5 ms·

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon That Wikipedia page contains a link to a picture I've always foun

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon That Wikipedia page contains a link to a picture I've always found totally mind blowing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon#/media/File:NormandySupply_edit.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon#/media/File:No... Insanity.

metadat 2y ago
What do you find mind-blowing about this pic?
- tivert 2y ago
  > What do you find mind-blowing about this pic? Not the OP, but the massive concentration of naval ships (literally to the horizon), beach landing, and the (to modern eyes) surreal presence of barrage balloons all together in one picture is pretty mind blowing. I mean, just imagine all that activity.
  - M95D 2y ago
    Too expensive to ever see that again.
    - yard2010 2y ago
      Wait a few more years..
    - sqeaky 2y ago
      Nothing is too expensive when the alternative is death. We'll see it again as soon as two super powers are engaged in an active shooting war.
  - anovikov 2y ago
    All of these ships are tiny. These are not ships, just landing craft. This is by any measure not a big concentration of ships, armor, or anything. D-day landings were impressive in 1944 but today these won't be big at all. Today, similar amounts of cargo and people can be delivered by planes, not by boat.
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      Where would you land a plane full of tanks in Normandy, if not in the airports they already control? Not a war expert, just logistic curious.
      - zhengyi13 2y ago
        I dunno what might have been done back then (if the planes of the day even had the capacity to airlift tanks), but we can and do drop tanks via parachutes today. No airfield/landing required.
        tivert 2y ago
        > but we can and do drop tanks via parachutes today I don't think that's actually true. Some quick Googling shows the US M-1 Abrams tank is not air-droppable, and maybe the best they can do is air drop light armored vehicles which are much lighter.
    - lou1306 2y ago
      The ships in the pic are not that tiny. I just looked up "US 310 ship" (the rightmost one) and it was a 100-meter lander that could definitely carry at least a dozen heavy tanks, or ~30 trucks [1]. You would need a lot of planes for that. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-310 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-310
      - onedognight 2y ago
        Around 1000 of these double decker tank landing crafts were built during the second half of WWII to cross the Atlantic for the invasions. This one was sponsored by woman, Mrs. Pearl Magdalene Frick. [0] Fascinating. I don’t see mention of her elsewhere on the web. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-316 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-316
    - CapricornNoble 2y ago
      >>This is by any measure not a big concentration of ships, armor, or anything. D-day landings were impressive in 1944 but today these won't be big at all. The US pushed ~28,000 tons of supplies ashore in the first 5 days of Overlord. Eight days later it had grown to 117,000 tons. [1] Can you show us your loading and sealift plan for delivering 10,000 tons per day of supplies, sustained, in a partially-contested airspace, especially over a beach? We're not talking about unloading a Maersk Triple E-class [2] at a container port in peacetime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_logistics_in_the_Normandy_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_logistics_in_the_Norm... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_E-class_container_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_E-class_container_ship
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    The picture's caption is kind of unnecessary. That's only happened once in history. If you haven't seen Saving Private Ryan, the landing scene still stands the test of time.
  - arethuza 2y ago
    Speaking of concentration of naval power I'd have loved to have seen the surrender and the German fleet in the Firth of Forth in 1918 - between both sides there were 43 battleships, 14 battlecruisers, loads of cruisers and 170 destroyers: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46273928 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46273928

metadat 2y ago

What do you find mind-blowing about this pic?

tivert 2y ago
> What do you find mind-blowing about this pic? Not the OP, but the massive concentration of naval ships (literally to the horizon), beach landing, and the (to modern eyes) surreal presence of barrage balloons all together in one picture is pretty mind blowing. I mean, just imagine all that activity.
- M95D 2y ago
  Too expensive to ever see that again.
  - yard2010 2y ago
    Wait a few more years..
  - sqeaky 2y ago
    Nothing is too expensive when the alternative is death. We'll see it again as soon as two super powers are engaged in an active shooting war.
- anovikov 2y ago
  All of these ships are tiny. These are not ships, just landing craft. This is by any measure not a big concentration of ships, armor, or anything. D-day landings were impressive in 1944 but today these won't be big at all. Today, similar amounts of cargo and people can be delivered by planes, not by boat.
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    Where would you land a plane full of tanks in Normandy, if not in the airports they already control? Not a war expert, just logistic curious.
    - zhengyi13 2y ago
      I dunno what might have been done back then (if the planes of the day even had the capacity to airlift tanks), but we can and do drop tanks via parachutes today. No airfield/landing required.
      - tivert 2y ago
        > but we can and do drop tanks via parachutes today I don't think that's actually true. Some quick Googling shows the US M-1 Abrams tank is not air-droppable, and maybe the best they can do is air drop light armored vehicles which are much lighter.
  - lou1306 2y ago
    The ships in the pic are not that tiny. I just looked up "US 310 ship" (the rightmost one) and it was a 100-meter lander that could definitely carry at least a dozen heavy tanks, or ~30 trucks [1]. You would need a lot of planes for that. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-310 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-310
    - onedognight 2y ago
      Around 1000 of these double decker tank landing crafts were built during the second half of WWII to cross the Atlantic for the invasions. This one was sponsored by woman, Mrs. Pearl Magdalene Frick. [0] Fascinating. I don’t see mention of her elsewhere on the web. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-316 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-316
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    >>This is by any measure not a big concentration of ships, armor, or anything. D-day landings were impressive in 1944 but today these won't be big at all. The US pushed ~28,000 tons of supplies ashore in the first 5 days of Overlord. Eight days later it had grown to 117,000 tons. [1] Can you show us your loading and sealift plan for delivering 10,000 tons per day of supplies, sustained, in a partially-contested airspace, especially over a beach? We're not talking about unloading a Maersk Triple E-class [2] at a container port in peacetime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_logistics_in_the_Normandy_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_logistics_in_the_Norm... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_E-class_container_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_E-class_container_ship
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  The picture's caption is kind of unnecessary. That's only happened once in history. If you haven't seen Saving Private Ryan, the landing scene still stands the test of time.
- arethuza 2y ago
  Speaking of concentration of naval power I'd have loved to have seen the surrender and the German fleet in the Firth of Forth in 1918 - between both sides there were 43 battleships, 14 battlecruisers, loads of cruisers and 170 destroyers: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46273928 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46273928