G:I was a Con with a couple of folks who talked about the fact that with the new body armors and lack of stopping power of 5.56mm that a heavier bulliet is going to needed.
The next US assault rifle the XM-8 maintain the 5.56 mm cartridge of the M16 and M4. Now this sounds like another M16 waiting to happen but I have some hope for the XM8. The rifle is designed to fire far more rounds than the M4 or M16 without needing the frequent cleaning that the M16 series requires. Now the main feature that perks my ears about the XM8 is that the rifle is designed to be easily converted between various uses. You can reduce the length of the rifle from a full length rifle to a carbine with the quick swap barrels the weapon has. Now the main thing that catches my eye is one of the conversions switches the rifle from 5.56 mm to 7.62 mm ammunition.
The idea is that US troops will often be operating in areas where AK-47 ammunition is highly prolific so why not make their rifles so they can use it. So the M8 will have a quick convert kit that allows it to jump over to 7.62 mm rounds. My bet is considering the rush on M14s and the variants of them and the use of AK-47s by US troops is that the conversion kit will be highly popular. You’ll be mating the accuracy of a US rifle with the power of a 7.62 round. My prediction is that if these kits get out in any real numbers you’ll see a informal changeover by US troops to 7.62 mm.
G: Also do you think caseless cartiages are a dead dog?
This one I’m not really to knowledgeable in. I know H&K has been trying to perfect caseless cartridges since the 1960s with less then promising success most of the time.
Delvo: And yet I've also heard battleships referred to as ships of the line, a term which should be defunct and inapplicable to modern ships if it indicates that older type... unless it really can include both modern and 19th-century big gun ships... in which case it's redundant to "capital ship" so one of the terms is pointless...
Well battleships fought in a battleline in a similar manner to the earlier ships of the line except battleships were free to maneuver without relying on the wind. This is really a case where terms have been slowly meshed together over the years until you end up with several terms that mean the same thing but originally meant different things.
Delvo: So a battle cruiser isn't exactly a species of cruiser but a hybrid between battleship and cruiser? I guess the name does look constructed that way, but I had always thought "cruiser" was just short for "battle cruiser" until now, and "heavy cruiser" and "light cruiser" were just size subgroups within the category of battle cruiser, short for "heavy battle cruiser" and "light battle cruiser". And then it wouldn't make sense for the same class to include some ships that were equivalent to battleships and some others that you just said were smaller than an AB destroyer. But if the battle cruiser is a separate thing from (and bigger than) ordinary cruisers, more like battleships modified to be somewhat cruiser-like, now it all makes sense.
The battlecruiser was typically in the same size range as a battleship and often displaced nearly as much as a battleship. The US intended to build Lexington class battlecruisers, that were later converted to the carriers Saratoga and Lexington, these ships would have displaced 44,600 tons at 874 ft with 4 dual turrets with 16"/50cal guns. The Iowa Class Battleship that came along in the 1940s displaced 48,000 tons at 887 ft with an armament of three triple turreted 16”/50 cal guns. As you can see the Lexington class carried one less main gun compared to an Iowa and was just a little shorter and had a slightly lighter displacement. The main difference is the Iowa had a much heavier armored belt and better protection than the Lexington class would have had.
Now your typical World War II heavy cruiser like the Baltimore Class displaced 17,000 tons with an armament of three triple turrets with 8”/50 guns. The Cleveland class light cruiser displaced 13,800 tons and were armed with 4 triple turrets with 6”/47 cal guns. Then you get the case of the Alaska Class Command Cruisers that were launched in 1945. These ships displaced 34,000 tons, were 808 ft long, and were armed with three triple turrets with 12”/50 cal guns. They were designed to be a large cruiser meant to hunt down and destroy the large 8” heavy cruisers of other navies. In a sense they were similar to Germany’s pocketbattleships but had lighter armor and were clearly of a cruiser lineage. Whereas pocketbattleships or battlecruisers have more in common with a battleship in terms of design.
Delvo: I'm not talking about those below-deck vertical missile launchers. I'm talking about that giant huge box that pretty much is the whole ship and stands out stories above the deck, like an architecturally unoriginal office building floating in the middle of a big tray. Both modern destroyers and modern cruisers are dominated by this single big block shape, since they don't have much gunnery anymore. Is that really just like a building, containing just housing and work stations?
Oh that would be the superstructure of the vessel. That would be all of the space of the ship that is located above the deck and contains radio antennas, the arrays for the radars in the case of the Aegis system, and the bridge among other things.
In this picture below you can see an Iowa class battleships steaming alongside several different modern warships. You can see how the superstructure evolved over time into the box shape of the Arleigh Burke located aft of the Iowa.
Banapis: The term "fast battleship" wasn't coined until many years later, and many people now argue today that Hood was the world's first "fast battleship."
I don’t know… It is a dicey proposition to claim that she was and it is a dicey one to say she wasn’t. You could really argue either for Hood.
Nonny: Anybody else interested in military jargon and slang? Do you know the term 'zoomie' and if so, who do you apply it to?
I think it was first used as jargon for USAF pilots and then went on to mean any USAF Personnel but still can mean a pilot.
Sparky: A lucky shot, a golden bee-bee maybe, but still the Bismarck was state of the art for her day with impressive fire control, radar, and antiaircraft batteries.
For all the hype and few impressive qualities of the Bismarck she was a badly flawed design and far worse off than Hood. Bismarck suffered from weak deck armor, mediocre guns that were less than steller at plunging fire, and a fatal flaw that ran the turret communications above the armored deck that made them extremely vulnerable to being cutoff from fire control. On top of this her screws and rudders were setup in such a manner that once the rudder was jammed the ship was impossible to steer with the screws alone. Bismarck was a great ship for fighting at close range in the foggy North Sea with her being stable gun platform that at short ranges had guns that could punch through side armor while having her own heavy side armor. In open seas against an Iowa, North Caroline, or South Dakota the Bismarck would be in big trouble.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
-Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
- Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE