|
BurningStone posted:So how long will modern small arms and ammo last in storage? Really depends on the method of storage. If you just box the poo poo up raw and throw it in a musty, humid warehouse it's gonna rust and probably become unusable in a few years at the most (the ammo especially will become useless). If you leave a loaded pistol in your desk drawer and forget about it, it's probably not going to fire if you pull it out in a year or two; at least one guy I know has credited attitudes like this with giving inexpensive firearms a bad name after inexperienced users buy something cheap and then fail to maintain it, blaming the gun for their problem. Cosmoline prevents oxidation well enough that, if liberally covered in it, guns will remain almost pristine (if goopy) for decades, up to a century or more if it all holds up fine over time. Ammo has been kept sealed in cans with no preservative apart from an airtight container for up to 50 years. And of course, regularly taking weapons out to maintain and clean them before re-boxing them in airtight containers (like with museums) will leave them pristine for centuries. As long as they're clean, the main obstacle to keeping guns and ammo usable is oxygen. If kept away from oxygen, it's a matter of how long the seal holds up. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Apr 22, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Isn't most Russian equipment built with a ridiculous tolerance for punishment, both from the environment and anything its own operators might dish out? Not particularly with regards to more contemporary Russian/Soviet equipment AFAIK. The more weapons become 'platforms' or 'systems', the less easy it is to get away with trading off prolonged efficiency against effectiveness. A 1960s afterburning jet engine doesn't do ridiculous tolerances to punishment, and neither does a 1970s fire control system. I'd say large parts of this 'ruggedness' meme is actually borne from quite the opposite philosophy: the 'throwaway' nature of WWII (and admittedly later) Soviet vehicles - like told by the dude who co-wrote Shattered Sword (!) in that fantastic WWII Museum 2013 Conference video posted earlier. Yes you can jumpstart your engine with cooking oil at -60C, but it'll ruin it after a few hours. No problem though, we've got 10 more where that came from, and the Germans/Americans/former Soviets/.../Chinese definitely need to be stopped. It's a bit of a jumbled argument now that I try to flesh it out, but the quick and dirty of it is that the Soviets simply had more stuff, but also that it cost them more in important ways. Even the T-34 is a tank with big useability tradeoffs, but hey, they built thousands of them per month so whatever. The servicability rates of higher tech components on Soviet tanks and planes were poo poo in the Cold War, but the training/expected usage time per vehicle was generally less than in NATO anyway. So they just built more tanks and planes, sometimes superfluously. Maintenance for equipment was in large parts shifted away from the places where it was used into higher-level depots or straight up swapping components (engines, radars, etc.). This is a pretty inefficient use of resources in peacetime, but reflected hard-learned lessons from WWII. Not really great if the end result is that you feel like you have to spend 25%+ of your GDP on keeping up in the arms race though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If you leave a loaded pistol in your desk drawer and forget about it, it's probably not going to fire if you pull it out in a year or two; ...why would it not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Riso posted:Italy's biggest contribution ironically enough was galvanising the Austro-Hungarian war effort. Nobody cared for the war until the traitors stabbed us in the back.  the JJ posted:"The Italians will never be able to penetrate any part of Yemen worth having if their Abyssinian and Tripolitan deeds are any guide... Italy has no business in the Aegean, still less in Asia Minor." Cyrano4747 posted:a bunch of Ukranians famously pulled some WW2 era vehicle off a pedestal in a park a few months ago, replaced a bunch of engine seals, and got it working - and that's a vehicle that had exactly 0 effort put into preserving it and was left in the elements for half a century.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
