|
I know I keep sort of dropping one-note questions in here then running off, but are there any good sources/interesting factoids on Britain's involvement in Korea, or that of other members of the UN coalition aside from the US? A lot of stuff that comes up on Google makes it look like MacArthur did almost literally everything, and while the Incheon landing was impressive as hell I've been hoping to read up on what other countries did in the fighting. (This is aside from the story of the yanks who got a bunch of Brits killed by misunderstanding British understatement.) Falukorv posted:On a display case nearby they also show the penetration of bullets in wood, soap and metal. Put's the Hollywood myth of hiding in cars and behind tables to rest. From a couple pages ago, but is there anything that is useful cover against a good bullet? It seems like any round worth firing will go through effectively anything to get at you. Flesnolk fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Dec 4, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Flesnolk posted:I know I keep sort of dropping one-note questions in here then running off, but are there any good sources/interesting factoids on Britain's involvement in Korea, or that of other members of the UN coalition aside from the US? A lot of stuff that comes up on Google makes it look like MacArthur did almost literally everything, and while the Incheon landing was impressive as hell I've been hoping to read up on what other countries did in the fighting. Tanks work pretty well. Also Hasting's The Korean War goes into detail on the British in Korea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:From a couple pages ago, but is there anything that is useful cover against a good bullet? It seems like any round worth firing will go through effectively anything to get at you. The answer to that question is: dirt, and stuff to put dirt in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Also Hasting's The Korean War goes into detail on the British in Korea. Thanks, I'll check it out! I've been interested in their role in Korea for a while but hadn't had much luck. Arquinsiel posted:The answer to that question is: dirt, and stuff to put dirt in. Why dirt? I've heard sandbags are good for fortifying a position but it's always seemed to me that if I fired a rifle at say, a boxing heavy bag, it'd just go through. And on a similar note, how is modern armour not pointless? It seems like anything beefier than a handgun round turns it into a false sense of security. Flesnolk fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
It's about increasing the duration of the impact, so the soft bag moves inwards with the bullet and then the sand slowly shuffles out of the way rather than presenting a target to crack while staying in contact with the projectile the whole time until it has fully passed and thus drawing energy away from it and pushing it out into the surrounding material. People who have a better grounding in physics than I do will explain it better, but it's basically the same principle as trying to shoot through lots of phone books in a line. Eventually, way before max effective range, sheer friction will stop the bullet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:Thanks, I'll check it out! I've been interested in their role in Korea for a while but hadn't had much luck. Someone else can explain the physics of why but densely packed dirt stops small arms dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiY80JgB26Q&t=127s
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:46
|
|
Flesnolk posted:Thanks, I'll check it out! I've been interested in their role in Korea for a while but hadn't had much luck. Dirt is good because it is all around you all the time. You can dig in it. You can put it in a bag. Modern armor isn't pointless because it stops bullets and fragmentation. There are a variety of levels of protection offered by ballistic armor. The real killer in Iraq/Afghanistan is IEDs and amputation of limbs due to the blast. Body armor is effective at protecting the torso against shrapnel(although, the insurgency in Afghanistan has moved away from using any metal due to our ability to detect it) but not very good at preventing an IED from tearing off a limb.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Military grade body armour (with ballistic plate inserts) can stop AK rounds.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Well I have no idea why I thought it was useless, then. Perhaps I was thinking of police armour, or reports I remember of soldiers being killed by small arms fire despite the armour? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Re: Sandbags, also worth checking out is: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot7.htm Basically, sand seems to function with military rifles by causing the rounds to fragment. Basically the bullet going through the sandbag is effectively sandblasted into uselessness. Water will also function well at stopping bullets. Sufficiently thick metal will work. (A car door is just not sufficiently thick.) The rule of thumb, IIRC, is that the metal, if of equivalent hardness to your bullet, needs to be about as thick as the bullet is long. quote:Well I have no idea why I thought it was useless, then. Perhaps I was thinking of police armour, or reports I remember of soldiers being killed by small arms fire despite the armour? Thanks! Yes, police armour is generally less effective. Also, Vietnam/WWII grade armour is much less good too - the 'flak jack' is basically only designed for shrapnel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:Dirt is good because it is all around you all the time. You can dig in it. You can put it in a bag.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Regarding montys slowness if you see the pursuit after alamein he pursues with the 8th army in a rapid advance. But the germans get their rearguard on, but they started running and didnt stop til they reached tunisia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
On a broader WW2 note, why did the germans just...not give up? It seems that when the advantage is so overwhelming and you're being pressed from both sides, why not just surrender unconditionally to the western allies so the soviets don't end up with half your country? Why bother fighting right to the very end?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Basically, sand seems to function with military rifles by causing the rounds to fragment. Basically the bullet going through the sandbag is effectively sandblasted into uselessness. Probably my last thing on this 'cause it's getting closer to TFR talk, but does this work the same way for stuff like stone and concrete (say in an urban setting) or is your typical building material not hard/thick enough to stop a good round?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:On a broader WW2 note, why did the germans just...not give up? It seems that when the advantage is so overwhelming and you're being pressed from both sides, why not just surrender unconditionally to the western allies so the soviets don't end up with half your country? Why bother fighting right to the very end? As it happens, this wasn't an idea that went totally unnoticed: Himmler tried to open negotiations with the Allies on his own initiative with the intent of forming a united front against the USSR. Hitler found out about it and promptly ordered him executed, and we probably don't need to talk about why Hitler didn't feel like surrendering to the Allies. Unsurprisingly, the Allies were uninterested in a full-scale war with the USSR and declined to go into detail with Himmler anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:Why dirt? I've heard sandbags are good for fortifying a position but it's always seemed to me that if I fired a rifle at say, a boxing heavy bag, it'd just go through. And on a similar note, how is modern armour not pointless? It seems like anything beefier than a handgun round turns it into a false sense of security. Dirt is cheaper than steel. Isaac Newton figured out a simple way to approximate how deeply a bullet will penetrate a target - find the ratio of the bullet's weight to the target, and multiply that by the bullet's length. The speed of the bullet doesn't matter. Lead is 7 times denser than dry sand, so 21 centimetres of sand will stop a 7.62 NATO round (3 centimetres long). You can stop that bullet with only 4.5 centimetres of steel, but surrounding your base with a 4.5 centimetre thick steel wall is much more expensive than surrounding it with sandbags. Note that Newton's approximation doesn't work with fabric, which explains kevlar's unusual defensive properties. Lastly, remember that armour can stop a bullet but it won't stop the energy - being shot in a bulletproof vest is like being hit with a blunt weapon. Flesnolk posted:Probably my last thing on this 'cause it's getting closer to TFR talk, but does this work the same way for stuff like stone and concrete (say in an urban setting) or is your typical building material not hard/thick enough to stop a good round? Cotton candy can stop a bullet provided there's enough of it. 14 centimetres of concrete will stop a 7.62 bullet. Chamale fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:Well I have no idea why I thought it was useless, then. Perhaps I was thinking of police armour, or reports I remember of soldiers being killed by small arms fire despite the armour? Thanks! During OIF there was media cry over the fact that US soldiers were not provided with the best ballistic vests on the market, so many soldiers opted for spending their own moneys to protect themselves. You might be thinking of that one. There's always been ways of stopping bullets, but until recently they've either been too wieldy for infantry (steel plates) or too costly to equip an entire army with. Fortunately though infantry tends to suffer casualties more often from artillery and mortars than bullets, and even a steel helmet goes a long way in elongating a grunt's expected lifespan even if it's not bullet proof. Eg. I think my favourite form of bullet proof vest is the Victorian version consisting of multiple layers of silk. It worked! But as you might imagine, it cost a fortune and was out of reach of an ordinary infantryman and was mainly used by statesmen. For instance, a certain Archduke of Austria wore such a vest on his trip to Sarajevo. Unfortunately he was shot in the neck. Flesnolk posted:Probably my last thing on this 'cause it's getting closer to TFR talk, but does this work the same way for stuff like stone and concrete (say in an urban setting) or is your typical building material not hard/thick enough to stop a good round? Concrete works if it's thick enough, but many contemporary building materials (cinderblock etc.) are too brittle and thin to withstand any rifle fire before the wall just crumbles away. Architects also used to put a lot more leeway in the supporting structures, resulting in supporting walls adequate for a fortress. Thus it depends on the urban setting. A medieval European town is very different to a modern suburb. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:On a broader WW2 note, why did the germans just...not give up? It seems that when the advantage is so overwhelming and you're being pressed from both sides, why not just surrender unconditionally to the western allies so the soviets don't end up with half your country? Why bother fighting right to the very end? The scenario where the Allies would accept Nazi surrender to the western allies alone is basically Gay Black Hitler territory, anyway. How would such an arrangement even work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
