>>19428 >So the oil is only used to superheat the steam, and it's not meant to use the oil as backup if something happens with the nuclear power? Correct. If the nuclear reactor somehow manages to go offline they have a lot more problems than just propulsion. Ironically, Nuclear reactors on ships are one of those sorts of things that having a backup for is generally kind of useless because if something goes terribly wrong with it, well, you're either at a location where you can get off-ship help in short order or you're kind of dead.

>>19441 >oil fueled The other reason is that the reactors are 300MW each. The Nimitz outputs 100MW + driveshafts, I suspect partially the reason for this is because the russian soviets considered their nuke subs to be more expendable and actually made the Kirovs to have decent wiring and redundant equipment, necessitating much more electrical output than "muh propeller shaft". Also don't forget subs don't really care about radar, although that's probably offset by the requirements for hydrolysis and air scrubbers. Could also just be Russian electronics being more electricity intensive versus their NATO counterparts. Considering the current year state of the Russian Navy, I will bet their role will be North Sea fleet or maybe Pacific fleet in patrols, since the Baltic, Black and North sea are close enough to land for anyone to lob stacks of ASMs from planes or land based batteries.. Also considering the non-existant state of the replacement carrier , I have a feeling that they will revert to some sort of ground based interceptor based designs (see: The new SU-75 and Mig PAK DP) which will probably never enter service because russian economy not found.

>>19442 The Soviets just weren't very good at designing naval nuclear reactors. They used molten lead as a liner (and radiation shield), for example, and their outputs were categorically lower than the American equivalents in terms of effective usable power despite in cases producing multiple times the thermal energy. Also, I don't really think the Soviets considered their nuke boats to be 'expendable' exactly, they were their navy's highest priority and got most of their developmental interest. Further, they even had creature comforts such as saunas on their Typhoons, veritable undersea hotels, those boomers. They were just, sadly, too expensive to maintain. Modern Russians actually are roughly as good as the Americans were about 20 years ago at designing naval nuclear reactors - which is to say probably the 2nd best in the world, since the only American innovations in the field since has been what went into the A1B. They (the Russians) sadly can't afford them en masse. Russia's real problem these days with their navy is the lack of shipbuilding capabilities. They have the naval engineering/architectural knowledge, they actually are capable of putting out excellent ship designs which are actually quite terrifying conceptually when considering trying to counter them. They just, optimistically on their side, have very limited capability to actually build the things because their shipbuilding industry kind of sucks. But they are very committed to bringing it up to their desired standards, and I honestly see them being able to do it within the next 10-15 years.

>>19443 >bad at reactor design I disagree, the Russian are good at build the molten lead fast reactors, but not the rest I think. Their doctrine significantly differs in sub tactics (read, dash to the Atlantic to repeat German Uboat campaign) versus the needs of acoustically silent subs (which said role was given to the SSKs). Ironically, the reason the acoustics performance gap was closed was when Toshiba sold milling equipment so they could make better propellers. As for the reason they did not use the lead bismuth reactors I do not know, probably due to issues with maintaining them is my guess. >expendable The non nuclear ones and some of the nuclear ones (the 705k/705s) are in my opinion disposal. The 705s sole purpose is to interdict shipping and US troop transports to from US Europe in any sort of war. Hence the high speed design was supposed to allow for outrunning of the ASW gauntlet alongside the USN's torpedo inventory at the time (The MK 48 ADCAP was semi-response to the 705) Soviet fleet doctrine revolves around three things: 1) Defense against naval amphibious landings 2) Third portion of the nuclear triad (SSBNs) 3) ASuW and ASW warfare to protect 2). >lack of shipbuilding capability Wasn't most of their large ship capability in Ukraine (specifically Mykolaiv)? Which promptly then fucked off and went full whoring for NATO? I know sub construction is mainly a Sevmash thing.

