The Workshops
- Thread starter 8BitCosmonaut
- Start date
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
This looks very recent, so they'll likely be the H model. Impressive and I'd certainly not want to be underneath it, but that's not anywhere near what a D was capable of doing and the spread is rather confined into a 'small' location, aimed at a target.
That is large scale smash unmatched by anything in the world right now, but it's not carpet bombing.
This is carpet bombing
Skip to 1:10 and watch how long it takes to unload a D bomb bay compared to a H model. That's twice as many bombs coming off the same aircraft.
And then skip to 0:50 and you'll see how the large the spread is. And each aircraft will lay them in strips next to each other, literally matching the carpets across the jungle.
They're not aiming at a target. They're denying ground with the application of HE. There'll be very likely absolutely nothing under those bombs except trees.
Context depending. If you're looking to definitely nuke a country, a sub. If you're looking to save money/actually use it day to day, an aircraft
That is large scale smash unmatched by anything in the world right now, but it's not carpet bombing.
This is carpet bombing
Skip to 1:10 and watch how long it takes to unload a D bomb bay compared to a H model. That's twice as many bombs coming off the same aircraft.
And then skip to 0:50 and you'll see how the large the spread is. And each aircraft will lay them in strips next to each other, literally matching the carpets across the jungle.
They're not aiming at a target. They're denying ground with the application of HE. There'll be very likely absolutely nothing under those bombs except trees.
Context depending. If you're looking to definitely nuke a country, a sub. If you're looking to save money/actually use it day to day, an aircraft
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
Remember children, nuking countries is bad, m'kay?
The US military was never going to win, for the same reason it can never win in Afghanistan.
Winning involves achieving a set condition. Score more goals, kill more people, take a certain area. capture a flag. WWII was win-able because there was a win condition that was aimed for. Take Berlin, kill Hitler. Take Japan, remove Emperor.
What was the win condition for Vietnam? Stop the communist domino effect. How? Communism isn't an area or a person. It's an idea. Radical Extremism isn't a place or a person. It's an idea, a concept. You can't bomb a concept. You can terra-form the land it sits on using copious amounts of 500lb'ers, but the idea still remains.
And even if you could boil it down to a place or a person, the US military was expressly forbidden from entering these areas and killing these people. If you don't have a win condition, then you can't win. If you're not allowed into the end zone, you can't win.
And it certainly doesn't help that the scoring system changes in mid-game.
If the US was allowed to treat the Vietnam War in the same way as they did Germany, then they'd have cleared the place out in 6 months.
The US military was never going to win, for the same reason it can never win in Afghanistan.
Winning involves achieving a set condition. Score more goals, kill more people, take a certain area. capture a flag. WWII was win-able because there was a win condition that was aimed for. Take Berlin, kill Hitler. Take Japan, remove Emperor.
What was the win condition for Vietnam? Stop the communist domino effect. How? Communism isn't an area or a person. It's an idea. Radical Extremism isn't a place or a person. It's an idea, a concept. You can't bomb a concept. You can terra-form the land it sits on using copious amounts of 500lb'ers, but the idea still remains.
And even if you could boil it down to a place or a person, the US military was expressly forbidden from entering these areas and killing these people. If you don't have a win condition, then you can't win. If you're not allowed into the end zone, you can't win.
And it certainly doesn't help that the scoring system changes in mid-game.
If the US was allowed to treat the Vietnam War in the same way as they did Germany, then they'd have cleared the place out in 6 months.
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
Sorry for the "radio silence" these past few days. I had some more thoughts on the "loss of technology" argument we had a while back, and at this point I might be beating on a dead horse. A few days back I was browsing Alibaba to look for manufacturers to custom make my engine parts, and noticed that other than CNC, old methods like lost-wax casting is still used today. Same with forging, welding, milling so on so forth.
Then I looked back at the Rocketdyne F-1, turns out most of the parts are also made with methods that are still used today, problem is, we forgot "how exactly". It's like making beef wellington, you have a veteran chef who have made those for years and developed his own tricks to get the job done effectively and efficiently, now give the same gear and supplies used by the veteran chef to a new chef, he wouldn't know how to make a beef wellington as good or at all even with the exact same equipment provided. Previously I thought everything was forgotten.
This contributes towards another unresolved problem with the argument that was our attitude towards manufacturing. So far there are three categories; past, present and future.
Past methods are forgotten because they were unfeasible for modern day large scale applications, say the elliptical wing.
Present methods are usually composed of past methods that are still very useful today, like many subtractive manufacturing methods.
Future methods are more advanced approaches like vacuum induction casting and computerized numeric machining control.
Right now we're gonna worry about the past and future, since that's what we're the most worried about, and since a certain individual insists laziness is the death of tech, and I'm having second thoughts. We have two approaches, that is preserving methodology and advancing methodology.
