|
Arbite posted:Speaking of, there's a very cute story about Imperial German askari veterans being offered a pension five decades after the war but only a few being able to offer written proof, so they were prompted to perform the old manual of arms. 'Not one of them failed the test.' I could believe it, considering we even dragged two surviving Askari all the way from Africa when their old commander finally died in the 60s. And yes, I couldn't at first believe that guy made it that far, but he somehow did. I'm guessing this Askari-vote happened around the same time, and they're both related. PeterCat posted:Apparently this is something called a "schellenbaum." You know, I sometimes feel incredibly insular when completely normal German stuff suddenly shows up here and I have to realize, not everyone in the world is accustomed to how we do things and yes, this completely mundane thing must seem rather odd to Non-Germans. But it's still fascinating to read where stuff like the Schellenbaum originally came from, so thanks for that! aphid_licker posted:It was at Kalkriese I have an archaeology-book about the battle sitting at home. The author, as some kind of archaeological injoke, added a map on the last page listing all the more spurious claims. Those were pretty wild, ranging from up in Schleswig-Holstein down to Bavaria. Tons of places, fiercely convinced their place was the one.  But yeah, it was either Kalkriese or somewhere in the vicinity. What the myths around the Battle of Teutoburg kind of undersell is that there was an entire war springing forth from that one battle, as the Romans did not just immediately gave up on their new province. Nowadays it is thought that the Germanics fought multiple battles in a similar manner as the first ambush-battle: Kalkrise may have been even a follow-up battle to the original meeting, as archaeologists think they may have found traces of Roman units managing a retreat in good order, which is not what happened at the original battle. Either that, or the contemporary descriptions of the battle are a bit off! Archaeology is not an exact science, after all.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Other than the more practical reasons why Sealion was impossible, did the Germans even have any man portable anti-tank weapons at that point other than I guess rifles? Weren't most of the British tonks still parked at Dunkirk?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 20:06
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Weren't most of the British tonks still parked at Dunkirk? They were still sadly unloading and arming some of them when things went bad yeah, it was a bit of a logistical mess.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
There were also french tanks whose crews died defending the english beach, but they were too french to get counted as allied heroes. Contrary to popular belief, the DLMs were armoured divisions. The S35 regiments were a match for any german tank on the field, and them plus the dragons portés beat out equivalent panzer units when they met. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Oct 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Weren't most of the British tonks still parked at Dunkirk? Not really. While it was around two thirds of the entire tank fleet but the tanks lost were disproportionately older modals, the Light VI and Matilda 1. The amount of Cruisers lost was also high but no more than two months worth of production of new Cruiser tanks. Britain was still ramping up production of equipment but tank production was getting in full swing as Dunkirk was happening so lots of tanks were being built. Over half the tanks lost would have been retired the moment a newer one had come off the production line within months. The losses of modern tanks were replaced within a month and a half.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
This is why in Guderian's fantasy land the Germans should have followed the BEF over and done Sealion in June /July, before finishing off the French. Nevermind all the reasons why that would have been an insane plan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This is why in Guderian's fantasy land the Germans should have followed the BEF over and done Sealion in June /July, before finishing off the French. Nevermind all the reasons why that would have been an insane plan. I mean it only requires a few parameter ending bit more favorable for germans. Lets see… -RAF disappearing overnight. -Home Fleet disappearing overnight. -a ready-to-use fleet of french landing and transport craft captured intact somewhere. -a viable air transport arm with no fuel, personnel or airframe deficiencies. No biggie; lets say its plausible-ish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this is in Guderian's memoirs as well. His view, after the war, with full benefit of time to reflect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Weren't most of the British tonks still parked at Dunkirk? It would have been the Covenanter's time to shine!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The backbone of infantry AT defense were 3.7cm PaK's, which at combat weight of 327 kg plus ammunition were actually possible to move around manually without too much trouble. 5cm PaK 38 already weighed more than a Kübelwagen. Presumably the 3.7 would have been enough for most tanks they'd encounter at the time? idk how bad the island cav was at the time. Were they air droppable or gliderable or would the airborne element be on their own? It's really all nonsense but it's fun to wargame provided you take enough liberties
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 02:59
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Presumably the 3.7 would have been enough for most tanks they'd encounter at the time? idk how bad the island cav was at the time. Were they air droppable or gliderable or would the airborne element be on their own? It's really all nonsense but it's fun to wargame provided you take enough liberties Matildas would've been a huge headache to the 3.7. How many they had at the time is beyond me, but they had something, at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
Any of the infantry tanks were a tough nut to crack for the 3.7 cm Pak, even the Valentine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Matildas would've been a huge headache to the 3.7. How many they had at the time is beyond me, but they had something, at the very least. In the Fall of 1940? The sixty or so Mark Is that didn't go to the BEF in France, plus a number of new-built Mark IIs. Probably enough to seriously gently caress up a German landing force if used en masse, especially if the Germans don't have fire support or artillery ashore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 04:57
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:In the Fall of 1940? The sixty or so Mark Is that didn't go to the BEF in France, plus a number of new-built Mark IIs. Probably enough to seriously gently caress up a German landing force if used en masse, especially if the Germans don't have fire support or artillery ashore. Given that the entire RN spontaneously foundered immediately beforehand, this presumably means the kriegsmarine is now free to provide supporting fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Given that the entire RN spontaneously foundered immediately beforehand, this presumably means the kriegsmarine is now free to provide supporting fire. The Home Fleet would need a few hours to sortie from Scapa Flow to the Channel so there's a narrow window where some German troops might get ashore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:The Home Fleet would need a few hours to sortie from Scapa Flow to the Channel so there's a narrow window where some German troops might get ashore. e: Obviously they'd need a ride, can't cross running water
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Perhaps if they landed their elite Romanian vampire commandos? If they'd deployed werewolves in 1940 instead of 1945...