>>19454 >I disagree Understandable, I just personally consider lead-based LMFRs and LMFBR to be bad designs from the start as potential advantages do not outweigh the very serious disadvantages, especially when molten sodium based reactors give most of the same benefits while avoiding most of the detriments; but that's a clearly subjective thing. I also very much disagreed with their doctrine; but then again, I'm a grand fleet advocate, so that's unsurprising. >The non nuclear ones and some of the nuclear ones (the 705k/705s) are in my opinion disposal. I do not disagree on the SSKs, but I do disagree with the Liras. The admittedly limited information I've collected over the years indicate that they were no more disposable than any other naval asset the Soviets possessed, and were in fact held as something of a critical component of their Atlantic/Baltic Bastion. While if they had as many as they claimed they did, they could have been used as disposable assets, in reality they only had 7 of them and could not afford to throw them away. >Wasn't most of their large ship capability in Ukraine (specifically Mykolaiv)? Correct. That was one of the many reasons why getting Crimea (specifically the Sevastopol Shipyard) back was so important to the Russian Federation, it gave them a modicum of ability to construct and maintain shipping.

Are there any good Chechen war memoirs? I'd love to read the experiences of russian troops clearing rooms

>>19456 >blood disease For your consideration, a counter-theory: it's actually the AIDS exosome (not a virus at all)

>>19460 with document, except for how it's half a megabyte too big.

>>19460 >>19462

Some more columns of assorted equipment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrfBO5S2B70 Gathered Serbs fucking with "Special forces" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9LtnC1TRMQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3qs44Z0wkI

Feel free to google translate this article of CNN lackey's N1. https://rs.n1info.com/vesti/sveclja-zapaljen-centar-za-registraciju-u-zvecanu-napad-eksplozivnom-napravom/ Shqiptar's claim Serbs set fire to the local DMV. And to have found explosives in Serbian communities. Smells of flase flags. We are sadly, not as proactive as muslims in terms of bombing.

Some footage of todays deployment of the Serbian army, two kilometers from the Jarinje administrative line.

>>19457 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6cahEASelQ And American, Polish and Canadian KFOR contingents deployed at the blockade. https://t.me/sputniksrbija/5000?single

Well it's probably not going to degrade into shooting conflict. But then again it's the balkans.

>>19424 Out of touch Thursday. Why would Taliban leaders be concerned about what the enemy says about thier movement. Let the Taliban play, they deserve it. >wsj Literal psyop.

>>19435 Well of course it matters, they want to give the appearance of fearless warriors of Islam not of dumb teenagers

>>19412 Was about to post this in the canteen. In the UK Independant they mentioned quote "the woman had received medical care after the assault, which was not sexual in nature, but did not require hospitalization." Looks like ahmed is just going to have to just adjust his cultured sensibilities towards his new female care takers or else he'll be deported and subsequently brought back to be released into the cities after he begs for refugee status. When will he learn.

>>19424 >>19433

>>19403 Oh, in that case it's highschool physics math, anon. Height: ~2,000 meters Prominence: ~600 meters (essentially radius) Volume of a cone: V=πr^2(h/3) Technically surface area would be more accurate but I just want to check if it's a big disaster or not, for those who are more math literate. Volcano is roughly 753,600,000‬ cubic meters of volume Volcanic "rock" is a mix of light material at 700kg/m^3 and heavier shit ranging up to 3,200kg/m^3 so I'll estimate 1000kg/m^3 for simplicity and assume that if the "wall" of the volcano falls off, that's like 1/5th of the volume falling into the ocean from an average height of about 1/3rd of the way up the side of the mountain. Density Times Volume = Mass, so 1000*150,000,000 (~1/5th the volume) = 150,720,000,000‬ kg of material (we'll call this variable OSHIT) Potential Energy = mass times acceleration time height, so PE= OSHIT*9.8 (gravity's acceleration)*200 (1/3rd the height of the volcano since more weight is distributed near the bottom) = about 295,411,200,000,000‬ newtons of potential force slamming into the ocean, or the equivalent of about 5 large atomic bombs going off simultaneously. Eh, that's rough estimates and probably a little lower than it would actually be. I wouldn't bet your life on my math, but you need about a magnitude 8 earthquake for the waves to travel across the world. The only difference is this would be largely focused in one outward direction, so I guess it could do it if the seismologists think it will.

