/k/ - Weapons, Combat, Outdoorsmanship


SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

what's a war board without a conflict?

What is easier and more reliable to build in a cave? Strelok 07/21/2021 (Wed) 20:30:42 No.17439
So, I've got my list of different aircraft that I've tought about: 1.1 Petrol Jet 1.2 Electric Jet 1.3 Petrol Piston Propeller 1.4 Electric Engine Propeller 2.1 He 162 2.2 Me 262 2.3 Ta 183 2.4 Bf 109 (G6/K4/other improved variant) 2.5 Other Germany war emergency fighter I just want a general opinion and a reason for your opinion. Thank you! Just a quick note: I am a bit more inclined with He 162, with electric jet engine, as I have experience with it from games (using a stirling generator + car batteries for fuel on the real one) and maintenance after flight would be easier. If you suggest something else please have something with the criteria: can hold minimum 4 pylons for SAAMS or bombs, can fly for over 4 hours and have spare fuel for another 30 minute of emergency flight back home, easy to build by untrained personel in cramped conditions, can get up to mach 0.8 without structural damage/failure. Thank you, mein kameraden!
>>17439 If you have a reliably working design, a production line that you know will make all the parts for it without a hickup, and a cave that can house said production line (maybe along the workers), then I don't think it will make that much of a difference. The potential challenges have more to do with the fact that you put the production line into a relatively strange environment (compared to the average 20th century factory) than from the design of the plane itself. E.g. if your plane lots of wood in it, and the cave you choose is quite humid, then you might run into problems. But it's also possible that the cave in question is pretty dry, or has some reasonably dry parts, and then it doesn't matter for the end product.
>>17509 Weren't the Germans producing V2s in caves at the end of World War 2?
>>17516 Yes, but that's a rocket, and it just proves the point that it's not the end product that matters but the relationship of the production line and the cave.
Well I'm just asking for airplane suggestion. The part of building le said airplane wouldn't be a problem. The problem is which airplane would be which would be better to build with an untrained crew. Some are more agile, some are faster, some require less expensive stuff but are more resource hungry while others requore more expensive stuff and are less resource hungry etc etc. I just want a general opinion of which aircraft model you would think would be better.
>>17534 alright, let's fucking go. >He 162 It is an underdeveloped plane, projected and designed in a hurry, and made mainly from wood. For these reasons alone it goes out the window already. >Me 262 Is killed by your criteria for suggestions >can hold minimum 4 pylons for SAM (i think that's what you meant) or bombs. the Me 262 was never meant to be a bomber, it's a pure interceptor. Otherwise, pretty much comes down to your equipment, as it is designed for use with a jet engine, so remaking it would make redesigning the plane necessary. >Ta 183 no idea, it is concepted as a jet engine plane, but was never even produced, not even a prototype. Can't tell you anything about it. >Bf 109 Now that's something that could work. could. If you weren't limited by your suggestion criteria >easy to build by untrained personelin cramped conditions. How much untrained is 'untrained'? are we talking about absolute dumbasses with a grand total of 0 hours in a workshop? Or do the at least have qualifications/knowledge in metal working and mechanics? If not, it doesn't look good for you. In the end, none of those are easy to build if you limit yourself with an absolute horrid scenario, where you're stuck with literal cleaning staff, in a cave, and on top of it, two of your suggested planes will not even into combat. Even the Bf 109, the absolutely best of the suggested designs, cannot be build without machinery to stamp metal profiles for its construction, and the personnel trained to work said machinery, and then some more personnel to assemble all the other parts, and the final plane. also >can get up to mach 0.8 without structural damage/failure. Mach 0.8 = 274 m/s = 987 km/h. So, a modern jet plane. Forget it.
>>17537 >SAM >on an aircraft I think OP meant AGM.
My suggestion goes against the entirety of your autism post, but why wouldn't you just build unmanned drones in your cave? You wouldn't have to machine anything, just install components into the poly/fiberglass shell. Your 'untrained personnel' that builds them could also double as the pilots, saving you on costs of having actual pilots. The drones are smaller as a result, so you'd have a lot more room in your cave for whatever need be. A fixed wing drone definitely wont hit 0.8 mach speed and won't be able to carry as much ordnance but is still a legitimate threat. Unless this is a historical "what-if" thread, then feel free to disregard my post.
