Fun Fact Thread! (previously fun fact for the day, not limited to 1 per day anymore.)

[SunlitZelkova]

On 3/23/2022 at 11:06 PM, kerbiloid said:

http://web.archive.org/web/20210307020909/https://baloogancampaign.com/2017/01/09/icbm-basing-modes-can-hide-icbms-today/

I meant the PDF linked in the blog.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a956443.pdf

[Maria Sirona]

Might be told already, but apparently Proxima Centauri and most other red dwarfs are flare stars because their gravity is not strong enough to contain the flares

On 1/30/2022 at 7:20 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Is she holding a frying pan to hit him with? 

 

No it's actually a magnifying glass

[SunlitZelkova]

Fun fact: Italy maintained a fairly serious intention to develop indigenous nuclear weapons until the 1970s.

In contrast with the South African program, no bombs were built, while a viable delivery system in the form a sea-launched ballistic missile called Alfa was tested (meanwhile South Africa built bombs but had no real ballistic missiles and only 1950s era bombers for delivery).

The program came to a final conclusion when Italy signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1975. However, the experience gained with it would go on to find use in the development of the Vega rocket, a nice example of swords to plowshares.

[DDE]

13 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Fun fact: Italy maintained a fairly serious intention to develop indigenous nuclear weapons until the 1970s.

In contrast with the South African program, no bombs were built, while a viable delivery system in the form a sea-launched ballistic missile called Alfa was tested (meanwhile South Africa built bombs but had no real ballistic missiles and only 1950s era bombers for delivery).

That's not the entire story. Plan A was to receive US nuclear weapons as-is. Today's nuclear NATO "sharing' arrangements were far from a done deal at the time, nor was the reliance on submarines as nuclear deterrent. Other options explored (IIRC, under Kennedy) included an internationally-crewed NATO surface warship fleet carrying Polaris missiles.

Correspondingly, the WWII-lineage cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi even received her four launch tubes; that was what Alfa was supposed to fit into once Polaris stopped being a possibility. Similar provisions were deleted late in the construction of USS Long Beach.

Edited April 11, 2022 by DDE

[kerbiloid]

That's not the entire story. 

Before the Cuban Missile Crysis, the liquid-fuel IRBM Jupiter were placed in Italy (like Thors and more Jupiters in UK and Turkey).

The US Navy had asked for a solid-fuel version of Jupiter, aka Jupiter S, which has fruited in the mentioned SLBM Polaris.

Polaris made Thor and Jupiter obsolete, as to the IRBM range, Polaris could be placed on ships and be moved close to relevant targets.

The Cuban Crysis prolonged the Thor and Jupiter existence for a year or two.
Then they were dismissed in favour of Polaris.

So, these Polaris ship tubes are a first of all replacement of the Jupiter ground launchpads.

Edited April 11, 2022 by kerbiloid

[kerbiloid]

Was comparing the crew seat layout in various bombers.

B-36

http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/b36.html

It's not a plane, it's a starship. 

Look at the "station" captions.

Spoiler

 

Sci-fi is a pale shadow of this master-class of a ship design,

Especially see the lurking "radar observer" and "radiooperator" on the first picture.

Irl.

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

That's not the entire story. 

Before the Cuban Missile Crysis, the liquid-fuel IRBM Jupiter were placed in Italy (like Thors and more Jupiters in UK and Turkey).

The US Navy had asked for a solid-fuel version of Jupiter, aka Jupiter S, which has fruited in the mentioned SLBM Polaris.

Polaris made Thor and Jupiter obsolete, as to the IRBM range, Polaris could be placed on ships and be moved close to relevant targets.

The Cuban Crysis prolonged the Thor and Jupiter existence for a year or two.
Then they were dismissed in favour of Polaris.

So, these Polaris ship tubes are a first of all replacement of the Jupiter ground launchpads.

That’s not the entire story either- during this whole navalized Jupiter vs. Polaris debacle, a proposal was made to carry either of the missiles aboard converted Iowa class battleships.

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Single-Ended-Iowa-class-BBG-Version-2-799986679
 

Not sure how accurate this rendering is though…

[DDE]

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

That’s not the entire story either- during this whole navalized Jupiter vs. Polaris debacle, a proposal was made to carry either of the missiles aboard converted Iowa class battleships.

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Single-Ended-Iowa-class-BBG-Version-2-799986679
 

Not sure how accurate this rendering is though…

I love how the ship ends up acquiring a Royal Navy-style Queen Anne's Mansion in the process.

