|
BigBobio posted:Yeah, diesel is heaver than gasoline. It will freeze at higher temperatures than gasoline does. Came to post this. Worth noting that even in the abscence of HEAT/flamethrower/other explosive device, just the consequences of being hit by any sort of AP round in WW2 led to a fuel fire in a petrol powered tank. The energy expended results in a lot of heat, on top of system failures in the tank like punctured fuel lines or ammo cooking off. Shermans were called 'tommycookers' weren't they?
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:Came to post this. Worth noting that even in the abscence of HEAT/flamethrower/other explosive device, just the consequences of being hit by any sort of AP round in WW2 led to a fuel fire in a petrol powered tank. The energy expended results in a lot of heat, on top of system failures in the tank like punctured fuel lines or ammo cooking off. Shermans were called 'tommycookers' weren't they? Earlier model Shermans had a bit of a tendency to catch fire (IIRC an Army study found that up to ~80% of early Shermans burned after being penetrated), but contrary to popular belief this wasn't because of the gas engine, but because the Sherman was literally filled with ammunition boxes that would cause propellent fires when they were hit. This was initially dealt with by stapling additional armor on the sides of the tank where the main ammo boxes were located, but the issue wasn't really solved until "Wet" ammunition stowage was introduced on the M4A1 (76) and later models/variants of the M4A3. Essentially, the ammunition stowage was moved from boxes stuck in the sides of the tank (Where they were very easy to hit) to the floor of the tank (Where they were much less likely to be hit and/or damaged), and the rounds themselves were stored in individual compartments immersed in either water or antifreeze. This had the effect of reducing the number of tanks that "Brewed up" after getting hit from the aforementioned ~80% to a mere ~15% wet-rack equipped Shermans. A pretty huge improvement by any metric, and fairly solid proof that the gasoline engine was not a huge factor in the survivability of the Sherman compared to other factors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:I think the biggest reasons are diesel fuel doesn't tend to light up when you get hit by a HEAT round like gasoline often did and diesel engines usually make more low end torque. This sounds awfully lot like an old myth springing from a bad war flick, maybe Patton or Battle of the Bulge. It doesn't quite work that way, at that temperature anything will vaporize. What's more important is how your ammo is arranged in the fighting compartment, and with Shermans (pre-wet rack models) and T-34's a penetrating hit could instantly kill the whole crew. An engine fire is less dangerous in this regard, the crew still has time to get out. Or what Ab13 said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Supposedly the Brits nicknamed their lend-lease Shermans "Ronsons", which was a brand of cigarette lighter advertised with the phrase "Lights up the first time, every time".  Of course this is one of those "common knowledge" war tropes that may or may not be true. Soviet tankmen, on the other hand, supposedly greeted each other with the phrase "Have you burned yet?" Edit: If anyone's read "The Tank Men" it does a pretty good job of communicating how horrifying it is to be in a tank that gets hit. Polikarpov fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
meatbag posted:The Royal Navy pre-Fisher is hilarious. "Gunnery training? But that will make our ships dirty! Now there's another effortpost right here, debunking the legend that before Fisher came the RN was a bunch of circlejerking clowns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 12:17
|
|
"
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Now there's another effortpost right here, debunking the legend that before Fisher came the RN was a bunch of circlejerking clowns. Considering that they managed to get two ships sunk in deepest peace time because their officers were trained never to question a superior's orders and the Admiral in question thought himself infallible, I'm looking forward to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Erm, taken from his wiki:Jackie Fisher's wiki posted:Allenby and the conquest of Jerusalem Several hours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Erm, taken from his wiki:  So uhm... there's something of a theme throughout history of important officials rationalizing command decisions with theology isn't there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Daysvala posted:
Guess what I think Bush phoned Chirac in the middle of the night to tell him this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend any books on rationing? I've read "Salt", which was great, but was more interested in how rationing worked and nutrition for like, long sea voyages, canned food during Napolean's time, stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Jackie Fisher was completely insane and could quote the bible for hours on ends yes, but it was also that insanity that the pre-war RN needed. The pre-Fisher fisher period RN was a disaster. It was a collection of mismatched ships that were spread all over the world, the only fleet of any value being the one in the Mediterranean. Gunnery was abysmal, with a 60%+ miss rate at 2000 yards, ships would steam at well bellow their capacity, and had frequent mechanical issues. Crews were still trained (and continuously drilled) for sail operations even though it was completely pointless. Officers were trained separately and there was great discrimination between the 'Executive' officers and technical officers, let alone the Royal Marines who were practically just run like its own insular mini-army within the RN. Old officers clung to their posts forever, often with having little to no actual command experience. Fishers first term as First Sea Lord changed all that. It took the RN to a combat-effective navy by 1914, rather than just a hodgepodge collection of ships that happened to outnumber everyone else. Its dumb to reduce the reforms of the RN to just Fisher, and there is a myth in regards to that, but there are certainly strong real foundations for such a myth to occur. e: and yes he was also a complete lunatic when it came to religion, but when it came to naval issues he was spot on
