Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:04 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

n7axw wrote:I'm not sure that what happened to the Germans could be called luck. I've often wondered what might have happened if the roughly 850,000 men along with mechanized division kept in France could have been shipped east for Barbarosa in 1941... Could they have concentrated enough punch to knock out the Russians?

Don

-


No, because Germans were too inept in logistic to make it possible. They barely could support their existing army in USSR as winter came. If they tried to add more troops, their logistic would likely collapse, and they would suffer Stalingrad-scale defeat in early 1942.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:10 am

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5163
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Dilandu wrote:
n7axw wrote:I'm not sure that what happened to the Germans could be called luck. I've often wondered what might have happened if the roughly 850,000 men along with mechanized division kept in France could have been shipped east for Barbarosa in 1941... Could they have concentrated enough punch to knock out the Russians?

Don

-


No, because Germans were too inept in logistic to make it possible. They barely could support their existing army in USSR as winter came. If they tried to add more troops, their logistic would likely collapse, and they would suffer Stalingrad-scale defeat in early 1942.


I've been studying the war on the eastern front lately. My current impression is that both sides were pretty inept. Chaos in the beginning.

But your point about logistics is valid. It's just that Russian logistics weren't much, If any, better during those early months. The difference was that ultimately Russia's problem was solvable as time went on. Germany's wasn't.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by phillies   » Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:04 pm

phillies
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1951
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:43 am
Location: Worcester, MA

n7axw wrote:I'm not sure that what happened to the Germans could be called luck. I've often wondered what might have happened if the roughly 850,000 men along with mechanized division kept in France could have been shipped east for Barbarosa in 1941... Could they have concentrated enough punch to knock out the Russians?

Don

-


Of course, if they had occupied Leningrad due to better forces they could have supplied by sea through there.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:45 am

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5163
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

phillies wrote:
n7axw wrote:I'm not sure that what happened to the Germans could be called luck. I've often wondered what might have happened if the roughly 850,000 men along with mechanized division kept in France could have been shipped east for Barbarosa in 1941... Could they have concentrated enough punch to knock out the Russians?

Don

-


Of course, if they had occupied Leningrad due to better forces they could have supplied by sea through there.


I have been wondering if attacking along a wide front including Leningrad and Moscow wasn't a waste of manpower and resources for the Germans. Had they focused their punch south, depriving the Russians of their breadbasket in the Ukraine and the oilfields in the Caucasus (sp), Russia might have had a lot rougher time. The Germans would have had the oil they needed and the Russians starved for oil, raising the possibility of Russia being knocked out of the war before its armies could have been fully been fully reorganized or its resources marshaled.

As it was, the Germans never managed to punch through decisively anywhere. A case of badly underestimating the enemy...

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:43 am

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Germans screwed up in a ton of ways.

a) wasting huge effort and precious highly trained lives on the bombing of Britain wrecked the Luftwaffe's ability
they also had no long range bombers capable of destroying tank factories etc deeper in Russia
they did not wreck the rail infrastructure that would have crippled the Soviets MAJOR FAIL!!

b) Hitler didn't mess things up militarily *directly* as bad as folk think in the first 2 years or so as he mostly relied on his generals, many who WERE incompetent toadies and jackasses at the higher level (OKW were putzes, if Guderian had been in charge instead...)
but then he had fired or refused to listen to ones who tried to tell him what he needed to hear.

c) logistics, Russia is immense so so many issues there and German industry was HORRIBLY inefficient
too many different novel and poor designs, etc etc
best thing the Russians got from Allied supplies wasn't weapons/tanks, it was TRUCKS, that was absolutely key

d) easiest way for Germany to win would be "not to play" to quote a fave film ;)
Few years and Stalin's horror would have collapsed due to gross mismanagement and violent crack downs, abuses etc
riots, Beria being ordered to "deal with it" in his usual vile ways...Soviet system would have come off the rails, the German invasion gave them a way to keep power


frankly, the idea of the Nazis, Stalin's scum, a large percentage of the Japanese military all being in one place at the same time and either left to fight each other to death with barbed-wire wrapped clubs, or incinerated with napalm or nukes....mmmm! Yeah That'd be justice.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by lyonheart   » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:26 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4835
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:27 pm

Hi guys,

Hitler made a huge number of mistakes before the war started, the biggest of course being even starting the war.

The idea of militarily dominating Europe, including the continental sized Soviet Union against the will of every other European people or nation is ludicrous in the extreme. To persevere is even stupider.

