Post shit that made the enemy think "Holy shit! that thing is going to make me die!"
I'll Start with inch thick 35 degree hull
>>29835839
>"HORY SHIII...."
>>29835892
Why are so many things called Lusitania?
>>29835910
It's named after a British World War One civilian ship that got sunk by the Germans and caused massive international outrage
>>29835910
Seriously? Its from WW I, so take a good guess
>>29835839
Meanwhile in the developed world
>>29836247
Obsolete in a decade, meanwhile US Navy monitors were still cutting edge technology. Britannia rules the waves my ass.
Anyone got that Nazi cannon so large they had to wheel it on a track and could shell something like 20 miles.
I saw it on "Nazi secret weapons" or some shit. So powerful it basically destroyed it's own barrel from 1 encounter. I forget name or I'd post it. Anyone?
>>29836271
Britannia ruled the waves for a long time.
>>29836294
I imagine you're thinking of the Schwerer Gustav 800mm siege gun.
>>29836294
this thing?
>>29836271
>US Navy monitors were still cutting edge technology
AHAHAHAHA
You realise how much of a step forward Warrior was ? and you realise that the US was a long long way away from producing anything comparable.
And it was the Royal Navy who made warrior obsolete by producing something even better.
America was irrelevant back then.
>>29836308
>>29836316
Das it mane.
I mean it wasn't a total game changer because it warped it's own barrel in no time. But it's definitely got a "wow factor".
>>29836271
wow.
I beg you to tell us what makes you think anything about US ironclads was 'cutting edge'
>>29836294
I think you mean the german railroad cannons, and
>it basically destroyed it's own barrel from 1 encounter
...not really, I mean maybe you're talking about the "Paris Gun", which had numbered shells of increasing diameter to allow for the absurdly high barrel wear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun
Which was really just made to fuck with Paris and not much else. 81 miles of EFFECTIVE range, but completely useless.
There's many different railroad guns, by the way. This is just the most absurd one.
>>29836354
Now I'm not sure. I watch ww2 docs to fall asleep to. I remember distinctly they said it didn't last long tho.
t. Charles
>>29836350
Being able to shoot almost anywhere in a 360° with the same guns regardless of vessel's heading.
>>29836369
Well, that one was a WW1 gun, so maybe it's not that. But I think it's the most impressive.
>>29835923
>civilian
Right.
And I bet you "remember the Maine" too? And the "day of infamy" which we knew was coming enough to get the aircraft carriers the fuck out of there.
>>29836412
it was a civilian ship though
it was probably carrying munitions and therefore a valid target, but it was a civilian liner.
Brits are very good at propaganda and intelligence work
>>29836375
Royal navy did it first, by 7 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetna-class_ironclad_floating_battery
the american ironclads were pathetic compared to the major nations warships.
The only reason they are noticeable is because the fought each other in what was one of the most boring wars in history.
>>29836247
Reminds me of the F-22. Expensive pinnacle of obsolete technology.
>>29836444
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetna-class_ironclad_floating_battery
None of those had turrets.
>>29836444
Man u r salty as fuck, did an american fuck your sister or something?
>>29836435
>it was a civilian ship though
>it was probably carrying munitions and therefore a valid target, but it was a civilian liner.
Oh, no "probably" about it, divers found 4 million .303s on her. She was a valid target, and Germany knew it.
>>29836462
Did you even read more than a line ?
>>29836479
I'm rising to the occasion to put >>29836271
back in his place with his stupid claims.
Treating US ironclads like wonder weapons is like treating technicals like wonder weapons, just because its advanced for the user doesn't make it noteworthy.
Needed to be posted. Or reposted if it hadn't been already.
Has there ever been another ship in history that was such a jump that it effectively created a new class named after it the moment it existed?
>>29836354
>but completely useless
Still did a better job than bombers back then
>>29836444
Stop being a twat, you're making us look bad cunt.
US navy ironclads of the Civil War era are really fucking cool (pic related). But generally I'd classify them as gunboats [correct me and call me a silly twat if I'm wrong, obviously], they'd not even be put up against a ship like HMS Warrior.
>>29836444
You seriously comparing what is essentially a barge battery to dedicated warships like the Monitor and Virginia?
>>29836444
You mean the French Navy
>>29836537
>CSS Virginia and USS Monitor
>The single encounter that showed the world that the age of wooden sail was over
>Not noteworthy
Not even an American, but you need to fucking stop. Like, right now.
