|
Panzeh posted:Turretless M8s were actually used because the crews found the lower profile and lighter weight to be more useful than the 37mm gun, a weapon that wasn't good at doing a whole lot. The crews took a bazooka instead. Still it was the most jarring appearance of an armoured vehicle in a film until the StuG III in Mr Bean's Holiday.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:So Franco just loaned out his tanks to anyone that showed up in Madrid with a movie camera then? Spain was a great place to shoot movies, they had a cooperative army, low expenses, cheap extras. Having the US military cooperating in movies at low/no expense is a relatively recent thing. I believe Force 10 from Navarone was shot in Yugoslavia, and they had zee Germans in T-34s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but this was from 2011-12. Bonus track:  Company of Heroes was the best worst movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:If you look at the quarrels that have hit the ground, all the flights are strewn at odd angles lying apart from the shafts. Could it be illustrating some type of crossbow deployed calthrop (sp?)? The shafts stuck in the ground look like spikes as well. Lol no, that's the shafts breaking. There seems to have been an artistic tradition showing crossbow quarrels breaking, and probably reflected reality. You can see a similar thing in this image from Hans von Gersdorff's Feldtbuch der Wundartzney:  edit: the coolest thing is that all of these wounds were considered treatable (with varying degrees of success of course) Grand Prize Winner posted:What about Flamberge blades? You know the swords what had the wavy bits like the SE Asian Kris knives only they were like 6 feet long? Were those just parade accessories or did people actually fight with 'em? Musta been a challenge to sharpen. I think some people did fight with them but it doesn't provide any particular advantage as far as I know. Someone more familiar with the early modern period would be able to say better. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Azran posted:
Two questions: First who still owned an Austrian machine gun from the first world war and was willing to loan it out. Second, how was it not infinitely easier to find a proper MG34/42
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Eh? Isn't it just a Vickers in disguise?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
It does look a lot like a Vickers.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Stalingrad has tons of actual WW2 vintage tanks in it. They loaned them from the Finnish Armor Museum that apparently has a pretty cool collection of stuff and quite a few WW2 era tanks in operational shape.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
According to the internet firearms movie database (why does this even exist) it's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzlose_MG_M.07/12
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It does look a lot like a Vickers. Its an M.07/12, the grip is particularly telling. (Why do I know this)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
I will spend this weekend at Dresden (university workshop on friday and two days of holidays). After reading this thread, I guess I will have to visit the Rüstkammer. Any other (mil) historical stuff that is worth visiting?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
gipskrampf posted:I will spend this weekend at Dresden (university workshop on friday and two days of holidays). After reading this thread, I guess I will have to visit the Rüstkammer. Any other (mil) historical stuff that is worth visiting? Festung Dresden, which I talk about here, but you need to be able to speak German since the guided tour is only in German. Also, it's probably only cool if you care waaay too much about early modern fortifications. (And if you don't, why the gently caress not?) The Staatmuseum has some things about the bombing, but I haven't been there. When you're in the Rüstkammer, check out the Transylvanian katana. Edit: Rodrigo Diaz posted:I think some people did fight with them but it doesn't provide any particular advantage as far as I know. Someone more familiar with the early modern period would be able to say better. It may have been purely aesthetic, the product of the same kind of taste that produced this stuff (trigger warning: Germans):   "The head of a mature German is often crowned with magnificent plumage, which it displays as a show of strength and dominance."   Last two are later, but only a little less busy as all hell:  