Hitler's chief advantage was mobilizing sooner than his enemies, but when they did, they mobilized faster than he expected closing the gap of his military advantage, narrowing his window of opportunity, so he started the war 2 years before he was really ready. STUPID!

Trusting Goering with anything was stupid, especially something so critical as air power; the Luftwaffe was always too small for the job it had to do, losing half its front line strength in France and the other half in the BoB, so as Williamson Murray demonstrated almost 40 years ago, the LW was ultimately doomed from the start, as was the Regia Aeronautica and the IJNAF and IJAAF; each because of their vastly inadequate training base, while when production increased, the remaining poorly trained pilots merely crashed it faster.

Speer's claim of a single engine fighter production miracle in '44 is probably a Nazi myth since the training and frontline units never saw them, some suggest actual Me109 and FW-190 production was only 2/3 of the claimed figures.

You can argue that the EATS [Empire Air Training Scheme] or the BCATP [British Commonwealth Air Training Plan] meant Britain was going to inevitably win, when it set out to annually train 50,000 pilots and air crew or around ten times as many as the LW dreamed of doing, as opposed to an even greater disparity of what it actually achieved.

Regarding Barbarossa, it is amazing if not astounding that Hitler didn't know there were hardly any metaled roads outside the cities (perhaps if he'd spent some time on the eastern front things might have gone better 25 years later), that they were connected only by rail and because of his neglect, Germany began the war with fewer train engines and RR wagons than in WWI [NTM lower rates of production and replacement], and fewer rail construction troops to handle shifting the Russian RR gauge (all of 3.5"); when Germany had needed vastly more even in heavily networked western Europe in the first war for all the narrow gauge (24") light rail needed beyond the standard railheads which were at least 7 miles behind the trench lines (for a light rail network of around a thousand miles or so) which was the only way to supply the front through the morass created by the shelling etc, the 15 pound per yard rails and light sleepers able to support wagons of ten tons, responding far faster than any animal or man packed supplies could make it across no man's land; thus preventing any breakthrough from being exploited.

The fact that no experienced east front officer felt able to point out the absurdities demonstrates the stupid nature of dictatorships.

As a Spetnaz officer noted in his memoir from around 1960, prewar soviet defense planning emphasized wrecking the connecting western rail links, especially the RR bridges, from the late 1920's, and only Stalin's paranoia destroyed these very carefully prepared plans when he wrecked the army almost ten years later.

Because at least 75% of the army still depended upon horses, Germany used more horses in WWII than in WWI, and while producing many more motor vehicles [but which were only a small fraction of what was needed] which used rather scarce fuel, as opposed to the vast coal reserves the RR used.

Perhaps deeper drilling and efforts at fracking might have helped.

Incidentally, the OKW had to de-motorize ten divisions in the spring of 1939, because the army's motor vehicle accident rate exceeded its quarterly allocation of motor vehicles, which included around 500 motorbikes per division, many with side cars in lieu the staff cars other countries provided as a matter of course, to save on the fuel.

Goering saw to it the LW was entirely motorized, because Nazi ideology saw the automobile as modern but the railroads as old if not obsolete, so 16% of the German motor vehicles on the eastern front in June 1941 were LW, but due to the pitiful roads and lack of spare parts etc, half of all of them were ruined or wrecked in the first 3 weeks, so just having more trucks would probably not have helped the situation that much.

Because the requirements for a successful invasion were quite beyond German resources, the OKW Barbarossa planners ignored the logistic tar baby they knew was right in front of them, and even sending the railway troops ahead of the infantry wasn't going to be enough to keep up with even minimal daily supplies, so inevitably delays in the advance occurred that the Russians took full advantage of.

Despite conquering France, the largest IC vehicle manufacturer on the continent, the Germans made little use of that capacity, NTM the lack of rubber [the synthetic kind left a lot to be desired in more ways than one] should have underlined the need for far more RR engines and wagons (NTM RR construction/repair troops) long before the war began.

Because of the German refusal to produce enough spares, there were only 300 spare tank engines [for the mark III and mark IV] for the final fall drive on Moscow.

So Milch, as one of the best organizers in all of Germany, was sent east in December 1941 to help unsnarl the RR mess Hitler had created on the eastern front by sending almost every train belatedly east without letting those already there unload and return, a mistake the Union hadn't made in the ACW since Haupt took over, but every nation since had at one time or another, which almost collapsed the German economy for the lack of trains to move the basics of coal, iron ore, food, etc, etc.
The Wilson administration did the same thing in WWI and almost collapsed the US economy.

