|
Phobophilia posted:To me, being in a tank is like being in a car in a bad part of town. You're visible to everyone, have no room to maneuver your arms, and you can be threatened from any angle. I think the Hungarians did it in 56 too, running wires with explosives across streets to knock out Soviet tanks.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
Magni posted:Smoke candles/grenades, molotovs or just automatic fire at the vision slits was similar part of close-in anti tank defense. That's more or less exactly what I was looking for, thanks! I can't wait till I tell the (already tragically burned, shot and blown up) conscripts they have to run up to a tank with some mud 
Tias fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:And you make sure to roll up the windows because that's sure to improve your level of safety. Spraying down a tank with machine gun fire in order to get the crew to shut their hatches and limit their visibility is a similar thing. JcDent posted:But what about actual iShermans and Sherman as a post WWII platform, and why the game considers them so much better than T-34s? What about the British legacy in Jordanian training? Probably because hundreds of years of stereotypes tell you that the Russian faction can only play with hordes of inferior expendable units.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
JcDent posted:But what about actual iShermans and Sherman as a post WWII platform, and why the game considers them so much better than T-34s? What about the British legacy in Jordanian training?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Probably because hundreds of years of stereotypes tell you that the Russian faction can only play with hordes of inferior expendable units. Arab T-34/85M and the israeli Shermans have very similar stats in FoW except for the later Shermans having better (post-war) guns, ammo protection and a shitload of machineguns in exchange for the older models being unreliable. Now crew quality and assorted rules are a different kettle of fish, but then again, Fate of a Nation is about the freakin Six Day War.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
100 Years Ago South Africa is getting ready to get stuck into the Germans in Namibia. The Russians at the Masurian Lakes demonstrate how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Kenneth Best has some very odd opinions about what should be done with the ANZACs; being a padre, he's seen fit to reach into the Bible for the frankly bizarre story of David and Uriah. And there's a new champion in the field of Hilarious Adverts for Patent Medicine. Five words: "Champion Knitter Disabled by Eczema".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago Whats going on with the Russians?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Spraying down a tank with machine gun fire in order to get the crew to shut their hatches and limit their visibility is a similar thing. Takes enormous balls, though. Shooting a tank makes it angry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Magni posted:Arab T-34/85M and the israeli Shermans have very similar stats in FoW except for the later Shermans having better (post-war) guns, ammo protection and a shitload of machineguns in exchange for the older models being unreliable. Now crew quality and assorted rules are a different kettle of fish, but then again, Fate of a Nation is about the freakin Six Day War. There are also, I think, Jordanian Shermans with French turrets. Did anyone try to upgrade/upgun the T-34/85, or did they just switch to IS whatevers, waited till they got T-55s? Did the constant upgrade mambo started with T-55s/M60s/Centurions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
They mostly just went with the T-55 because that was a huge leap compared to the T-34/85 and the Soviets were quite willing to share them on the cheap. The T-34/85s and IS-3Ms in Fate of a Nation are pretty much leftovers the Arabs had received in the 50's. The Shermans and T-34s are by this point all more or less limited to being mobile gun plattforms - they just melt almost instantly if any kind of AT starts hitting them. The UAR Shermans with AMX-13/75 turrets even moreso.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Hey guys! Eurocentricism.txt I wonder what is inaccurate with this image!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Hey guys! Eurocentricism.txt Why the gently caress would you go to all that effort, and not include a publication date? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Honestly I felt it was kinda clever to determine it's probably published sometime between 1920 and 1929 (No mention of the depression). But geez, look at the "relative power" of the entirety of Chinese civilization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Honestly I felt it was kinda clever to determine it's probably published sometime between 1920 and 1929 (No mention of the depression). But geez, look at the "relative power" of the entirety of Chinese civilization. China: Most relevant when run by Mongols. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
