War! Kills Seamen, Please, think of the seamen! |
War! Kills Seamen, Please, think of the seamen! |
Jan 6 2011, 01:08 PM
Post
#151
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,989 Joined: 28-July 09 From: Somewhere along the brazilian coast Member No.: 17,437 |
Row, row, row this thread,
Gently down the sink. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, You guys all stink. (I know, not one of my best...) |
|
|
Jan 6 2011, 01:19 PM
Post
#152
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
|
|
|
Jan 6 2011, 02:53 PM
Post
#153
|
|
Old Man of the North Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 10,065 Joined: 14-August 03 From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe Member No.: 5,463 |
I don't like the course this thread is steering atoll.
|
|
|
Jan 6 2011, 06:51 PM
Post
#154
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,579 Joined: 30-May 06 From: SoCal Member No.: 8,626 |
" ~J I was thinking the same thing. I suppose the ship's captain could be Baba Yaga at that point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) |
|
|
Jan 6 2011, 07:02 PM
Post
#155
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
More like Howl's Moving Castle, though.
|
|
|
Jan 6 2011, 08:56 PM
Post
#156
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,803 Joined: 3-February 08 From: Finland Member No.: 15,628 |
Any military vessel that doesn't have hardened armour up to the point a feasible ITNW provides, has a problem. Why does this matter, the ItNW tacks with the ship normal armor to make it even more immune to damage (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) |
|
|
Jan 6 2011, 09:58 PM
Post
#157
|
|
The King In Yellow Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,922 Joined: 26-February 05 From: JWD Member No.: 7,121 |
There's an undercurrent of powergaming there.
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 04:56 PM
Post
#158
|
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
so i got bored and went on a wiki walk, and what did i stumble across?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sen_Toku |
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:17 PM
Post
#159
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
Shame the article doesn't mention how the planes were recovered once launched.
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:19 PM
Post
#160
|
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
probably by landing on the water and then being lifted back in.
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:21 PM
Post
#161
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,989 Joined: 28-July 09 From: Somewhere along the brazilian coast Member No.: 17,437 |
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:26 PM
Post
#162
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
The sub carried 3 planes, total, and were specially constructed, so somehow I doubt it. The planes also had floats that could be attached, allowing it to land on the water.
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:36 PM
Post
#163
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,989 Joined: 28-July 09 From: Somewhere along the brazilian coast Member No.: 17,437 |
They probably used the water as their takeoff strip too.
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:41 PM
Post
#164
|
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
But launching OKA from that would have been possible too.
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:44 PM
Post
#165
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,536 Joined: 13-July 09 Member No.: 17,389 |
Shame the article doesn't mention how the planes were recovered once launched. The I-400 had a catapult launch system on its deck. The planes that were stored in it were sea-planes that would land on water, taxi to the sub and be lifted onto the deck via a crane. I had considered building a Tamiya 1/350 scale replica of the I-400. |
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:46 PM
Post
#166
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
They probably used the water as their takeoff strip too. You missed the compressed air launch catapult on deck. QUOTE The planes that were stored in it were sea-planes that would land on water, taxi to the sub and be lifted onto the deck via a crane. I saw that they were (optionally) sea planes, but not how they got back into the sub. |
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:50 PM
Post
#167
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,536 Joined: 13-July 09 Member No.: 17,389 |
You missed the compressed air launch catapult on deck. QUOTE The planes that were stored in it were sea-planes that would land on water, taxi to the sub and be lifted onto the deck via a crane. I saw that they were (optionally) sea planes, but not how they got back into the sub. The initial design, and what the I-400s are built for, are sea planes. When the mission to bomb Panama Canal came around, which the I-400 was being sent on, command decided to use a kamikaze attack rather than try to recover the aircraft. |
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:51 PM
Post
#168
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
I was referring to this bit:
QUOTE A crew of four could prepare and launch all three in 45 minutes (or 15 minutes if the planes' pontoons were not attached).
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 05:53 PM
Post
#169
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,989 Joined: 28-July 09 From: Somewhere along the brazilian coast Member No.: 17,437 |
Yeah, missed that part.
I just read the part when Japan surrendered and they destroyed the aircraft so the americans wouldn't get them. I don't know how they would do it, but I don't think it would be that fast to put the aircraft back inside. |
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 06:01 PM
Post
#170
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,536 Joined: 13-July 09 Member No.: 17,389 |
Yeah, missed that part. I just read the part when Japan surrendered and they destroyed the aircraft so the americans wouldn't get them. I don't know how they would do it, but I don't think it would be that fast to put the aircraft back inside. The aircraft? That's really not important.... The important part, which we did get our hands on, was all three of the I-400 class subs. |
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 06:08 PM
Post
#171
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,989 Joined: 28-July 09 From: Somewhere along the brazilian coast Member No.: 17,437 |
I know the subs were more important than the birds. I'm still just wondering how they would put them back inside.
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 06:12 PM
Post
#172
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,536 Joined: 13-July 09 Member No.: 17,389 |
|
|
|
Jan 25 2011, 08:54 PM
Post
#173
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,174 Joined: 13-May 04 From: UCAS Member No.: 6,327 |
You missed the compressed air launch catapult on deck. I saw that they were (optionally) sea planes, but not how they got back into the sub. it's in the wiki article in the characteristics section, about fifth paragraph in, about a collapsible crane: "Stowed in an open recessed compartment on the forward port side, just below top deck, was a collapsible crane used to retrieve the submarine's Seiran floatplanes. The crane had an electrically operated hoist and was capable of lifting approximately 4.5 t (5.0 short tons). It was raised mechanically to a height of 8 m (26 ft) via a motor inside the boat. The boom extended out to a length of 11.8 m (39 ft). " It should be capable of getting the plane out of the water after it landed and place it back... if they weren't in a hurry... edit: gah, I just read the last post again. Curse my reading skills, it's degenerated! What StealthSigma said above... |
|
|
Jan 25 2011, 10:05 PM
Post
#174
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,542 Joined: 30-September 08 From: D/FW Megaplex Member No.: 16,387 |
I remember seeing a special on these things on like KERA or something.. I'll see if I can track it down. Saw it like a year ago.
EDIT: Japanese SuperSub. Keep in mind though: QUOTE While this program did bring together the whole story of the I-400 class, it appears the experts who contributed to it never bothered to watch the final product. At 19:00 into the program the description of the problem of the folding wings of the M6A use stock footage of an F4F-4 but identify it as a “Hellcat” (F6F). At 35:00 the recycled film showing the problems of horizontal bombing use footage of a B-25 but identify it as a B-29. While the F4F and F6F were sometimes difficult to identify at a great distance, there is simply no excuse for confusing a B-25 with a B-29 unless all you are going by is the shiny metal! If you can’t get the facts right on the U.S. side, I have to wonder how many other errors were made on the Japanese side. It didn’t help that my PBS station (WTTW) followed this with the F4F vs. A6M episode where they identified a .50 cal AM/M2 Browning round as 50mm (that’s about 2″ vs. 1/2″). These are not matters of opinion or differences in historical perspective, these are flat out errors of fact. I expect better of PBS.
|
|
|
Jan 28 2011, 02:56 PM
Post
#175
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,086 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 |
Just a bit OT in this OT thread, another piece or War! insanity:
Yamatetsu Naval Technologies is putting the finishing touches on a new military amphibious assault craft. If testing is successful, it will be the world’s first true hover tank, combining speed, firepower, agility, and the ability to traverse land and sea in a single assault vehicle. (P. 132) Just in case you were wondering why T-birds are completely absent in a book about modern warfare... |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th January 2025 - 07:33 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.