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:According to the internet firearms movie database (why does this even exist) it's this: For questions like this! It rules, I use it a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Military History Museum, up on Stauffenbergalle; I found it somewhat thin and boring, but they have a new exhibit on Romanticism and the wars against Napoleon that I haven't seen yet. Thanks a lot for the tips. As a Swiss in East German exile, German shouldn't be problem, so I will check out the Festung. An actual mil-hist question: In a 17th century fortification, where do you (as a defender) put your cannons? I would have guessed right behind the parapet with some kind of loop hole. However this fortification I visited some time ago (Festung Petersberg in Erfurt) didn't seem to have enough place to put a cannon right behind the parapet. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Lol no, that's the shafts breaking. There seems to have been an artistic tradition showing crossbow quarrels breaking, and probably reflected reality. You can see a similar thing in this image from Hans von Gersdorff's Feldtbuch der Wundartzney: Have you seen how massive those quarrels for war are? There's pieces in a museum here that are thicker than my thumb. Those just don't break like that if you shoot them into flesh or bone. What you're seeing is more likely the head coming off from the shaft. Arrow- and boltheads were often fixed with beeswax, with the wise backthought that it's easy to work with and will seperate head from shaft once you shoot it into a warm body and then try to work it out. Wooden arrows may break, but not as fast legend goes. You'll lose more arrows due to deflection than if you shoot them straight into wood or against stone. I've lost dozens like that shooting in the woods. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
gipskrampf posted:An actual mil-hist question: In a 17th century fortification, where do you (as a defender) put your cannons? I would have guessed right behind the parapet with some kind of loop hole. However this fortification I visited some time ago (Festung Petersberg in Erfurt) didn't seem to have enough place to put a cannon right behind the parapet.  In newer ones, on top of the thing, on the terreplain.  Remember, they're really broad and until you get to whatever structures are inside the walls, it's dirt all the way down. You can plant trees on that poo poo if nothing's going on at the moment, it gives the citizenry a pleasant greenspace. If you want to get drinks this weekend, message me or email me. I'm leaving on Sunday but I'll still be in town until Saturday. Edit: Erfurt, huh? I was wondering where to go once I left Kassel, and now I know. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
New post because new topic. I just learned about this this minute. If you are a well-dressed Landsknecht/Reisläufer and feeling really good about your life and your clothing choices (and seriously, why wouldn't you?), in addition to slashing your clothing you can do this: This is probably less realistic, the whipping ribbons indicating strenuous movement:  This looks more realistic, and I love the faces of the guys nerving themselves up to deal with the gun:  Edit:  
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Haha, yup, early artillery was sketchy as gently caress. I saw a painting of some battle (Kazan, maybe) where a bunch of guys are all recoiling in horror as the gunner approaches the fuse. His face is pretty expressive too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Since a few "what if X fought Y" discussions have popped up recently, here's an article that discusses a hypothetical battle between Iowa and Yamato. The author quotes Jon Parshall, one of the guys who wrote Shattered Sword, pretty liberally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Haha, yup, early artillery was sketchy as gently caress. I saw a painting of some battle (Kazan, maybe) where a bunch of guys are all recoiling in horror as the gunner approaches the fuse. His face is pretty expressive too. Not to mention that, according to popular belief, the gunner may or may not be a wizard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Haha, yup, early artillery was sketchy as gently caress. I saw a painting of some battle (Kazan, maybe) where a bunch of guys are all recoiling in horror as the gunner approaches the fuse. His face is pretty expressive too. Some artillery now is still sketchy. Here's a propaganda video from the Syrian civil war with everyone running for cover whenever they launch a shell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k7d3ZGIlu4 a travelling HEGEL posted:The future has arrived! And we are in no way prepared to deal with it! Really? I'd love to read any accounts you have where someone thinks new technology is a magical weapon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Really? I'd love to read any accounts you have where someone thinks new technology is a magical weapon. In France (have not read about any one else) they are not really part of the army but their own separate thing, under the ultimate command of the Grand Master of Artillery (or, before 1601, the Master Of The Archers), one of the most important men in France until Louis XIV dissolved the position. The king of France requests, he does not order, pieces and gunners for the upcoming campaign from him. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