A bit late, but here are some (rather optimistic, apparently) thicknesses of stuff that a rifle bullet will penetrate. http://sovietguns.blogspot.ca/2013/10/mosin-penetration.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The scenario where the Allies would accept Nazi surrender to the western allies alone is basically Gay Black Hitler territory, anyway. How would such an arrangement even work? We need to stop the hordes of Red Army soldiers overrunning all of Eastern Europe (who are only there because Germany kicked down their front door)!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:On a broader WW2 note, why did the germans just...not give up? It seems that when the advantage is so overwhelming and you're being pressed from both sides, why not just surrender unconditionally to the western allies so the soviets don't end up with half your country? Why bother fighting right to the very end? They assumed "unconditional surrender" to mean the same thing they presented the Poles with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
NAVSEA made a series of videos on the subject of how common building materials stand up to gunfire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSqdTLLZBWw The tl;dr is that the average structure is concealment, not cover.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:Probably my last thing on this 'cause it's getting closer to TFR talk, but does this work the same way for stuff like stone and concrete (say in an urban setting) or is your typical building material not hard/thick enough to stop a good round? Page 13 of this document begins listing recommended protective thicknesses for direct hits inflicted by projectiles ranging from 7.62 mm to 75 mm in quite a bit of detail. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA423950 Conclusion: Soil and rubble are your friends. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:On a broader WW2 note, why did the germans just...not give up? It seems that when the advantage is so overwhelming and you're being pressed from both sides, why not just surrender unconditionally to the western allies so the soviets don't end up with half your country? Why bother fighting right to the very end? Well the reasons depend for what groups of Germans you're looking at. Nazi leadership and OKW/OKH heads didn't want to surrender because they knew the gallows awaited them should they do so. German generals didn't, blaming the oath they swore to Hitler or some bizarre ideal of honor prevented them from doing so. Really they were afraid of the soviets as much as anyone else in the reich and knew a surrender in the west without the allies joining Germany would cause a morale collapse on the eastern front. The average German soldier was more than happy to surrender to the western allies provided he was presented with a good chance to do so. Not so much in the east as they knew what had been done in the occupied territories and that the soviets would show no mercy if they didn't shoot them out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:On a broader WW2 note, why did the germans just...not give up? It seems that when the advantage is so overwhelming and you're being pressed from both sides, why not just surrender unconditionally to the western allies so the soviets don't end up with half your country? Why bother fighting right to the very end?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Well the reasons depend for what groups of Germans you're looking at. Nazi leadership and OKW/OKH heads didn't want to surrender because they knew the gallows awaited them should they do so. German generals didn't, blaming the oath they swore to Hitler or some bizarre ideal of honor prevented them from doing so. Really they were afraid of the soviets as much as anyone else in the reich and knew a surrender in the west without the allies joining Germany would cause a morale collapse on the eastern front. The average German soldier was more than happy to surrender to the western allies provided he was presented with a good chance to do so. Not so much in the east as they knew what had been done in the occupied territories and that the soviets would show no mercy if they didn't shoot them out of hand. I have some sympathy with the (self-serving) argument Manstein puts out in his memoir: at what point do you actually turn on Hitler? In 1933? Why? He's just won an election. Because he's ordered you to reoccupy the Rhineland? Nope, Versailles is poo poo and unfair. Anschluss with Austria? Ditto. Bringing the Sudentenland into Germany? See above. When we invade Poland? See above also he's promised us that England and France won't intervene and hey, they didn't the last two times. When we defeat France? Okay we're stuck in a war we don't have a plan for winning but that's not a reason to launch a coup. When we invade the USSR and it doesn't work and also the SS (whitewash the army lots here) have been massacring everyone? Sure, except we're now at war with the USSR and even if I can start a civil war to depose Hitler and even if it works, the consequence of that is that Germany will be immediately defeated and occupied by the USSR. At the point at which it becomes obvious (from the perspective of the German army) that Hitler should be deposed, it doesn't actually help the people of Germany to do so and is a bad option if you have even a slither of hope of being able to force a stalemate on the Eastern front.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
