Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[DAL59]

3 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Morale. Or psychogical warfare.

I mean, if I was fighting a T-Rex, or even something worse, appeared, I would probably give up.

Not if you had a tank.  Or any vehicle.  They move at 18 mph.  Also, you could just shoot a Trex.  

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, ARS said:

The only animal that's ever useful in military is probably just dogs (and formerly, pigeons)

They say about horses, but we don't believe strange rumors.

6 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

3 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Morale. Or psychogical warfare.

I mean, if I was fighting a T-Rex, or even something worse, appeared, I would probably give up.

Not if you had a tank.  Or any vehicle.  They move at 18 mph.  Also, you could just shoot a Trex.  

You can eat a T.Rex, and who would be eating a dead tank?
T.Rex is better.

[ARS]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

They say about horses, but we don't believe strange rumors.

During world war 2, there was an interesting case. Due to the shortage of supply trucks, German army use horses to tow field artillery and supplies towards the frontline. However, the horses are not used for combat, merely used as logistic

[kerbiloid]

18 minutes ago, ARS said:

Due to the shortage of supply trucks, German army use horses to tow field artillery and supplies towards the frontline. However, the horses are not used for combat, merely used as logistic

My grandfather was fighting as a  driver (and a horse blacksmith) in a crew of an anti-tank gun driven by horses, in1941-1945, right on the front line. First 45mm, then 76.2mm.
Horse-driven artillery was a common practice in Red/Soviet Army in 1940s.

Edited June 14, 2018 by kerbiloid

[DAL59]

37 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

My grandfather was fighting as a  driver (and a horse blacksmith) in a crew of an anti-tank gun driven by horses, in1941-1945, right on the front line. First 45mm, then 76.2mm.
Horse-driven artillery was a common practice in Red/Soviet Army in 1940s.

 

55 minutes ago, ARS said:

During world war 2, there was an interesting case. Due to the shortage of supply trucks, German army use horses to tow field artillery and supplies towards the frontline. However, the horses are not used for combat, merely used as logistic

Exactly.  So the Fallen Kingdom thing about "horses and diseased rats" has no bearing on using dinosaurs.

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, ARS said:

During world war 2, there was an interesting case. Due to the shortage of supply trucks, German army use horses to tow field artillery and supplies towards the frontline. However, the horses are not used for combat, merely used as logistic

More likely the reason they didn't build so many trucks was lack of oil to fill them.  They could fill trucks or tanks, and the tanks got the oil.  There's a reason both sides fought to the death at Stalingrad (it was the best defense between the Germans and the oil).

[ARS]

3 minutes ago, wumpus said:

More likely the reason they didn't build so many trucks was lack of oil to fill them.  They could fill trucks or tanks, and the tanks got the oil.  There's a reason both sides fought to the death at Stalingrad (it was the best defense between the Germans and the oil).

In general it could be said that during the world war 2, the Germans had never really understood logistics: Germany being a compact and densely populated European country, handling logistics was kinda easy for them most of the time, so they never had the need to feel it on a subconscious level, concentrating more on the tactical side of warfare. The Allies, on the other hand, included four of the largest countries in the world (the Brits still kinda had their empire back then), and, moreover, linked by the various mutual supply agreements, which forced them to devote themselves to the matters of supply in earnest. It's often said that while Stalin never really understood warfare, he understood logistics, up to personally allocating the scarce resources during the hardest month of 1941, and the Americans had to develop a whole scientific method to supply their forces through the Pacific war. This had led to Germans in the 20th century often winning battles, but inevitably losing wars in the long run. Until Speer took over, every time the engineers came up with a new improvement in a tank design they would change the production line. While in theory this resulted in better tanks, in practice it was a mess because a unit could have tanks that didn't have interchangeable parts, making logistics a nightmare, even though the tanks would supposedly be the same model. Making this even worse was the German tendency to develop machines that were "more efficient, more elegantly designed, and needing five times as many parts". The Allies adopted a more logical approach, allowing proposed changes to accumulate until there was enough to justify a new model, and keeping things as simple as possible. Even their own mass production vehicles suffered this issue. German tanks are infamous for their inter-weaving wheels, which was meant as a way to getting more axles onto a smaller tank (and thus not only allow it to carry more weight on a smaller frame, but also ensure the ride was smooth and with less bumps, as well as be essentially extra armor). This is all good for an operational tank, but repairing them were a nightmare since you had to remove the outer wheels first, effectively doing up to three times the work depending on how deep the damage was. Combined with the above (where each tank was unique in design) meant that German repair crews often didn't even have enough parts to fix any one specific tank due to logistics not being able to ship enough of them fast enough to the front lines. The fact they used horses to transport their equipment and supplies mainly because the army demands more tanks to be made, yet completely neglecting the importance of supply trucks and recovery vehicles. Towards the end of the war, germany lose more trucks per day than what they can produce to replace losses, and due to the lack of recovery vehicles, any tanks that's getting stuck, immobilized or bogged down must be destroyed to prevent capture, which is not good when resources to make them become rare during the end of the war

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, ARS said:

During world war 2, there was an interesting case. Due to the shortage of supply trucks, German army use horses to tow field artillery and supplies towards the frontline. However, the horses are not used for combat, merely used as logistic

Think only the US was fully mechanized at start of WW2, far fewer trucks in Europe and most farms still used horses. 
If was an mix of lack of trucks and the lack of oil. 

