|
Slavvy posted:Of which war...? I'm not picky  It'd be also interesting to see how much the tanks have improved since they made their entrance to the battlefield in the Great War.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:"genocide" is simply the destruction of a tribe/people/race/nationality/however you want to parse group identity. It doesn't matter how it's accomplished. Yes, piles of corpses is one way to do it, but destroying their identity and forcing them to assimilate is another. Either way you are left with a post-genocide situation where group X does not exist in any recognizable form. Where are you getting this definition from? The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which I would think is authoritative, requires the actions to be "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. " And it absolutely matters how said destruction is accomplished. Take forced assimilation, in Rwanda the government is taking steps to prevent people from identifying as either Hutu or Tutsi (it cannot be listed on ID, you can't ask about it in government services etc.) with the end goal that people will prefer not to identify as either. Now it hasn't been particularly successful. But if it worked, Hutus and Tutsis would be gone as ethnic groups, and I would find it absurd to label that genocide. Who would be committing genocide against who? Kaal posted:The distinction isn't new, and neither is the attempt at equating "English-language schools" with "mass murder". Since it's the latter that most people think of when people use the term "genocide", I find that it's better to simply use that term and stop using "genocide" altogether since its meaning has been thoroughly appropriated. Right, but there should be a distinction between what Assad is doing in Syria (murder on a massive scale) and what ISIS wanted to do to the Yazidis (genocide). And using mass murder, which is equally accurate for both, loses that distinction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I'm not picky It's a box with tracks and a gun. Just imagine a passenger car from 1918, and then all of the improvements present in one from 2015, and you'll be in the right ballpark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Where are you getting this definition from? The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which I would think is authoritative, requires the actions to be "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. " The Hutu and Tutsi were class distinctions that were became defined as ethnic groups by a bunch of Belgians. Hutus and Tutsis speak the same language, intermarried, and lived interdispersed with each other. The argument would be that they aren't really different ethnic groups at all, so there isn't any unique culture being destroyed, besides the trauma of a genocide that had no reason to happen. In any sense, prohibiting the listing of your ethnicity in government records isn't genocide, because you can go home and teach your children anything you want. France does the same thing. In Canada, children were taken from their homes and families with the stated goal of removing them from exposure to First Nations culture. The kids that went through the Residential schools were so traumatised and alienated by them that entire generations of First Nations people were unable to raise a family. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Right, but there should be a distinction between what Assad is doing in Syria (murder on a massive scale) and what ISIS wanted to do to the Yazidis (genocide). And using mass murder, which is equally accurate for both, loses that distinction. Perhaps, but I think that distinction would be lost on the victims of either atrocity. Certainly I think that both mass murders are qualitatively different from a so-called "cultural genocide" wherein no one dies. But I won't overly contest the point, I'm sure there are many more terms that could be used.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Not exactly military history but can anyone recommend a book on the post-war reconstruction of Europe in the 40-50s?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How reliable were the different tank models? How long distance could you drive on average before something broke, and you had to stop? Tanks in general are maintenance hogs, even today maintenance is a daily affair if you are on the move. In WWII you could expect to have to stop every few hours and do stuff like clean air filters, grease basically every moving part, top off engine fluids, check for leaks (Too much is not good, but if it's not leaking it usually means it's empty and you need to fill it), the works. A pair of tracks would last something around 500kms before they got too worn out and stretched, and engine lifetimes where often around a thousand kilometer or less for wartime production tanks. All in all, if you wanted to move tanks around you put them on a train, and strategic mobility of the Blitzkrieg sort would take it's toll rather quickly even without enemy action. Chances are you ain't getting into Berlin from Moscow on your wheels with the tank you started with, even if the Germans leave you alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:05
|
|
uPen posted:Not exactly military history but can anyone recommend a book on the post-war reconstruction of Europe in the 40-50s? For just Germany, you can mine this enormous resource: here.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
War in laces: What decided who was in the front line? Did guys who get shot but survived get paid more?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
1. I know this will sound really naive, and it's probably a boring question having been so well studied, but - why exactly is Cannae so celebrated? Was the pincer movement really that innovative at the time? It seems like enveloping the enemy would be intuitive. Is there more detail to Hannibal's victory that isn't readily apparent? 2. Does aircraft armor play any role in modern air-to-air combat? Is it basically non-existent in fighter aircraft, relying on active defenses only? How survivable is a SAM impact or air-to-air missile impact?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:43
|
|
shallowj posted:1. I know this will sound really naive, and it's probably a boring question having been so well studied, but - why exactly is Cannae so celebrated? Was the pincer movement really that innovative at the time? It seems like enveloping the enemy would be intuitive. Is there more detail to Hannibal's victory that isn't readily apparent? It's not the pincer, it's the audacity to lure the Romans in to their annihilation in and then the total carnage it wrought.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I'm not picky Let me put it in solid, numerical terms: the British Mk. IV from 1917 vs. the M1A2 Abrams from the 1990s. Armor The Mk. IV has steel armor 6.1 to 12mm in thickness. This is not the rolled homogeneous armor of WW2 and later; I believe it was simply cast steel. The M1A2 has depleted uranium mesh-reinforced composite armor that can provide an effective thickness of over 1300mm against HEAT rounds (which are more effective at penetrating armor than solid shells) and over 800mm effective thickness against armor-piercing sabot rounds. It's important to remember that this armor is not the same composition as typical steel armor and you can't simply measure the thickness to compare it to older vehicles. The TUSK urban combat kit also adds slat armor for defeating HEAT rockets (it detonates them away from the armor) and explosive reactive armor for the same purpose. Speed and Range The Mk. IV has a top speed of 4 MPH and a range of 35 miles. The M1A2 has a top speed 25 MPH off-road or 42 MPH on roads (though it can be faster if the governor is removed) and a range of 265 miles. Main Gun(s) The Mk. IV in certain varieties has two QF 6-pounder 6 cwt Hotchkiss guns. This is a shortened version of a naval gun dating back to the 1880s designed for the side sponsons of the Mk. IV (unlike a modern tank, the Mk. IV's guns were mounted in two limited rotation turrets on the sides of the vehicle, between the tall treads). It fires a 57mm shell with a muzzle velocity of 1,350 ft/s and an effective stationary range of 7300 yards; the rocking of the vehicle while driving makes fire on the move at all but the closest targets virtually impossible. It has a practical rate of fire of 10-15 rounds per minute. The 6-pounder could expect to penetrate up to 33mm of steel armor at 500 yards, making the Mk. IV vulnerable to its own guns at close range. It carries up to 180 rounds of HE ammo, as it was not designed to battle other tanks and would mostly be firing on structures and exposed infantry. The gun uses a No. 22C fixed optical sight, which has no magnification. The M1A2 has a single M256A1 120mm on a top-mounted rotating turret, allowing for a 360 degree field of fire. This is a smoothbore German gun first entering service in 1979. There's a wide variety of ammo, with muzzle velocity ranging from 5,200 to 5,700 ft/s and an effective range up to 8700 yards. The most famous round is an armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot round, which fires a subcaliber dart made of extremely dense depleted uranium. This "Silver Bullet" easily slices through Soviet-era tanks and fragments after penetration, causing massive internal damage. There are even variants with segmented penetrators to defeat explosive reactive armor. The gun also has HEAT rounds (which use a shaped charge to create a jet of molten metal that pierces through armor, with modern shells having electronic fuses to let them be used against infantry, buildings, and even low-flying aircraft effectively) and a canister round that fires a spray of 1098 9.5mm tungsten balls that can blow man-sized holes in concrete or kill squads of infantry out to over 600 yards. The tank's basic load of ammo is 42 rounds and it has a rate of fire of about 10 rounds per minute maximum. The gunner's sight is connected to a ballistic computer that accounts for virtually every variable and updates the firing solution 30 times per second, with the gunner or commander simply having to place the crosshair on the target and fire without having to account for the ballistics themselves. A laser rangefinder is used to calculate exact range and a thermal sight allows for targets to be spotted in the dark. Secondary Weapons The Mk. IV's machine gun complement depends on the variant, holding 3 to 5 guns ("Female" tanks were exclusively armed with machine guns and meant to support the cannon-armed "Male" and "Hermaphrodite" tanks from infantry