What were the tanks that were used in Patton? Were those M-46s used for all the German tanks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Trip report: Osprey's Pike and Shot Tactics 1590-1660: OKish I guess but ultimately disappointing. Unless you care about the English Civil War? Which...I don't. Does anybody? For how important it was politically and given how it was the origin of the British Army as we know it today not a whole lot of people seem to actually be all that interested in it for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What were the tanks that were used in Patton? Were those M-46s used for all the German tanks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:The weapon, while it's personalized a lot (a lot of the French ones, for instance, were cast with their names) and very symbolically important, isn't magic. It's cast like a bell would be (if bronze) or wrought like a farm implement or something (if iron). Making the powder, though, is uncomfortably/intriguingly close to alchemy. Gunners regarded themselves as members of a mystical/quasi religious/semi-secret brotherhood. What were some big gun names? Any particularly cool ones? There's a quote in blood meridian about naming guns that I'll look for at some point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:So Franco just loaned out his tanks to anyone that showed up in Madrid with a movie camera then? Also his airforce. The Republicans would have won if they'd just used cameras against him. a travelling HEGEL posted:Zweihänders were used in the early 1500s Why did they drop out of use? a travelling HEGEL posted:Edit: They're really beautiful; most of the ones I've seen in person are longer than I am tall, and their lines are so graceful. So true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Why did they drop out of use? Gonna' say guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:What were some big gun names? Any particularly cool ones? There's a quote in blood meridian about naming guns that I'll look for at some point. Mons Meg (1449)  Crazy Maggie (Dulle Griet, some time before the 1450s)  Pumhart von Steyr (Likewise early 15th c)  You know what a good name for a big gun is? Big Gun. (1408, belonged to the Teutonic Order) Lazy Slut (Faule Mette, 1411) (Many supergun names also function as things you can yell while you are trying to transport them)  Neat, the caption reads The largest gun in Germany, known as the Lazy Slut, was last fired in the year 1650. Remember when someone asked how long you could keep using an early modern cannon? Lazy Maggie (Faule Grete, 1409, belonged to the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem)  And this demicannon stands outside the old Pulverturm in Dresden, now the Pulverturm Restaurant. His name is Julius.  Edit: All right, this is some furry bullshit right here. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Chouffe posted:To give us a sense for what that means, could you maybe elaborate a little on what city defenses around the world were like at that time and how Washington, DC was superior? Or do you just mean in terms of troop numbers? You could probably take the "most heavily defended city" by just about any measure you wanted. Guns, troops, fortifications, etc. There were between 70 and 200 forts around DC by 1864, depending on how you define a fort. The entire city was ringed with them; you can see the plan on a map someone posted earlier. Forts were generally heavy earth dugouts with a battery of guns, a typical arsenal was two gigantic naval rifles (ie, 100 lbs Parrot rifle) and two huge mortars. These would be manned by artillerymen, plus a garrison force of maybe a company in permanent place. The forts were all connected to the inner city by tactical rail lines, and interconnected with each other by pre-dug rifle pits. Had the city been in serious danger, those pits would have been manned by roughly 100k-150k troops that were in and around the city, plus any remnants from the Army of the Potomac, assuming it had been wrecked by some catastrophic battle. The big guns were placed to provide fields of fire down every approach, and they generally ranged 3+ miles across open terrain. Big mortars threw explosive shells for about a mile and were the close-in defense. Once you got up close, you were then attacking dug-in infantry who had the benefit of rail transport for mobility and resupply, plus a zillion smaller artillery pieces that were deployed in a reinforcing role. It was a pretty unbelievable engineering project completed on a very short timeline. Some of the forts are still there today as a "ring" park around the city, its a pretty neat tour. Battles almost never happened in cities (one minor exception is the first day at Gettysburg), but sieges were relatively common. It was so difficult to get a defender out of an urbanized area, and since most of the important cities were fortified, you were usually far better off running a siege instead of an attack, at least if you were the Union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
