Comments on: Submersible Aircraft Carriers

By: Terranaut

Terranaut — Fri, 27 May 2011 08:27:33 +0000

[quote]tednugentkicksass said:
P.S. I think you guys may have a seriously pissed off-Canuck on your hands. Be carefull when you goo oot and aboot, or you may end up drizzled in maple syrup with a hockey stick through your chest.
Charlene said: “Is this kind of national hatred and stupid narrow-minded insolence acceptable and common on this site?””[/quote]

AH-HA! that would make sense. only a stupid narrow-minded insolent canuck would take that ribbing seriously. come on canadians, get off it already! we love you guys. you are like our little brother. always whining about how you are mistreated by the larger siblings, glad to have us protecting you from the bullies on the block. but you cant wait to grow-up and be just like us. let’s see, twice our land mass yet 90% live within 200 miles of the U.S. border. and the entire population is less than that of the bankrupt state of California!!! I married a Canuck. she moved here, not me there. says something about the place Eh?

By: GilaMonster

GilaMonster — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:06:22 +0000

[quote]Alan said: “… it sat nestled inside its tiny sealed cocoon with its delicate wings folded. [/quote]
Oh Alan. I’m afraid your poetic license has expired. Time to renew it.

By: neepster

neepster — Thu, 03 May 2007 05:57:37 +0000

Are you SURE there have been no submersible aircraft carriers since? I have heard rumors of some US attack subs with submersible aircraft for SEAL teams for example….

By: tednugentkicksass

tednugentkicksass — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:08:57 +0000

Dave Group said: "During World War I, Germany had plans to build a massive airship that would cross the Atlantic and bomb New York. It was only partially built by the time the war ended. The French ended up with it, named it the Dixmude, and shortly thereafter lost it in a storm over the Mediterranean."

Thanks. That sounds like the French.

By: Dave Group

Dave Group — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:43:09 +0000

tednugentkicksass said: "I know this is kind of off-topic, but this talk of attacks on the North American continent got me thinking.–Didn't the Germans have plans for a really big, supersonic bomber with a range that would have made reaching New York (and possibly returning?) possible.

During World War I, Germany had plans to build a massive airship that would cross the Atlantic and bomb New York. It was only partially built by the time the war ended. The French ended up with it, named it the Dixmude, and shortly thereafter lost it in a storm over the Mediterranean.

By: Rush

Rush — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:05:26 +0000

st33med said: "Problem is it would be really impractical and slow sub for a hanger to go in it. If they let it stay outside, the water pressure would break the plane like a 1066-candle cake going splat into the ground:). Not to mention that, if they did find a way to have it withstand such pressure, it would possibly make the submarine stay on the surface because of it's wings.

So good luck to the military!"

I think its 1106 candles... Keep it up with the Military information Thanks,

By: tednugentkicksass

tednugentkicksass — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:58:26 +0000

I know this is kind of off-topic, but this talk of attacks on the North American continent got me thinking.--Didn't the Germans have plans for a really big, supersonic bomber with a range that would have made reaching New York (and possibly returning?) possible.

I realize that many of these German super weapons were unrealized pipe-dreams, but I could have sworn I saw something on the History channel. P.S. I think you guys may have a seriously pissed off-Canuck on your hands. Be carefull when you goo oot and aboot, or you may end up drizzled in maple syrup with a hockey stick through your chest.

Charlene said: "Is this kind of national hatred and stupid narrow-minded insolence acceptable and common on this site?"

By: radish123

radish123 — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:30:29 +0000

A v-2 was used as a terror weapon it was horribly inaccurate thats why they weren’t used for bombing military targets a tomahawk is so accurate it can pin point a fly on a guys jackets and blow it up

By: crispi

crispi — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:31:58 +0000

The current Tomahawk is far more closely related to aircraft than missiles. It has a turbofan engine. It has surveillance capabilities. It can loiter over the battlefield and, thanks to said real-time surveillance, can be directed to attack multiple targets or the same target again if the first strike is deemed a miss.

It has absolutely nothing at all in common with a V-2 rocket.

By: Radiatidon

Radiatidon — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:53:00 +0000

ChickenHead said: “The amount of supplies needed for a single launch for one of those exceeds by several magnitudes the capacities of a WWII German U-Boat.”

Actually they had smaller rockets that launched from a gantry carried on the back of a U-boat. Then there was a towable unit that carried a full-size V2 rocket that was successfully launched. Four units were under construction for an attack on New York when the war ended.

Check these links for more information.

http://www.prinzeugen.com/V2.htm

http://www.uboataces.com/articles-rocket-uboat.shtml