attacks). The machine guns in use are Lewis guns in .303 British. These guns use 47-round flat drum magazines on top of the receiver and fire a 174 grain bullet at 2,440 ft/s. The Lewis gun has an effective range of about 880 yards and a cyclic rate of 500-600 RPM. The M1A2 is armed with several types of machine guns. The turret has an M240 machine gun on a coaxial mount to the main gun and a second M240 on a hatch mount for the loader to fire when unbuttoned (sitting partially outside of the turret). The M240 is chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO with many types of ammunition available, with the M80 ball round firing a 147 grain bullet at 2,733 ft/s. Both guns are belt-fed with a cyclic rate of 750-950 RPM and the tank carries a total of 10,400 rounds of 7.62x51mm divided between both. The coaxial gun is fixed to the same point of aim as the main gun, allowing it to be used as a second-choice emergency aiming device or for the gunner to fire on soft targets like unarmored vehicles, infantry, and buildings. With the TUSK, the loader's M240 is fitted with a transparent armored gunshield and thermal sight. It also has an M2HB heavy machine gun for the commander's hatch (though the TUSK makes it remote controlled from the inside). This is a .50 BMG machine gun often loaded with Raufoss Mk. 211 rounds, which is a tungsten-core AP round that also incorporates high explosive and incendiary compounds to further damage components and personnel upon penetrating light vehicle armor; it can penetrate up to 11mm of rolled homogenous armor at 1100 yards. The projectile weighs about 725 grains and has a muzzle velocity of 3000 ft/s. The commander's machine gun generally carries 1000 rounds in belts. Crew Survivability The Mk. IV has no crew survivability additions. None. Zip. Nada. Armor penetration often causes spalling (piece of metal or rivets breaking off on the inside), and the crew is simply issued leather and chain mail masks with goggles for protection. The M1A2 has many improvements to ensure that both the tank and crew survive battle. The main gun ammunition is stored underneath blowoff panels in the turret; if a penetration or fire detonates the propellant, the explosion will simply fire out the path of least resistance (the weakened panels up top) rather than filling the turret and killing the crew or even blowing the whole turret off. It has automated fire extinguishers, smoke grenade launchers (which create smoke that can't be penetrated by thermal sights), a Kevlar liner to protect against spalling, and even a soft kill protective system that scrambles and redirects guided missiles before they hit the tank. Overview A fight between a Mk. IV and an Abrams wouldn't even be a fight. The Mk. IV would be totally unable to penetrate the armor from any angle or do more than destroy surface components like machine guns or damage the treads and road wheels. The machine gun complement alone could spray the tank, easily penetrating the armor to kill the crew and light the engine on fire. Even the inert, lightweight training round for the Abrams would pass straight through a Mk. IV like an armored penetrator. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How reliable were the different tank models? How long distance could you drive on average before something broke, and you had to stop? Depends on the tank, the year, and the terrain. Also depends on the component. Some things like tracks can break but will only take minutes to fix, but if your engine breaks, good luck not falling behind. The really early WWI stuff? If you made it 150 km without a breakdown and severe bruising of the crew, it was already a miracle. After the war, people realized that you can really gently caress up some dudes with a sudden tank marches, but tanks could not perform long marches and then immediately enter battle. There were three solutions: increase the reliability of tracks, carry tanks on trucks, or use Christie convertible drives, which would save the tracks and enable the tank to drive to battle on wheels, after which the crews would spend a bit of time putting tracks on. This discussion by the US Army about whether or not to buy tanks illustrates which option was superior. Long story short, the tracks on T1 tanks were awful (broke constantly, taking three days to make a 115 km trip) while Christie's tank could make the trip in two hours and then drive back. Christie's tanks could make it to 1200-1400 km when driving this way. Meanwhile, across the pond, MS-1 tanks could take about 1000 kilometers before being considered heavily worn and in need of replacement parts. I have very little data on the range T-26es could travel (just a small engine-hours table) but you can see that it was doing very well, travelling hundreds of hours. The BTs [url=were doing well by this time too, capable of travelling hundreds to thousands of kilometers until tires started melting, but that was at the end of the 1930s. In the early 30s, quality problems plagued Soviet production lines, with many rejections, and dubious quality accepted parts to even partially meet quota. T-26es could not reach 1000 km. Early BT-2s were also not very good, breaking down after 250-300 kilometers. Now WWII hits. I don't have anything on PzIIIs and PzIVs aside from the same melty tire issues, but they were capable of decently long