[wumpus]

13 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

That’s not the entire story either- during this whole navalized Jupiter vs. Polaris debacle, a proposal was made to carry either of the missiles aboard converted Iowa class battleships.

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Single-Ended-Iowa-class-BBG-Version-2-799986679
 

Not sure how accurate this rendering is though…

I'm sure the politics inside the Pentagon and the Navy had plenty of admirals dead set that Navy would get plenty of nukes.  And the many/most of them will be on *ships*, not *boats*.

Submarines are classified as "boats".  Not sure why.  But putting your nukes on easily available targets doesn't seem smart (not sure how deep the armor goes on such battleships.  Might want a nuclear torpedo to sink one, or just something with a lot of conventional kick as the armor rarely goes far below the waterline).

[kerbiloid]

"ships" vs "boats"

In Russian there is also "корабль" /korabl^l/ vs "судно" /sudno/, let alone "лодка" /lodka/.

***

"Lodka" is a boat, or a submarine.

But not a boat from the sea ship, of course, because then it's "шлюпка" /shl^jupka/,
unless you want a cold shower of disdain on head. Just "lodka" is for rivers, lakes, amateurs, civilians, and other land rats.

It's polite to call it by type, like "ялик" /yalik/ (which means "small yal", where "yal" is the same "yalik" but without kidding).
It's appropriate and polite for a ground rat to call the "yalik" "shl^jupka", but calling it "lodka" would obviously mark a disabled land creature.

On the other hand, calling "lodka" a submarine is polite and proper, Because "submarine" is "подводная лодка", i.e. underwater "lodka"ю

Unless it has cruise or ballistic missiles, then it's noobish and landish to call this lodka "lodka", because then it's "подводный крейсер" /podvodnyj kr^jejser/  i.e. "underwater cruiser" or just "cruiser".
But obviously not a lodka, though it's a lodka.

***

But bigger ships also can be "корабль" /korabl^l/ or "судно" /sudno/,

"Sudno" is any watership at all.
Inluding ekranoplans, because they can swim.

But not a hydroplane in sense of water ship, though it's still a sudno because an "air ship".

"Air ship" "воздушное судно" /vozdushnoje sudno/ is any aircraft at all, because it's a ship for the air ocean.
Do not confuse it with the English "airship" for propelled balloons, because in Russian the airplanes and helicopters are airships, too.
But do not confuse the "лётный" "flying" и "воздухоплавательный" "air ... hm... swimming", because the latter is for the balloon airships, while the former is for everything but the balloon airships.

Here again we get to another problem: in English there is "to float" for logs and poops, "to swim" for dogs and humans, "to go" for ships.
But the Russian "плавать" /plavat^j/ includes "to float" and "to swim", and "to go" for the balloon airships, even when the latter have engines and can actively move.
But they do this slowly. thus, it's "swimming", too.
While you say it colloquially, becuase officially it still "goes".

And to say "плавать" ("to float", "to swim") is impolite or vulgar when you address a water ship, because it only "goes".
This, in turn, can't stop from officially naming the oceanic captain "капитан дальнего плавания" /kapitan dal^jnego plavanija/ .i.e literally "captain of long swimming".
But of course, everyone understands that this swimming is not a swimming, but a going.

***

Any real surface vessel bigger than a boat is a "sudno".

The boat is a "плавсредство", "плавательное средство", literally "vehicle for swimming", where the "swimming" also means not a "swimming" but a "going", so literally the "swimming vehicle is going", not "swimming vehicle is swimming".

But there is also "корабль" /korabl^j/ which is basically the same as "sudno", but more pompous.
Korabl^j is a sail ship or a combat ship. It's impolite to call a civil sailless ship "korabl^j" in presence of a combat or a sail seaman, because this looks too pretending for a civil ship to be called "korabl^j" anywhere but in talks and books for children, women, and complete noobs.

But the airplane is also a korabl^j when it's military (and not necessary combat).
Or when it's civil but big, and no significant amount of military pilots happen around to put the civilians on their place, then a Boeing-class airplane is also a "korabl^j" rather than just "vozdushnoje sudno".

But actually there are no military "pilots", too.
Because "pilots" are civil and archaic (say, early XX military pilots).
The military pilot is a  "лётчик" /l^jotchik/ "flightman".

Unlike the English "pilot/co-pilot",
a Russian civil vozdushnoje sudno has a "commander" and a "second pilot", 
but the military one has a "commander" and a "deputy commander" or "right flightman".
("Right" because he's sitting to the right, not because the commander is wrong.
The commander cannot be wrong, it's almost the only thing he cannot, unless more higher commander is more right than the commander.)

