to stay in flight. Without friction or drag, you literally can't push off of the air, and thus can't produce any lift. Air can't even flow across the wings in a way that produces lift without some friction or, drag. The coanda effect, which the Bernoulli principle is based around (or airflow around the wings), requires drag in order for the air to be swept across or stuck to the surface of the wings in the first place. In a fluid with no drag at all, the lift from wings would be non-existent, and thus wings would be pointless. It is only the friction and drag from the air that causes it to even stick to the airfoil in the first place.

Helicopters do not tend to produce as much thrust as their weight. First, horsepower is work over time, and work is the amount movement force generates, so yes horsepower is directly connected to force. But helicopter blades product lift in the same way a normal aircraft does, which is why it doesn't need to produce as much thrust downwards as it's own weight in order to be able to fly, it can glide on it's wings, just like a normal aircraft, which is why it doesn't need to produce as much thrust to be able to fly. This is an FAA policy handbook on the issue: "Lift is generated when an object changes the direction of flow of a fluid or when the fluid is forced to move by the object passing through it. When the object and fluid move relative to each other and the object turns the fluid flow in a direction perpendicular to that flow, the force required to do this work creates an equal and opposite force that is lift. The object may be moving through a stationary fluid, or the fluid may be flowing past a stationary object—these two are effectively identical as, in principle, it is only the frame of reference of the viewer which differs. The lift generated by an airfoil depends on such factors." - " Thrust—the force produced by the power plant/ propeller or rotor. It opposes or overcomes the force of drag. As a general rule, it acts parallel to the longitudinal axis. However, this is not always the case, as explained later." NASA: "In flight, a glider has three forces acting on it as compared to the four forces that act on a powered aircraft. Both types of aircraft are subjected to the forces of lift, drag, and weight. The powered aircraft has an engine that generates thrust, while the glider has no thrust." A glider is capable of flying despite having no thrust due to it's wings, which produce *lift*, which is essentially just drag, so it falls slower and moves forward as it falls. The same is true with helicopter blades, which is why auto-rotation is a thing. You don't need as much thrust in order to stay in flight when you have wings, or in some cases any thrust at all. Something can stay floating in the atmosphere even without any thrust, so yes, lift and thrust are not the same thing. Most things will eventually fall back down to earth even if slowly, hence why thrust is used to counteract this slight force downwards and to move forwards.


Helicopters decidedly don't produce the same amount of thrust as a rocket. You can't generate more force via thrust than the horsepower of the engine would provide, and as it will always be at least slightly less, just due to the basic law of physics. As well usually a percentage of the energy, or usually 10-15%, will go to the tail rotors. It's just not possible to produce more thrust than the power of the engine. What is possible is to produce more lift via the wings of the helicopter, or the helicopter blades. This is kind of the key point I've been making. If you can find a single example of a helicopter with the same amount of thrust downwards, then I'd love to see it. The thing is a helicopter can actually fly without any thrust, hence how it is capable of gliding to the target. The same thing that slows down it's fall, allows it to require less force to keep it afloat. A boeing 747 for example managed to glide over 90 miles without any power from the engines, at all. It's not exactly thrust from the engines that it allows it to stay afloat. This does help it remain upwards and move forwards, but the wings produce lift by the mere act of falling, or coming in contact with the air. You don't need or produce the thrust of a rocket, you don't produce more thrust than exists from the engine which is physically impossible, and defies basic laws of physics, in order to fly, you just need less thrust to fly when you have wings.

[Manokan Republic]

To simplify: A boeing 747 for example managed to glide over 90 miles without any power from the engines, at all. It's not exactly thrust from the engines that it allows it to stay afloat. This does help it remain upwards and move forwards, but the wings produce lift by the mere act of falling, or coming in contact with the air. You don't need or produce the thrust of a rocket, you don't produce more thrust than exists from the engine which is physically impossible, and defies basic laws of physics, in order to fly, you just need less thrust to fly when you have wings.