If the dude who made that was using any metric to determine relative power over millenia other than "gut feeling," I'd dearly love to know what it is. It must be a masterpiece of misguided mathematics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Honestly I felt it was kinda clever to determine it's probably published sometime between 1920 and 1929 (No mention of the depression). But geez, look at the "relative power" of the entirety of Chinese civilization. Considering what I assume was the ease of conquering them for Western Powers, they might not have been that impressed by it. Magni posted:They mostly just went with the T-55 because that was a huge leap compared to the T-34/85 and the Soviets were quite willing to share them on the cheap. The T-34/85s and IS-3Ms in Fate of a Nation are pretty much leftovers the Arabs had received in the 50's. I for one love the somewhat ridiculous lengths people go to modernize those oldies, especially the Centurion. On the other hand, they probably still work as long as you're not fighting first world countries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Tomn posted:If the dude who made that was using any metric to determine relative power over millenia other than "gut feeling," I'd dearly love to know what it is. It must be a masterpiece of misguided mathematics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I for one love the somewhat ridiculous lengths people go to modernize those oldies, especially the Centurion. On the other hand, they probably still work as long as you're not fighting first world countries. North Korea has running T-34-76es with T-54 tracks and there is at least one T-34-85 fighting in the Ukraine right now. That old stuff is pretty resilient. MrYenko posted:Takes enormous balls, though. Shooting a tank makes it angry. One of the hardest things to drill into infantry is that while tanks are big and strong and metal, they are far from invincible or omniscient. If you're a guy with a machinegun plinking away from a bush or a crack in the ground, you are pretty invisible to the tank's crew. The method of drilling, at least in the Soviet army, was to fill a trench with conscripts and drive tanks over them until they stopped being afraid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The method of drilling, at least in the Soviet army, was to fill a trench with conscripts and drive tanks over them until they stopped being afraid. The Wehrmacht did the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The method of drilling, at least in the Soviet army, was to fill a trench with conscripts and drive tanks over them until they stopped being afraid. Oh Soviet Union! As for MG shooting, don't modern-modern tanks have IR sights to pick up on poo poo like that? Or are we still talking about hosed Hungarian conscript RPG still?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Oh Soviet Union! Well it also teaches you to dig your trenches deep and not to slack off, so, you know, two for one. That's called efficiency 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The Wehrmacht did the same thing. I think its more relevant for the USSR where something like a majority of your conscripts probably have never seen a tractor so a tank is terrifying. I'd expect more Germans to have heard or seen automobiles and trains and what have you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Honestly I felt it was kinda clever to determine it's probably published sometime between 1920 and 1929 (No mention of the depression). But geez, look at the "relative power" of the entirety of Chinese civilization. It does mention the Depression, it's one line at the end under United States. So I'm guessing it was published sometime in the early 30s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:07
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:North Korea has running T-34-76es with T-54 tracks and there is at least one T-34-85 fighting in the Ukraine right now. That old stuff is pretty resilient. The US Army did that in WW2 as well.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
MarsDragon posted:It does mention the Depression, it's one line at the end under United States. So I'm guessing it was published sometime in the early 30s. And since it doesn't mention things like the Spanish Civil War, or Italy moving on Ethiopia we can assume it was before 1935. Besides the Depression, you've got some stuff from 1928 like Brand and Kellogg, so I'd guess maybe 1930 or 1931?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The method of drilling, at least in the Soviet army, was to fill a trench with conscripts and drive tanks over them until they stopped being afraid. "Ironing" heh
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:52
|
|
JcDent posted:Oh Soviet Union! Modern tanks have a variety of sights available, but I don't understand your question. One's natural inclination when being shot at is to hide behind stuff. People are usually pretty averse to bullets.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Takes enormous balls, though. Shooting a tank makes it angry. Enormous balls, you say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc_6cV8GF78
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Well it also teaches you to dig your trenches deep and not to slack off, so, you know, two for one. That's called efficiency Which is often a problem at the start of wars. By the end, institutional knowledge is to dig deep and greedily.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Well it also teaches you to dig your trenches deep and not to slack off, so, you know, two for one. That's called efficiency I read a short story as a child where a conscript didn't carry around a trench shovel because he felt it was heavy and unnecessary, so his drill sergeant taught him a the value of a well dug trench with this very method.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
