|
sullat posted:I remember reading that escort fighters had to stay close to the bomber formations until 1945 or so. Once that requirement was lifted, they would pursue enemy fighters down to the hedgerows if necessary to get the kill. There was usually an escort handoff. So you'd have one bomber formation and 5 different waves of allied fighters escorting. So over the course of a single bombing mission you'd be escorted across the channel and into france by one group who would turn around and go home when they got relieved by P-38's/P-47's and so on. As each group got relieved they'd turn for home and shoot up targets of opportunity on the way. Trains, airfields, staff cars with Rommel in them etc. Sure you don't have bombs, but 8 50's with AP will gently caress up a train/fuel depot/airplane on the ground. And why bring ammo home?
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:A friend who is the gunner on a Leo 2 told me that he and the guys are scared of a hit that damages the hydraulic system. Supposedly it's very hot (200 or 300°C?) and under very high pressure and makes for a good steamy death. Note, that's just for the hits that don't outright kill everybody on board. Anyone else heard stuff like that? Ammo doesn't always instantly explode, it's more of a gigantic, fast blowtorch. You don't want propellant to burn so fast it busts the barrel but fast enough to make the shell go voom so what you get is more "FOOSH" and less "BOOM" when not in the confines of a gun. There's a video from Syria showing a tank get hit, followed by a good 3-5 seconds before you see the barrel lift up, start spewing smoke, and flames start rocketing out of the hatch. It was slow enough to know the poor bastards in that tank knew they were being cooked  .The engine and its oil are probably at a nice steamy temperature too but likely closer to 1-200° C rather than 2-300° C. Modern tanks use a gas turbine so there's the possibility of that venting into the crew compartment, but the Abrams have ammo blowout panels preventing the ammo blowtorch scenario so there may be preventions for the engine doing that too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
It was the hydraulic liquid of the turret traverse that he meant meant. The dudes have a really bleak outlook on war considering the thickness of the top armour and the fact that any modern missile comes top down I know which video you mean. There's a number of other videos where they shoot modern ATGMs at tanks from a distance and they start cooking off. Not a nice way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Did Britain stick with that rifle fire stuff through to WWII? I know it was a "Yep, that's the Brits" thing in WWI but it seems like they'd have pivoted to something different pretty quickly once they figured out WWII wasn't going to be fought largely in static defense positions. Not even in WW1 past 1914, I thought? Not much time for rifle training for conscripts when there's a war on. As for the Bren, well, 30-round magazine and 500 rpm versus an MG42 belt fed and 1200 rpm - you'd probably notice the latter more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:There's a video from Syria showing a tank get hit, followed by a good 3-5 seconds before you see the barrel lift up, start spewing smoke, and flames start rocketing out of the hatch. It was slow enough to know the poor bastards in that tank knew they were being cooked I think I've seen that. Was that the one that had the cameraman go up with the rebel with the RPG-29 to the roof where he fired? The most amazing part of that is right as the flames start shooting out from the hatch, you see one of the crewmen (minus most of his clothes) fall out. And he manages to get up and run! The dude's almost definitely disfigured for life, but he somehow made it out alive and adrenalized enough to book it out of there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not even in WW1 past 1914, I thought? Not much time for rifle training for conscripts when there's a war on. A standard MG42 belt is 50 rounds. Firing at 1200 rpm, you'd actually chew through that faster, and it'll be slower to reload.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What did cavalry units do with wounded horses? Horses usually get injured in the legs outside of combat, and when they get injured in the legs you shoot them with your sidearm. If they are injuries sustained in combat, you probably had a bunch of troopers killed or incapacitated, so you just kind of balance it out and shoot the injured horses. Plus, everyone has nominally two remounts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think I've seen that. Was that the one that had the cameraman go up with the rebel with the RPG-29 to the roof where he fired? That guy almost certainly died in agonizing pain somewhere between 1 and 72 hours later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Fangz posted:A standard MG42 belt is 50 rounds. Firing at 1200 rpm, you'd actually chew through that faster, and it'll be slower to reload. You pull the belt tab through and cock it. Takes about 1 second, not like these clumsy gentlemen, but you see the principle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw1VGZoYQts Have you seen how fast the crew can change the barrel? My dad could do it in less than 4 seconds. e: You also don't fire at cycling rate unless hard pressed. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:It was the hydraulic liquid of the turret traverse that he meant meant. The dudes have a really bleak outlook on war considering the thickness of the top armour and the fact that any modern missile comes top down Wasn't there a BMP or something that had fuel tanks built into the troop doors?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wasn't there a BMP or something that had fuel tanks built into the troop doors? More fuel is more better, comrade! There was actually a project of a T-34 with fuel tanks in the road wheels, but it turned out to be a terrible idea and was scrapped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Not to beat a dead horse but yes, I'm fond of inspecting horse meat, where do I enlist? Slavvy posted:Wasn't there a BMP or something that had fuel tanks built into the troop doors? They were auxiliary tanks, which would have been drained empty before they got to combat so not really an issue. What would be more of an issue is that something gets to penetrate the rear door of something as compact as BMP-1 from any aspect. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