You don't produce more thrust than there is thrust via wings, you produce lift. This is a very important distinction to make to understand the physics of flight. Telling me that you defy the laws of physics and produce more thrust than is available from the engine, is just absurd. Lift is not thrust, so again, it's a separate entity.

[Purpelia]

To simplify: A boeing 747 for example managed to glide over 90 miles without any power from the engines, at all. It's not exactly thrust from the engines that it allows it to stay afloat. This does help it remain upwards and move forwards, but the wings produce lift by the mere act of falling, or coming in contact with the air. You don't need or produce the thrust of a rocket, you don't produce more thrust than exists from the engine which is physically impossible, and defies basic laws of physics, in order to fly, you just need less thrust to fly when you have wings.

You don't produce more thrust than there is thrust via wings, you produce lift. This is a very important distinction to make to understand the physics of flight. Telling me that you defy the laws of physics and produce more thrust than is available from the engine, is just absurd. Lift is not thrust, so again, it's a separate entity.

Gliding is NOT flying. It's just falling at an angle. Lift as a force can only ever change the angle you are falling at. Thrust is what allows you to maintain or grow your altitude and counteract the actual falling part.

[Gallia-]

Oh, if we're talking about how militaries don't plan for troop survival for more than ten days on a post-nuclear battlefield:

https://www.thenation.com/article/seven ... -in-court/

But her nose wasn’t bleeding. Nor was there blood in her mouth, though Cooper was sure she tasted it. It felt, she said, “like I was licking aluminum foil.”

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


Besides, throwing something that weighs ten pounds doesn't seem too feasible.

Instead of a CS chamber the Navy should invest in a alpha-beta ray chamber.

It will teach the non-nuke surface sailors what radiation tastes like so they don't panic the second it hits them.

[Spirit of Hope]

.snip.

Lift is not any force that is opposes gravity, lift is a specific type of force created by the flow of liquid or gas over a solid body, but so as to not get caught up in semantics I'm once again not going to use specific force names.

When a wing travels through the air it creates 2 forces, one is perpandicular to the blade, depending on design of the wing facing up or down, and the other is facing opposite the direction of travel. Get the wing traveling fast enough and the upward force the wing creates can lift a weight off the ground, however because their is the force that apposes the travel of the wing you must continually add force to keep the wing moving at the same speed. If you don't your wing will eventually lose the speed necessary to produce the upward force that keeps you from hitting the ground.

No matter what to take off the upward force the wing produces must be greater than the force of gravity.

Regular planes get the necessary airspeed for takeoff by traveling in a straight line until they have the necessary airspeed for their wings to create a takeoff force. Helicopters spin their wings in place, but they still create an upward force greater than the force of gravity.

[Austrasien]

To simplify: A boeing 747 for example managed to glide over 90 miles without any power from the engines, at all. It's not exactly thrust from the engines that it allows it to stay afloat. This does help it remain upwards and move forwards, but the wings produce lift by the mere act of falling, or coming in contact with the air. You don't need or produce the thrust of a rocket, you don't produce more thrust than exists from the engine which is physically impossible, and defies basic laws of physics, in order to fly, you just need less thrust to fly when you have wings.

You don't produce more thrust than there is thrust via wings, you produce lift. This is a very important distinction to make to understand the physics of flight. Telling me that you defy the laws of physics and produce more thrust than is available from the engine, is just absurd. Lift is not thrust, so again, it's a separate entity.

Lift is thrust produced by the fluid moving over the wings. Thrust is not a conserved value. Momentum and energy are. But there is absolutely no reason a pound of thrust from the engine applied on the x-axis cannot produce (much) more than a pound of thrust from lift in the z-axis.

In an ascending plane all the energy, its speed and altitude, the plane is gaining is coming from the engines and the rate of energy gain absolutely cannot exceed the power of the engines. But the power of the engines is not measured by their thrust.

[Danternoust]

If we live in five dimensions, the trick is to design an aircraft to exist in five spatial dimensions, outdoing all three dimension aircraft.

But seriously, what is with all the talk about life and buoyancy and thrust?