It's also important to understand that the Seven Years War happened, and despite being attacked on all sides, Frederick managed to persevere and a miracle happened which saved Prussia. This inspired many, many men to come, from Napoleon(who had a very good chance to make it out with territorial gains in 1813) to Hitler. Ever since, many leaders have tried to fight to the end in the hope that alliances against them will fall apart for one reason or another.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:It's also important to understand that the Seven Years War happened, and despite being attacked on all sides, Frederick managed to persevere and a miracle happened which saved Prussia. This inspired many, many men to come, from Napoleon(who had a very good chance to make it out with territorial gains in 1813) to Hitler. Ever since, many leaders have tried to fight to the end in the hope that alliances against them will fall apart for one reason or another. To be entirely fair to Hitler, the alliance against him fell apart within weeks after his death. He just underestimated how much people hate him, personally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb57.htmquote:The fact that we are still firmly on our feet and show not the least sign of collapse is sufficient proof that our enemies cannot do what they want, that they suffer from internal problems, and that they make such terrible threats only to keep us from noticing that. It is well known that at the point during the First World War when the German leadership thought the situation was hopeless and prepared the Reich for capitulation, the British military leadership told its government clearly that England’s losses on the Western Front were so great that it was necessary to seek an agreement with Germany to end the war. If the leadership of the Reich had known that, it would have undoubtedly made a different decision than the one it blindly made. quote:To be entirely fair to Hitler, the alliance against him fell apart within weeks after his death. He just underestimated how much people hate him, personally. Er, what? Arguably friendly relations lasted into 1946, and certainly up to VJ day. Fangz fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Fangz posted:http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb57.htm The Americans and Soviets were antagonistic at Potsdam, but "friendly" relations were maintained for a while longer. It was a steady decay from the Potsdam Conference to the Berlin Blockade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I have some sympathy with the (self-serving) argument Manstein puts out in his memoir: at what point do you actually turn on Hitler? You forgot "when people started being rounded up at random and sent...away".
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
In re: mercenarychat, I am laughing forever because I both love and hate the human condition, for the exact same reason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDWB_4eEnCk Incidentally, I know for a fact that von Frundsberg advertised, and a bunch of the other big names as well. Edit: But why did the commercial make the vicarious participant (this thread's members irl  ) look like such a dingus? He could be a younger Bruce Campbell. I mean, we all know what kind of person'll be buying this, but you don't have to telegraph the fact.Edit: bewbies posted:You forgot "when people started being rounded up at random and sent...away". HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:In re: mercenarychat, I am laughing forever because I both love and hate the human condition, for the exact same reason. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:What I love is that he dives behind a chair, thus making the Kinect lose track of him, pause the game and ask to reacquire him..... Oh Xbox, you are so crappy You've been in the Xbone thread in GBS 2.1, haven't you? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
No, I spent a year working support for that shitpile and came out of it with PTSD and a renewed despair for the future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:No, I spent a year working support for that shitpile and came out of it with PTSD and a renewed despair for the future. Also, and here's where we may have been confused, the purpose of an ad is to make your product look appealing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
I'm done venting about it. It at least gave me some motivation to get off my rear end and try get some certs under my belt so I can hope to get a job that doesn't totally suck at some stage. Ironically, it did actually pay well though. Back on track, yes, that game just looks like a great way to do all the kinds of moving that FPS nerds love to do. The idea of a PMC selling merchandise is somehow really disturbing though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:NAVSEA made a series of videos on the subject of how common building materials stand up to gunfire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSqdTLLZBWw that depends on what you mean by 'average'. The big brick row houses you can find in DC, Baltimore, and Philly (among other places) are more than 1 layer of brick, and the tenements you'll find in UK cities are also drat thick. I mean yeah if you are living in a house with load-bearing drywall then bullets are going to zip through, but not everyone does. Going back to sand, one of the reasons that it is effective is that it is made up of a bunch of little particles in a bag rather than a singular hard block. What this means is that when a bullet impacts you lose less material because the plastic is keeping all the particles in place, and they can move around a bit so the energy dissipates more gradually. With bare brick the fragments can spray everywhere and the energy is transferred much more quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:that depends on what you mean by 'average'. The big brick row houses you can find in DC, Baltimore, and Philly (among other places) are more than 1 layer of brick, and the tenements you'll find in UK cities are also drat thick. I mean yeah if you are living in a house with load-bearing drywall then bullets are going to zip through, but not everyone does. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Most housing in the US is at best one layer of brick over plywood with some insulation and drywall behind it. But even thick brickwork isn't going to stop concentrated fire for long, and anything heavier than small arms is going in one side and out the other. cf. Afghanistan, where literally everything in the southern half of the country is effectively a small-arms proof bunker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 02:08
|
|