I believe it was actually doctrine during the Soviet Union for AKs with damaged parts to simply be tossed and replaced, as it was less effort in the long run to just grab a new weapon out of the crate than spend time and effort making tiny parts to be shipped in for repair. It was even standard practice for Soviet and Soviet-trained soldiers to recover guns, ammo, and other useful items that were abandoned or left in the hands of the dead after a battle. I need to find the thread again, but a Red Alliance thread had someone ask for the standard ammo load of Soviet soldiers in the Soviet-Afghan War. According to at least one source provided, it was typical for grunts to go into the mountains with only 3 or 4 magazines and some loose ammo in stripper clips to reload them; soldiers often scooped up spare mags wherever they could and modified their field webbing to hold more ammo. The source said that part of this was that Soviet soldiers were expected to dismount from APCs or IFVs and fight nearby with their support, and then pile back onto the vehicle to rearm when the battle moved on or ended. quote:...why would it not? Because your desk drawer isn't airtight, and both guns and ammo react quite poorly to not being left in a cool, dry place. If the primer isn't sealed like in military ammunition, it's liable to deteriorate under oxygen and moisture. Brass cartridges can be corroded by moisture if kept stored in poor conditions for a long enough time or enough humid seasons (you can tell because it begins turning green). Lubricant applied and left on for months or years will turn hard. You pull out the gun and ammo that you didn't take care of after a year or two of it sitting through the Florida weather, and it's not going to be very happy about it. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That assumes that the power with jets left hasn't run out of ordnance for them though, which is far from certain. Man, I thought they fixed their issues with underestimating the amount of required ordinance in WW1. Arquinsiel posted:I must know more. Please give us links. I did a quick google search earlier, and unfortunately apparently the incident inspired a bunch of other militias to raid WW2 museums for working equipment, which is a bit depressing in multiple ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:'sup Riso. Still a nazi? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfPAME5Yct8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw2ZFHZQhtg The only two I'm aware of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
E: Same as above.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Another gun with history, the Pak 40 used by private Toivo Ilomäki:  The gun at Parola's Tank Museum. The gunner, private Ilomäki used it to destroy his first tank 22.6. 1944. In the Battle of Sammatus 25.-26.6. he destroyed 16 tanks (14 T-34s and 2 KVs) with it and 28.6. in the Battle of Tihveri 4 more. He was promoted to private 1st class and got awarded the Mannerheim Cross.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago quote:The idea is that a small boat could be faster than the enemy ship, and a large gun would be able to out-range her. Fisher would be so proud. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
This SU-152 supposedly sat in a field for 70 years and they got it up and running. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plbhXcjAPIk
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
I know they can't get ammo and they'd get wrecked by any modern anti-tank weaponry, but I'd seriously jizz if I saw poo poo like an SU-152 and IS-2 fighting in a modern war in HD video.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I know they can't get ammo and they'd get wrecked by any modern anti-tank weaponry, but I'd seriously jizz if I saw poo poo like an SU-152 and IS-2 fighting in a modern war in HD video. I know you said HD but if footage of such a fight exists, it's from the Middle East conflicts during the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Not particularly with regards to more contemporary Russian/Soviet equipment AFAIK. The more weapons become 'platforms' or 'systems', the less easy it is to get away with trading off prolonged efficiency against effectiveness. A 1960s afterburning jet engine doesn't do ridiculous tolerances to punishment, and neither does a 1970s fire control system. IIRC soviet jet fighter engines wore out much, much more quickly than NATO equivalents but were designed to be really quick and easy to replace. Worn out engines would simply get replaced and shipped back to the factory (or wherever) instead of being rebuilt at the air base. Also: chitoryu12 posted:I know they can't get ammo and they'd get wrecked by any modern anti-tank weaponry, but I'd seriously jizz if I saw poo poo like an SU-152 and IS-2 fighting in a modern war in HD video.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I know they can't get ammo and they'd get wrecked by any modern anti-tank weaponry, but I'd seriously jizz if I saw poo poo like an SU-152 and IS-2 fighting in a modern war in HD video. Re: the 152's gun quote:152 mm HE-Frag projectiles OF-540, initially developed for the ML-20, are still in Russian Army service and can be fired from modern 152 mm ordnance pieces. I don't know if you can just grab a normal modern 152mm shell and shoot it out of a SU152 though. If the answer is yes, then you can potentially fire any thing up to a tactical nuclear artillery shell out of them. Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfPAME5Yct8
