|
The V2 was good from a longer term perspective in terms of advancing rocketry, but Germany could have applied those millions of Reichsmarks much more effectively.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The V2 was good from a longer term perspective in terms of advancing rocketry, but Germany could have applied those millions of Reichsmarks much more effectively. Who knows? The Me 262 a year earlier and in greater numbers could have prolonged the war by much longer then the V2, but at this point we have to remember the Nazi government worked a lot like a RNG in a video game. By which I mean the money could also very easily end up being abused even worse. Like with that dumb plan to build huge chemically-propelled rail guns in France to bombard Britain with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Nazis were not completely retarded for wanting a weapon with which to hit their enemies (namely England), as that was their only way of hitting strategic targets at that point in war instead of trying to defend yourself against ever stronger enemies. V-2 wasn't a complete dud but Germans had little means of ascertaining how close to targets they landed. This allowed Brits to fake out news about the rockets hitting too far north, which Germans swallowed hook, line and sinker. You could criticize the late war U-boat projects which never met with their expectations, but they always get a pass because U-boats are the katanas of naval warfare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Who knows? The Me 262 a year earlier and in greater numbers could have prolonged the war by much longer then the V2, but at this point we have to remember the Nazi government worked a lot like a RNG in a video game. By which I mean the money could also very easily end up being abused even worse. Like with that dumb plan to build huge chemically-propelled rail guns in France to bombard Britain with. True, the corollary is that they could also have applied those millions of Reichsmarks in a much more idiotic way. Hitting your enemies with a wildly expensive weapon of dubious strategic value is like, nice, or whatever, but really should not be a priority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Conventional explosives in a ballistic missile was never going to change the strategic picture. Only some sort of bioweapons program could have made a difference, and we should be glad the Nazis never figured that out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Conventional explosives in a ballistic missile was never going to change the strategic picture. Only some sort of bioweapons program could have made a difference, and we should be glad the Nazis never figured that out. We should also be glad the Germans never smartened up and said "Hey, we can use those V2s on military targets on the frontline, or airfielss/supply depots/etc."
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:The more and more I encounter Churchill in my reading, the less and less do I understand why he's a lionized figure. His only substantial claim to greatness is not surrendering to the Germans when the British navy still controlled the Channel and made invasion an impossibility for the foreseeable future. That's not exactly a tough spot. It was kind of him being a stubborn bastard with a knack for the gab when it was needed. If Britain had fallen during WWII or probably even if Germany had been more effective in bombings/adopted strategic bombing, he likely would have been seen as someone who was needlessly stubborn, to the detriment of Britain. Instead, the Blitz and the Battle of Britain made for a hell of a rallying point for British morale. Churchill's manner of talking big about fighting the good fight contributed to that. Aside from his conduct, being the head of government for one of the major Allied nations during what was arguably the most influential conflict of the 20th century, gives him the advantage of timing. More or less, he's lionized because he was in the right place on the right side at the right time and was enough of a stubborn old patrician relic from the glory days of the empire to just plow (plough) ahead out of pure spite. Victory makes a lot of choices look good in hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:We should also be glad the Germans never smartened up and said "Hey, we can use those V2s on military targets on the frontline, or airfielss/supply depots/etc." Not nearly that precise a weapon. You pointed them at a city and they're probably hit somewhere in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:We should also be glad the Germans never smartened up and said "Hey, we can use those V2s on military targets on the frontline, or airfielss/supply depots/etc." They tried to do that, but it was near impossible to hit such a small target with the primitive ballistic missile that was the V2. They launched 11 V-2s at the Remagen bridge. One of them missed by 40 miles. One of them missed by only a few hundred yards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We didn't reach the level of accuracy and precision necessary to take out targets that small until the Vietnam war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
^number I've seen is 500yds.Jobbo_Fett posted:We should also be glad the Germans never smartened up and said "Hey, we can use those V2s on military targets on the frontline, or airfielss/supply depots/etc." Not sure it would have worked all that well. The guidance system was pretty imprecise - I saw some design guidance targets for 6km CEP. They took 11 shots at the Remagen brigdes and only one was within a half a kilometer, and that's a precisely known location for targeting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:They tried to do that, but it was near impossible to hit such a small target with the primitive ballistic missile that was the V2. We spent a lot of Nam lobbing dumb bombs at the general vicinity of bridges too, it's part of why the air campaign was such a mess. There were pgms but the real explosion in their use is something that differentiates the 80s military from the Nam one (and it's a pretty big difference all told). The capabilities were starting to be there in Nam but they were still quite expensive and rare, I don't know what was going on with the ballistic missiles getting that level of capability and when.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:They tried to do that, but it was near impossible to hit such a small target with the primitive ballistic missile that was the V2. Redstone and Sergeant were capable of targeting something the size of an airfield or assembly area out at their max ranges, Sergeant could probably hit a big bridge with a salvo. They didn't have terribly long legs though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:^number I've seen is 500yds. But would that have been a result of the improper guidance they kept putting in due to misrepresented hits reported by double agents and British news? Also, what about Kursk or some other offensive as part of an opening barrage meant to suppress the defenders?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:But would that have been a result of the improper guidance they kept putting in due to misrepresented hits reported by double agents and British news? Also, what about Kursk or some other offensive as part of an opening barrage meant to suppress the defenders? As far as offensives, it would have made a really neat but pointless way to signal a proper artillery barrage by conventional artillery capable of actually hitting its target and delivering far more explosives. Can't see much other use when the CEP is between 7 and 11km (nothing that big is going to be worth an expensive rocket).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:But would that have been a result of the improper guidance they kept putting in due to misrepresented hits reported by double agents and British news? Also, what about Kursk or some other offensive as part of an opening barrage meant to suppress the defenders? Liquid fueled BMs are not really suited to tactical level operations. They're limited to a fairly radius around their base, and those bases require a lot of resources to build and sustain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Liquid fueled BMs are not really suited to tactical level operations. I know that when I have a liquid fueled BM it's definitely a strategic scale event. (I'm sorry I couldn't resist.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It was kind of him being a stubborn bastard with a knack for the gab when it was needed. If Britain had fallen during WWII or probably even if Germany had been more effective in bombings/adopted strategic bombing, he likely would have been seen as someone who was needlessly stubborn, to the detriment of Britain. Instead, the Blitz and the Battle of Britain made for a hell of a rallying point for British morale. Churchill's manner of talking big about fighting the good fight contributed to that. Aside from his conduct, being the head of government for one of the major Allied nations during what was arguably the most influential conflict of the 20th century, gives him the advantage of timing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