>>29836537
>I'm rising to the occasion to put 29836271
back in his place with his stupid claims.
Oh my god you sound like a colossal cunt m8. I think an American fathered you.
>>29836412
>which we knew was coming enough to get the aircraft carriers the fuck out of there.
Why would you pitch a retarded conspiracy so easily disproven?
>>29836601
you're seriously comparing what is essentially a gunboat dedicated warships?
>>29836614
Not the one you're responding to, but
>Oh god mate, I have no argument, so I just insult you.
>>29836569
Not really.
>>29836573
Just think, you could slap one of the 4,000lb ones in a Mosquito.
>>29836319
Just think, in ten years warrior was rendered completely obsolete, by things like pic related.
>>29836645
>gunboat
I thought you brits were supposed to be more intelligent or something? All I'm seeing in this thread is a bunch of nationalistic dipshits who can't even get basic naval warfare terminology and application down.
>>29836589
Depends on if you're talking about a casemate or monitor ironclad.
>>29836601
for the purpose of showing that a turret was no revolutionary yes.
>>29836611
>>The single encounter that showed the world that the age of wooden sail was over
This was known for some time, hence why HMS warrior was launched before the battle even took place.
>>29836294
This is for war changing weapons, not "Nazis burning stacks of money for no reason"
>>29836684
>for the purpose of showing that a turret was no revolutionary yes.
I think you're equating "revolutionary" with "applied first".
>>29836615
Enlighten me. Because all I know is that we saved the bulk of the Pacific Fleet from being sunk while claiming the dirty Japs sneaked attacked us.
>Post groundbreaking weapons guys!
>Asspained UKcucks and conspiracy theories
Nice things etc. etc.
>>29836523
Carrying small arms ammunition doesn't make it no longer a civilian vessel, Cunard had transported small arms ammunition before the war on their ships.
The small arms aside there were empty shell cases and non-explosive fuses.
As much as you seem to think you can apply your opinion to the matter, its a fact that at the time, carrying those supplies DID NOT magically turn the ship into a valid (by the rules of the times) military target.
Oh and its not like they had to dive to find that out, they were on the bloody shipping manifest.
>>29836537
>Treating US ironclads like wonder weapons
How the fuck weren't they? They invalidated a shitload of each side's deployed naval vessels, one was feared to put the entire Federal blockade in jeopardy...they had an undeniably large impact on the course of naval operations in that conflict. Are you always this dense?
>>29836671
Because that's entirely different to the nationalistic Ameritard that absolutely refuse to believe they were irrelevant at any point in their history.
You're talking about a 2-gun vessel that, in it's most well-known engagement with the Virginia, ended in a complete standoff where the Virginia, despite being a technologically inferior vessel, simply did not give a fuck and was no worse for wear than the Monitor
You then get vessels like the Warrior or the Dreadnought, while singularly not the greatest example of warships, cause a sudden realization that propelled British warship design forward and secured their status as -the- superior navy.
You didn't see the world try to copy the USS monitor or its design principles, but you did see people try to make the Dreadnought. And to an extent, the Warrior was an improvement of a french design.
>>29836682
I'm thinking of the low free board turreted ones and the case mate style ships.
Then again my definition of a gunboat (low draft, heavy [comparatively] armament and unsuited for anything but riverine work) might be wrong, feel free to correct me.
As someone else has pointed out though, I don't see how HMS Warrior militarily outclassing Monitor diminishes Monitor's importance in any way at all.
It was the end of the age of the wooden sailing ship as the top naval weapon.
The entire period from the US Civil War up until around about World War One is really interesting in this area, all kinds of insane looking designs (round ship, what were they thinking) and just odd stuff (naval rams coming back, then thinking 'fuck it, lets fire torpedoes from our rams')).
>>29836736
But anon, nothing Americans do is ever noteworthy or important unless it's killing indians or enslaving blacks.
Don't you have a crippling hate for your own nationality and heritage?
Don't forget that the French are 100% responsible for the success of the revolution by selling the rebels weapons, but that America giving free weapons to the allies didn't help at all in WWII!
>>29836736
just because the US couldn't handle them doesn't mean they were wonder weapons.
Had the US been fighting the UK or France we would be laughing at them.
I wouldn't say the harrier was an amazing world beating fighter just because it shit on the argies.
The major nations had already learned the lesson that the US hadn't, and they had been producing far more capable ships.