>>19407 > anons in texas or parts in the deep south would be hit with that tsunami? No, that wouldn't make sense. Tsunamis are essentially massive ripples and act as such. Most of the wave would go into Florida and the east coast. A tiny portion might get past Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the other islands into the Gulf of Mexico, but it wouldn't suddenly do a 90 degree turn to strike Texas or the other states there. However, there is the possibility of a tsunami coming from the gulf of Mexico, and if that happened it would strike Texas. A simulation (https://yewtu.be/watch?v=U2y-QcWgCrE) shows a scenario where most would only have 3-4 hours of warning to react.

>>19398 >>19400 >>19403 >>19413 >so I guess it could do it if the seismologists think it will. From what I've read, seismologists mostly think the original simulation that predicted catastrophe for North America was probably a significant overestimate.

>>19415 Makes sense. Based on my own math, you would need about ten to one hundred times that much force to actually do damage. Surfing will be fun for anyone who wants to surf when it "hits" though since it will be bigger than usual high tide (just probably not destructive based on my math).

>>19398 >>19403 Is a flank collapse actually looking like a possibility? I've not been paying attention to the Canary Island thing very much.

>>17130 Operation Sealion is basically impossible yes. Don't forget that the inverse, D-Day, took the world's two largest navies, air superiority, good support from locals and a deception operation to move reserves and still wasn't a sure thing. There were also giant floating harbours and literal pipelines across the channel. The logistics of a naval invasion at scale are terrifying meanwhile Sealion plans proposed towing barges across which is a joke not to mention the German reliance on horses for transport adding a whole extra level of headache. There are two paths to knocking the UK out barring perhaps adding decades onto the timeline and/or proposing nukes. Firstly starvation but arguably continental Europe is at almost as much of a risk of starvation as the UK is plenty of incidents of starvation and resource shortages during WW2 unless they can swing around and kill the bulk of the USSR. Secondly threaten the Empire enough (close the Suez, pressure Spain to make noises about joining so Gibraltar is threatened) and offer very reasonable terms to both the UK and France to bow out and go fuck up the nips. This would require Germany to have stuck with allying with the Chinese instead of swapping to the Japanese but that probably would have worked better anyway since Japan would have acted the same alliance or not. It would also require Mussolini to not demand too much and that's a potential issue too. >>17143 >Germany kept a lot of their industry producing civilian goods even long after everyone else had switched to a war economy If memory serves it was 1943, after Stalingrad was fully retaken, that they finally went for a proper total war economy. >>17153 The real question is what if the Sino-Soviet split never happened. That had a far larger effect on the Cold War and led to post-Mao China being subtly backed by the USA.

Could the n*zis have built a semi-mass production capable crude supercavitating torpedo or better yet rocket propelled midget submarines if a Strelok with Superkavitierender Unterwasserlaufkörper blueprints and extensive engineering+physics knowledge behind the weapon system were to get isekai'd back to June 1st 1940 Berlin?

>>17547 >Could the n*zis have built a semi-mass production capable crude supercavitating torpedo No, the infrastructure required to build practical supercavitation wouldn't exist for another ~30 years and even if you carried back plans to build all of that, it'd take longer than WW2 did just to build them. Same thing goes with your spoiler due to underwater rocket propulsion.

Would KR Murica and Britain's economies really have crashed with no survivors by the mid-1920s? I could possibly see it happen in the UK by virtue of massive debt and trying to keep up with Willy's and Tirpitz' hyper-dreadnought construction programs making full use of Germany's industrial might with no more pesky resource shortages, naval treaties, multi-front land war or budgetary limits, but was the US so dependent on the British economy that a successful mid-1920s socialist rebellion combined with the G*rms capturing Britain's colonies in the chaos would create a decade long great depression?