With dragoons, what do they do with the horses once they dismount for battle?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Like a third of the guys have to stay behind to watch the horses. It's why dragoons eventually became true cavalry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
You can also cook glue of their remains. Their leather makes great book and bow covers. Horse sinew is also pretty good for crafting. Somebody could make some nice knifehandles or some inlays with their bones, etc. Nothing is wasted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:30
|
|
Fangz posted:With dragoons, what do they do with the horses once they dismount for battle? A handful of dragoons more or less stay back with them I imagine.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Fangz posted:A standard MG42 belt is 50 rounds. Firing at 1200 rpm, you'd actually chew through that faster, and it'll be slower to reload. The belts are linkable. You don't even need to go through the full load motion if you have extra belts at hand, just leave a bit of the old belt and hook the next one on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You can also cook glue of their remains. Their leather makes great book and bow covers. Horse sinew is also pretty good for crafting. Somebody could make some nice knifehandles or some inlays with their bones, etc. Nothing is wasted. Horse Pepsi okay?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wasn't there a BMP or something that had fuel tanks built into the troop doors? Yeah, though I hear that in actual combat situations they empty the tanks and fill them with sand or dirt instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:20
|
|
Phanatic posted:Horse Pepsi okay? Neigh. Seriously though, even horse teeth?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Fangz posted:A standard MG42 belt is 50 rounds. Firing at 1200 rpm, you'd actually chew through that faster, and it'll be slower to reload. SeanBeansShako posted:Neigh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Huh. Horse teeth. I thought they'd use other animal bones. But horse teeth. Makes sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
I honestly don't know. It was my best guess. I'd suspect teeth to be too hard for making dice out of in the field, and too hollow when dried out too TBH, but maybe someone, somewhere, somewhen tried it? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Fangz posted:With dragoons, what do they do with the horses once they dismount for battle? I've also heard of cases where the dragoons make the horses lay down as impromptu cover but that seems like something you'd only do if your other option was annihilation. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:That guy almost certainly died in agonizing pain somewhere between 1 and 72 hours later. Yeah I really doubt the ability of a war torn nation to effectively treat 3rd degree burns. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Not to beat a dead horse but
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I've also heard of cases where the dragoons make the horses lay down as impromptu cover but that seems like something you'd only do if your other option was annihilation. Remember that scene in We Were Soldiers where that guy gets napalmed and he's too burt to be moved? I remember being really freaked out in ninth grade when I read the book and discovered he didn't die for another two days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wasn't there a BMP or something that had fuel tanks built into the troop doors? It wasn't really an issue because the BMPs used diesel, and diesel actually makes for pretty good armour. The Merkava fills the front of its hull with diesel fuel for this reason. If you want dodgy Warsaw pact AFVs, the BTRs were always kind of dangerous. The BTR-60s used petrol/gasoline, and also 2 engines and 2 transmissions, one for each side which made it rather maintenance intensive. Later models switched to one engine but they kept it gasoline for quite a long time. I think they actually did that just because gas engines were cheaper too. Also it had exit doors on the side between the 2nd and 3rd road wheels and it was rather easy for an inattentive driver to run over infantry exiting the vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:From everything I've heard marauding bands of allied fighters on the way home from their escort legs did almost as much damage to the German war machine as the bombing. I've heard it's directly responsible for the "Ok airfields are done, lets hack a runway out of the woods and hide the planes under the trees." poo poo that was going on in late war. Wanna know more about this post. e: hold on, just read a few more posts and you may have answered it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:More fuel is more better, comrade! There was actually a project of a T-34 with fuel tanks in the road wheels, but it turned out to be a terrible idea and was scrapped. This is one of those things that makes you wonder why it needed to get to project phase before someone realised the idea was retarded.* *: does not apply to Nazi Germany Throatwarbler posted:It wasn't really an issue because the BMPs used diesel, and diesel actually makes for pretty good armour. The Merkava fills the front of its hull with diesel fuel for this reason. So...did the soviets have two branches of lightly armoured troop carrying vehicles? Like, were the BMP's intended as an IFV of sorts while the BTR was a straight-up APC not intended to see front line combat?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:09
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I honestly don't know. It was my best guess. I'd suspect teeth to be too hard for making dice out of in the field, and too hollow when dried out too TBH, but maybe someone, somewhere, somewhen tried it? Right or not now I can just picture some 18th century dudes gathered around a cooking pot on picket duty, one of them reaches into his pocket and is all like 'Hey, check out my sweet beta dice bros  .