>>29836741
>this guy was acting like a complete retarded twat, therefore I have an excuse to act like a complete retarded twat
Spoiler; this doesn't prevent you from being a complete retarded twat.
Neither vessel was irrelevant by virtue of the shockwave they sent through the entire naval setting of the American Civil War. It wasn't just Americans who poured over the first conflict between two ironclad vessels (which also makes them far from irrelevant), the entire developed world took note. And for the record, I'm a fucking Canadian, so you'll excuse me if I don't really have any sympathy for blatant displays of ignorance from either side of this shitfest.
>>29836784
nice strawman you made for yourself.
>>29836720
>asspained UKcucks
There's only one, you don't need to pluralise it.
Even we think that guys an asshat.
>>29836741
Shut the fuck up. The point was that it dawned the end of an era, not that it was the superbestestshipeverer.
And of course no one else copied it, it was designed for US use, they weren't intended to put out to sea.
Really, you look like a cunt mate, stop it.
Here, maybe this picture of a stunningly beautiful aircraft will calm your tits.
>>29836787
When you're quite done with thumping your chest and can form a cohesive argument that doesn't revolve around nationalistic raving and caveats, we can return to this discourse.
>>29836798
>Neither vessel was irrelevant by virtue of the shockwave they sent through the entire naval setting of the American Civil War
Toyota pickups revolutionised warfare in Africa, and are probably about as noteworthy.
![020914[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4KZMZ3c.jpg "020914[1].jpg")
>>29835839
>>29835839
Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun, and they have not.
>>29836829
I see we're comparing large-scale naval warfare to bush wars in Africa, so I think it's time I take my leave. Nice thread, guys.
>>29836784
I'm British and your being an arsehole.
People who think the Americans have done everything are arseholes.
People who think they've done nothing are arseholes.
Yes, the French helped enormously, but it wouldn't have got very far with Americans fighting or great American leaders.
That's the same bullshit argument some people make against the Russians in World War Two, but that's a separate can of worms we'll leave for now.
Here's a game-changer.
>>29836829
It's funny because you actually have no idea what irrelevant entails and still act like a pompous cunt.
>>29836847
>large-scale naval warfare
Two (2) ships.
>>29836848
*without
>>29836866
>entire US Civil War naval history
>not large scale
It was.
>>29835892
best example in the thread.
I know I didn't changed war, but it's still kinda unique
>>29836802
it looks like an F7F and a B-29 had a child
>>29836866
Yes, because neither vessel had any impact or action beyond that one solitary incident. Well done. Created an arms race and the first large-scale production of ironclad vessels? No. Threatened to put an entire Federal blockade strategy that was of absolute importance to the defeat of the CSA in jeopardy? Never. God save the Queen.
>>29836885
>I didn't
It didn't
>>29836866
>all of the Confederate and Union navies were comprised of one iron clad each
And now you fucked up, Ahmed.
>>29836876
but we're not talkig about that.
we're talking about a battle between two ships that was somehow completely revolutionary despite the fact that the rest of the world had already recognised the problems and been producing ships that were far more advanced.
>>29836887
I almost wish they'd never invented the jet engine, since that's what killed it.
>>29836709
Anon, most of the Pacific Fleet was sunk at Pearl Harbor, what the fuck are you talking about?
It was pure coincidence the aircraft carriers were gone. Only 3 carriers were attached to Pearl Harbor. The Lexington, Saratoga, and Enterprise. Lexington was off ferrying aircraft towards Midway, the Saratoga was in San Diego, and Enterprise literally sailed back into Pearl Harbor hours after the attack.
Most nations held the view that Battleships were worth more than Aircraft Carriers at the beginning of the war, what kind of fucking conspiracy is that?
>>29836907
>Britfags can't into following conversations; more at 9
>>29836907
We are specifically talking about the vessels themselves and the impact they had on naval warfare in the Civil War as a whole, which, by the way, was no means "irrelevant". Try and keep up.
>>29836918
>>29836926
Goalposts have been moved. Hilarious.
>>29836907
Monitor inspired the Breastwork monitor, thought up by Sir Edward Reed of the Royal Navy.
Later Reed developed the design in the Devastation class (I posted a picture earlier), the first ocean going, turreted ship that relied solely on mechanical propulsion, with no sails.
It was a direct pre-cursor to per-dreadnoughts and the dreadnoughts that followed them.