>>18346 >Would KR Murica and Britain's economies really have crashed with no survivors by the mid-1920s? Possibly, but I'm not sure about america. I don't know much about the postWW1 to say much. Also TL191 post 2GW japan and some otherTL191 stuff

>>17841 Congratulations, you've just made a wheeled BMP-3.

>>19261 >In my case it's because I dream of ˝synchronizing˝ the guns used on land and on the sea. Specifically, with the kind of defensive system they are already putting on tanks the two best bets against them are going to be hypersonic missiles and really big guns. Therefore I imagine that for the front line the best main armament for a tank (or heavy IFV) would be a 76.2mm gun with a high RoF combined with a row hypersonic missiles. But the real tank killer should be a SPG with a 21cm gun: the first vehicle would mostly just designate targets for guided 21cm shells, and its own hypersonic missiles are mostly there for self-defence. >>19293 >When it comes to tanks, really, all you absolutely need to do to cause a mission kill is to poke a hole into the crew compartment. To that extent, extant 120-140mm tank cannons would defeat anything up to heavy CNT-based composites, no reason to pull out the heavy artillery and hypersonics yet. It's not futuristic armour schemes that I'm worried about, but active defence systems and newer generations of reactive armour. It is rumoured that Russians are already developing hypersonic anti-tank missiles, and they have successfully used laser-guided 152mm shells in Ukraine to hunt tanks, so using more missiles and bigger guns is just the next step in this game. Especially considering how long it takes to develop a new tank in this day and age, it's better to take two steps forward instead of trying to make an old school tank with a slightly bigger gun.

>>19429 One more thing to consider: the turret receives most of the hits, especially because tankers are sensible enough to prefer hull down positions. If unmanned turrets are the future, then most of the time the best you can with a tank gun is to blow up the turret, but the crew will not only survive that just fine, then can even drive away to a depot, get a new turret installed, and come back to the fight in a short time. Meanwhile a heavy artillery shell coming down from the sky like an angry thunderbolt will completely destroy the tank and slay the crew, making it a much more permanent loss.

>>19429 You appear to be effectively asking for a heavy reconnaissance vehicle (what the US calls Cavalry) and saying it's a tank. Also, everyone who is anyone in terms of artillery can already crack everything up to the aforementioned CNT-based composites with extant howitzers. As a matter of fact, the US was already using artillery to crack tanks in WW2. The reason why the US never fielded heavy AT guns in great quantity was that their numerous howitzers were already filling that role. As for ADS, they can't exactly slap an 20mm rotary cannon on main battle tanks and still have them function as tanks, so without going with an armored corps of nothing but Maus-sized tanks you are limited to the shotgun-style or reactive plating ADS which are designed to stop RPGs (and maybe the comically slow TOW) - not 120mm APFSDS or 155mm HE shells. HVATMs only refine an extant threat, they aren't real game changers either; at the ranges they are viable ADS doesn't really help anyway, their main advantage is that the firing vehicle (Helos, for example) doesn't have to expose themselves for as long. This is also a sort of useless development since Russia already had ATMs that were nearly immune to non-Russian ADS', so they are just increasing the cost of their own munitions for no discernible gain. >>19431 >One more thing to consider: the turret receives most of the hits, especially because tankers are sensible enough to prefer hull down positions. Turrets receive the most hits because it's the easiest target to hit with the highest chance of causing severe, mission-killing damage. Knocking out the turret eliminates the threat that the tank presents, knocking a track off or putting a few holes in non-critical locations on the hull will too often leave the turret operational and still a present threat. Even with HEAT shells. Hull down is not really as effective in tank engagements anymore due to the prevalence of local level reconnaissance, both aerial and ground, that allows for flanking or improvised ambush engagements with attached infantry MANPATs forcing abandoning cover. It's excellent when you can get it during a snap engagement, but it does not aid when the enemy has enough time to go around you or can afford to wait you out for artillery or air strikes (which are the US' two preferred methods of cracking tanks to begin with). >If unmanned turrets are the future The US experimented with unmanned turrets back with the TTD. Loved the thing, but eventually turned it down as an evolutionary step due to its limitations. First off, it's prohibitively expensive, as Russia is finding out. Secondly, it requires far greater than average levels of mechanical know-how to maintain, which is rare for an army to have in the field (once again, ask Russia how those dedicated mobile Armata depots are going, you'll find out not very well).

