General military questions thread
- Thread starter Buba
- Start date
-
- Tags
- military history
bintananth
behind a desk
They probably aren't going to attract heat seeking missiles.
Those engines run about as hot as an automobile engine and have similarly hot exhaust. Heat seeking missiles want to do very unpleasant things to the "down under" of a gas turbine with a much larger "here's where I am" heat signature.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Yes, but would probably not lock on from max range.
Those engine ran much hotter than modern day car engines and Sidewinders have been successfully used against Cessnas in South America on multiple occasions, with Cessnas having less powerful engine and less hot exhaust than WWII fighters.
gral
Well-known member
Skyraiders(with late-war R-4360 engines) were shot down by SA-7 MANPADS in Vietnam, as far as I can tell.
bintananth
behind a desk
Guess I'm wrong about the missiles seeking capabilities.
As for temperature. Flame temperature is what it is and a lot of WWII aircraft engines were designed for 87 Octane. That's "regular unleaded" where I live.
paulobrito
Well-known member
87 octane is for beginners. Late WW2 is 100-130 octane.
There is an easy way to check that.
Look at the plane, or car, or whatever, with a IR camera.
If your camera can see it, then so can a missile seeker of comparable sensitivity. And guess what, they obviously get pretty damn nice ones.
Here's an example of what such a camera may see:
Ironically, its the very old missiles that may have problems with lock-on because those had less capable seekers and no aids like target discrimination logic, never mind full on programmable electronics, so with 50's and 60's era IR missiles there were major issues like missiles locking onto the sun.
Modern seekers can be pretty damn impressive in terms of sensitivity, not exactly new Javelin is in fact an anti tank missile, and has IR homing that works on armored vehicles, despite their engines not necessarily being that big compared to aircraft, and all the IR noise from all the objects on the ground battlefield.
en.wikipedia.org
Look at the plane, or car, or whatever, with a IR camera.
If your camera can see it, then so can a missile seeker of comparable sensitivity. And guess what, they obviously get pretty damn nice ones.
Here's an example of what such a camera may see:
Ironically, its the very old missiles that may have problems with lock-on because those had less capable seekers and no aids like target discrimination logic, never mind full on programmable electronics, so with 50's and 60's era IR missiles there were major issues like missiles locking onto the sun.
Modern seekers can be pretty damn impressive in terms of sensitivity, not exactly new Javelin is in fact an anti tank missile, and has IR homing that works on armored vehicles, despite their engines not necessarily being that big compared to aircraft, and all the IR noise from all the objects on the ground battlefield.
FGM-148 Javelin - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It certainly can in manufacturing, probably not in the field. New ones probably don't need that anyway because they have electronic systems to help with lock-on and with discriminating against decoys.BTW - can the sensitivity (is this the correct word?) of the IR sensor of a Sidewinder/ASRAAM/whatever be adjusted?
Or if you tell me that you'd have to kill me afterwards?
Buba
A total creep
I'd think that the engine block will be the hottest part of an WWII airplane, the part that the seeker on the missile would ... erm ... seek out.
Hmm?
bintananth
behind a desk
Weirdly enough, using 100/130 in an engine designed for 87 actually hurts its performance because it's not as volatile and does not burn as quickly.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Brits and Yanks built their engines with 100 octane gasoline in mind, upping to 130 by 1942. By 1944 they even had limited use of 150 octane gasoline (especially buzzer chasers) but it proved too maintenance intensive for widespread use. Germans also built the versions of aircraft engines for fighters to run on 100 octane (later 130), while bomber engines ran on 87. Soviets used 87 on their aircraft and the Japanese varied from 85 to 92.
Buba
A total creep
I am following a "modern military ISOT to WWII" fic featuring a submarine, which made me wonder:
how complicated would it be to modify the sub to launch "dumb" torpedoes of 1941 vintage? The tube diameter is the same, 533mm ...
But what about anciliaries? Thingies for setting the course and depth of the torpedo?
For simplicity let us assume that the available DT fish are battery powered, thus no need for alcohol handling facilities.
how complicated would it be to modify the sub to launch "dumb" torpedoes of 1941 vintage? The tube diameter is the same, 533mm ...
But what about anciliaries? Thingies for setting the course and depth of the torpedo?
For simplicity let us assume that the available DT fish are battery powered, thus no need for alcohol handling facilities.
Last edited:
bintananth
behind a desk
WWII-era battery powered torpedos and the submarines which went on patrol used lead-acid batteries. That's the same type of battery as the one your car has when you turn the ignition key to start the engine.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
As far as I remember the British still used their WWII vintage torpedoes on their nuclear subs well into 90's and sank Admiral Belgrano with them, so I reckon launchers are still compatible, the question is only how trained is personnel regarding the handling and use of these old model torpedoes.
bintananth
behind a desk
A pre-WWI torpedo fired from shore sank Blücher in 1940. Her sister Prinz Eugen survived WWII and was still floating after getting nuked twice.
Where you hit it matters more than how hard you hit it.
BTW: Admiral Belgrano was a pre-WWII Brooklyn-class cruiser with practically no ASW and a sitting duck for any submarines in the vicinity.
Last edited:
Buba
A total creep
Eating that small fish in the belly was only a small part of the story. The Bluecher was one unlucky ship as, besides the torpedo:
- it was being pounded with 21cm shells from shore battery;
- one of the first 21cm shells hit the bridge and killed the top Officers, leaving her leaderless during those critical moments;
- besides losing its HQ the ship was crammed with German Pongos and (headless and uncoordinated) DC efforts were further hampered by the presence of those lemmings underfoot.
I do agree that where a ship is hit can make all the difference. Propeller shaft, wine cellar, powder magazine, rudder - taking a torpedo there is at least a mission-kill, if not doom outright.
Use of electric powered torpedoes was not universal, gradually increasing during the course of the war. in 1939 the norm would be something called a wet heater, burning alcohol.
Initially - not at all
The DTs would train them, however.
Last edited:
paulobrito
Well-known member
Well, a shot in the wine cellar is not only a mission kill, is a disaster of very grave proportions. Double if it is a french warship.
Buba
A total creep
It was
bintananth
behind a desk
Messing up the wine cellar is going to irritate an Italian far more than it'll irritate a Frenchman. If you really want to irritate someone French: bake bread wrong.
Our family has a recipe for baguettes that takes 20hrs and is awfully close to what French professionals use. One of my brothers-in-law is French and we do it wrong.
Well,everybody knew that french made everything better.At least - everybody in France.
P.S i dunno if it is joke or not,but i read article about french scientist who,after much work,proved that french shit is smaller and stink less then german.