Monitor was a turning point, no slapping iron and steam engines onto a sailing ship with broadside guns is not that same, that's called a stopgap, turrets and no sails were the future, Monitor showed the future.
There you go, it even involves a British person so there's no need for you to get all cunt-ish about it.
>>29836901
Didnt the union navy become one if thr largest in thr world during the war
>limeys are this triggered by a post that doesn't even criticize them
>>29836918
it seems YOU aren't following.
I remind OP that there were far better ships in the era >>29836247
Then >>29836271 attempts to say that US monitors were somehow cutting edge at a time when warrior was obsolete
what follows is completely dismateling the idea that US monitors were in any way superior to RN and French warships of the era.
Then came the damage control saying "but we thought it was good because we didn't have better"
Keep up.
>>29836941
>multiple acknowledgements of both sides on large-scale impacts, relevancy thereof debated
>>29836829
>The US ironclads were as relevant in waras Toyotas were in African wars
>>29836741
>"a sudden realization that propelled British warship design forward and secured their status as -the- superior navy".
>"You didn't see the world try to copy the USS monitor or its design principles, but you did see people try to make the Dreadnought."
>>29836684
Worldwide acknowledgement of the end wooden sail and the benefits of the turret
And you say that the goalposts were moved. Amusing.
>>29836918
We're not ALL complete retards, honestly. The guy you're replying to probably has a picture of the Queen in his bedroom and genuinely enjoys marmite, at least he sounds like he does.
The US Civil War is incredibly interesting, everyone cites World War One as the first war where technology and a misunderstanding of its effectiveness led to meat grinding, but it always struck me as the first one.
Would have worked out better if we'd taken more notice of what had happened in the US.
>>29836977
>people giving a shit about your petty dickswinging contest and thinking it supercedes an already established narrative of large-scale impact
It's better to just admit defeat than continue on caterwauling like a demented hag.
>>29836977
>being this nationalistic over 150+ year old accomplishments
>getting so fucking triggered by an OP image that you have to act like a butthurt fuckwad in order to recover your pride
Put that effort into demonstrating against those mass child rapings or something, Nigel. Improve your present and future instead of wanking over the past.
>>29836977
>better=the not 'better' ship cannot be revolutionary
The Gloster Meteor and the Me-262 were arguably worse than some of the top of the line piston aircraft at the time, doesn't make them any less revolutionary.
You're missing the fucking point.
This comment >>29836271 isn't saying that Warrior was made obsolete, he's saying that it was obsolete in a decade, which it was, HMS Devastation outclassed it completely.
Now whilst I'd say he's wrong by saying they were 'cutting edge' (since Devastation was clearly better than any US ironclad) I'd say that what he's getting at, that turreted, mast-less armoured ships were the cutting edge at the time, is correct.
It's bad enough being a bong on /k/ without cunts like you shitting up.
MLRS isn't exactly a revolutionary technology, but it is an efficient, reliable way to void the bowels of anything nearby.
>>29837015
Woops, forgot pic.
Some World War One era (1915) monitors of the Royal Navy, now tell me they don't share any similarity with monitor.
Clearly HMS Warrior was the way forward.....
>>29836997
>>29837012
Ah so we finally come full circle to accept that my first post was correct that there were better ships at the time.
wasn't that tiresome?
It appears you chaps are more ass blasted than anyone.
toodles.
>>29837035
>if I can get them to call me a fag, they aren't technically rebutting my argument
>VICTORY WILL BE MINE
>>29836784
>killing indians or enslaving blacks
Not like the Brits hadn't already done that.
>>29835872
FPBP
>>29836975
Not being a super power still makes them mad.
All these limeys trying to act like they were vastly superior a hundred years ago just reinforces the fact that they're has-been cucks today.
>>29837035
>completey hadwaving all points made , refusing to acknowedge large-scale impact that has proven to have been an integral part of the discussion, and displaying willful ignorance of historical application of the warships in question
You have the debating ability of a primary schooler. Good luck out there.
This thread was could've been pretty good except for this Brit autist, his Brit apologiser and a few overnationalistic seppos
Gonna post another anyways, synchronisation gear
>>29836848
>>29837057
I think there's some sarcasm there you guys didn't quite pick up on.
>>29837116
Also, I like how you only responded to the adhom posts and not posts like, say, >>29837015 and >>29836981, that point-for-point deconstruct your argument.
>>29835839
The first gunpowder weapons and flamethrowers invented by the Chinks and Greeks are right up there.