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Because your desk drawer isn't airtight, and both guns and ammo react quite poorly to not being left in a cool, dry place. Not that poorly. Gun safes aren't airtight, for that matter. quote:If the primer isn't sealed like in military ammunition, it's liable to deteriorate under oxygen and moisture. Brass cartridges can be corroded by moisture if kept stored in poor conditions for a long enough time or enough humid seasons (you can tell because it begins turning green). Lubricant applied and left on for months or years will turn hard. Come on. Modern factory ammo has primers that fit sufficiently tightly to protect against casual environmental exposure, military-grade stuff has the primer sealed because it's going to get rained on or dragged through river crossings. There's nothing about the environment of a desk drawer that's going to cause misfires after a mere year. If you left a gun outside in Florida weather for a year, okay, but a desk drawer, a closet, a gun case? Especially if we're talking about something like a revolver or a single-action semi-auto? There's nothing about leaving a gun unattended in a reasonably dry environment that should be expected to cause misfires after that short a period of time. 60 year old ammo that's been kept in a desk drawer fires pretty damned reliably, in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Japanese Explosive Ordnance: Army and Navy Ammunition Army Projectiles: Part 12 20cm High Explosive Spin-Stabilized Rocket  Assembled Round: -Weight of complete round: 84.51kg -Length of complete round (with fuze): 38.58 inches Head: -Weight of filled head (w/o fuze): 39.2kg -Weight of filling (cast TNT): 16.2kg -Length of head (w/o fuze): 17.52 inches -Diameter of head: 7.87 inches Filling: Cast TNT - 16.2kg Fuzing: -Army Type 100 mortar fuze - Selective: Instantaneous, short delay Motor: -Weight of filled motor: 45.31kg -Weight of propellant: 9.52kg -Length of motor: 19.06 inches -Diameter of bearing surface: 7.99 inches Propellant: -Type: Smokeless powder B -Weight: 9.52kg -Number of sticks: 6 long, 2 short -Smokeless powder B by analysis is a mixture of 27.71% N.G., 63.50% nitro-cellulose, 0.45% graphite, 0.34% percent ash, 3.81% ethylcentralite, 3.68% diphenyl formamide, and 1.30% volatiles. Six long sticks (34cm x 5.8cm x 1.05cm perforation) and two short sticks same diameter and perforation and 1/2 length. In some cases, one or both of the short grains have been omitted in assembly. Ignition Mechanism: -Igniter: Pull friction igniter -Ignition charge (B/P/ in two blue lacquered silk bags) -Weight of ignition charge: 0.04kg Color and Markings: Black overall, Head carries single yellow band at its junction with rocket motor. Weight of head and motor stenciled on each component. Launcher: The only launcher recovered for use with this round is a single barrel-type launcher Remarks: A newer model of this round has been recovered, similar to the first but with the rocket motor wall diametrically reduced to 18.9cm, giving a bourrelet effect at each end of the motor. The motor weight is correspondingly reduced to 42.43kg. Neither the head nor the motor is interchangeably with its respective component in the older round. Type 89 58mm H.E. Mortar  Weight of complete round: 1.6 lbs Weight of main charge: 5.4 oz Explosive Components: -Main charge: TNT -Propellant: Nitrocellulose diphenylamine flaked powder. Overall length: (w/o fuze): 4.33 inches Maximum diameter: 50mm Color: 1. Black overall with red band at nose, and -A. A yellow band below the bourrelet and white band forward of rotating band -B. Yellow band midway on the shell 2.Maroon color overall for Navy use 3.Green nose, black body with yellow and white bands. Fuzing: -Type 88 small instantaneous fuze Used in: -Type 89 grenade discharge Description: The body of this shell is made of three parts. -The propellant base housing houses the propellant container and the percussion primer. -The main shell base cover is threaded to the top section on one end and to the propellant housing on the other. -The top section has an opening in the top to receive the fuze. On firing, the gases generated blow through the ports in the base housing, expanding the copper rotating into the rifling of the discharger giving a gas seal and imparting rotating to the seal. Remarks: The Navy version of this shell is exactly the same in construction as the Army versionl the only variation being in the color scheme, Two minor variations of construction have been found. 