marches. The T-34 in 1941, not so much. The new V-2 engine was rated to 100 engine-hours and didn't reach the level of reliability of its BT ancestors until 1943 (300 engine-hours and thousands of kilometers). You can see that the SU-76 is also racking up a pretty decent mileage, but SU-76es with early gearboxes could only manage 400 kilometers, max. Now for the bigger and heavier Germans. The Panther, as you saw above, had its engine last 700-1000 kilometers (after a decrease in horsepower). Earlier full power engines were much worse, the Panther tested by the Soviets broke down three times within 200 km. But the real weak spot was the transmission.Forczyk writes that a significant number of vehicles started breaking down after only 100 km, and few tanks would last the full 1000 to see their engine break. In French service, Panther final drives lasted an average of 150 km, which is a little sad. I don't have any numbers on Tigers, but Forczyk also gives them about 100 km before things start breaking. I don't have Sledgehammers on me right now, but there are a few excerpts from reports that basically go "we were at full strength, we made a march to Mukhosransk, battalion is no longer combat ready for at least a few days". I'm reading Bukharin's new book on the Ferdinands right now, and they sometimes failed to make the trip to the front lines from the repair base and it was impossible to estimate how many you will have ready for an attack at any given time. The Tiger II tested by Soviets, captured with only 444 km on the speedometer without battle, had minor breakdowns (such as track pins snapping) constantly and suffered catastrophic suspension failure at just over 100 km of trials. As for American tanks, one of the documents I linked also covers Shermans, they can make 2000 km marches just fine. Their tracks wear out at about 800 miles (300 in Sicily), but replacing those isn't that time consuming. British cruisers were also pretty decent, at 1200-1500 miles before a major overhaul. In peacetime, when tanks were unlikely to get shot to pieces too often, requirements shot up like crazy. I recall T-72s going 4000-5000 km before overhaul, Abrambses having requirements of at least 50% of tanks making a 4000 km march without a major problem, stuff like that. This isn't really my area of expertise and most of it is still classified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
shallowj posted:1. I know this will sound really naive, and it's probably a boring question having been so well studied, but - why exactly is Cannae so celebrated? Was the pincer movement really that innovative at the time? It seems like enveloping the enemy would be intuitive. Is there more detail to Hannibal's victory that isn't readily apparent? Hannibal was outnumbered IIRC, and still pulled off a perfect encirclement. That's extraordinary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Tanks. A brilliant post. Ensign Expendable posted:WWII tanks. Ditto. Hogge Wild, the main things to take from these posts are: 1. We are basically magical space aliens from another dimension when it comes to building tanks compared to WW1. 2. Having a crapload of Panzer III's/IV's that make it to where they're supposed to be is much better than having a handful of Tigers/Panthers that are forever breaking down to the point of being almost useless, a fact lost on people who get boners over armour thickness, muzzle velocity etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
shallowj posted:1. I know this will sound really naive, and it's probably a boring question having been so well studied, but - why exactly is Cannae so celebrated? Was the pincer movement really that innovative at the time? It seems like enveloping the enemy would be intuitive. Is there more detail to Hannibal's victory that isn't readily apparent?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Cannae is one of the first and only times a numerical inferior force has enveloped and defeated a numerically superior opponent. The Battle of Fraustadt is one of my favorites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fraustadt (recent research would indicate that the Swedish commander was actually attempting a frontal attack but the terrain affected his plan in practice so he pulled off an envelopment entirely by happenstance)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:1. We are basically magical space aliens from another dimension when it comes to building tanks compared to WW1. Just to put this into context, at this point 100 years ago the responsible people are mostly fumbling around in the dark, trying to work out what the hell a tank even is. Is it a really fancy armoured car? Is it a giant shipping crate for delivering men across No Man's Land safe from machine-guns? Is there actually more value in providing individual infantrymen with large metal shields on wheels? It absolutely staggers me that from there, by 1918 the French were spewing out Renault FTs by the bucketload. It's kind of like if the World Wide Web had been ready to go mainstream in 1973.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Cannae is one of the first and only times a numerical inferior force has enveloped and defeated a numerically superior opponent. Not only defeated it, but completely annihilated it. Complete destruction of the enemy army is rare in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Slavvy posted:2. Having a crapload of Panzer III's/IV's that make it to where they're supposed to be is much better than having a handful of Tigers/Panthers that are forever breaking down to the point of being almost useless, a fact lost on people who get boners over armour thickness, muzzle velocity etc. A man can get a boner over two things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