>>29835839 PIC RELATED
>>29836989
>everyone cites World War One as the first war where technology and a misunderstanding of its effectiveness led to meat grinding, but it always struck me as the first one
AGREED
>>29837133
Yup, I apologise on his behalf, lets try and get it back on track.
>>29837173
>be barbarian
>be off fighting the Byzantines
>they set the fucking ocean on fire
>you're in a wooden ship
That's gotta be fun.
>>29837177
Is this b8?
>>29837192
was revolutionary and was omfg huge and when u fucking saw it no matter wich of allies u were u shat the pants sonny boy. true story
>>29837028
Oh almighty assfuck that looks scary.
Tell me more. I'm ignorant. Surface to air? Long range bombardment? What's it do?
>>29836989
>The US Civil War is incredibly interesting, everyone cites World War One as the first war where technology and a misunderstanding of its effectiveness led to meat grinding, but it always struck me as the first one.
Most military historians acknowledge the American Civil War being the first true modern war, and it genuinely fits the criteria. How chucklefucks like >>29836444 can call it one of the most boring wars in history is nothing short of hilarious, but I guess nationalism trumps everything in the minds of sods like that.
>>29837141
>sarcasm
>being something that's easily picked up without tone of voice
He's probably just being retarded, honestly.
Here's another game changer.
>>29837210
It makes it rain shrapnel at a very intense rate, in a very small area.
I thought that .webm had footage from the target area, but then I watched it.
Just imagine like an intense rain, but it's raining hand grenades instead of water.
>>29837242
Holy shit.
Who fields this weapon? How mobile/portable is it?
>>29837208
Revolutionary for a few months maybe
>>29837217
I guess I should have pointed out that I meant the general public would cite the First World War being the first, then again, a friend of my genuinely tried to tell me that more people died in the First World War than the Second, so what does the general public know? Bugger all apparently.
Back to the Civil War, there was good documentary on it on PBS I caught, it was done in the same kind of style as the World at War, very interesting.
>>29837272
yeah, ask your grandad driving shercan, or some slavshit t34.
Gliders represent the past and future of large-scale and expeditionary warfare. There are several very promising designs
>>29837259
Pretty much everyone has had some since WW2. It's a very low tech thing that you can put onto tanks or just tow behind trucks. The Koreans did it with black powder in the 1590s.
The flipside is that it takes longer to reload, and has a lower sustained rate of fire than conventional gun artillery.
But for sheer concentration of firepower, it's great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py0yhkMDt0k
Here's a US Navy ship that does nothing but fire tens thousands of rockets to soften up a beach landing.
>>29836721
How much entente dick do you suck on the regular you stupid fucking faggot?
>>29836309
underrated post
>>29837305
I did.
And you know what he said?
"THOSE FUCKING KRAUT BASTARDS CAN'T FIGHT THEIR WAY INTO A WHOREHOUSE"
>>29837335
Not him but that was a great retort
You clearly disproved his point
This was kind of an interesting one.
The way it works is that it fires a whole bunch of mortars at once, the individual rounds sink below the waves, and the fusing works so that if one warhead hits the target, all of them go off.
Like a depth charge that knows where to go off.
>>29837259
>>29837317
IIRC this is the receiving end of some, fun place to be
>>29836523
I'm not even a whereabo but it is common knowledge that the lustiania was carrying weaponry hell after she was hit the survivors described multiple secondary explosions probably from the weapons
>>29837259
>>29837317
MRLS is an american system, but the webm is from a finnish military excercise video I think.
The russians also used rocket artillery from flatbed trucks to a great extent in WW2
>>29837387
Not quite right, the Hedgehog had a contact fuse, it only went off if it hit the submarines hull, but they didn't all go off at once.
They were a lot better since:
a) if it went off, it usually sank the U-boat sicne it had exploded against he hull.
b) they were thrown forwards, making it harder for the U-boat to evade an attack
c) if they didn't hit the U-boat they didn't give the attacking ships position away since they wouldn't (theoretically) go off.
>>29837485
Huh.
I could have sworn it was designed with sympathetic detonations in mind.
>>29837354
oh i thought he fought in the army, but he was just potato eating, whiskey drinking sob pencil pusher in some local newspaper.
>>29837433
It's common incorrect knowledge.
It had .303 rounds, empty shrapnell shell casings (so just the head of the shell, minus the filler) and some none explosve filler.
No bombs, no live shells, no deck guns, nothing.