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:I mean it only requires a few parameter ending bit more favorable for germans. Lets see… Alternatively, cover the entire French channel coast with huge artillery ranging all the way across the channel to cover the landing zones. Then you either force the Home Fleet into a shoot-out with the land-based artillery, or you can land all the troops you want, unchallenged! This plan only needs ca. 10 years of preparation and the British to suddenly be struck blind so they don't see what's happening on the other side of the channel, easy. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 08:44
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Perhaps if they landed their elite Romanian vampire commandos? Would they be able to invade if they weren't invited? And could anyone invite them, or would it have to be the King?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 09:46
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Would they be able to invade if they weren't invited? And could anyone invite them, or would it have to be the King? Could Hitler recognize Edward VIII as King and have him invite them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 10:15
|
|
|
According to some research I've been doing, there were legitimate concerns that they might try to attack/invade using gliders, but this belief didn't bear fruit when tests revealed that glider aircraft still produced a, akbeit harder to see, report on radar
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 11:33
|
|
|
Same (secondary?) Source also mentions tests/demonstrations involving a hawker hurricane simulating attacks on gliders. It is said that, while in free flight the gliders could be tough to shoot, although no mention of the load in the gliders is made. Edit: considering the position of the text, its also implied that it is with smaller gliders, unsuitable for troop transport
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 11:36
|
|
|
meatbag posted:Could Hitler recognize Edward VIII as King and have him invite them? No need, they could just dig up some ancestor of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, and ask him to invite them as the family's eldest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 11:38
|
|
|
Hi thread, what's an annular radiator?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
It cools the plane engines while mounted on the nose instead of underslung on the fuselage or wings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:It cools the plane engines while mounted on the nose instead of underslung on the fuselage or wings. Pretty sure there's an FW-190 that used that in a prototype stage too. Maybe the P-47 or something else as well? Wasn't it always for Radial engines too? Edit: I may be thinking of a different thing, trying to find some data in the sources I have... Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Oct 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Pretty sure there's an FW-190 that used that in a prototype stage too. Maybe the P-47 or something else as well? Wasn't it always for Radial engines too? This is why I ask; they were used in a bunch of German aircraft, but aside from saying "There are holes in the wings that make it go" I've no idea what kinda radiator that is. I know that the BMW 801 used those radiators, as did the He 219.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Hi thread, what's an annular radiator? It is a radiator set up as a bunch of piping etc just in front of the engine, formed to fit inside the engine cowling so the same airflow both cools the engine and feeds it. So it looks like a radial engine (in that it is round and doesn't have any further need for radiator frontage) but mechanically is a liquid cooled setup. AFAIK the only setups in WWII that were widely adopted were the 801 and Jumo 211. They were incredible engines (and quite forward-thinking as they were designed as power packs which could have been very maintenance-efficient) but the mechanics of the actual radiator were pretty complex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It is a radiator set up as a bunch of piping etc just in front of the engine, formed to fit inside the engine cowling so the same airflow both cools the engine and feeds it. So it looks like a radial engine (in that it is round and doesn't have any further need for radiator frontage) but mechanically is a liquid cooled setup. The internet tells me this is a restored engine off an He219.  Jesus that looks like hell to make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The internet tells me this is a restored engine off an He219. 1) I just right now learned they did an annular setup for a DB603 2) honestly pretty much all the cooling setups for engines in that era were ridiculously intricate. Here's a cylinder from an R2800 (which used air flowing over those zillions of fins to cool things down):  They had to make 18 of those things per engine. ...and they made 125,000 of those engines...
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
If you're a huge engine nerd here's a fairly detailed history of air cooled engine cylinder development : https://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/ACEvolution/air-cooled_cylinders_1.shtml This whole website is awesome if you're into this kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
I believe the first use of an annular radiator was in 1933 on the Tipo.X version of the Savoia-Marchetti S.55 that were built for Italo Balbo's trans-Atlantic flight. They had uprated Isotta Fraschini W18 engines, fully cowled to reduce drag and with circular front-mounted radiators. This sort of thing is why you see preferences for liquid-cooled and air-cooled engines flip back and forth right up to the jet age. Different engineering, aerodynamic and production challenges are overcome, tipping the balance in each direction. In the 1920s it was clear that liquid-cooled engines offered less drag than air-cooled ones. Then the NACA cowling and the Townend ring drastically reduce the parasitic drag of air-cooled engines, and advances in casting aluminium alloy allow air-cooled engines to produce much more power for their weight, while to get similar power out of a liquid-cooled motor would need a radiator so big that the extra drag would nullify the added power. Then pressurised cooling systems with glycol are developed and the liquid-cooled engine comes back into contention. And so on and on. BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Oct 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:If you're a huge engine nerd here's a fairly detailed history of air cooled engine cylinder development : Early Experiences of a Gas Turbine Engineer posted:The program on the target engine was more exciting. One of the applications for the target required starting at 40,000 feet. The system we finally developed utilized two pyrotechnic igniters and a lead slug of special fuel. A two gallon tank was placed in series with the normal fuel supply and filled with normal propyl nitrate. No one paid any particular attention to the hazards this fuel represented and I would usually have a 5-gallon can in the trunk of my car. Just driving around with monopropellant/liquid explosive in my trunk nbd How did they record flight data before flight data recorders/telemetry had been developed? quote:The data acquisition system used in those days consisted of a panel of "steam gages" that was photographed by a 16 mm movie camera and a recording oscillograph that had 16 channels for high response recording. At that time the Air Force had a contract with the University of Dayton that provided students a part time job reading the film frame by frame and recording all of the gage values. They also measured the deflection of each oscillograph trace , converted it to engineering units and synchronized the time with the photo panel. Upon landing, I would rush my data to the university, and with luck have the results within a few days. The Sausages fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 10:52
|
|
|
Could you just make the engine from ceramics and run it without cooling until it schmelts out the bottom of the fuselage
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 11:45
|
|
|
The fuel starts exploding before it's meant to explode.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 11:58
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Same (secondary?) Source also mentions tests/demonstrations involving a hawker hurricane simulating attacks on gliders. It is said that, while in free flight the gliders could be tough to shoot, although no mention of the load in the gliders is made. I'm having a hard time believing that gliders are tough to shoot. Gliders are BIG and can't maneuver as well as a powered aircraft. In 1940 the Luftwaffe used DFS-230s. From Wikipedia: Length: 11.24 m (36 ft 11 in) Wingspan: 21.98 m (72 ft 1 in) That's a big plane. For comparison, that Hurricane's wingspan is 40', about half. Here's a DFS-230 being towed by a Stuka to give an idea of how big it was:  The DFS-230 carries 9 troops and a pilot, and it's the SMALL German glider. In 1941 they introduced the Gotha Go-242, which was larger, and in 1942 they brought in Me-323, which was absolutely gigantic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I'm having a hard time believing that gliders are tough to shoot. Gliders are BIG and can't maneuver as well as a powered aircraft. It is probably due more to speed than size -- gliders usually...glid? at well below 100 mph which was tough for fast monoplanes to deal with if they weren't free to drop flaps or landing gear to get their own speed down (ie, what the 190s had to do to deal with Swordfish during the channel dash episode). Now...ground fire on the other hand, that consistently did a number on gliders from all sides whenever they were used in daylight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It is probably due more to speed than size -- gliders usually...glid? at well below 100 mph which was tough for fast monoplanes to deal with if they weren't free to drop flaps or landing gear to get their own speed down (ie, what the 190s had to do to deal with Swordfish during the channel dash episode). Aircraft are perfectly capable of strafing stationary targets on the ground, or trucks or trains moving at relatively slow speeds. The idea that something is too slow to shoot is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Aircraft are perfectly capable of strafing stationary targets on the ground, or trucks or trains moving at relatively slow speeds. The idea that something is too slow to shoot is nonsense. I mean, there are a lot of accounts of how difficult it was to target slow-moving aerial targets with the guns and sights of that era (my personal favorite is the Night Witches in their ratty old Po-2s consistently bamboozling Luftwaffe hotshots). It was a very different problem compared to strafing a ground target.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
bewbies posted:I mean, there are a lot of accounts of how difficult it was to target slow-moving aerial targets with the guns and sights of that era (my personal favorite is the Night Witches in their ratty old Po-2s consistently bamboozling Luftwaffe hotshots). It was a very different problem compared to strafing a ground target. Well, no. That's a function of maneuverability, not speed. A Po-2 or Swordfish can maneuver relatively well. They're biplanes with relatively small, highly loaded wings that enable a good (immediate) turning performance. In contrast, a glider like the DFS-230 has long/wide wings which float alongand can do long sustained turns just fine but can't quickly turn or bank worth crap. Again, an aircraft can hit a stationary or slow target on the ground. What they have problems with are planes which can turn quickly to spoil the shot. A Po-2 or Swordfish could do this, a non-aerobatic cargo carrying glider can not. Cessna fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 18:10
|
|