• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 hours ago

    PING!

    Also, let’s not forget “Tank that doesn’t murder the crew when it’s mission-killed” and “Jeep”

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Is “engine life of five hours” correct? Would the engine need replacement after five hours of flight time? Damn, that sucks.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Wow! I was just watching the anime, Saga of Tanya the Evil, and it had these in it. I assumed it was anime craziness.

    • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      “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.

  • Phen@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

  • SSTF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    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).

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.

    • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Leave it to the Germans to name their weapon after what was used to kill the diety, EVERYONE liked. (Balder)

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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.