>>17539 Yeah, I now realize that too, after a nights rest. Scary what sleep deprivation and late night anger can do to a strelok. also, I just remembered: if OP wants to build planes in a cave, depending on its size, maybe he could go for MiG-15's, they were developed right after the second world war, and they approximately hit the OPs criteria, although fuel doesn't hit (1.5 hours max, 2.4 if you pick the hunter variant). But, if it's for efficiency and effectiveness in combat, >>17540 has the right idea.
>>17540 drones can get hacked, have a max distance until communications can't happen anymore for a small team as over 1000km is a long long distance, can get hijacked easily by enemy forces if I try to use the internet. The only way this would work it would be if it would get a strong encryption and I've got to fly it over cities so I would get internet, which will make my drone visible. >>17537 the materials I'll use will be of higher quality. Wood isn't that good, expecially for a jet fighter. Like a bri'ish ace that flew it said that the He 162, if well trained pilots flew it, it would've been a game changer. The BF 109 I put there, even though it doesn't meet that mach 0.8 speed criteria as the mach 0.8 is only for jets, sorry for not pointing it out in the first place. Also the workers have some experience in the workshop, altough only simple stuff as installing an electric motor on a bike or reinforcing a part of the house and stuff. Not that experienced with manufacturing parts from raw materials and such. The part with MiG-15 I considered it before, but dismissed it as the shock when I bombard [REDACTED]. Like what would attract more attention? "An unindentified MiG-15 pilot struck [REDACTED] this morning with multiple bombs and rockets, hitting the air defence of [REDACTED]. It is tought that ISIS/HAMAS is being the attack. Watch the rest on our channel later this day!" or "An unindentified Nazi pilot flying an WW2 era jet plane struck [REDACTED] this morning, killing [REDACTED] people, are Nazis coming back and what are they going to do? See on our channel later this day!" Sorry for the wall of text.>>17540
>>17546 >Finally reveals the end goal of this thread In your shoes, I would build smaller drones that are basically RC missiles and completely disposable, so you don't have to worry about maintenance or resupplying your devices. This cuts costs on the manufacture and having a smaller form factor will enable you to carry even hundreds in something like a moving truck. >Hacking the drones It's not impossible, but with the scenario I'm proposing it would be incredibly unlikely. You would be using either a 2.4 GHz antenna setup or a 4G LTE setup on the drones. These are very common signals and to try to hijack the drones using them in time probably wouldn't happen. You could even program the drones to head to the target whilst completely cut off from you. A box truck full of drones that can fire from anywhere would be a very difficult problem to solve. >Distance The drones wouldn't have a maximum range of 1000km, you are correct about that. With a proper antenna you can reach about 33km (20 miles) which is still pretty good. Outfitting the drones with 4G dongles could possibly extend that range, I really don't know. But the kicker with this set-up is that nobody can really plan for it. A moving box truck with a hundred drones sets up 20 miles away and sends suicide drones at a target? How do you stop that? >what about the audience? IM THE JOKAH BABY Idk paint swastikas on the drones? If you dressed up like a clown and danced with signs supporting and showing abortion pictures you'd probably get the reactions you are looking for. And also I'd get a big laugh from seeing that on the news. >Sorry for the wall of text Enjoy reading mine, friend
>>17565 I see I see, the part with the guided RC V1's I've thougt about and are in my plans, tho only as laser guided as GPS would be bitch in trying to control the drone. The GPS would read that le drone would be 1km forward or backward if it ain't precise (as the drone would get over 1000km of traveling, it will loose precision). I also have an old saying: "Overestimate your enemy twice and sub estimate yourself twice for the best strategy." Btw, hi mr jew that watches us! I'll fucking kill you ^^ And another good one would be: "when everything gets fucked, at least you've got a manual" (this refers to the reliability of manual vehicles, when it gets fucked, at least you can repair it easily, without a problem) Not to forget, it's quite gay to lay back and let a robot do the job 99.9%, that's what trannies of US military do. Plus, a robot isn't that smart. Even tho it might be programmed very well, it is still worse than a human. A bot can predict so much till it get's a loading error that cannot be resolved and it crashes. Also, imo, it is more cool to see an explosion in real life than on a screen.
>>17576 Honestly, at that point you could just go for homebrew mortars. High range and destructive capabilities, paired with high mobility makes those an extremely effective way of attacking targets. And if you put some effort into production and QC, you can get quite the precision with 'em.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?