brakeless posted:Hannibal was outnumbered IIRC, and still pulled off a perfect encirclement. That's extraordinary. And in spite of this, Rome still won in the end, because Rome had a better strategic situation than Carthage. Rome was a more coherent agricultural society than Carthage, and they could handily draw on their own sources of manpower instead of Carthage, which depended too heavily on allies and mercenaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Cannae is one of the first and only times a numerical inferior force has enveloped and defeated a numerically superior opponent. Cannae will be remembered for the rest of human military history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:A brilliant post. As is repeatedly said, the best tank in the world is the one that arrives where you need a tank at the time time you need a tank. All considerations other than strategic and operational mobility are secondary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:As is repeatedly said, the best tank in the world is the one that arrives where you need a tank at the time time you need a tank. All considerations other than strategic and operational mobility are secondary. What if you need an Abrams and some joker rattles up with a Stuart like "HEY HERE'S A TANK"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
^^^^ That Stuart will still do a better job than no tank at all. chitoryu12 posted:Armor penetration often causes spalling (piece of metal or rivets breaking off on the inside), and the crew is simply issued leather and chain mail masks with goggles for protection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Did the modern Russian army end up with many developments of the T72 instead of the gas turbine powered T80/T64 because the T80/64 production facilities ended up in Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:What if you need an Abrams and some joker rattles up with a Stuart like "HEY HERE'S A TANK" I know the Russians stockpile absolutely retarded amounts of obsolescent equipment (I'm certain all the Ukranian separatist vehicles came from some gigantic warehouse somewhere), does the US army do this much? Like, are there thousands of M60's just kicking around somewhere covered in grease and waiting for their moment of glory again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Did the modern Russian army end up with many developments of the T72 instead of the gas turbine powered T80/T64 because the T80/64 production facilities ended up in Ukraine? Basically that. Also the T-80 was expensive and the shiny new thing on the horizon (Black Eagle, then Armata) discouraged spending on old news. Slavvy posted:I know the Russians stockpile absolutely retarded amounts of obsolescent equipment (I'm certain all the Ukranian separatist vehicles came from some gigantic warehouse somewhere), does the US army do this much? Like, are there thousands of M60's just kicking around somewhere covered in grease and waiting for their moment of glory again? Yes. Some guy stole one of them from a National Guard base semi-recently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Haven't the Russians just recently (like the last decade), started slowly getting rid of their WW2 era firearms and stuff?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Nitpick: non penetrating hits cause this too. HESH shells rely on it to ruin your day. Ensign Expendable's Tank Archives even listed incidents where a sufficiently massive shell (like the SU-152's giant cannon) failed to penetrate, but the sheer force of the impact shattered the plate to pieces. Or a concrete penetrating shell would push a whole segment of armor into the hull rather than just punching a hole in it. I think the Mk. IV also used a riveted construction, so any M2HB rounds that fail to penetrate the hull would probably pop them off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
shallowj posted:1. I know this will sound really naive, and it's probably a boring question having been so well studied, but - why exactly is Cannae so celebrated? Was the pincer movement really that innovative at the time? It seems like enveloping the enemy would be intuitive. Is there more detail to Hannibal's victory that isn't readily apparent? Yes. Besides the huge problem with coordinating his army to pull it off properly, the kind of timing he displayed of Cannae is breathtaking - and it was necessary, because the entire plan was insanely risky and completely dependent on it. Hannibal needed to start the battle by setting himself into a losing position to pull off his plan. If he had mistimed the envelopment and sprung it too early, the Romans wouldn't be bunched up enough, their wings would be able to react properly and fix his flanking attack, allowing the center to break through. Similarily, if he'd spring it too late, his straining center would give. Either result