Oh fuck I found this and now I can't stop laughing.

>>18905 Every yandere needs a box cutter.

>>9775 So does this mean that you can make a viable shotgun barrel (for shot not slugs obviously) out of material like brass or bronze then?

>>19380 literally never used plebbit, and i have no idea what your problem is. but thanks for atleast providing useful info instead of just leaving a pile of steaming shit in the thread. You seem to have experience with orchard gardening. Did you ever work with cherry plums? how widespread are they in the US? I know they're quite widespread in Germany, and i use them a lot for making jams and preserves. They're quite tasty, too. Maybe if someone is interested, i can provide a little info about working with those.

>>19394 >chery plumbs I haven't seen any in the area I work in but I live in a cold as fuck area so.... USDA Zone 5-9 (there's a few zone 3 varities, no idea bout them). Not commonly seen in the great plains states or east coast due to the high likelyhood of early spring frosts causing blind nodes and fruit cracking issues (like with all prunus genus). Brown rot issue is an issue in the USA. Susceptible to disease due to lack of fuzz.

>>19187 I apologize for the late reply; I've been busy with real life >Just, like, throw it on the ground and let it grow. Do you mean that in the most literal sense? Just throw it on the ground? I don't need to do any tilling? >>19186 Thanks anon. The area i have planned to plant the wheat at doesn't get flooded so I'm not worried about that. I am concerned about various pest like aphids and other annoyances but since this is the first year I'm not going to take it too hard on myself if shit goes sideways. Also, as for my location, I'm unwilling to reveal where I am but I was able to find some advice about planting wheat where I live. >>19380 Do you have any advice on processing water oak acorns? Does the process differ from other acorns? Also, what is your opinion on the water oak? I've heard some people claim it's basically a large weed but I don't really see where this is coming from. I know they can be messy but that only becomes a problem if you don't have wild life/ animals around to eat it.

>>19418 >throw it on the ground If you want to get really scientific, it depends on the seed cultivar. Most seeds have a specific planting depth otherwise will not germinate. Other have a hard requirement on the directionality of the seed. Wheats planted on large enough scale that it doesn't really matter. >water oak No idea on processing. For the tree? Takes ~20 years to set fruit, USDA zone 6 ish. Does not tolerate shade, extensive pruning,compaction (eg; you parking a truck on top of its roots), or drought at all. Somewhat resistant to sudden oak death (imho). Readly hybridizes with rest of oaks (its a fagaceae trait) and as thus expect for acorns to vary widely. If you are looking for this stuff in southern US, try grafting scab resistant pecan (Carya illinoinensis) onto water hickory rootstock (C. myristiciformis). You can, at least directly eat pecans.

>>19418 I am, more or less. To be accurate: Before throwing them on the ground, wet them for a couple hours, then add powdered clay on top and swirl in a circular motion, spraying with water and adding clay as necessary to form small clay balls of each seed. Then throw them on the ground, depending on type, either a bit after the harvest, covering them in the straw of the previous harvest, or in spring, about two weeks before weeds start coming up. If you're using previously untilled/unfarmed ground, start by using daikon and similar vegetables beforehand for two or three years to get the ground softer. Don't worry about weeds, they'll be less problems than you think if you stick to the instructions. Never remove more than you eat, all straw and such must return to the field to rot. Full method is in the books below. One thing that may require adjustment is watering: This was a method developed in a pretty humid part of Nippon, depending on how much it rains and how hot your summers get, you'll have to water.