While the Russians managed to save more of their RR engines and rolling stock (losing only 15% to 40% of mileage), I'd argue the hundreds of Lend-Lease locomotives, thousands of wagons, thousands of miles of track etc were actually more important than the trucks, particularly during the nominal defensive phase, although the phones, switchboards, 250,000 miles of telephone cable, radios and all the other communication gear was probably even more important throughout the war; especially after Stalin's stupid order to conserve copper had idiotic commissars cutting down critically needed telephone lines to preserve the copper within.

This is hardly a complete list of Hitler's stupid mistakes, like declaring war on the USA, but railroads are the elephant in the room everyone has been overlooking.

Best wishes to all,

L


SilverbladeTE wrote:Germans screwed up in a ton of ways.

a) wasting huge effort and precious highly trained lives on the bombing of Britain wrecked the Luftwaffe's ability
they also had no long range bombers capable of destroying tank factories etc deeper in Russia
they did not wreck the rail infrastructure that would have crippled the Soviets MAJOR FAIL!!

b) Hitler didn't mess things up militarily *directly* as bad as folk think in the first 2 years or so as he mostly relied on his generals, many who WERE incompetent toadies and jackasses at the higher level (OKW were putzes, if Guderian had been in charge instead...)
but then he had fired or refused to listen to ones who tried to tell him what he needed to hear.

c) logistics, Russia is immense so so many issues there and German industry was HORRIBLY inefficient
too many different novel and poor designs, etc etc
best thing the Russians got from Allied supplies wasn't weapons/tanks, it was TRUCKS, that was absolutely key

d) easiest way for Germany to win would be "not to play" to quote a fave film ;)
Few years and Stalin's horror would have collapsed due to gross mismanagement and violent crack downs, abuses etc
riots, Beria being ordered to "deal with it" in his usual vile ways...Soviet system would have come off the rails, the German invasion gave them a way to keep power


frankly, the idea of the Nazis, Stalin's scum, a large percentage of the Japanese military all being in one place at the same time and either left to fight each other to death with barbed-wire wrapped clubs, or incinerated with napalm or nukes....mmmm! Yeah That'd be justice.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:44 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5163
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Hi Lyonheart,

Long time since we crossed paths. Good to see you post...

That was an impressive list of screw ups...But Germany almost pulled it off anyway because the other guys were busy messing up almost as fast as the Germans. The Red Army was in transition with its leadership due to purges and almost didn't recover.

What happened with the Germans was not only messing up organizationally with the logistics, but that their resource base was too small for the task at hand. The two critical needs were oil and steel. With those in insuffient supply, there was never going to be a way for them to win. They had simply bitten off more than they could chew.

Also, by the beginning of 1943, the allied bombing meant that the segregation of Germany's industrial base was well under way. By 1945 the USAF and RAF were facing a shortage of targets and by the surrender, all that was left was a shell.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:33 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

side note

IMHO, the British strategic bomber fleet was one of the worst, misguided, murderous, immoral and catastrophically wasteful military mistakes in history

#1 they SUCKED, wasn't until 1943 they could reliably hit a CITY, before that they were a total waste of effort (in general)
the ONLY time the heavy bombers were of worth were for "gardening" (mine laying especially of the fresh waters as Germany relied heavily on river and canals for industry etc)
and some specific uses with extremely skilled elites like 617 squadron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#2 the costs in money, material and men is criminally ignored
cost well over £600 billion by today's money, think it's close to £700 billion as that number's bit old
it was by FAR the largest outlay of the war for Britain...and achieved very damn little for it, murdered huge amounts of civilians, wrecked Germany and other nations leaving postwar a ruin with huge troubles (another issues grossly overlooked now)
etc

in cost issues, see also the lunacy of the USA's "Norden Bomb sight"
sure it worked, but ONLY at 5000 feet or less, on calm sunny day in the plains/desert
it Almost NEVER worked worth a anywhere else in real practical terms, and cost the USA iirc almost 50% MORE than the Manhattan Project did! that kind of bungling should have got folk jailed for sabotage and practically an act of treason it's so bad