[tater]

2 hours ago, ARS said:

During world war 2, there was an interesting case. Due to the shortage of supply trucks, German army use horses to tow field artillery and supplies towards the frontline. However, the horses are not used for combat, merely used as logistic

This is almost like an answer to "Explain the failure of the Axis in WW2" type question.

Amateurs talk about military tactics, professionals talk about logistics. All the Axis failed utterly at logistics, they weren't good enough to even be second rate at it.

[kerbiloid]

Tactics is the way to dump all over the opponent's logistics.

[wumpus]

3 hours ago, ARS said:

In general it could be said that during the world war 2, the Germans had never really understood logistics: Germany being a compact and densely populated European country, handling logistics was kinda easy for them most of the time, so they never had the need to feel it on a subconscious level, concentrating more on the tactical side of warfare. [snip]

"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" includes a map drawn before the war that the allies captured afterward.  It shows just how far the Germans thought they could supply an army invading the Soviet Union.  That proposed supply line only stretched 2/3 of the way to Moscow, and to my untrained eye (I'm weak on the exact times and locations of eastern front battles) appeared to be an "abandon all hope ye who cross this line" line historically.

3 hours ago, tater said:

This is almost like an answer to "Explain the failure of the Axis in WW2" type question.

Amateurs talk about military tactics, professionals talk about logistics. All the Axis failed utterly at logistics, they weren't good enough to even be second rate at it.

Terry Pratchett had a mythical "military guide book" in one of his books.  A character would inevitably consult it for advice.  The advice for "what to do when outnumbered and with a worse position" is "make sure there isn't a battle".  The axis position more or less dictated "make sure there isn't a war", although I'm not sure the internal politics would really allow that.

[Bill Phil]

The logistical issues was the entire reason for Blitzkrieg. They had to win fast so their logistical shortfalls wouldn't take too much of a toll. 

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

The logistical issues was the entire reason for Blitzkrieg. They had to win fast so their logistical shortfalls wouldn't take too much of a toll. 

The general problem of invaders.
They calculate orbital maneuvers, but don't take into account the gravity well.

10 hours ago, wumpus said:

"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" includes a map drawn before the war that the allies captured afterward. 

They should draw it like a KSP delta-V map. With a black hole to the right. Just due to roads per distance ratio.

Edited June 15, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Gargamel]

On 6/12/2018 at 7:01 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

Mostly because catching a spaceship is hard, unless you handwave up some magic tractor beams. Then comes the very difficult part of eliminating the crew on their own turf, unless you can do that without boarding the ship. So without fantasy tech, capturing a ship without getting yourself killed in the process is pretty tough. Easier and safer to just slag it, collect the scrap, and move on. 

The expanse books cover this pretty well, along with the Spinward Drift series does some good bits on boarding actions. 

23 hours ago, ARS said:

The only animal that's ever useful in military is probably just dogs (and formerly, pigeons)

Navies use dolphins and seals for a variety of things, including mine detection, bomb detection, and bomb placement, among other things.

Horses have historically had a variety of uses, and there are still some uses today.   The US marines used donkeys as pack animals in Afghanistan. 

The US designed a bomb that deployed bats with incendiaries attached.  The idea was that during WWII, it would be dropped over Japanese cities, where the bats would fly off and roost in the eaves of the roofs of buildings.  Since Japan's building code at the time was pretty lax, to put it mildly, on building fires (most of their buildings were wood and paper), the timed incendiary devices would ignite the city.    Alas, during testing, the bats all flew back to their home base, and roosted underneath a fuel tank.     Hilarity ensued, with the base a complete loss.

Rhamses II had a pet lion that fought beside him.

One of the first guided missile programs used pigeons to peck at flight controls to steer a bomb towards ships. 

There have been historical accounts of incendiary pigs, unleashed upon besieged cities.   They also found a use against war Elephants, because apparently elephants are deathly afraid of flaming pigs. 

The Blue peacock program, a british tactical nuke program, tried using live chickens encased inside a small nuke to keep the electronics warm for up to a couple weeks while buried in the winter in case the Soviets invaded. 

And one of may favorites, Acoustic Kitty, where the CIA tried to train cats to carry listening devices into Soviet consulates.   It went as well as you could expect a formal cat herding program to go. 