The preservation of methodology; if use of a methodology is obscure and limited (like the rocketdyne F-1 engine), it must be well documented to give future mantle takers an idea of how said method is carried out (something the engineers working on the Saturn V done poorly). If use of a methodology is widespread but is about to be replaced by a superior alteration, it must too be well documented or if possible, practiced (for example blacksmithing and spinning).
Our willingness to preserve a method is strictly dictated by our respect for it. We lost the know-how to build the F-1 because of our pride, our complacency, we were so full of ourselves when we beat the Reds that we neglected to remember, we disrespected it. Doesn't help that the higher ups cancelled or outright refused future deep space manned missions after Apollo.
The advancement of methodology; this sector strictly depends on our intelligence and past experience. We can't have CNC without NC, we can't have vacuum casting without die casting and we definitely can't advance without the geniuses down at R&D.
Advancement is innovation, innovation takes time, time needs passion. When you're passionate about something, being lazy will be the last thing on your mind. Laziness as a tech killer just doesn't add up.
Then there is war, which is caused by hatred.
Then I looked back at the Rocketdyne F-1, turns out most of the parts are also made with methods that are still used today, problem is, we forgot "how exactly". It's like making beef wellington, you have a veteran chef who have made those for years and developed his own tricks to get the job done effectively and efficiently, now give the same gear and supplies used by the veteran chef to a new chef, he wouldn't know how to make a beef wellington as good or at all even with the exact same equipment provided. Previously I thought everything was forgotten.
This contributes towards another unresolved problem with the argument that was our attitude towards manufacturing. So far there are three categories; past, present and future.
Past methods are forgotten because they were unfeasible for modern day large scale applications, say the elliptical wing.
Present methods are usually composed of past methods that are still very useful today, like many subtractive manufacturing methods.
Future methods are more advanced approaches like vacuum induction casting and computerized numeric machining control.
Right now we're gonna worry about the past and future, since that's what we're the most worried about, and since a certain individual insists laziness is the death of tech, and I'm having second thoughts. We have two approaches, that is preserving methodology and advancing methodology.
The preservation of methodology; if use of a methodology is obscure and limited (like the rocketdyne F-1 engine), it must be well documented to give future mantle takers an idea of how said method is carried out (something the engineers working on the Saturn V done poorly). If use of a methodology is widespread but is about to be replaced by a superior alteration, it must too be well documented or if possible, practiced (for example blacksmithing and spinning).
Our willingness to preserve a method is strictly dictated by our respect for it. We lost the know-how to build the F-1 because of our pride, our complacency, we were so full of ourselves when we beat the Reds that we neglected to remember, we disrespected it. Doesn't help that the higher ups cancelled or outright refused future deep space manned missions after Apollo.
The advancement of methodology; this sector strictly depends on our intelligence and past experience. We can't have CNC without NC, we can't have vacuum casting without die casting and we definitely can't advance without the geniuses down at R&D.
Advancement is innovation, innovation takes time, time needs passion. When you're passionate about something, being lazy will be the last thing on your mind. Laziness as a tech killer just doesn't add up.
Then there is war, which is caused by hatred.
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
No mate, i absolutely agree with most of this.
With the F-1, that's what i meant. We'd obviously not forgotten how to weld or forge or mill, we just had no idea how to forge F-1 parts and how they were welded together.
And you are right, we can't, because we don't because we haven't needed to for nearly 50 years for various, mostly political and financial, reasons.
Same with the wing shape of the elliptical wing on Spitfire. Now, I'm not saying that the wing or the engines are the peak of human ingenuity, far from it. I'm also not saying that we should specifically practice making enormous liquid fuel engines or curved sections of aluminium wing spar.
My point is that right now, 50-80 year old tech shouldn't be hard to make. What has happened is instead of the skill base widening to encompass everything ever made, there are gaps in places where there shouldn't be gaps.
There is almost no market for Spitfire wings outside of parts for the BBMF and a few re-enactors clubs. Same with F-1 engines, or coachworks etc
However, if the need arises, then it should be a case of going to a relevant workshop and saying 'mate, can you make me a aluminium spar/enormous rocket engine/moulded bodypanel to these specs' and the reply should be 'easy, gimme 20 minutes'. Not 'nah mate, no idea how we'd ever start doing that'.
Can't agree more about this and is the thing that makes me angriest about the whole scenario. If the company went bust or the building with the plans burnt down or it was 6000 years ago then I'd forgive them.
But hubris meant we backed off from one edge of human discovery to save some bucks spend more money elsewhere and now we're literally wasting billions of dollars, 10 years of development and still having to rape borrow kit from the STS to get back to where we were in 1973.
Did you read that NASA has re-introduced the Worm logo back as well?
The only thing i disagree with you over. Most wars aren't personal, they're business
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered