historia militar

Iniciado por ghostdog, Febrero 17, 2007, 01:09:58 AM

Tema anterior - Siguiente tema

FranciscoFrancoBahamonde

Cita de: Dan en Agosto 06, 2008, 12:47:19 AM
Lo de los globos es la polla. Y que coincida tal velocidad con una precisión muy buena. Se ha equivocado de siglo para nacer.

Además que la tripita es muy del diecinueve.
Donde más altlético no signficaba más tiempo sobre la faz de la tierra (quizir).

ghostdog

de cómo los estadí­sticos averiguaron más sobre el esfuerzo bélico alemán que los servicios de inteligencia:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/20/secondworldwar.tvandradio


Gavyn Davies does the maths

How a statistical formula won the warThe Guardian, Thursday July 20 2006 Article history

Here is a story about mathematical deduction that I love, mainly because it is said to be true, and because it had an impact (albeit small) on the outcome of the second world war. It is the story of how a simple statistical formula successfully estimated the number of tanks the enemy was producing, at a time when this could not be directly observed by the allied spy network.
By 1941-42, the allies knew that US and even British tanks had been technically superior to German Panzer tanks in combat, but they were worried about the capabilities of the new marks IV and V. More troubling, they had really very little idea of how many tanks the enemy was capable of producing in a year. Without this information, they were unsure whether any invasion of the continent on the western front could succeed.

One solution was to ask intelligence to guess the number by secretly observing the output of German factories, or by trying to count tanks on the battlefield. Both the British and the Americans tried this, but they found that the estimates returned by intelligence were contradictory and unreliable. Therefore they asked statistical intelligence to see whether the accuracy of the estimates could be improved.

The statisticians had one key piece of information, which was the serial numbers on captured mark V tanks. The statisticians believed that the Germans, being Germans, had logically numbered their tanks in the order in which they were produced. And this deduction turned out to be right. It was enough to enable them to make an estimate of the total number of tanks that had been produced up to any given moment.

The basic idea was that the highest serial number among the captured tanks could be used to calculate the overall total. The German tanks were numbered as follows: 1, 2, 3 ... N, where N was the desired total number of tanks produced. Imagine that they had captured five tanks, with serial numbers 20, 31, 43, 78 and 92. They now had a sample of five, with a maximum serial number of 92. Call the sample size S and the maximum serial number M. After some experimentation with other series, the statisticians reckoned that a good estimator of the number of tanks would probably be provided by the simple equation (M-1)(S+1)/S. In the example given, this translates to (92-1)(5+1)/5, which is equal to 109.2. Therefore the estimate of tanks produced at that time would be 109

By using this formula, statisticians reportedly estimated that the Germans produced 246 tanks per month between June 1940 and September 1942. At that time, standard intelligence estimates had believed the number was far, far higher, at around 1,400. After the war, the allies captured German production records, showing that the true number of tanks produced in those three years was 245 per month, almost exactly what the statisticians had calculated, and less than one fifth of what standard intelligence had thought likely.

Emboldened, the allies attacked the western front in 1944 and overcame the Panzers on their way to Berlin. And so it was that statisticians won the war - in their own estimation, at any rate.

yonodio

Cita de: Agarkala en Febrero 05, 2008, 01:10:33 AM
Cita de: Dan en Febrero 02, 2008, 11:02:43 PM
El megatanque mola visualmente, y en este aspecto hace que incluso el menos milikofriki del foro yerga el estandarte de inmediato. Peeero tiene pinta de ser más bien muy poco viable, lento, de operatividad muy limitada (¿no puede pasar puentes? ¡joder, y otros tantos tipos de estructuras, por debajo o por dentro!) y me da a mí­ que serí­a un blanco muy grande, con esa velocidad. Los aliados desarrollarí­an en cuatro dí­as una bomba con mayor poder de penetración y con tres o cuatro pilotos algo hábiles lo dejan nuevo. O, siendo tan limitados sus posibles pasos por una zona, la colocación de megaminas quedarí­a muy clara para los zapadores.

No sé, opiniones quiero.

Si el Maus sólo podí­a circular por autopista por el peso, imagí­nate el trasto ese para moverse; imposible. Es más, si el Tiger ya era lento y pesado, y podí­a ser rodeado por 5 ó 6 carros enemigos y puesto fuera de combate, pues eso. En cuanto a carros enormes multitorre, los rusos fabricaron el monstruoso T-35, cuyas ridí­culas prestaciones en combate son de todos conocidas...si por hacerse pajas en papel...

Algunos de estos trastos llegatron a ser operativos:



Autopropulsado Karl con un mortero de 60cm

Mas info en:  Schiffer Publications - Military history - 039  - German Heavy Mortars

k98k



Nuestros Chinooks en Afganistán. Viva España.

FranciscoFrancoBahamonde

Cita de: k98k en Octubre 10, 2008, 08:50:33 PM
...

Nuestros Chinooks en Afganistán. Viva España.


¿Como está ahora eso de que estos gigantes no podí­an volar en España por incapacidad de cumplir los reglamentos civiles de aviación?, ¿los han transformado hasta cumplirla?, han salido desmontados de aquí­?.

¿en Afganistán hay autoridad aérea civil?

k98k

Ya se tuvo que arreglar la pamplinada del hijo de puta de Bono y ya están listos, los mejores helicopteros del ET en Afganistán, pero eso, que son los mejores porque los compró el Caudillo, si hubieran sido los otros hubieran comprado cualquier mierda. A ver cuando los modernizamos del todo al modelo F

FranciscoFrancoBahamonde

#51
Oye K98k, la noche en vela con las puta elección de Obama, no ha sido en balde. Por fin encontré el rollo del susto del sub chino al grupo de combate yanqui (anda que si es por tí­, me comen los gusanos)... ese susto que se permitió emergiendo en medio de los escoltas para saludar o enseñar el culo, indistintamente:

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.
At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.
That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.


Uninvited guest: A Chinese Song Class submarine, like the one that sufaced by the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior NATO officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One NATO chivato, mamón, seguro que era un marino español figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.


Battle stations: The Kitty Hawk carries 4,500 personnel

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.
According to the NATO source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and NATO naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.
It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".
The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels. Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.
He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans". "It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan." [In 2007 January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time - This history is from the end of 2007].

Otra historia relacionada (aunque la que me suena, vamos el rumor que conocí­a, no confirmado, no realista, no los cojones 23, es el anterior) es esta de un año antes en aguas del estrecho de Malaca (creo):

Chinese Sub Came Close To U.S. Ships - Navy Commander Says Close Encounter Could Have Triggered 'Unforeseen' Incident

De nuevo, el grupo de combate del Kitty Hawk

A Chinese submarine came close to the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group in the Pacific Ocean last month, a top U.S. naval commander confirmed Tuesday, adding the encounter could have triggered an "unforeseen" incident.
A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, however, said she had not heard of such an incident.
The aircraft carrier and its supporting ships were conducting exercises in an unidentified location when the encounter occurred, Adm. William Fallon, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters.
The carrier group was not engaged in anti-submarine exercises, but if it had, "and if this Chinese sub came in the middle of this, then it could have escalated into something that could have been very unforeseen," Vaya, vaya, que profético... he said.

Fallon, who is in Kuala Lumpur for a 23-nation Chief of Defense Forces meeting, did not give any other details. He was commenting on a report on The Washington Times' Web site that said a Chinese submarine "stalked" the Kitty Hawk and surfaced within torpedo firing range.
The newspaper said the carrier group was operating close to Okinawa at the time of the incident.
"It illustrates the primary reason why we are trying to push, to have better military-to-military relationships" with China, Fallon said.
"Because the fact is that you have military units that operate in close proximity to one another," he said, warning of "the potential for events that would not be what we'd like to see."
In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu could not say if the incident had indeed occurred.
"I have not heard of such a report," she said at a regular news briefing Tuesday. "China has always had a defensive national defense policy. We are an adamant force in maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region as well as the world at large," she said.

Fallon's disclosure came at the same time the commander of the U.S. Pacific fleet, Adm. Gary Roughead, was in China overseeing the first ever joint exercise, scheduled to start Nov. 19, between the U.S. and Chinese navies.
"It's a modest search-and-rescue exercise, but it's a start ... so that we can move ahead from what I would characterize as kind of Cold War thinking," Fallon said.
Fallon has visited China three times since taking office about 18 months ago to boost contacts and reduce the potential for miscalculations.
Visits between the Chinese and American militaries dropped off after the collision of a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet off China's coast in 2001 but relations have improved recently as Washington cautiously seeks to increase exchanges.
China declined an invitation to attend the Kuala Lumpur meeting, but Fallon said he was hopeful they would in the future.

Pronto el consorcio francohispano entregará a Malasia los submarinos (2) convencionales más avanzados que se pueden comprar (con liquidez infinita y fuera de las propias fronteras de los constructores de subs, entre los que como estais cansados de oir, se incluye la octava potencia do mondo todo)... ahora, ya sabeis porqué se les vende pronto y completos.

U.S. Pacific Commander Adm. William Fallon, left, with Malaysia Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak at the 23-nation Chief of Defense Forces meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006


FranciscoFrancoBahamonde

En esta página [http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003847.html], yanquis aficcionados a lo naval comentan la jugada, por razones obvias (LM, I love you) me gusta este comentario:

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 14, 2007 10:25 PM

LOL, Surf1. My hat's off to DC2 and Crusty Old Chief for their original responses --they are what inspired me to hop into this little can of worms....

So today I ran into an interesting article at the Navy Times and it fits into this discussion:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/11/ap_submarines_071113/
They are approving money for new Virginia class subs to be built. Now I am totally for new nuke boats, but at a whopping $2.5 Billion for each boat, well, that's a lot of cash for one little boat.

Having spent time at both No Ka Oi (Pearl Harbor) and Portsmouth shipyards, I can totally understand the need to keep this infrastructure in place, and keep it maintained. EB and NN shipyards are incredibly important to our ability to produce quality boats in the future.
The skills that the shipyard workers (the good ones, not the slackers) have is incredible. A national asset, and should definitely be kept running. That is "tribal knowledge" that we can NOT afford to lose. To allow those places to flounder is just asinine at best.

But what bugs me (even as a nuke) is that they are struggling to keep the shipyards open with 1-2 new nuke boats a year. Yes, we need to keep the production lines open and keep on producing new nuke boats. But what about Air Independent Propulsion diesel boats? (SSIs) Or even just normal diesel-electric boats? (SSKs) For each SINGLE Virginia class boat, they could produce 5-7 SSK or SSIs (estimating $300M and $500M each --my numbers could be off, please forgive me if they are).
Let's look at some of the advanatages:

-- More American jobs, if these are produced in-country.
-- Keeping and expanding critical infrastructure.
-- The O-gangers should love it, because more hulls = more department head, XO and CO billets. ==> More chances for them to actually command a boat of their own.
-- It would give us more coverage in the littoral areas where nuke boats aren't totally needed or the best for the conditions: near Taiwan, the Persian Gulf and (God forbid) even doing homeland/coastal security work. Maybe even drug interdiction....
-- By having SSKs and SSIs in our inventory, we could prep our ASW and SSN forces to better thwart the threat.

The only downside about a SSK/SSI from my POV is that the battery is probably a cast iron beyatch to maintain. It might mean a lot more EM billets... and possibly promotion potential.... maybe not so bad... were I still active or drilling....
But if the rest of the world is making a whole LOT of SSks and SSIs, it would make a lot of sense to prepare to counter that particular threat. But that's just me. I'm sure that the Powers That Be are a whole lot smarter than I am.... [face_rolling_eyes]



FranciscoFrancoBahamonde

#53
Finalmente, y dejo de dar el coñazo.
Dos apuntes:

1. Los incidentes mencionados podrí­an haber sido el mismo, pero el hecho es que en el de finales del 2006, la US Navy estaba orgullosa de su actuación frente a un nuclear sub chino (osea que lo detectaron) y en la otra se supone que era de propulsión cutre-diesel-convencional (por que sino no se entiende como pudo ser tan silencioso -los nucleares son unas maracas con hélice- claro que tampoco sabemos si estaba fondeado, bien es verdad, que lo estarí­a entonces con dos cojones negros pues has de apagar el reactor y mantenerte a la espera de que pase cerca el grupo con la baterí­a de emergencia, ...en realidad no es absolutamente absurdo porque el mar de china tiene millones de millas cuadradas a una sonda posible para posar el culo) ...el caso es que en este segundo no se enteraron ni del NODO, y, por tanto, callan como putas, y son los descojonados aliados OTAN los que sacan esto en un periódicucho "liberal" británico para mofa y vergoña del big brother.

2. Sobre el incidente vergonzante estoy 100% de acuerdo con lo que dice este US marino (lo que no quita para que la US Navy tenga que ponerse pilas, por cierto): It was known to the world that this War Game was being held at this location and around that time. Any Navy with decent sub can hide under a deep water with minimum power with very little risk of detection and then pop up when the fleet is above you. In real battle, this will be near impossible.

FranciscoFrancoBahamonde

Me esta tocando mucho los cojones que no haya comentarios pentadáctilos sobre lo antedicho (china subs item).
¿nadie?
¿nadie?
ok.
susvaisaenterar.

k98k



¿Y que quieres? ¿Que comparemos un Virginia nuclear con un SSK? Mas quisieramos, toma floreal de regalo.

JM

Ahora aqui viene la pregunta del millón.

Los americanos detectaron al submarino amarillo y no quieren que los chinorris lo sepan, básicamente para impedirles conocer el nivel de sus equipos de detección, por lo que se hacen los sorprendidos. o realmente consiguieron los enanos con ictericia aparecer al lado de un portaaviones americano sin ser detectados ?

Hagan sus apuestas ...

In God we trust (sometimes, some pictures: http://www.areopago.eu/index.php?topic=888.msg574445#msg574445 )... (C) Extineo

casio

He encontrado este documental sobre la guerra de Afganistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDonqtAf-8

y me ha parecido oro puro  (mejor primero ver):

La posición de paracaidistas rodeada y acosada, el paisaje acojonante. Pero quizá lo mejor lo del video encontrado en el maizal, como una especie de flashback inverso de los talibanes muertos, que despues aparecen vivos y con esa pinta formidable de hippys setenteros. Magnifico trabajo de la rubia.....menudas secuencias de acción sugiere la rubia.

casio

pues a mí­ me ha gustado. Adios, feos.

Dan

Yo lo he visto dos veces, llorón.