Row, row, row this thread,
Gently down the sink.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
You guys all stink.
(I know, not one of my best...)
Full Version: War! Kills Seamen
QUOTE (Mardrax @ Jan 6 2011, 05:02 AM) 
"Ship? Bow down please."
"
~J
I don't like the course this thread is steering atoll.
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Jan 6 2011, 05:19 AM)
"Hut Ship of brown, now sit down."
~J
~J
I was thinking the same thing. I suppose the ship's captain could be Baba Yaga at that point.
More like Howl's Moving Castle, though.
QUOTE (Mardrax @ Jan 6 2011, 02:13 PM)
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
There's an undercurrent of powergaming there.
so i got bored and went on a wiki walk, and what did i stumble across?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sen_Toku
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sen_Toku
Shame the article doesn't mention how the planes were recovered once launched.
probably by landing on the water and then being lifted back in.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 24 2011, 02:17 PM)
Shame the article doesn't mention how the planes were recovered once launched.
Perhaps they weren't supposed to be recovered?
Just sending a bunch of kamikaze pilots.
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.
They probably used the water as their takeoff strip too.
But launching OKA from that would have been possible too.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 24 2011, 12:17 PM)
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.
QUOTE (Brazilian_Shinobi @ Jan 24 2011, 12:36 PM)
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.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 24 2011, 12:46 PM)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
QUOTE (Brazilian_Shinobi @ Jan 24 2011, 12:53 PM)
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.
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.
I know the subs were more important than the birds. I'm still just wondering how they would put them back inside.
QUOTE (Brazilian_Shinobi @ Jan 24 2011, 01:08 PM)
I know the subs were more important than the birds. I'm still just wondering how they would put them back inside.
Crane lifts the subs onto the deck. Then reverse the process for assembling the plane for takeoff.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 24 2011, 12:46 PM)
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.
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...
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:
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.
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...
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...
Well, THAT one is closer to todays hovercrafts. Crossed with an MBT.
While a T-BIRD is closer to todays harrier. Crossed with an MBT.
While a T-BIRD is closer to todays harrier. Crossed with an MBT.
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jan 28 2011, 08:17 AM)
Well, THAT one is closer to todays hovercrafts. Crossed with an MBT.
While a T-BIRD is closer to todays harrier. Crossed with an MBT.
While a T-BIRD is closer to todays harrier. Crossed with an MBT.
Very True...
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Jan 28 2011, 04:17 PM)
Well, THAT one is closer to todays hovercrafts. Crossed with an MBT.
While a T-BIRD is closer to todays harrier. Crossed with an MBT.
While a T-BIRD is closer to todays harrier. Crossed with an MBT.
The Flying Bedstead (which I prefer as an example
) also "hover". But even if the author had something like the LCAC or it's big Russian brother in mind, it wouldn't make sense: A hovercraft simply is a T-Bird with weaker engines, compensated by air cushion effects. Since SR postulates that military vehicles which get lift from sheer engine power are not just possible, but even a good choice, hovercraft would be nothing to write home about, let alone hire runners. Hovercraft would probably be more fuel efficient that T-birds, but the job description is stealing a revolutionary design "combining speed, firepower, agility, and the ability to traverse land and sea in a single assault vehicle", not an amphibious Prius.
*shrugs*
take an old mostran, mod it according to the rigger 3 rules . .
there you have your hover-tank. easy enough.
yeah someone did not do the research on this one.
*disclaimer*i do not take responsibilities for eaten lives*/disclaimer*
take an old mostran, mod it according to the rigger 3 rules . .
there you have your hover-tank. easy enough.
yeah someone did not do the research on this one.
*disclaimer*i do not take responsibilities for eaten lives*/disclaimer*
Hover tank is easy.
Tank
[20 Slot Total] GMC Bulldog Step Van [-, 35,000]
[1 Slot] Armor 20 [6R, 4,000]
[3 Slots] Life Support Level 2 [12, 20,000]
[1 Slot] Tracked Vehicle [4, 16,000]
[1 Slot] Turbocharger [4, 3,200]
[6 Slots] Weapon Mount (Reinforced, External, Heavy Turret, Remote) [20F, 19,500]
This is from my records. Add in Hovercraft addon/replacement and you're done.
Tank
[20 Slot Total] GMC Bulldog Step Van [-, 35,000]
[1 Slot] Armor 20 [6R, 4,000]
[3 Slots] Life Support Level 2 [12, 20,000]
[1 Slot] Tracked Vehicle [4, 16,000]
[1 Slot] Turbocharger [4, 3,200]
[6 Slots] Weapon Mount (Reinforced, External, Heavy Turret, Remote) [20F, 19,500]
This is from my records. Add in Hovercraft addon/replacement and you're done.
but . . why the tracked vehicle mod, if you're going with hovercraft anyway? O.o
and furthermore, i think this boils down to the question of:"WHY is that supposed to be the worlds first hover tank, if there's a WIDE basis of hovercraft vehicles that could be modded into tank like vehicles allready way earlier?"
and furthermore, i think this boils down to the question of:"WHY is that supposed to be the worlds first hover tank, if there's a WIDE basis of hovercraft vehicles that could be modded into tank like vehicles allready way earlier?"
The reason mine had tracked is because I copy-pasted it from my text files, and in my text files I had it as an actual tracked tank. The reason I think they're claiming this one out of War! as the first hover-tank is because it isn't a modded hovercraft converted to a tank but a true tank that's designed as a hover vehicle also - kind of like Carbon Motor's first ever police car. It's not that the police have never had a car, it's that this is the first car that's specifically designed to be a police car.
*blink blink* . . you know, that sounds dumb enough to actually be true x.x
-- Wasn't the first (known, published) hovertank the Stonewall?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.