would have ended in a near-guaranteed disaster for the carthaginian army and would have likely resulted in Hannibal himself getting killed as he had positioned himself right behind the center to shore up morale there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Haven't the Russians just recently (like the last decade), started slowly getting rid of their WW2 era firearms and stuff? Not that recently. Read the TFR milsurp thread, Mosins used to go for under a hundred bucks 10-20 years ago in the US, captured refurbished Kar98ks for $200, Nagants for $50. Those days are long gone. chitoryu12 posted:Ensign Expendable's Tank Archives even listed incidents where a sufficiently massive shell (like the SU-152's giant cannon) failed to penetrate, but the sheer force of the impact shattered the plate to pieces. Or a concrete penetrating shell would push a whole segment of armor into the hull rather than just punching a hole in it.  Also, M2? Please. Those tanks would not even be able to withstand WWII era 7.62 mm armour piercing ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
I saw Nagants going for somewhere in the region of $60 a couple of years back when I started looking into getting my firearms licence. I ended up not bothering due to some insanity involving importing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Ammo was to the tune of 50 cents a pop, which didn't exactly make them desirable import items.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Well there was some fuckery with this particular version's bayonet apparently, and general Irish gun laws, and then there's apparently some OTHER fuckery with the round it fires being restricted to like 20 per year per person so I was basically looking at spending ten times the price of the thing for an expensive paperweight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Well there was some fuckery with this particular version's bayonet apparently, and general Irish gun laws, and then there's apparently some OTHER fuckery with the round it fires being restricted to like 20 per year per person so I was basically looking at spending ten times the price of the thing for an expensive paperweight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Well there was some fuckery with this particular version's bayonet apparently, and general Irish gun laws, and then there's apparently some OTHER fuckery with the round it fires being restricted to like 20 per year per person so I was basically looking at spending ten times the price of the thing for an expensive paperweight. A Nagant is a pistol, the Mosin is the rifle. The fuckery was probably the folding bayonet, carbine versions had their sights configured to account for the reflecting gases, so when fuckup conscripts inevitably lose theirs, they wouldn't be able to shoot straight anymore. Still, it's very much removable. I don't see why the ammunition would be restricted though. People are spending ridiculous amounts on paperweights, but those are deactivated machineguns and submachineguns. Owning a fully working one is an expensive and complicated ordeal in the US. In certain parts of Europe, not so much. A guy in TFR scored a fully working Soviet Maxim recently. He got the paperwork with it too, it was quite interesting to see that it was re-greased and had a part replaced in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Are people selling Nambu pistols?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Are people selling Nambu pistols? Not for very cheap. Only a little over 410,000 of all Nambu types were made and they weren't kept in storage for decades in preparation for World War III like the Mosin-Nagants and other Soviet surplus. Much like Lugers, I believe they got sold as surplus or brought back as trophies by servicemen decades ago and then eventually just stopped coming into the US for the most part. And whereas the Luger fires really common ammunition so you can go out and shoot it, 8mm Nambu gave up the ghost basically as soon as the WW2 ended (it was pretty obsolete when it was created) so almost everyone has to make their own ammo. It also kinda lacks the style and fame of pistols like the Luger or C96, which is what keeps the German pistols popular and even reproduced today. Generally, $650 is pretty cheap for a Nambu in good condition. It's common to find even 1945 models going for $1000 or more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Not for very cheap. Only a little over 410,000 of all Nambu types were made and they weren't kept in storage for decades in preparation for World War III like the Mosin-Nagants and other Soviet surplus. Much like Lugers, I believe they got sold as surplus or brought back as trophies by servicemen decades ago and then eventually just stopped coming into the US for the most part. And whereas the Luger fires really common ammunition so you can go out and shoot it, 8mm Nambu gave up the ghost basically as soon as the WW2 ended (it was pretty obsolete when it was created) so almost everyone has to make their own ammo. It also kinda lacks the style and fame of pistols like the Luger or C96, which is what keeps the German pistols popular and even reproduced today. Yeah, but that straight-pull charging handle is some serious flash gordon looking poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 07:07
|
|