 

 

 

[kerbiloid]

Strange Angel series now starts.

Quote

A rocket scientist in 1940s Los Angeles is secretly the disciple of occultist Aleister Crowley.

Wiki says, he is a co-founder of JPL.

Just at a loss, if it's science, bad science, or thelematics and thelemetry.

Edited June 15, 2018 by kerbiloid

[DAL59]

4 hours ago, Gargamel said:

The US designed a bomb that deployed bats with incendiaries attached.  The idea was that during WWII, it would be dropped over Japanese cities, where the bats would fly off and roost in the eaves of the roofs of buildings.  Since Japan's building code at the time was pretty lax, to put it mildly, on building fires (most of their buildings were wood and paper), the timed incendiary devices would ignite the city.    Alas, during testing, the bats all flew back to their home base, and roosted underneath a fuel tank.     Hilarity ensued, with the base a complete loss.

Rhamses II had a pet lion that fought beside him.

One of the first guided missile programs used pigeons to peck at flight controls to steer a bomb towards ships. 

There have been historical accounts of incendiary pigs, unleashed upon besieged cities.   They also found a use against war Elephants, because apparently elephants are deathly afraid of flaming pigs. 

The Blue peacock program, a british tactical nuke program, tried using live chickens encased inside a small nuke to keep the electronics warm for up to a couple weeks while buried in the winter in case the Soviets invaded. 

And one of may favorites, Acoustic Kitty, where the CIA tried to train cats to carry listening devices into Soviet consulates.   It went as well as you could expect a formal cat herding program to go. 

None of these justify dinosaurs though.  

Acoustic Kitty was actually smart, unlike most of these, but how did putting a microphone on a cat cost several million dollars?

Edited June 15, 2018 by DAL59

[magnemoe]

32 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

None of these justify dinosaurs though.  

Acoustic Kitty was actually smart, unlike most of these, but how did putting a microphone on a cat cost several million dollars?

its an skill large bureaucracies has. 
Developing an microphone and radio who could be operated under the skin of an cat back just after the transistor was invented was even more expensive. 
You know they could tested this with an cat before developing the electronic. 
However I guess it was an cover operation for an attempt to try to breed an cat race who could be trained like dogs and getting CIA to pay for it. 

[wumpus]

2 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

its an skill large bureaucracies has. 
Developing an microphone and radio who could be operated under the skin of an cat back just after the transistor was invented was even more expensive. 
You know they could tested this with an cat before developing the electronic. 
However I guess it was an cover operation for an attempt to try to breed an cat race who could be trained like dogs and getting CIA to pay for it. 

Secret budgets?  The sky is the limit.

Testing the transponder to 20 some MIL-STD requirements: thousands of engineer-hours (including some senior guys to write up the tests)

Having all work done in Faraday cages in guarded buildings: check.

Having all such work depend on success of cat herders: budget successfully blown!

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

thousands of engineer-hours (including some senior guys to write up the tests)

Having all work done in Faraday cages in guarded buildings

Spoiler

 

[DAL59]

Except for the prequels, there seems to be no sense of scale.  There is no reason to only have 12 x wings attack star killer base- hey should have thousands.

[StrandedonEarth]

2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Except for the prequels, there seems to be no sense of scale.  There is no reason to only have 12 x wings attack star killer base- hey should have thousands.

Unless that's all they had left...

[DAL59]

8 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Unless that's all they had left...

They control half the galaxy.  They should have a hundred in every system.

[Superfluous J]

9 hours ago, DAL59 said:

They control half the galaxy.  They should have a hundred in every system.

But when the base shot half a dozen worlds, you could see the bolts flying across the sky from other worlds. That tells me the "galaxy" is about the size of a solar system.

Kerbin's solar system.

No I'm not using that as a valid argument for them not having enough X-Wings. I'm using it as an example of bad science. Nay, bad filmmaking.

Edited June 17, 2018 by 5thHorseman

[StrandedonEarth]

2 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Nay, bad filmmaking.

I tend to agree. The original trilogy may not have had a lot of realism in it (hence the category of 'space fantasy' or 'space opera' instead of sci-fi) but it didn't have anything that really broke the suspension of disbelief. Having a planet-size weapon that can drain a star (system killer right there) and fire a massive energy/plasma bolt that splits into multiple bolts that hit separate planets throws too many error codes to enable SoD. But still, I managed to enjoy the spectacle.

TLJ just had too much forced sappiness and soapy operaness to enjoy what spectacle there was. There were some good scenes drowning in the other crud.

[Superfluous J]

24 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

TLJ just had too much forced sappiness and soapy operaness to enjoy what spectacle there was. There were some good scenes drowning in the other crud.

Yup. Which is why (to my surprise) I realized recently that Solo is my favorite of the 4 Disney movies. Say what you want about it, it follows the Star Wars Universe's rules AND tells a decent story.