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Bear in mind that the pre-Lord Fisher Navy managed to ram two battleships into each other purely because the respective captains did not get a direct order to move out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Now there's another effortpost right here, debunking the legend that before Fisher came the RN was a bunch of circlejerking clowns. I'm not saying they were the Keystone Kaptains, but not having to fight an actual war for almost a century sure didn't lend itself to producing an efficient force. Have you read Dreadnought and Castles of Steel by the way? Great books both on pre-WW1 Europe as well as the RN. And it lists plenty of stupid things they did post-Fisher as well. Though any large organization is bound to have idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Very true, not everyone could be a merry model of a major general.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Not as much stupid as overly cautious, but the lack of balls on Admiral Troubridge when pursuing the Goeben had repercussions rippling across Europe for decades. He's the naval equivalent of that chemist that invented both leaded gasoline AND CFCs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Lack of balls is completely unfair; the admiralty even went through a full court-martial and came to the conclusion that it was unreasonable for him to engage a battlecruiser with the forces he had, especially given that he'd been explicitly ordered to not attack a superior force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Not as much stupid as overly cautious, but the lack of balls on Admiral Troubridge when pursuing the Goeben had repercussions rippling across Europe for decades. He's the naval equivalent of that chemist that invented both leaded gasoline AND CFCs. If he had attacked, the engagement would have probably turned out like the Battle of Coronel - a total massacre for no good effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coronel Troubridge was facing a force that outranged him, had more armour, and was faster. He had no chance. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
And really if you're looking for someone to blame for the Ottomans entering the war, blame whoever came up with the idea of stealing their two battleships and decades of meddling and racism when dealing with the Porte.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Guess what 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
I want to have Obama get shitfaced and start drunk-calling world leaders in the middle of the night now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I just have a great image of a sleepy Chirac in an olde-timey nightcap going "Mmmhmmm, mmmhmmm, I see.... mmmhmmmm." and then after he hangs up his wife asks "What the hell did he want?" and Chirac is all "I have no loving idea". Oh Dubya I imagine that was an interesting time for other world leaders, because the leader of the world's most powerful country was so obviously incompetent and on top of that a generally weird guy. Like when he came up behind Angela Merkel and started rubbing her shoulders, that was just nuts, it shouldn't even have occurred to him to do that at all. You can imagine a lot of stuff like that. There was a great story that a former US ambassador put out, maybe apocryphal but seemingly true, that Bush was having a meeting with some Iraqi exiles in January 2003, and midway through the meeting they all realized that Bush had no idea there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. And they kind of stopped to explain to him, you know, the reason we don't work together against Saddam is we've been fighting one another for over a thousand years and it's still an ongoing murder situation, even today. And Bush was amazed. This was a couple months before the invasion. I just think about the sinking feeling those guys must have had when they realized the president didn't know something that was maybe the most basic, important factor in Iraqi domestic politics and culture, and he was planning to invade and take over their country in the next few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:I want to have Obama get shitfaced and start drunk-calling world leaders in the middle of the night now. It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s just so tempting. Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who makes that call. Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military — someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want using the phone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Jackie Fisher was completely insane and could quote the bible for hours on ends yes, but it was also that insanity that the pre-war RN needed. The pre-Fisher fisher period RN was a disaster. It was a collection of mismatched ships that were spread all over the world, the only fleet of any value being the one in the Mediterranean. Gunnery was abysmal, with a 60%+ miss rate at 2000 yards, ships would steam at well bellow their capacity, and had frequent mechanical issues. Crews were still trained (and continuously drilled) for sail operations even though it was completely pointless. Officers were trained separately and there was great discrimination between the 'Executive' officers and technical officers, let alone the Royal Marines who were practically just run like its own insular mini-army within the RN. Old officers clung to their posts forever, often with having little to no actual command experience. Fishers first term as First Sea Lord changed all that. It took the RN to a combat-effective navy by 1914, rather than just a hodgepodge collection of ships that happened to outnumber everyone else. I want to read the 'Castles of Steel' from an alternate universe that covers the Imperial German Navy going up against this navy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
meatbag posted:I'm not saying they were the Keystone Kaptains, but not having to fight an actual war for almost a century sure didn't lend itself to producing an efficient force. Yes, they aren't particularly good if you're a specialist on the period, considering how much important research the author ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
meatbag posted:I'm not saying they were the Keystone Kaptains, but not having to fight an actual war for almost a century sure didn't lend itself to producing an efficient force. I think this is the best post to follow with this: Starship Troopers is highly popular and recommended among US military officers. It's been on recommended reading lists, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Was there any popular military fiction in the pre-modern age? I suppose Romance of The Three Kingdoms might vaguely qualify. Was there anything elsewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Was there any popular military fiction in the pre-modern age? The Iliad?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Was there any popular military fiction in the pre-modern age? King Arthur.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
I suppose maybe some sort of distinction should be made with pseudo-mythologies that were not read as non-historical at the time? And I don't think King Arthur stories discuss much about the battle tactics etc? If I'm not mistaken?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
King Arthur stories are generally parables.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I think this is the best post to follow with this: In fairness though, who really wants to read about the realities or war? (except us)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Reading about the realities of war makes people not want to fight wars, for some reason. Who knew!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Chansons de geste, perhaps? Nobody really believed Roland or whoever else actually did kill thousands of Moors (cf. "servicing targets", a popular topos in XXI century American military fiction), but they did usually vaguely touch on military equipment or organisation in the period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:In fairness though, who really wants to read about the realities or war? (except us) It's intended as a lesson in military leadership. These aren't lists of entertaining books, they're books intended to impart knowledge, technique, or other insight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Yes, they aren't particularly good if you're a specialist on the period, considering how much important research the author ignored. I recommend Marder uPen posted:I want to read the 'Castles of Steel' from an alternate universe that covers the Imperial German Navy going up against this navy. The RN would've modernized sooner or later, it was extremely unlikely that it was going to continue in the way it did. Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Came to post this. Worth noting that even in the abscence of HEAT/flamethrower/other explosive device, just the consequences of being hit by any sort of AP round in WW2 led to a fuel fire in a petrol powered tank. The energy expended results in a lot of heat, on top of system failures in the tank like punctured fuel lines or ammo cooking off. Shermans were called 'tommycookers' weren't they? Now with some numbers! Azipod posted:Supposedly the Brits nicknamed their lend-lease Shermans "Ronsons", which was a brand of cigarette lighter advertised with the phrase "Lights up the first time, every time". I'm pretty sure that that was a post-war slogan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Was there any popular military fiction in the pre-modern age? The Cyropedia? It's basically got a Tom Clancy-esque theory crafting section on making the best army possible. (Interestingly, Xenophon proposed disciplined sword and shield as an alternative to the hoplite warfare common at the time...) Boondoggles, noble figures in the opposition flipping sides, a terribly conservative political outlook, a saintly hero figure beloved by everyone...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
the JJ posted:The Cyropedia? It's basically got a Tom Clancy-esque theory crafting section on making the best army possible. (Interestingly, Xenophon proposed disciplined sword and shield as an alternative to the hoplite warfare common at the time...) Boondoggles, noble figures in the opposition flipping sides, a terribly conservative political outlook, a saintly hero figure beloved by everyone... So what you are saying is that it was pierside literature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Yes, they aren't particularly good if you're a specialist on the period, considering how much important research the author ignored. Please enlighten me. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
soviet study posted:Countermeasures  seriously? No way!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 02:12
|
|