This is missing the manned surface-to-air missile, one of the most batshit concepts of WW2 imo:
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
405 points (95.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6549 readers
306 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"The primary role of the relatively untrained pilot was to aim the aircraft at its target bomber and fire its armament of rockets. The pilot and the fuselage containing the rocket engine would then land using separate parachutes, while the nose section was disposable."
I was picturing something more like a Kamikaze.
The flower is very kawaii.
You're thinking of the Reichenberg-Gerät, although the Nazis were crazy they weren't crazy enough to actually use it.
IDK the reason they didn't deploy that thing, but it certainly wasn't prudence or concern for pilot safety because the Me163 rocket plane was used.
The Me163 was supposed to be reusable, including the pilot, the Reichenberg was one time use only, including the pilot.
The Me163 was supposed to be reusable, including the pilot
The pilot was reusable, if you count fertilizer as a re-use.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The pigeon-guided bombs were more batshit, although paradoxically probably a lot more practical.
Wow! I was just watching the anime, Saga of Tanya the Evil, and it had these in it. I assumed it was anime craziness.
Natter indeed.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nonshitpost comment: A video I like to recommend on tank production illustrates the differences in mindset for industrial production.
Summary is that the US had mastered assembly line production and the use of subassembly parts to minimize production time. The US military had a centralized body to evaluate and approve different variants, which meant production stayed smooth.
The Soviets lacked experience with this kind of mass production by they quickly caught on and adapted in a logical way. They used assembly line production, but didn't use subassemblies from different factories, as that would clog up their rail lines and spread out the factories needed to be defended. Instead they centralized so that trains brought raw materials to factories and left with finished tanks.
The Germans built tanks with a team of people who would continually work on one tank, crafting it. This was much slower. There was also too much of a direct line between many different military commanders and the tank production, allowing commanders to constantly put in their own personal special requests, further slowing down production as so many tanks had to have special modifications (that weren't important to the big picture).
I've seen (what I think is) a different video that made a similar point. I wish I could remember it well enough to find it again.
This is missing a picture of an American shipyard and an ice cream barge. The Japanese really didn't have a hope of winning. We were adding multiple aircraft carriers per year to the fleet, and more each year than the last. So they'd sink one and it would be replaced by 3 more.
an ice cream barge
For those not familiar, the WW2 US Pacific fleet included, no joke, a barge originally built to deliver and mix massive amounts of concrete that was refitted with food grade surfaces and a huge cooling system to supply ice cream throughout the fleet. I mean, it was navy "ice cream" from powder, but it was still a luxury that boosted morale wherever it went. I can only imagine how much it would have hurt Japanese morale if they had found out the US had so much resources to spare that they could waste them on industrial quantities of frozen treats.
I knew NCD would get it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
What the fuck was that in the last panel.
Gun large enough to hit London. The barrel had to be so long that they built it into a hillside to keep it supported
Hmm. I'm guessing they had problems with getting enough propulsion going? The modern approach would involve some very synchronized stages, but WWII tech would make that difficult.
Otherwise, this would be a pretty cheap way of doing the Blitz.
They were doing exactly that. The pairs of pipes coming out the sides of the barrel are more charges, being timed to go right after the projectile goes through.
Didn't work well also barrel life of like 5 shots and you can't aim it or move it. Dumb, like everything they did.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
The atomic bomb. Very powerful.
What, you weren't reading it right to left like a manga? /s
There is another: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistel
Leave it to the Germans to name their weapon after what was used to kill the diety EVERYONE liked. (Balder)
The Germans were notorious for using on-the-nose naming conventions. For example a radio-homing system was called "Odin", which the British correctly guessed was using one transmitter rather than the usual two because Odin only had one eye.
The lesson here is that when picking code names, pick random words from the dictionary.