Carrying those items didn't make it a legitimate target according to the rules at the time, the Germans had to quickly make a bunch of shit up otherwise they'd have looked like utter bastards even to their own population.
Not that they were the only ones to make stuff up, since the British initially denied there even .303 rounds and shell casings onboard so as to not give German propaganda to work with (although the items were declared at US customs and it not being a cargo that would magically re-classify the Lusitania as a military ship).
TL:DR The German sub fucked up, it was a civilian vessel regardless of the small arms ammunition, the British obviously ( and can you honestly blame them?) played it up at the time to vilify the Germans.
There, sorted.
(p.s. saying something is 'common knowledge' doesn't lend it any credence; its 'common knowledge' that Bigfoot exists, doesn't make it true)
>>29837495
No, as far as I know it was only fitted with a contact fuse.
Maybe the explosion of one set nearby ones off? Could be possible, but I don't think that if it did happen, it was on purpose.
>>29837540
>doesn't make it true
Au contraire, mon frere.
This couldn't have been a pleasant sight to see if you were hunkering down in a pillbox somewhere.
>>29837540
>The German sub fucked up, it was a civilian vessel regardless of the small arms ammunition, the British obviously ( and can you honestly blame them?) played it up at the time to vilify the Germans.
You are aware the German embassy literally put an ad in the paper stating that they were going to sink it in an attempt to cut down on civilian casualties right?
>>29837610
Woops, sorry, that slipped my mind.
Still though, it doesn't actually refute anything I said aside from the bit about the sub fucking up.
Really that makes it worse, they didn't even have negligence or stupidity to blame, they purposefully torpedoed a civilian ship.
>>29836247
just looks like a big ship? what makes it so great?
>>29837610
Oh and just to try and keep some part of the threads original intention alive, another picture.
>>29836848
Uncle Hiram just didn't get them sold in enough quantity to euros to end their silliness for good...such a shame!
>>29837700
You ain't kidding m8. Stirrups changed everything.
>>29836832
how does a plane take off
>>29837697
It wasn't really revolutionary, more evolutionary, the technologies incorporated in it had been in use on ocean going ships already.
The only unique aspect was that she was the first ocean going ship with wrought iron armour.
HMS Warrior was important as a combination of technologies, not as some sort of leap forward.
Then again, as was common at that point in naval history, it was utterly and hopelessly obsolete after only a decade.
Still pretty cool though, especially since it still exists (down in Bristol).
>>29837697
Oh and it was the first iron hulled warship (though not the first iron hulled ship).
>>29837709
It would have taken shitloads given that artillery was a far, far more lethal weapon.
Shit, flu made artillery and the maxim look like a bitch right afterwards.
The Whitehead deserves mention as it completely changed naval warfare. Suddenly small ships could legitimately threaten large ships and submarines had a viable weapon.
>>29837782
True enough... aren't they blaming that on the US too now! Saying it started in the doughboy training camps and came over on the troopships or something...
>>29837760
>Still pretty cool though, especially since it still exists (down in Bristol).
u wot m8? We have the (remains of) SS Great Britain here, Warrior appears to be in Portsmouth.
A pointy rock attached to the end of a long stick.
Shit's terrifying.
>>29837815
Another good one.
If you look into it, for a period of time naval architects and strategists shat themselves thinking that all their huge big gun ships would be sunk by fleets tiny, cheap boats armed with torpedoes.
It never really quite worked out that bad, but still very interesting.
I think electrical communication followed by wireless communication are both worth a mention.
>>29837904
Well it caused the creation of an entire new class of ship, the Torpedo Boat Destroyer, or as we know them today.......DESTROYER
>>29837859
I haven't heard that one, as far as I thought it originated in Europe.
Having vast numbers of people milling about in unsanitary conditions didn't help.
>>29837873
I am a complete fucking idiots, now I feel like a complete twat.
My apologies.
I know Turbinia isn't military, but the technology she pioneered went on to be used in pioneering vessels.
>>29837671
>sink a Royal Naval Reserve Merchant Cruiser carrying munitions
>sub fucked up
>>29837815
And they even have a kill to their credit.
>>29837934
It did indeed, goddamn pesky torpedo boats.
>>29836848
That's what I was looking for actually.
All of this stuff is so modern though.
Ooh except this one: >>29837884
Bows were gamechangers in their day.
This was too. It's the classical "heavy" sling, used to hurl fist-sized rocks with enough force to brain a horse - or a man with a helmet on.