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:11
|
|
Other uses for horses:
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This is one of those things that makes you wonder why it needed to get to project phase before someone realised the idea was retarded.* Because a liquid transfer system that can freely rotate would be a pretty nifty invention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This is one of those things that makes you wonder why it needed to get to project phase before someone realised the idea was retarded.* BTRs generally saw use in the motor rifle regiments and BMPs were generally used in the tank regiments, but this wasn't a hard and fast rule. Most countries that have IFVs have a mix of them and wheeled APCs as well. IFVs are too heavy and expensive, really, to give to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
So I'm reading a Spanish account of the siege of Breda, and we've gotten to the part where Spinola has won because he's cool and good. The surrender terms include: Someone has to pick up the Prince of Orange's stuff. Not sure what happens to it if he fails to arrange this after six months have passed. Edit: By all accounts, Spinola does seem like a very nice person. Well, as nice as you can be in his trade. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So I'm reading a Spanish account of the siege of Breda, and we've gotten to the part where Spinola has won because he's cool and good. The surrender terms include: Hahahaha "househould ſtuffe". I love it when old writers use these words that sound so modern, since it's easy to forget when reading Shakespeare or whatever that people back then had very casual conversations too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Hahahaha "househould ſtuffe". I love it when old writers use these words that sound so modern, since it's easy to forget when reading Shakespeare or whatever that people back then had very casual conversations too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Modern tanks use a gas turbine so there's the possibility of that venting into the crew compartment, but the Abrams have ammo blowout panels preventing the ammo blowtorch scenario so there may be preventions for the engine doing that too. Only the Abrams and the T-80 have a gas turbine engine, and the Russians went back to diesel on a known platform (T-72 into T-90) partly because the T-64/-80 line was now produced in Ukraine and allegedly also because of bad experiences with turbine engine vulnerability in Chechnya. The US has from time to time been looking at maybe changing the Abrams to a diesel engine as well, but I don't think anything has come from it yet. Also, blowout panels are a feature on a number of tank designs IIRC, definitely not Soviet/Russian ones though! Slavvy posted:So...did the soviets have two branches of lightly armoured troop carrying vehicles? Like, were the BMP's intended as an IFV of sorts while the BTR was a straight-up APC not intended to see front line combat? Panzeh posted:BTRs generally saw use in the motor rifle regiments and BMPs were generally used in the tank regiments, but this wasn't a hard and fast rule. Most countries that have IFVs have a mix of them and wheeled APCs as well. IFVs are too heavy and expensive, really, to give to everyone. AFAIK, the three tank regiments (TRs) in tank divisions (TD) got a company of BMPs added to them in Warsaw Pact armies as production ramped up from the late 1960s, while the single TRs in motor rifle divisions (MRDs) did without them. I've always understood this to be a sign of the TD's TRs being supposed to fight as a single combined-arms unit, while the TR in the MRD was supposed to be parceled out to the three motor rifle regiments (MRRs). When the BMP was added to TRs in company size, the USSR started to introduce them in one of the three MRRs of the MRD as well, and IIRC a MRR was added to the TD too somewhere around this period - to increase boots on the groundability. Out of this acronym salad comes a 1980s USSR division standard where, after they upped the BMP company in the tank regiments to a full batallion, a tank division had 10 tank and 6 BMP battalions - while a motorized rifle division did with 6 tank, 3 BMP, and 6 BTR battalions. This was a hardly the case in reality though. Lots of motor rifle battalions, even in tank regiments, never got their full (or any) BMP allocation, and reserve tank regiments had to soldier on without any organically attached infantry. IIRC the BMP-2 was supposed to come into force in great numbers in the 1980s but it didn't reach its intended production numbers, and mostly got introduced in bite-sized, company elements. Which led to BMP-1(P)s never really cascading down into lesser equipped formations as planned. All that's not even considering the terrible trouble other Warsaw Pact countries had in equipping their forces with BMPs; the East Germans for example only ever kitted out one of their six standing divisions with them. It was the same with self propelled guns as well: an update in Pact standard tables of organization and equipment called for the regimental artillery companies to be upped to battalions, but SP artillery production was slow and expensive, and only frontline Soviet tank divisions ever saw those 18 2S1s that were required - and this was before upping the requirement even further to 24. All in all it seems Soviet land vehicle production was really geared towards tanks while everything else came secondary. With their frontline forces they did an almost full changeover in tank models from the late 1970s towards 1989, but other modernization efforts couldn't keep pace. This was in a country that was straining to the point of breaking, economically speaking, in order to fulfill their military production quota mind you, and their allies never even got as far in their efforts. Not that NATO did that much better on the procurement and organization front. Koesj fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Sorry, man; the original was in Latin. Also "stuff" means "material" at the time. When was that English translation written? It looks like it's from the same century.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Chamale posted:When was that English translation written? It looks like it's from the same century. https://books.google.com/books?id=1konAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Only the Abrams and the T-80 have a gas turbine engine, and the Russians went back to diesel on a known platform (T-72 into T-90) partly because the T-64/-80 line was now produced in Ukraine and allegedly also because of bad experiences with turbine engine vulnerability in Chechnya. The US has from time to time been looking at maybe changing the Abrams to a diesel engine as well, but I don't think anything has come from it yet. Honeywell claims the AGT1500 can run on most anything that burns: quote:Primary - DF-2 Diesel, JP8 Jet Fuel
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:52
|
|