Sigh
building dive bombers, ground attack aircraft and such would have been vastly superior for Britain's needs
alas, there was a sick mentality that wiping out enemy civilians would "win"...and true tactical/strategic airpower went out the window thanks to those scumbags like Bomber Harris

and before Dilandu jumps on me, lol, dive bombers were the ONLY way to get precision bombing until quite late in the war...they were perfectly good when escorted and if fighter/bombers were tasked with flak suppression
and absolutely essential for naval forces because carriers cannot afford to waste bombs dropping them willynilly all over the place

wasted effort on vast heavy bomber fleets could have produced HVAAR rockets for reasonably accurate stand off attacks for aircraft far far earlier, there's nothing special about those, just some better and rather simple solid rocket design
also, napalm, cluster bombs, shaped charge, better mines, blast bombs for legitimate uses etc

developing pulse jet engined cruise missiles ala the V-1 could have also been done and considering how much better Britain was at practical electronics we could have come up with long range and accurate pilotless weapons for a tiny fraction of the cost of the bomber fleet
whole host of ways they could have been given better accuracy and blowing hell out of military bases, troop concentrations, railway junctions and specific factories is legitimate and moral

heck I'd love to imagine an alt history where guided pulse jet cruise missiles drop on the barracks of concentration camps, others airburst and drop small arm cannisters to the inmates!


the colossal sums wasted on heavy bomber fleets could have achieved so much better hings across the whole military spectrum
and, the loss of extremely skilled intelligent men was as said, absolutely CRIMINAL
really it was like the insanity of WW1 but in the sky, ugh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#3 Japanese naval pilots were extremely skilled
but you can suggest they were over trained and nowhere anything like near enough, think they only got 10% of the replacement pilots they needed?
likewise German and Japanese manufacturing was horribly inefficient, the disparity of UK/USA vs Germany/Japan production was astronomical, especially vs Japan, was so bad iirc the Allies had hard time understanding/believing why the Japanese had such a tiny trickle of replacement crew/aircraft vs their own


sorry huge pet bugbear of mine
Luftwaffe wiped out my Dad's hometown, Clydebank, but missed about all the main targets and butchered civilians en masse, not helped by grotesque mismanagement on British government side

they gave criminally wrong designs and instructions for bunkers blast walls etc that all made death toll worse...ordering single course brick walls built across the front of the closes of tenements then telling folk to shelter in those closes, resulted in said flimsy brick walls becoming the "devil's own shotguns", to paraphrase Safehold, when aerial mines were dropped on the town and their huge blast effects swept for hundreds of yards

Add possible treason by the Duke of Hamilton who was in charge of airdefences of much of Scotland at the time and "funnily oddly peculiar" enough, the Germans knew how to avoid the Clydebank defences and not long after, Hamilton got visited by Hess who evaded the air defences apart from a couple of pilots who were a bit off schedule...


War requires truly practical, efficient weapon systems, in cost, material, people etc
if you cannot sustain a system, it become almost useless in a prolonged war and afterwards the costs cause damage of varying kinds to the nation
the loss of so many people in two world wars had terrible effects on many countries
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:59 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5163
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

SilverbladeTE wrote:side note

IMHO, the British strategic bomber fleet was one of the worst, misguided, murderous, immoral and catastrophically wasteful military mistakes in history

#1 they SUCKED, wasn't until 1943 they could reliably hit a CITY, before that they were a total waste of effort (in general)
the ONLY time the heavy bombers were of worth were for "gardening" (mine laying especially of the fresh waters as Germany relied heavily on river and canals for industry etc)
and some specific uses with extremely skilled elites like 617 squadron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#2 the costs in money, material and men is criminally ignored
cost well over £600 billion by today's money, think it's close to £700 billion as that number's bit old
it was by FAR the largest outlay of the war for Britain...and achieved very damn little for it, murdered huge amounts of civilians, wrecked Germany and other nations leaving postwar a ruin with huge troubles (another issues grossly overlooked now)
etc

in cost issues, see also the lunacy of the USA's "Norden Bomb sight"
sure it worked, but ONLY at 5000 feet or less, on calm sunny day in the plains/desert
it Almost NEVER worked worth a anywhere else in real practical terms, and cost the USA iirc almost 50% MORE than the Manhattan Project did! that kind of bungling should have got folk jailed for sabotage and practically an act of treason it's so bad

Sigh
building dive bombers, ground attack aircraft and such would have been vastly superior for Britain's needs
alas, there was a sick mentality that wiping out enemy civilians would "win"...and true tactical/strategic airpower went out the window thanks to those scumbags like Bomber Harris

and before Dilandu jumps on me, lol, dive bombers were the ONLY way to get precision bombing until quite late in the war...they were perfectly good when escorted and if fighter/bombers were tasked with flak suppression
and absolutely essential for naval forces because carriers cannot afford to waste bombs dropping them willynilly all over the place

wasted effort on vast heavy bomber fleets could have produced HVAAR rockets for reasonably accurate stand off attacks for aircraft far far earlier, there's nothing special about those, just some better and rather simple solid rocket design
also, napalm, cluster bombs, shaped charge, better mines, blast bombs for legitimate uses etc

developing pulse jet engined cruise missiles ala the V-1 could have also been done and considering how much better Britain was at practical electronics we could have come up with long range and accurate pilotless weapons for a tiny fraction of the cost of the bomber fleet
whole host of ways they could have been given better accuracy and blowing hell out of military bases, troop concentrations, railway junctions and specific factories is legitimate and moral

heck I'd love to imagine an alt history where guided pulse jet cruise missiles drop on the barracks of concentration camps, others airburst and drop small arm cannisters to the inmates!


the colossal sums wasted on heavy bomber fleets could have achieved so much better hings across the whole military spectrum
and, the loss of extremely skilled intelligent men was as said, absolutely CRIMINAL
really it was like the insanity of WW1 but in the sky, ugh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#3 Japanese naval pilots were extremely skilled
but you can suggest they were over trained and nowhere anything like near enough, think they only got 10% of the replacement pilots they needed?
likewise German and Japanese manufacturing was horribly inefficient, the disparity of UK/USA vs Germany/Japan production was astronomical, especially vs Japan, was so bad iirc the Allies had hard time understanding/believing why the Japanese had such a tiny trickle of replacement crew/aircraft vs their own


sorry huge pet bugbear of mine
Luftwaffe wiped out my Dad's hometown, Clydebank, but missed about all the main targets and butchered civilians en masse, not helped by grotesque mismanagement on British government side

they gave criminally wrong designs and instructions for bunkers blast walls etc that all made death toll worse...ordering single course brick walls built across the front of the closes of tenements then telling folk to shelter in those closes, resulted in said flimsy brick walls becoming the "devil's own shotguns", to paraphrase Safehold, when aerial mines were dropped on the town and their huge blast effects swept for hundreds of yards

Add possible treason by the Duke of Hamilton who was in charge of airdefences of much of Scotland at the time and "funnily oddly peculiar" enough, the Germans knew how to avoid the Clydebank defences and not long after, Hamilton got visited by Hess who evaded the air defences apart from a couple of pilots who were a bit off schedule...


War requires truly practical, efficient weapon systems, in cost, material, people etc
if you cannot sustain a system, it become almost useless in a prolonged war and afterwards the costs cause damage of varying kinds to the nation
the loss of so many people in two world wars had terrible effects on many countries


What you are really describing here is the wastefulness or war generally. There is no silver bullet to avoid that hateful word collateral damage even now. What the bomber fleet accomplished was to destroy Germany's ability to wage war, cutting back her ability to fight on both eastern and western fronts. War is about destruction and mayhem, breaking the enemy's will to fight. The only moral thing that can happen is to get it over with as soon as possible which exactly what the allies were trying to accomplish with the best tools available at the time.

As for all the mistakes? It was the first war of its kind in history. Everybody's learning curve was really steep.

As for the cost of war in terms of human life and material resources? The only way to avoid that is not to have a war to start with. I pray for peace all the time,

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:00 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

SilverbladeTE wrote:

and before Dilandu jumps on me, lol, dive bombers were the ONLY way to get precision bombing until quite late in the war...they were perfectly good when escorted and if fighter/bombers were tasked with flak suppression
and absolutely essential for naval forces because carriers cannot afford to waste bombs dropping them willynilly all over the place


It was not pre-determined, frankly. It was just the timetable accidentally was exactly at the moment, when dive bombers already existed, but aircraft rockets and guided bombs still doesn't. Considering how fast dive bombers died out, I dare say that their whole existence was an accident/deviation.


developing pulse jet engined cruise missiles ala the V-1 could have also been done and considering how much better Britain was at practical electronics we could have come up with long range and accurate pilotless weapons for a tiny fraction of the cost of the bomber fleet


It was possible, yes. The Oboe radio navigation system have the requured accuracy, and could be adapted to pilotless crafts. The main problen was the lack of suitable engine until German samples became available. If French engineers that worked on Leduc ramjet manages to escape in 1940, things may be different.




heck I'd love to imagine an alt history where guided pulse jet cruise missiles drop on the barracks of concentration camps, others airburst and drop small arm cannisters to the inmates!


Well, there was ONE guided weapon in WW2 that actually have that accuracy. The Aeronca GB-13 glide bomb with light-contrast seeker. It was designed to home on the bright spot into night - like signal flare - and was surprizingly accurate. On one test in 1945, two bombs were dropped against single flare: one missed a 3 meters, and the other made DIRECT HIT.

So if you provide flares on target...
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top

Return to Safehold