Jump to content

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

What's old is new again.

Personally it felt weird to me an idea like this was pursued sooner.

I wonder if we’ll ever see an ARS Nova style inflatable decoys that can be like pooped out that would rapidly self inflate after making contact with sea water 

 

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,210
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,227 posts
18,423 battles

That is what this game needs,  smoke screen that absorbs radar.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,374 posts
4,342 battles

Ah...

The way things are today, it'll get labeled a serious carcinogenic product and then get banned for use because it causes cancer if breathed.  Won't matter a wit to those getting it banned that in wartime it could save hundreds of lives of sailors.  What matters is you might breathe it and get cancer twenty years later and die ten years early...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, Murotsu said:

Ah...

The way things are today, it'll get labeled a serious carcinogenic product and then get banned for use because it causes cancer if breathed.  Won't matter a wit to those getting it banned that in wartime it could save hundreds of lives of sailors.  What matters is you might breathe it and get cancer twenty years later and die ten years early...

I was pretty happy about this and you killed it for me...because that’s almost guaranteed to be what happens lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
730 posts
19 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

I was pretty happy about this and you killed it for me...because that’s almost guaranteed to be what happens lol

Politically it's safer to die from enemy fire then from your own military equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,374 posts
4,342 battles
3 hours ago, Royeaux said:

Politically it's safer to die from enemy fire then from your own military equipment.

Politically, it's almost always your own gear that gets you killed.  It's made by the lowest bidder and was designed by a committee of government bureaucrats and engineers.  Something like this:

66747235571.gif

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
730 posts
12 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

Politically, it's almost always your own gear that gets you killed.  It's made by the lowest bidder and was designed by a committee of government bureaucrats and engineers.  Something like this:

66747235571.gif

 

But fewer questions get asked when it's "the enemy" that does the killing.  They become heroes that aid the patriot cause.

Once it's your own equipment that causing "patriots" to die, people demand answers and everyone starting pointing the fingers at each other and throwing each other the bus.  It's easier to just blame "the enemy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
692
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,118 posts
8 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

I think it has less to do with smoke falling out of favor and more ships not being designed being able to emit it in any fashion to begin with. Smoke being impregnated with IR and EM masking elements have been the life blood of ground combat since the late 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,374 posts
4,342 battles

I'd say the biggest problem is at sea it's rarely  calm.  The wind blows most of the time and is usually strong enough that it would disperse the smoke pretty rapidly as well as make it hard to get a sufficient concentration in the right place at the right time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
12 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

I think it has less to do with smoke falling out of favor and more ships not being designed being able to emit it in any fashion to begin with. Smoke being impregnated with IR and EM masking elements have been the life blood of ground combat since the late 70s.

I’d smoke hadn’t fallen out of favor, then smoke emitting ships would have been built

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
6 hours ago, Murotsu said:

I'd say the biggest problem is at sea it's rarely  calm.  The wind blows most of the time and is usually strong enough that it would disperse the smoke pretty rapidly as well as make it hard to get a sufficient concentration in the right place at the right time.

They managed to make them work in the past I imagine they could still get them to work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,374 posts
4,342 battles
17 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

They managed to make them work in the past I imagine they could still get them to work

On the large scale they could get them to work.  This normally involved the ship injecting oil or fuel into flue gasses coming from the boilers to create smoke in the exhaust.

9wvey4ty89xx.jpg

That's how tanks make smoke most effectively.

Here destroyers set smoke by injecting fuel that is not fully combusted:

w1_destroyer_smoke-screen.jpg

But, note that the sea state is very calm.  There's hardly any surface waves and not a hint of white caps.

Same thing here.

3319489835_5761a94593.jpg

I looked at dozens of photos of ships, and aircraft, setting smoke at sea.  The common thing in all of them is that the sea is calm and there's little wind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, Murotsu said:

On the large scale they could get them to work.  This normally involved the ship injecting oil or fuel into flue gasses coming from the boilers to create smoke in the exhaust.

9wvey4ty89xx.jpg

That's how tanks make smoke most effectively.

Here destroyers set smoke by injecting fuel that is not fully combusted:

w1_destroyer_smoke-screen.jpg

But, note that the sea state is very calm.  There's hardly any surface waves and not a hint of white caps.

Same thing here.

3319489835_5761a94593.jpg

I looked at dozens of photos of ships, and aircraft, setting smoke at sea.  The common thing in all of them is that the sea is calm and there's little wind.  

the first one with ships looks smooth, but there are notable waves.
regardless like i said, in the past the smoke screen has been successfully used in combat, i see no reason why these new smoke screens wouldn't be able to be successfully used in combat, unless they need the smoke screen to be extremely thick/dense for it to actually work.

if the fibers can create false returns, and the smoke can be just thick enough to obscure the target ship's appearance to throw off the image identifying program on the missile off just enough to prevent it from getting a positive visual ID on it, then it shouldn't be too situational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
692
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,118 posts
11 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

I’d smoke hadn’t fallen out of favor, then smoke emitting ships would have been built

That doesn't make any sense. Smoke stopped being used because ship design made it extremely hard to still have smoke generators that could produce enough volume to cover what was becoming larger and larger supercarriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
11 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

That doesn't make any sense. Smoke stopped being used because ship design made it extremely hard to still have smoke generators that could produce enough volume to cover what was becoming larger and larger supercarriers.

i'm sure that they could have figured it out, if they thought that it was worth it. they clearly think it wasn't worth it to sink the money in to R&D on bigger and better smoke generators, so they just did away with them all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
692
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,118 posts
14 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

i'm sure that they could have figured it out, if they thought that it was worth it. they clearly think it wasn't worth it to sink the money in to R&D on bigger and better smoke generators, so they just did away with them all together.

You can barely get the USN to build command ships, arguably the most important ship class in modern naval warfare, that doesn't mean it's fallen out of favor or that they "couldn't figure it out.".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
10 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

You can barely get the USN to build command ships, arguably the most important ship class in modern naval warfare, that doesn't mean it's fallen out of favor or that they "couldn't figure it out.".

cruisers, carriers, and amphibs are all capable of C&C so what real purpose is there for a blue ridge style ship that will just suck up more escorts, but can only provide 1 actual capability that can be provided by other ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
692
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,118 posts
3 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

cruisers, carriers, and amphibs are all capable of C&C so what real purpose is there for a blue ridge style ship that will just suck up more escorts, but can only provide 1 actual capability that can be provided by other ships?

Because the Navy can barely get enough money to keep their workhorse AEGIS destroyers in fighting trim anymore? Are about to have to retire all the Ticonderoga cruisers with no replacement in sight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For security reasons, please do not provide your personal data or the personal data of a third party here because we might be unable to protect such data in accordance with the Wargaming Privacy Policy.

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×