The civil co-pilots suffer from being "second", too, and prefer to be called "commander" in advance.
This in turn confuses the real, full-featured commanders.
(In the airline I worked, I suggested to call the "second pilots" "vice-commanders", and this variant was accepted and used until our corporative divorce.)

Of course, it's noobish to call a military ship commander "captain", though the captain is his official military rank.
At the same time a civil ship captain is captain, even when he doesn't have a relevant military rank.

Interesting fact: while the military pilots don't like to be "pilots", the traditional military side cap is still called "pilotka", because originally the early XX century pilots were wearing it, and were not sufering from being "pilots".
And as the civil specialists don't wear the side caps, the official "pilots" do not wear "pilotka".

Also, "korabl^j" as applicable to a ballon airship, because it's kinda a sailship, but without sails. A sea sailless ship is "korabl^j" only if it's a combat ship.

***

A spaceship is always a "kosmicheskij korabl^j", "cosmos korabl^j", and I never heard it's a sudno.

So, a spaceship is a pyramid top, even when it's smaller than a boat. 

***

After all of this, it's really strange that in English any ship is a "ship".

Edited April 12, 2022 by kerbiloid

[benzman]

On 4/12/2022 at 1:37 AM, DDE said:

T

The Italians do make some fine looking warships.

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, wumpus said:

Submarines are classified as "boats".  Not sure why.  But putting your nukes on easily available targets doesn't seem smart (not sure how deep the armor goes on such battleships.  Might want a nuclear torpedo to sink one, or just something with a lot of conventional kick as the armor rarely goes far below the waterline).

The Soviet Navy was castrated by Khrushchev and NATO possessed the world’s sole carrier air power and an experienced ASW force, so I don’t think it was too crazy of an idea.

Here’s an explanation surrounding “boats”. It is because the first submarine were launched from tenders, and therefore were technically considered boats and not ships- https://m.facebook.com/GreyFunnelLine/posts/540036099348861

[Hyperspace Industries]

13 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

"ships" vs "boats"

In Russian there is also "корабль" /korabl^l/ vs "судно" /sudno/, let alone "лодка" /lodka/.

***

"Lodka" is a boat, or a submarine.

But not a boat from the sea ship, of course, because then it's "шлюпка" /shl^jupka/,
unless you want a cold shower of disdain on head. Just "lodka" is for rivers, lakes, amateurs, civilians, and other land rats.

It's polite to call it by type, like "ялик" /yalik/ (which means "small yal", where "yal" is the same "yalik" but without kidding).
It's appropriate and polite for a ground rat to call the "yalik" "shl^jupka", but calling it "lodka" would obviously mark a disabled land creature.

On the other hand, calling "lodka" a submarine is polite and proper, Because "submarine" is "подводная лодка", i.e. underwater "lodka"ю

Unless it has cruise or ballistic missiles, then it's noobish and landish to call this lodka "lodka", because then it's "подводный крейсер" /podvodnyj kr^jejser/  i.e. "underwater cruiser" or just "cruiser".
But obviously not a lodka, though it's a lodka.

***

But bigger ships also can be "корабль" /korabl^l/ or "судно" /sudno/,

"Sudno" is any watership at all.
Inluding ekranoplans, because they can swim.

But not a hydroplane in sense of water ship, though it's still a sudno because an "air ship".

"Air ship" "воздушное судно" /vozdushnoje sudno/ is any aircraft at all, because it's a ship for the air ocean.
Do not confuse it with the English "airship" for propelled balloons, because in Russian the airplanes and helicopters are airships, too.
But do not confuse the "лётный" "flying" и "воздухоплавательный" "air ... hm... swimming", because the latter is for the balloon airships, while the former is for everything but the balloon airships.

Here again we get to another problem: in English there is "to float" for logs and poops, "to swim" for dogs and humans, "to go" for ships.
But the Russian "плавать" /plavat^j/ includes "to float" and "to swim", and "to go" for the balloon airships, even when the latter have engines and can actively move.
But they do this slowly. thus, it's "swimming", too.
While you say it colloquially, becuase officially it still "goes".

And to say "плавать" ("to float", "to swim") is impolite or vulgar when you address a water ship, because it only "goes".
This, in turn, can't stop from officially naming the oceanic captain "капитан дальнего плавания" /kapitan dal^jnego plavanija/ .i.e literally "captain of long swimming".
But of course, everyone understands that this swimming is not a swimming, but a going.

***

Any real surface vessel bigger than a boat is a "sudno".

The boat is a "плавсредство", "плавательное средство", literally "vehicle for swimming", where the "swimming" also means not a "swimming" but a "going", so literally the "swimming vehicle is going", not "swimming vehicle is swimming".

But there is also "корабль" /korabl^j/ which is basically the same as "sudno", but more pompous.
Korabl^j is a sail ship or a combat ship. It's impolite to call a civil sailless ship "korabl^j" in presence of a combat or a sail seaman, because this looks too pretending for a civil ship to be called "korabl^j" anywhere but in talks and books for children, women, and complete noobs.

But the airplane is also a korabl^j when it's military (and not necessary combat).
Or when it's civil but big, and no significant amount of military pilots happen around to put the civilians on their place, then a Boeing-class airplane is also a "korabl^j" rather than just "vozdushnoje sudno".

But actually there are no military "pilots", too.
Because "pilots" are civil and archaic (say, early XX military pilots).
The military pilot is a  "лётчик" /l^jotchik/ "flightman".

Unlike the English "pilot/co-pilot",
a Russian civil vozdushnoje sudno has a "commander" and a "second pilot", 
but the military one has a "commander" and a "deputy commander" or "right flightman".
("Right" because he's sitting to the right, not because the commander is wrong.
The commander cannot be wrong, it's almost the only thing he cannot, unless more higher commander is more right than the commander.)

The civil co-pilots suffer from being "second", too, and prefer to be called "commander" in advance.
This in turn confuses the real, full-featured commanders.
(In the airline I worked, I suggested to call the "second pilots" "vice-commanders", and this variant was accepted and used until our corporative divorce.)

Of course, it's noobish to call a military ship commander "captain", though the captain is his official military rank.
At the same time a civil ship captain is captain, even when he doesn't have a relevant military rank.

Interesting fact: while the military pilots don't like to be "pilots", the traditional military side cap is still called "pilotka", because originally the early XX century pilots were wearing it, and were not sufering from being "pilots".
And as the civil specialists don't wear the side caps, the official "pilots" do not wear "pilotka".

Also, "korabl^j" as applicable to a ballon airship, because it's kinda a sailship, but without sails. A sea sailless ship is "korabl^j" only if it's a combat ship.

***

A spaceship is always a "kosmicheskij korabl^j", "cosmos korabl^j", and I never heard it's a sudno.

So, a spaceship is a pyramid top, even when it's smaller than a boat. 

***

After all of this, it's really strange that in English any ship is a "ship".

And I thought my home language was complicated.

[Admiral Fluffy]

Bugs in the ocean.

[steve9728]

On 4/12/2022 at 9:32 PM, kerbiloid said:

After all of this, it's really strange that in English any ship is a "ship".

Same happen in Chinese: jiàn(舰) chuán(船) tǐng(艇)

In the civil context, all vessels on the sea can be called "chuán". If there is a different use, just add the specific use in front of the word "chuán": cargo=huò, cargo ship=huò chuán; fishing=yú, fishing boat=yú chuán. However, If that thing on the river or lake, you will have to call it a "tǐng" depending on the circumstances. In theory, "tǐng" defined as "an object small enough to be carried by other vessels, and usually under 500 tons displacement". But actually if you see any boat-like thing can be driven by human power, you can't go wrong with calling it a "tǐng". 

At the military level, those three words are easier to distinguished: except of submarine, everything over 500 tons displacement are "jiàn", the rest of the non-combat vessels of up to 500 tons were called "tǐng", and any of them who don't have any guns called as "chuán". For example, destroyers and cruisers which translate directly is the "jiàn" for expulsion and the "jiàn" for patrolling at sea. And missile boats and submarine chasers, which would be called as "dǎodàn tǐng(导弹艇)"  and "liè qiántǐng(猎潜艇)": missile=dǎodàn, and submarine chaser, actually is kind of 'submarine hunter'. "liè"=hunting, "qián" as an abbreviation for submarine, and following with the specific size of vessel: displacement not exceeding 500 tons. The only exception is submarines. It called "qián tǐng(潜艇)" no matter how big is it. If we use English logic, this is a some kind "fixed collocation" word.

Another fun fact: in China, there are two iconic beer brands: Harbin and Tsingtao Beer. All destroyers would be named after large and medium-sized cities in China. And type 052 destroyer, of which two were built in this type of vessel and named as Harbin and Qingdao. So in case of that, in Chinese forum many guys also called type 052 as "Type of Beer".

Edited April 15, 2022 by steve9728

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

17 minutes ago, steve9728 said:

in Chinese forum many guys also called type 052 as "Type of Beer".