A troop that doesn't carry his trench spade. A shameful troop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I read a short story as a child where a conscript didn't carry around a trench shovel because he felt it was heavy and unnecessary, so his drill sergeant taught him a the value of a well dug trench with this very method. When did these shovels get introduced, anyway? I assume they didn't have them for the American Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Fangz posted:When did these shovels get introduced, anyway? I assume they didn't have them for the American Civil War. The Soviet saperka dates back to I think a Dutch or Danish design patented in the mid-19th century, but entrenching tools go all the way back to the Roman Legion; Legionnaires were engineers as a rule, and they immediately built fortifications whenever they could sit down long enough to at least entrench their camp. They even worked as construction workers when not fighting, since they were all trained on at least basic construction techniques. This ancient site has some images of Civil War entrenching tools; they're generally larger tools (too big to hang off a belt or haversack), but the small entrenching tool was already a thing at least in Europe around that time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:When did these shovels get introduced, anyway? I assume they didn't have them for the American Civil War. WW1 was where the modern E-tool became a thing, prior to that it was just shovels and poo poo like the spade bayonette.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:Modern tanks have a variety of sights available, but I don't understand your question. One's natural inclination when being shot at is to hide behind stuff. People are usually pretty averse to bullets. It's the basic difference between cover and concealment. A dude with an LMG hunkered under a bush on a treeline 100 yards away can plink at the viewports and generally annoy a WW2 era tank all day long because the visibility for the tank is poo poo and he's pretty hard to see under his bush. That said, if someone figures out where he is he's kinda hosed because bushes don't stop bullets. Same for the guy blasting away from a slit in a wall in an urban setting. He's in more-or-less true cover (at least relative to small arms) and it's going to take a small miracle for the tank to find him, but boy is he in trouble if they get annoyed enough and get a good enough fix to lob an HE round his way. A lot of modern vehicles have infrared optics or other devices that can pick up on body heat, the hot escaping gas from the MG, etc. in ways that render that sort of cover way less effective than it was in the 40s-50s, which is why JcDent mentioned it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Enormous balls, you say? Hownottousetanks.avi I assume the supporting infantry are off hiding somewhere. e: is that really how slow AK's fire or is he just tapping the trigger on semi auto? Slavvy fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Does anyone remember that youtube video of I think it was a soviet propaganda film and all these light tanks are zooming about like it's world of tanks someone said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Hownottousetanks.avi Welcome to Syria. The army has been having a lot of problems when it comes to urban warfare tactics; a lot of tanks are being sent off with little to no support and the rebels are getting their hands on weapons that can really put a hurting on them, like RPG-29s and even a lot of ATGMs. I think it's just rapid semi-auto. I've seen many of the FSA in videos have been using semi-automatic fire as a rule even for their spray and pray and blindfiring. Considering the design of the selector, they may just be slamming the lever down and going to town without making a conscious decision for exactly how to set their gun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's the basic difference between cover and concealment. A dude with an LMG hunkered under a bush on a treeline 100 yards away can plink at the viewports and generally annoy a WW2 era tank all day long because the visibility for the tank is poo poo and he's pretty hard to see under his bush. That said, if someone figures out where he is he's kinda hosed because bushes don't stop bullets. Same for the guy blasting away from a slit in a wall in an urban setting. He's in more-or-less true cover (at least relative to small arms) and it's going to take a small miracle for the tank to find him, but boy is he in trouble if they get annoyed enough and get a good enough fix to lob an HE round his way. Told ya about the friend in the Leo. They can't see poo poo with the thermals if it's not winter or decently cold. If it's warm, you don't see anything at all. While on excercise they ran a convoy through the woods and the whole thing got wiped out completely by a single ATGM team.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Told ya about the friend in the Leo. They can't see poo poo with the thermals if it's not winter or decently cold. If it's warm, you don't see anything at all. While on excercise they ran a convoy through the woods and the whole thing got wiped out completely by a single ATGM team. So, uh... were they gunning through the woods buttoned up with no infantry support or scouts? Or was the ATGM team really that well concealed or what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:37
|
|
