Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:53 pm
Zeros were beaten by aerodynamically inferior planes tho
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Gallia- wrote: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/???
Zeros were beaten by aerodynamically inferior planes tho
The Manticoran Empire wrote:Barfleur wrote: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.
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.
Mzeusia wrote: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.
Purpelia wrote: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.
Spirit of Hope wrote: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.
United Earthlings wrote:*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.
The Manticoran Empire wrote:How about we just use nuclear hand grenades and power armor?
Danternoust wrote:The Manticoran Empire wrote: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.
Manokan Republic wrote:-snip-
Arkandros wrote:Manokan Republic wrote:-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.
Danternoust wrote:The Manticoran Empire wrote: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.
Arkandros wrote:Danternoust wrote: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 wrote:Arkandros wrote: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.
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.”
The Manticoran Empire wrote:Dude, people keep trying to explain physics to him. I don't think he understands it.
Arkandros wrote:Manokan Republic wrote:-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.
Manokan Republic wrote: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.
Danternoust wrote: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.
Manokan Republic wrote:.snip.
Manokan Republic wrote: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.