Range wasn't all that great with the heavier stones though.
Naval aviation was essentially this in the interwar period and WW2.
The previous, hideously expensive generation of battleships suddenly became marginalized.
>>29837958
That's not what we're debating and I've already admitted that the sub didn't fuck up.
Frame it how you like, it was a civilian vessel.
(I would like to point out that although she was listed as an armed merchant cruiser, she had only been fitted with gun mounts, to make conversion faster in the event of war, she was never actually fitted with the guns.
Originally the construction had been subsidised by the government if the Lusitania was built with conversion into an AMC [auxiliary merchant cruiser] in mind and she had been put on the list of offical AMC's.
However Lusitania was incredibly coal hungry [as were other similar liners] and was deemed unsuitable for conversion [hence why the weren't converted]. They just weren't taken off of the list of AMC's, Janes even listed them as being on it in 1914).
This was quite a game-changer in it's day as well.
>>29835839
>Post shit that made the enemy think "Holy shit! that thing is going to make me die!"
>made the enemy think
>>29837217
The Crimean War is what's considered the first modern war by a lot of estimates. As it was the first one with the telegraph, where people back home and the high command got news from the front pretty damn fast.
>>29837310
>Gliders represent the past and future of large-scale and expeditionary warfare.
>and future
Fuck off gliderfag
>>29836435
No, she was an auxilliary cruiser and part of the merchant marine, not to mention her sister ship had already been called to service as a troop transport.
>>29837310
That aircraft wasn't all that useful until they added engines.
>>29836989
Particularly in regards to the somewhat-misnamed Siege of Petersburg, which was basically WWI with muzzleloading rifles and artillery.
>>29835892
To the operators maybe
>>29837485
c) more than that, if you missed, your sonar wasn't jammed by a depth charge explosion, and you could continue to track the sub and attack it again immediately rather than having to wait several minutes and reacquire the target from scratch.
the germans,who viewed themselves as genetically superior to russians,was genuinely shocked when they encountered this weapon that the russian created
>>29840793
when they were first introduced,those early tanks were basically invincible as nothing could get through them bar artillery and could cut through the vaunted barbed wire defenses that the germans had
during the battle of cambrai these tanks managed to penetrate 8 km into the hindenburg line in one day,far more than 1 million men did in passchendale
>>29836309
Can you imagine how damned terrifying it would have been to encounter a bunch of guys with repeating breechloaders while you still had a muzzleloader?
>>29836373
I remember reading a book that had a passage in it about scout helicopters flying over a B52 strike during the Vietnam War. They said that everything in their field of view looked like the moon and that there was one lone VC soldier just wandering around with no clothes and a busted AK. They let him go because they figured he'd seen enough.
I feel I should point out that when the US Navy decided it needed new ships in 1874, it didn't lay down gun-deck ships of the line. It laid down twin-turreted ocean-going monitors. The Amphitrite class, descendants of the earlier Monadnock class of twin-turreted coastal monitors, themselves developments of the Ericsson Monitor.
>>29841023
Arclight runs were no joke.
>>29836271
You are aware that at this point America was utterly irrelevant and that the best it could do was make inefficient copies of British technology which led to the ineffective Monitors while Britain leapt forward every few years from the Devastation to the Dreadnought right? No? An uneducated American?! I'm absolutely astonished. The sailors on the Monitor would die of old age before the US navy was anything more than some obsolete tugs.
>>29841218
Much like Britain is now right? Not a real big surprise though, no muslim nation ever had a great navy.
>>29841218
You have to understand, if he posted something positive about Americans, he'd be dead.
>>29841218
It's like the guy's never heard of the Great White Fleet.
>>29841115
>>29836989
>this x 9001
>>29841218
>USS Monitor
>inefficient copies of British technology
>ineffective
Are all Britcucks this deluded and butthurt or is this the same Pakibait from earlier?
>>29841316
Haman plz go
>>29841548
>>29841762
>not "Make Side 3 Great Again"
>>29837173
Fire oxen
>:^(
>>29836684
>Turrets
>Not Revolutionary
>Not literally revolutionary
You are dumb.
t. France
>>29836553
The USS Monitor.
>>29836298
>>29842650
Calm down Ahmed you're part of the Caliphate now friend
>>29836448
>.50 have been deposited into your account.
>>29836523
Mfw 4 million isn't all that much compared to how much shooting was going on and how much it could have carried if it wasn't full of civi stuff.