So long ago, someone asked me how you get charges out of a musket in my period if you don't want to just shoot it off. Today I read an account of a bunch of guys who were going to fire a salute, and their Feldwebel told them to tip their muskets down and just let the bullets roll out. This is, I guess, the kind of windage we're working with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
What happened if you were standing on a hill and had to fire downwards, then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:What happened if you were standing on a hill and had to fire downwards, then? I know for cannons they use rope? or some sort of wadding to keep them from rolling out probably the same thing pack more wadding into the musket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Actually wad? I dunno. They're supposed to be wadding anyway, every time, but they want to save time so they don't. And there's probably a difference between turning the gun very sharply downward and, like, less than a 45 degree angle or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:This is exactly what I was going to post. The old metaphor about a stopped clock comes to mind. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:What happened if you were standing on a hill and had to fire downwards, then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Operation quote:Upon the command "about", the butt of the musket was then lowered and moved to a position against the soldier's left calf, and held so that the soldier could then access the muzzle of the musket barrel. The soldier then poured the rest of the powder from the cartridge down the muzzle. The cartridge was then reversed, and the end of the cartridge holding the musket ball was inserted into the muzzle, with the remaining paper shoved into the muzzle above the musket ball. This paper acted as wadding to stop the ball and powder from falling out if the muzzle was lowered. HEY GAL was talking about a salute, not actually firing at something, presumably they didn't actually load the balls and only poured powder down the barrel? In which case you could tip the powder out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Operation  Check the tassels and slashes, and his drooping stockings. It's 1585 but he still rocks that landsknecht swag  A closeup. Oh boy are these things expensive now. These people had loaded muskets, ball and everything, and they were supposed to remove the balls to fire a salute with blanks. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Ask Us About Military History: Remove balls to fire salute
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:That's 18th century. In my period, dragoons have paper cartridges but nobody else does yet--they have little wooden cylindrical boxes on bandoliers. The Irish armies (the Ulster army especially) in the 1640's were using pre-made paper cartridges in cartouche boxes while their enemies are still using the dangly wooden things
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The BEF has another attack planned for Neuve Chapelle, but sadly Zee Germans have other ideas. However, when they counter-attack, they're a long way from having things their own way, and briefly, there's another opportunity to press home a favourable situation. It goes the way of all the others. General Joffre's "brutal" attack in Champagne joins it. These are the days and the places that people think of when they think of the First World War; bungling, confusion, wounds, blood, and death.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So long ago, someone asked me how you get charges out of a musket in my period if you don't want to just shoot it off. Today I read an account of a bunch of guys who were going to fire a salute, and their Feldwebel told them to tip their muskets down and just let the bullets roll out. This is, I guess, the kind of windage we're working with. If you had a ball seated then you'd use a ram-rod with a screw attachment on the end. Push it down the barrel and screw it into the lead ball and pull. Not very good but generally works. The modern reliable way of doing it is to use a device which has a small CO2 cartridge and put it in the flash hole - the gas pressure pushes the ball out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
So here's a question - as everybody in this thread knows, the Axis powers were doomed from the start when they decided to pit their strength against the combined industry of more or less the rest of the world. But did any of the Axis powers ever consider surrendering early? Mussolini or the smaller Axis powers like Romania for instance - did they ever look at what Hitler was doing at any point before their total collapse and think "All right, hang on, this is too rich for my blood, I gotta get off this horse somehow"? (Japan and Germany I figured don't need much explanation because hosed-up inter-service rivalry and strategic decision-making on Japan's part, and Hitler on Germany's part.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
It wasn't gonna happen because the NAZI party had their claws embedded deep into those countries. The Gestapo would have gone into a murder spree if they even got wind of it. Also they could not expect any mercy in surrender after how douchey they had been. Best case scenario they would get to keep their seats but lose any real bite, and then be promptly toppled in a coup and hung in the city square.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Romania had it's 'the moment Soviet troops cross the border we change sides' deal, and Finland managed to negotiate a separate peace. Italy attempted to surrender but like everything it tried in WW2 it managed to gently caress it up completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Ask Us About Military History: Remove balls to fire salute Ask Us About Military History: Remove balls to fire blanks
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Ask Us About Military History: Remove balls to fire blanks
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Ask Us About Military History: Remove balls to fire blanks 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:But would that have been a result of the improper guidance they kept putting in due to misrepresented hits reported by double agents and British news? Also, what about Kursk or some other offensive as part of an opening barrage meant to suppress the defenders? Design CEP means that is how it is intended to actually perform. What advantage would the V2 possibly convey in a Kursk-type situation over even a single 6" artillery piece?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Ask Us About Military History: Remove balls to fire blanks Well, it's about time for this thread to get a new title...
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Ask Us About Military History: Remove balls to fire blanks haha
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Ask Us About Military History: Remove balls to fire blanks I like it
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
I got nothing better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
I'm good with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 06:31
|
|