What's really ridiculous about the defences in Washington was that there really were 100k infantry just there for long periods of the war that could have been used to massively boost the power of the Army of the Potomac.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Battles almost never happened in cities (one minor exception is the first day at Gettysburg), but sieges were relatively common. It was so difficult to get a defender out of an urbanized area, and since most of the important cities were fortified, you were usually far better off running a siege instead of an attack, at least if you were the Union. You're right that urban fighting was rare, but fairly large battles did happened in built up areas on several occasions. There's the example of Gettysburg that you mention. The initial stages of the battle of Fredricksburg were fought in the town itself (here's an interesting map of the street fighting). iirc, part of the Battle of Williamsburg was fought in around the town. And there's plenty of skirmishes and raids that take place in towns and other built-up areas. The raid on Lawrence, Kansas springs to mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Some artillery now is still sketchy. Here's a propaganda video from the Syrian civil war with everyone running for cover whenever they launch a shell: Well, modern artillery isn't 100% reliable either.  As for the guns, you have a guy mixing something (a magic potion!) that explodes and smells like sulfur (a sign of the devil!). Clearly, a powerful wizard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Some artillery now is still sketchy. Here's a propaganda video from the Syrian civil war with everyone running for cover whenever they launch a shell: I doubt all artillery these days is foolproof, but aren't they doing that in Syria 'cause the government forces would often booby trap shells that the rebels would capture? Also 'cause half that stuff is literally home made. Frankly it's more representative of artillery from 500 years ago than artillery today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Also 'cause half that stuff is literally home made. Frankly it's more representative of artillery from 500 years ago than artillery today.   Edit: The best minds of their generation worked on those guns, and many of them could be dusted off and fired tomorrow if I were still allowed in museums. Firing them may have been sketch as hell, but they were well made, for the most part. You can't make a 820 caliber bombard in a garage. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:How effective were the various European resistance movements during World War 2, particularly the French? And were there similar resistance groups in areas under Japanese occupation? Chuck Yeager posted:"Three FW 190s came in from the rear and cut my elevator cables. I snap-rolled with the rudder and jumped at 18,000 feet. I took off my dinghy-pack, oxygen mask, and helmet in the air; and then, as I was whirling on my back and began to feel dizzy, I pulled the ripcord at 8,000 feet. An FW 190 dove at me, but when he was about 2,000 yards from me a P51 came in on his tail and blew him to pieces. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:No their apps are better now Did they actually use those giant protractors in combat, or is that picture just showing the concepts behind precalculated artillery range tables?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Griz posted:Did they actually use those giant protractors in combat, or is that picture just showing the concepts behind precalculated artillery range tables? I love that these guys are armored and plumed and have protractors in their hands. Boots and spurs and sashes and trig! 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Since a few "what if X fought Y" discussions have popped up recently, here's an article that discusses a hypothetical battle between Iowa and Yamato. The author quotes Jon Parshall, one of the guys who wrote Shattered Sword, pretty liberally. With the advent of things like laser rangefinders, GPS and computers powerful enough to simulate ballistics very exactingly, naval gunfire should theoretically be very accurate nowadays, yeah? I mean obviously battleships are never going to be in vogue again, but the Iowa's fire control just made me think of the Royal Navy's attempt to force the Dardanelles and how modern tech would have let them lay down fire against coastal gun batteries with precision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:With the advent of things like laser rangefinders, GPS and computers powerful enough to simulate ballistics very exactingly, naval gunfire should theoretically be very accurate nowadays, yeah? I mean obviously battleships are never going to be in vogue again, but the Iowa's fire control just made me think of the Royal Navy's attempt to force the Dardanelles and how modern tech would have let them lay down fire against coastal gun batteries with precision. Naval gunfire support is still a big deal (the US Marines have entire units calling in naval gunfire and air attacks). During the 2003 invasion of Iraq naval gunfire from USN and RAN warships was used to support amphibious operations. And once the Zumwalts get their railguns, things are going to get even more interesting. That said, if a time-travelling modern navy tried to force the Dardanelles c.1915, they'd find 3- and 5-inch naval guns less than satisfactory against hardened Ottoman positions. Hitting a target is one thing, destroying it is another.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 04:16
|
|