RE: The great military genius

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: The great military genius

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The great military genius

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The great military genius - 4/20/2017 2:52:40 PM

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Not really.

You are confusing 'actual' speed and or velocity with 'apparent' speed and or velocity.

Both speed and velocity are condition dependent.

So you appear to be correct in the resultant, (that actual time from a to b varies on conditions), however your explanation using speed and velocity is not correct.

No, i am not.

I am saying the word 'speed' commonly associated with naval vessels, such as 'Full Speed' and 'Flank Speed' is not an actual measured velocity of forward momentum. Instead, these 'speeds' are actually apart of the old engine order system which is telling you how fast to spin the screws. Or in the case of nuclear powered vessels, at what % you run your reactor at.

The point was that the way you the terms velocity and speed was not correct, no big deal unless you want to make it one. on the other note I agree that screw speed, horsepower, or kwh used does not relate to the actual departure arrival times.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/20/2017 4:47:24 PM

Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

--FR--

I think we all know and understand that the entire, apparent Kerfuffle was really a very carefully designed and planned strategy by Mr. Trump to make our possible enemies believe that he is totally incompetent, so that when Mr. Trump sees that the time is right he can sneak up on them and grab them by the pussy.

Sometimes you are funny.

(in reply to igor2003)

RE: The great military genius - 4/20/2017 4:50:57 PM

Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

No it does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-class_fast_combat_support_ship

Yes it does.
cruising/standard/full speed is ~50% of it's maximum power output, or 50-60% of it's top speed.

Your link does not say that. It does however say:

Other speeds include one-third, two-thirds, standard, and full. One-third and two-thirds are the respective
fractions of standard speed. Full is greater than standard, but not as great as flank.

My link says:

quote:

These are the only US Navy resupply ships able to keep up with the strike groups,

This link shows the oilers that the supply class oilers replaced. Note the speeds on the replaced ships ranges from 10 to 18 kts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_oiler

pushing 100% power output on your engines is called 'Flank Speed' and is often reserved for emergency or combat situations, as it is horribly fuel inefficient and puts a lot of undue stress on the engines, increasing the likelihood of break down (which is probably the last thing you want when adrift at sea.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flank_speed

The speeds indicated then are clearly not flank speed.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

Aren't you going to call anyone a chairborne helmsman?

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/20/2017 6:42:30 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Most combat groups don't travel with the logistics ships -

The link provided says they do. Do we have something stronger than your opinion that they do not?
Or are you trying to play some little word game to differentiate between "logistic" and oilers?

Furthermore - the 'Speed' of the ship is relative because so many factors are at play with these ships.
In effect the different 'speeds' used by ships are not the speed of the ship going forward, but rather the amount
of power the engines are outputting. Full Ahead in choppy sea with strong headwinds might only get you 10 knots,
while when doing the same 'speed' while going with the current in calm waters can see you going in excess of 20 knots.

same 'speed'; different velocities.

So what? What relevance does this have to the discussion?

So the average cruising speed of a fleet or combat group is usually ~12-17 knots depending on weather and current...

Cite please.

or basically ~50% of the manufacturer's 'Maximum Speed'.

Perhaps you could cite for us the manufacturer's advertised "maximum speed" for the carl vinson.
The forestall has an advertised max speed of 30+ kts. Anecdotally, I have been on the forestall 'forest fire'(mid 1960's) when the skipper announced
that we were doing 52 kts. (60mph).

Sitting here trying to state that a wikipedia page has a
different number, or that the math doesn't pan out when taking into account ships that are not apart of the fleet proves nothing really.

Nothing you have posted so far has proved anything besides your abject ignorance.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 6:04:37 AM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Perhaps you could cite for us the manufacturer's advertised "maximum speed" for the carl vinson.
The forestall has an advertised max speed of 30+ kts. Anecdotally, I have been on the forestall 'forest fire'(mid 1960's) when the skipper announced
that we were doing 52 kts. (60mph).

Physics...
when you math everything out - the maximum speed of how fast you can go is based on the power you can generate in contrast to your displacement speed which is the resistance the displaced water puts on your hull. So with the USS Carl Vinson, with it's water line of 1040 feet and displacement of 113,500 short tons at it's ship's Power (194 mw), the maximum speed is 36.2 Knots.

By comparison, in your little story - the CV-59 Forestall with it's 900 foot water line and 60,610 short ton displacement - the power required to achieve 52 knots on that ship is 1,248,903 horse power or 931.681 megawatts. Or more simply said: 500% of the ship's maximum power output.

Now there are other conditions at play because the above equation is based on still water and doesn't take wind resistance into play at all... if you where going with a current or tide and with the wind - you could potentially go faster, but that is not because the ship is capable of going faster, but because the water provides less resistance and the wind provides extra thrust.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 6:19:51 AM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Perhaps you could cite for us the manufacturer's advertised "maximum speed" for the carl vinson.
The forestall has an advertised max speed of 30+ kts. Anecdotally, I have been on the forestall 'forest fire'(mid 1960's) when the skipper announced
that we were doing 52 kts. (60mph).

Physics...
when you math everything out - the maximum speed of how fast you can go is based on the power you can generate in
contrast to your displacement speed which is the resistance the displaced water puts on your hull. So with the USS Carl
Vinson, with it's water line of 1040 feet and displacement of 113,500 short tons at it's ship's Power (194 mw),
the maximum speed is 36.2 Knots.