The wunderwaffe was a last ditch propaganda attempt to boost morale of the Germans. Which kind of worked because many Germans still believed in the "final victory" with wunderwaffes along the way to save them, in spite of the Allies being at the gates of Berlin.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Is “engine life of five hours” correct? Would the engine need replacement after five hours of flight time? Damn, that sucks.
One of the under-appreciated benefits of the Allies' successful invasion of North Africa was that it cut Germany off from their main sources of stuff like chromium, cobalt and nickel, elements that are alloyed with steel to produce material that can resist the kind of high temperatures that jet engines produce. This forced them to manufacture turbine blades from ordinary steel, which doesn't work very well.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Anyone have a guess as to what the bottom left picture might be? Just looks like some weird stairs.
PING!
Also, let's not forget "Tank that doesn't murder the crew when it's mission-killed" and "Jeep"
load more comments
(5 replies)
We did have the Mark 14 torpedo, in the "disaster" category.
Germany had her own torpedo problems, but the Mark 14 went out the door in abysmal form, and we were extremely slow to get the problems fixed. And we were fighting a war with more naval focus than was Germany.
And while we had some work on the VT fuze and would have eventually gotten there ourselves -- though time is valuable in a war -- that was really the Brits. They gave us their work and we finished the work to put it into a shell.
And some of our concepts, though we ultimately made use of them in some way, failed in their original form.
The idea that ships would be a sitting duck for high-altitude level bombers was just wrong. Down the road, yes, but not in WW2. Billy Mitchell really oversold the state of things. And while it wasn't catastrophic for us, it did hurt our initial ability to respond to naval forces.
The B-17 concept that massive interlocked fields of fire from defensive guns would permit bombers to sail past fighters didn't really work. It was in a stronger position than the Avro Lancaster for daylight bombing, but we took horrendous losses; ultimately long-range fighter escort was still required.
The Norden bombsight didn't really deliver the tremendous advantage that had been expected.
We initially drastically overestimated what our early radars could do for us in naval night-fighting, and it led to things like the Battle of Savo Island. The Brits seriously bailed us out here with the cavity magnetron.
Germany also had some significant wins. Yeah, they didn't have the semi-auto rifle as a standard issue, whereas we had the M1 Garand. But they did have the assault rifle, in the form of the StG 44. They had the general-purpose machine gun in the form of the MG 34.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Needs 3000 of what, to operate?
Just 3000 of whatever you have on hand, generally
Of course the pic of the long-range fighter is a P-51, which always gets all the credit for that shit. But the P-47N was built to escort B-29s all the way from the Marshall Islands to Japan and back, and had a range in the neighborhood of 3000 miles - simply astonishing when you consider how short-legged fighters were at the beginning of the war (Battle of Britain Bf109s could barely make 400 miles).
I wouldn't mind a fighter with the range of a bomber. I end up never using fighters unless I'm being invaded because of its short range, but the initial biplanes can only be remodeled into fighters so I'll end up having a couple of them every time. I still need to give the P-51 mustang a try, they seem to have a slightly better range.
Great point, especially towards fans of nazi overfucked tech
Tank destroyers with rotating turrets.
But also topless, because what are mortars and hand grenades?
Cue !MilitaryMoe NSFW in 3...2...1...
There were really two different groups of tank destroyers in WW2.
The US and UK wanted something that would prevent a situation akin to what came up in the Battle of France, where fast-moving German armor penetrated French lines at Sedan and performed a successful massive exploitation through that breach.
They had fast vehicles that were intended to fight from concealed, defensive positions. But those vehicles had to be able to get out in front of an armored breakthrough in time to parry the thrust. What was critical was speed.
Germany and the Soviet Union, out on the Eastern Front, needed heavily-armored vehicles with big guns to slug it out over open fields with long fields of fire.
While, yes, both were aimed at fighting armor, they weren't really aimed at the same role, and I kind of wish that the two groups of vehicles had gotten different names, rather than "tank destroyer" being applied to both.
view more: next ›