1. The nose portion screws on (LH) the body directly below the bourrelet. The base is solid instead of being closed with base plate. 2. Similar to the first variation except the threads are right hand(RH). I believe this entry is a typo and should read 50mm rather than 58mm Type 95 50mm Smoke Mortar  Weight of complete round: 1.9 lbs Weight of smoke filling: 3.7 oz Filler: -Smoke compound: Hexachlorethane smoke mixture -Propellant: Nitrocellulose diphenylamine flaked powder. Overall length (w/o fuze): 4.33 inches Maximum diameter: 50mm Color: Black overall with a red band at the nose and two white bands, one immediately below the bourrelet and the other before the rotating band. Fuzing: -Type 89 small time fuze Used in: -Type 89 grenade discharger Description: The projectile casing is of forged steel. The nose screws onto the main body at a point just behind the bourrelet. The main body is joined to the base with a press-fit held by four screw shear pins. The propellant base housing which screws onto the shell base is similar in construction and operation to that of the H.E. shell. The smoke mixture is held in a brass can inside the main body and has attached to it by a short cord a steel retarder cup to slow its decent. Operation: When the fuze gaine fires, it ruptures the thin plate in the base of the gaine, ignites the smoke mixture, and expels the smoke candle from the shell casing. Type 89 50mm Incendiary Mortar  Weight of complete round: 1.25 lbs Weight of incendiary mixture: 10.7 oz Filling: Incendiary Mixture: -Potassium nitrate: 47.7% -Aluminium: 21.7% -Antimony trisulphide: 6.1% -Wax: 2.8% Propellant: Nitrocellulose powder Overall length: 6.25 inches Length of propellant containers: 1.25 inches Diameter propellant container: 1.02 inches Maximum diameter: 50mm Color: Natural brass body with black propellant container Fuzing: Powder delay train Used in: -Type 89 grenade discharger Description: The shell is a cylindrical sheet metal tube with a hemispherical nose and is covered with clear lacquer. Around the side of the casing are four silver-foil disks, each disc covering seven ports in the shell casing. The casing is crimped over the base, which contain two black powder delay trains and is threaded to receive the propelleant housing. The propellant housing is of steel with six gas escape ports in the sides and a percussion cap set in the screwed in base. The propellant is contained in a copper cup inside the propellant housing. Operation: The flash from the propellant ignites the delay trains in the base of the shell, which in turn ignite the incendiary filling. Remarks: Another incendiary shell, the Type 10 year, is similar in appearance and operation to the Type 89 shell. It is 5 and 7/8 inches in length; the color of the body is natural brass; and the propellant assembly is black. There are eight sets of perforations covered with silver-foil disks. The Type 10 year shell is fired from the Type 10 year grenade discharger, an obsolete weapon that was the forerunner of the Type 89 grenade discharger. 50mm Finned Bangalore Torpedo  THANKS A LOT, BOOK Weight of complete round: 8.11kg Weight of main charge: 2.87kg Main charge: Picric Overall length (w/o fuze): 78.37 inches Base section length: 33.25 inches Length from after end of base to forward bearing surface of base section: 12.75 inches Maximum diameter of explosion tube: 50mm Fins: -Length: 14.75 inches -Maximum width: 3.5 inches -Minimum width: 2.5 inches Color: Fins and bangalore section are painted tan with a red band at the top of each section. The modified portion of the base section is painted black. Fuzing: -Instantaneous delay fuze for bagalore mortar Used in: -Type 98 discharger Description: The projectile is constructed in two sections. The nose section is a standard bangalore length, while the base section is a bangalore length cut off and modified to fit into the barrel of the discharger. This section also has three spot-welded brackets to which the sheet metal fins are bolted. A cap, having two circumferential grooves cut into it to divide the surface into three after bearing surfaces, is welded around the after end of the base section. A length of 50mm tubing is welded to the base section and serves as a forward bearing surface for the projectile. A plate is welded to the bangalore base section to prevent the bangalore from sliding too far down into the launcher tube. 50mm Stick Charges  (SM) Small (LA) Large Weight of complete round: (SM) 15.62 lbs - (LA) 17 lbs Weight of main charge: (SM) 7 lbs - (LA) 10 lbs Explosive components: -Main charge: (SM) Picric - (LA) Picric -Propellant: (SM) Black Powder - (LA) Black Powder Overall length: (SM) 27.35 inches - (LA) 25.5 inches Length of explosive container: (SM) 6.75 inches - (LA) 4.5 inches Width of explosive container: (SM) 4.5 inches - (LA) 6.25 inches Height of