Would you care to show your "math" on that one. I notice you failed to mention the shape of the hull, the surface coating on the hull, the configuration of the props just to mention a few of the factors you neglected to mention.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 10:20:15 AM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

not really because you're just going to say something stupid and childish with out even addressing what i say...
why put in the effort to expand knowledge if you're going to ignore it like everything else?

If you want to know it, go look up Hull Displacement Speed, Shaft Horse Power, and the Froude number concerning Wave-making resistance and figure it out for yourself.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 10:46:10 AM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

not really because you're just going to say something stupid and childish with out even addressing what i say...
why put in the effort to expand knowledge if you're going to ignore it like everything else?

If you want to know it, go look up Hull Displacement Speed, Shaft Horse Power, and the Froude number concerning Wave-making resistance and figure it out for yourself.

You have a rather wordy fashion of saying you do not know what you are taking about.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 12:08:25 PM

Posts: 1534
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

To sum up your interesting discussion: the main impediment if not hindrance for a fleet to have arrived where it was said to have arrived is: water and waves.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 1:00:33 PM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You have a rather wordy fashion of saying you do not know what you are taking about.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

odd - The way i read what i wrote was 'You don't listen, look it up yourself...'
you have such an funny way at reading English.

It's almost as if you have a poor grasp on it... but I feel as if I've said that before.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 1:17:46 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You have a rather wordy fashion of saying you do not know what you are taking about.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

odd - The way i read what i wrote was 'You don't listen, look it up yourself...'

Your claim your responsibility to validate it.
In the 1930's the French 'fantasque' class destroyer would do 45 kts.
The formula for hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (HS = 1.34 x √LWL).
Carriers are somewhat longer than destroyers.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 1:37:10 PM

Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline

does anyone not agree he is a lying fuk?

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 1:43:14 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

RIGINAL: WickedsDesire

does anyone not agree he is a lying fuk?

He whom?

(in reply to WickedsDesire)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 1:51:25 PM

Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Trump is calling it a miscommunication. You miscommunicate on what you want for dinner... you miscommunicate over what time does the movie start.... but you don't miscommunicate over where you send a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier.

Butch

Ain't that the truth.
;-)

(in reply to kdsub)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 1:52:14 PM

LTE

Posts: 461
Joined: 1/17/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Trump is calling it a miscommunication. You miscommunicate on what you want for dinner... you miscommunicate over what time does the movie start.... but you don't miscommunicate over where you send a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier.

Butch

Of course you do. You never say where your carrier really is or will be and if you do then you lie about it to divert attention from where it really will be. This is how one really runs a military operation.

(in reply to kdsub)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 1:57:14 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: LTE
ORIGINAL: kdsub

Trump is calling it a miscommunication. You miscommunicate on what you want for dinner... you miscommunicate over what time does the movie start.... but you don't miscommunicate over where you send a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier.

Butch

Of course you do. You never say where your carrier really is or will be and if you do then you lie about it to divert attention from where it really will be. This is how one really runs a military operation.

How, exactly, does one hide a carrier battle group from a satellite? Do you really think n.k. does not know where the amerikan navy is?
Who is that stupid?

(in reply to LTE)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 1:57:32 PM

LTE

Posts: 461
Joined: 1/17/2017
Status: offline

When I practiced for war part of that was practicing deception. Hiding myself. Traveling blacked out at night. Blending in using camouflage.
During WWII we spent a lot of time and effort pretending to be somewhere we were not. It is "miscommunication" for a purpose.

(in reply to LTE)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 1:59:58 PM

LTE

Posts: 461
Joined: 1/17/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: LTE
ORIGINAL: kdsub

Trump is calling it a miscommunication. You miscommunicate on what you want for dinner... you miscommunicate over what time does the movie start.... but you don't miscommunicate over where you send a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier.

Butch

Of course you do. You never say where your carrier really is or will be and if you do then you lie about it to divert attention from where it really will be. This is how one really runs a military operation.

How, exactly, does one hide a carrier battle group from a satellite? Do you really think n.k. does not know where the amerikan navy is?
Who is that stupid?

Nice try. Nobody has satellite coverage over the entire Pacific. Not even us. So you don't make it easy for someone to divert one to where you actually are by telling them where you are. You are not stupid. Just miss-informed.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 2:02:28 PM

LTE

Posts: 461
Joined: 1/17/2017
Status: offline

Besides. It might actually be two carrier groups. Or none and in fact it is a few destroyers and boomers. Why should we say what we truly are doing? Those days are over.

(in reply to LTE)

RE: The great military genius - 4/21/2017 2:07:37 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: LTE

When I practiced for war part of that was practicing deception. Hiding myself. Traveling blacked out at night. Blending in using camouflage.
During WWII we spent a lot of time and effort pretending to be somewhere we were not. It is "miscommunication" for a purpose.

The world knows how many aircraft carriers amerika has. it knows which ones are laid up for refit and repair and how many are at sea and where they are.
You seem to be very interested in making excuses for dumb don and the deplorables. Why is that?

(in reply to LTE)

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The great military genius

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.080