Of course! 

[Minmus Taster]

Yesterday & today was the 110th Anniversary of the Titanic's sinking.

I know this is like the second result on google but it looks very good.

[DDE]

18 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

Yesterday & today was the 110th Anniversary of the Titanic's sinking.

I know this is like the second result on google but it looks very good.

Relevant and morbid:

 

[benzman]

When I was a youth in England I was told that a 'boat' was open with no deck, as in a rowing boat.  If it was enclosed with a deck it was a 'ship'. Yachts and cabin cruisers were 'little ships'.

 

[magnemoe]

On 4/12/2022 at 4:47 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

That’s not the entire story either- during this whole navalized Jupiter vs. Polaris debacle, a proposal was made to carry either of the missiles aboard converted Iowa class battleships.

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Single-Ended-Iowa-class-BBG-Version-2-799986679
 

Not sure how accurate this rendering is though…

Well its looks better than the battle carrier idea but the battle carrier would be an practical weapon system. As it you could go in close and do both artillery and air support and rescue, yes the flight deck would not be armored against 5" or similar missiles but the structure is. 

This thing is pointless, its an strategic weapon so you can not use it close to the enemy their its useful. 
And why remove the center guns? 

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

This thing is pointless, its an strategic weapon so you can not use it close to the enemy their its useful.

Well, it was probably intended to give the Navy a (meaningless apart from politics) role in America’s nuclear strike force rather than actually fulfill some mission requirement.

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

And why remove the center guns?

When the Iowa’s would fire, they apparently damaged the ship. The 40mm gun mounts were known to suffer severe damage at times during World War II. Removing a gun would lessen the likelihood of damage. It would also lessen stress on the ship as a whole, the damage of which could affect the missiles.

This is just a random guess.

Edited April 17, 2022 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

In addition to the "B-29 → Tu-4 topic" from the "Imperial vs Metric" thread.

Pre-war, much smaller, Myasishchev's DVB-102... (just 4YI)

https://naukatehnika-com.translate.goog/bombardirovshhik-myasishhev-dvb-102.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru

and pre-Tu-4 B-29-like DVB-202 and DVB-302

https://raigap-livejournal-com.translate.goog/554213.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru

https://pikabu-ru.translate.goog/story/letayushchie_kreposti_myasishcheva_oni_ne_srazhalis_za_rodinu__iii_7998190?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru

https://www-airwar-ru.translate.goog/enc/bww2/dvb302.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru

(The project was in development before Tu-4, but was cancelled together with Tupolev's "64" and post-Petlyakov's/Nezval's "Plane T" in favour of B-29 copypasting as Tu-4.
Maybe that's how Tu-4 was produced so quickly.)

***

Between B-1A and Tu-160 there was Myasishchev's M-18. 

(When his bureau dismissed, the draft project was adopted by Tu).

https://www-rosinform-ru.translate.goog/istoriya/797736-nerealizovannye-proekty--m-18/?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru

***

Of course, we can recall that Almaz orbital station was designed by same Myasishchev's engineers adopted by Chelomei's bureau.

Edited April 18, 2022 by kerbiloid

[jimmymcgoochie]

Here's a limerick about numbers:

(12+144+20+3√4)/7 + (5*11) = 9² + 0

Spoiler

A dozen, a gross and a score
Plus three times the square root of four
Divided by seven
Plus five times eleven
Is nine squared and not a bit more

 

[DDE]

On 4/17/2022 at 4:03 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

When the Iowa’s would fire, they apparently damaged the ship. The 40mm gun mounts were known to suffer severe damage at times during World War II. Removing a gun would lessen the likelihood of damage. It would also lessen stress on the ship as a whole, the damage of which could affect the missiles.

This is just a random guess.

There's also just the possibility of lightening the ship, or preemptively cannibalizing the center guns as spares. The Soviets were able to keep land-based turret and railway versions of dreadnought guns in service until 1991 by sourcing more pre-Soviet barrels, including from the Finns.

So, fun fact. The first five Italian dreadnoughts had five turrets, the lower fore and aft ones and the amidships one with three guns, and the fore and aft superelvated turrets with two guns, for a total of thirteen guns - one less than the record-setting seven-turret Rio de Janeiro/Sultan Osman-ı Evvel/Agincourt. During the interwar refit, they ditched the amidships turret, for a total of ten remaining guns... all promptly drilled out to thirteen inches. They did not exactly have good luck.

[kerbiloid]

Who needs three?

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w23.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W19_(nuclear_artillery_shell)#W23