>>29835910
>U-Boat torpedoes RMS Lusitania in 1915
>1200 civilians die
Press F to pay respects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania
>>29835839
>I'll Start with inch thick 35 degree hull
Bitch please.
>>29836412
>And the "day of infamy" which we knew was coming enough to get the aircraft carriers the fuck out of there.
>>29837034
>monitors are similar to predecessor of its class
stop the presses
>>29837305
They saw it broken when they were driving through Germany with german bitches to fuck at night
>>29843024
That thumbnail looks highly suggestive.
And I like it.
>>29837815
Not only this but it also stopped the ram craze
>>29837934
This destroyer looks like shit.
>>29838014
It's overrated though and the Billy Mitchell bombing "proved" that you can hit ship with a bomb but nothing else.
Then you've had things like sinking the Yamato which took like 15 torpedoes and 20 something bombs, and over 700 planes. Without total aerial superiority it would be much worse.
Which doesn't mean that big fleets of battleships(with typical big navy having 5-15 of them) didn't become outdated, but there were more than few conflict post-WW2 when majority of fighting took place in 356-406mm main artillery range so single one or two battleships used for bombardment? Sure, why not.
>>29843080
Well if you've got to make a point to an idiot, you've got to make obvious statements.
>>29835839
THat fucking yankee jew piece of shit copied the t34.
>>29841257
Neither did a Nigger nation. What's it like being 60% white?
>>29841521
No we're not, most of is are actually fairly well clued up on things. However, like in all nations, we have our fair share of vocal twats.
>>29836965
That the Cerberus? I've been out to dive on it a few times, pretty cool desu
>>29837208
>Be British Achilles gunner in Italy in 1943
>Commander spots a Tiger, guides my gun lay
>Fire and kill the Tiger
Yeah by the time the war was back in Europe the Allies had many ways to kill a cat.
>>29837504
And Im sure the thought of a pushup is enough to make your neckbeard ass sweaty
>>29835839
Not even the first ironclad, and it couldn't sail the oceans.
>>29837173
>Fire oxen
Fucking hell China, this is why no one wants to be around you.
>>29837697
It was shit, guns were too small for the time, compeallty inefficent against other ironclands.
>>29846821
It didn't really need to sail the oceans. All it needed to do was wreck shipping up north. That thing could have won the war for the south if it hadn't been stopped by based Monitor.
>>29836271
HMS warrior was a superior craft to monitor in a great many respects, she was faster, infinitely more seaworthy, possessed a far greater operational range (the sails meant she could supplement her steam power with wind) and warrior was also better armored and armed.
monitor was innovative in that it used a turret, but was in fact a technological dead end in many respects being slow, limited in range and a appallingly bad seaboat.
its also worth noting that it was the british who turned the monitors from slow shortlegged vessels suitable only for riverine warfare or harbor defense into ocean going battleships
the royal navy remained at the leading edge of naval technology throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries
>>29837387
The most important characteristic was if they didn't hit a sub there was no explosion to screw up the escorts sonar.
>>29837700
Good selection.
>>29836611
>The single encounter that showed the world that the age of wooden sail was over
but the french and british had already reached that conclusion, the construction of all wooden warships had already been suspended when warrior was laid down, the encounter at hampton roads was noteworthy because it was the first time ironclads had actually engaged eachother, but in startegic terms it was merely a confirmation of what was already accepted wisdom in naval circles at the time.
>>29847854
>country based on a global empire develops sea-going ships
>country with an isolationist foreign policy concentrates on controlling their own littoral waters
Also, the British themselves thought that turreted ships without sails were better, which is why they introduced the HMS Devastation right after the Monitor/Merrimack duel.
>>29848043
true, but until they had developed a effective seagoing turreted design vessels like HMS Warrior were what met the RNs requirements for powerful ocean going warships, and there is no doubt that Warrior was a more powerful combatant on a tactical and strategic level, and in herself did contain many technological innovations, notably being the first iron built, iron armored warship.
its also worth pointing out that the turret was considered and trialed by the RN prior to Monitors construction but rejected due to the limitations of the proposed designs
>>29848043
>>29848364
RULES OF NATURE
First destroyer
>>29848364
When the Monitor was built, the RN was undergoing sea trials of a turreted design.
It makes sense that the US would rush, being that they were at war and Britain wasn't.
>>29836573
Doesn't look as good as Denny's.