explosive container: (SM) 4.5 inches - (LA) 6.25 inches Wall thickness: (SM) 0.05 inches - (LA) 0.25 inches Diameter of stick: (SM) 50mm - (LA) 50mm Color: The metal explosive container is painted black, while the wooden "stick" is left unpainted. The large model has a white stripe fore and aft around the explosive box. Used in: Type 98 discharger Fuzing: Two pull igniters Description: The projectile consists of a cast iron box containing blocks of picric acid mounted on a wooden pole 50mm in diameter. Two pull igniters are inserted in the bursting charge and are tied to metal loops on each side of the launcher tube collar. When the projectile is fired these pull igniters are initiated and will in turn set off the bursting charge after a short delay. The black powder propellant in silk bags is placed in the launcher tub below and independently of the projectile. The propellant is fired by a pull igniter inserted in the ignition aperture in the side of the launcher tube. Next time: 70mm Mortar rounds, including the interesting High Explosive Anti-Aircraft Barrage Mortar Projectile
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Much obliged. Kind of cool to see how incredibly durable those things are. It tells you something that you asked for info on my half-remembered anecdote and our resident soviet tank sperg produced two instances with the caveat that they were the only ones that he's aware of. There was another one I vaguely remember from last year sometime where they hauled some WW2 era vehicle out of a bog (I want to say either in Karelia somewhere or in one of the Baltic states) and managed to fire the engine up. I feel like that one might have been German, though. A StuG maybe? Klaus88 posted:Isn't most Russian equipment built with a ridiculous tolerance for punishment, both from the environment and anything its own operators might dish out? The one thing I'll add to what everyone else has already said is that - speaking purely in terms of small arms and personal equipment - there are plenty of examples of equally robust equipment from other nations and plenty of examples of Soviet gear that's just plain finnicky and prone to breaking. The SVT-40, for example, is really prone to malfunctioning if not cleaned regularly, while a K98k is just as reliable as a Mosin and frankly more durable. Meanwhile an M1 Garand will survive just as long in a vat of grease as a Mosin or SKS will. Here's a nice picture of how Garands were put in deep freeze after WW2. Grease them up, drop the wheel looking thing on the left in the cylinder on the right, weld it up air tight, and stick it in a warehouse until WW3. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There was another one I vaguely remember from last year sometime where they hauled some WW2 era vehicle out of a bog (I want to say either in Karelia somewhere or in one of the Baltic states) and managed to fire the engine up. I feel like that one might have been German, though. A StuG maybe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It was even standard practice for Soviet and Soviet-trained soldiers to recover guns, ammo, and other useful items that were abandoned or left in the hands of the dead after a battle. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
Did they also freeze a shitload of 30-06 or were they assuming it'd still be common?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Did they also freeze a shitload of 30-06 or were they assuming it'd still be common? Probably the former. Whole reason the Garand wound up chambered in .30-06 instead of .276 was because MacArthur insisted we use all the leftover stuff from WW1. This also means that current efforts to move to a very .276-like cartridge are a supreme irony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It tells you something that you asked for info on my half-remembered anecdote and our resident soviet tank sperg produced two instances with the caveat that they were the only ones that he's aware of. Well there is another one, the T-35, that got started up and drove off to a restoration garage after sitting in Kubinka for decades. More knowledgeable people than I bitched about it endlessly though, since apparently no inspection whatsoever was done to make sure they didn't gently caress the thing up by trying to run it. On one hand it spent its time waiting indoors, on the other hand the T-35 was never a beacon of reliability to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That assumes that the power with jets left hasn't run out of ordnance for them though, which is far from certain. Hogge Wild posted:Which countries other than USA has enough bombs for that kind of campaign? Even Britain and France ran out of bombs quite fast in Libya. Ensign Expendable posted:Well there is another one, the T-35, that got started up and drove off to a restoration garage after sitting in Kubinka for decades. More knowledgeable people than I bitched about it endlessly though, since apparently no inspection whatsoever was done to make sure they didn't gently caress the thing up by trying to run it. Watch Roadkill on YouTube to see poo poo like this done with cars in just about every episode. Roll up to something that's been sitting in a junkyard for 30 years, bang away on it for a couple days, and drive out. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Isn't this standard practice for every army ever though? Or are we talking about the enemy's dead or something? Yeah collecting weapons and ammo from the dead has been standard post battle practice since... forever? As for Soviet infantry carrying 3 or 4 mags into the hills I'd bet that's more of a 'the hills in Afghanistan are loving huge, travel light' more than a 'well we can resupply off whatever', which sounds like a terrible idea. You can see the same thing with US veterans when they compare load outs in Iraq vs. Afghanistan. Mechanized patrol in an Iraqi city? Carry whatever you want. Dismounted patrol in the Afghan hills that's 10 miles and you see guys carrying a lot less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Honestly, every statement Balfour ever made seems to have hosed things up down the line. Yeah, during that same project I was looking at why the British wouldn't guarantee Libyan independence after the war (doing so would have resulted in pretty widespread support for the Senussi- who'd promised to use their ties to the Brits to secure just that- and a great deal more cooperation from the locals throughout Italian North Africa) and I eventually found that the American's had asked the same question. "Furthermore, said Sir Walter, in view of the unhappy consequences of certain pledges given by the British Government to the Arabs and Jews during the last war, an effort was being made to avoid such commitments in the course of this war." Which is just  Some other choice quotes, these ones from a news article on post war Libya: "The hope is that while some of the British may prefer to go back home rather than take orders from Libyans of superior rank but with little or no administrative experience, others will feel that this drawback is more than compensated for both by the interesting nature of the work and by the comforts of official cars, big houses, servants, and eight-cent shots of Scotch." "Most of these Italians have been here since the twenties and, despite all the changes since the war, haven’t quite got used to the idea that they are no longer running the country. They act much as if they still were. The Fascist salute is given and returned with disarming candor, perhaps more out of habit than conviction."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
The one that particularly amuses me is that people will trot out the eponymous Declaration to justify Israel when debating the issue in Ireland, a country the existence of which the man said was "preposterous" in 1914.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Much obliged. Kind of cool to see how incredibly durable those things are. Yeah for sure. It's like the modern equivalent of going to war with your father's sword.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfPAME5Yct8 Jesus, are those the same sort of exhaust fumes you'd get out of them when they were new? Once you get 10 of them in one area, I suspect that would seriously hinder your ability to remain unseen. Or maybe that just what WWII era tanks were like?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:32
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Jesus, are those the same sort of exhaust fumes you'd get out of them when they were new? Once you get 10 of them in one area, I suspect that would seriously hinder your ability to remain unseen. Or maybe that just what WWII era tanks were like? Quotin' mahself from elsewhere: Arquinsiel posted:Taken with my regular old compact digital camera so no special sound gear whatsoever but...
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
The exhaust doesn't look that bad for the T-34 but I'd wager the billows from the IS-3 are from it burning the old sludge in the various lines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Jesus, are those the same sort of exhaust fumes you'd get out of them when they were new? Once you get 10 of them in one area, I suspect that would seriously hinder your ability to remain unseen. Or maybe that just what WWII era tanks were like? Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoQoui1VKkU Edit: Bonus Leopard 2 tractor pull: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXG-6NFPGn8 Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It tells you something that you asked for info on my half-remembered anecdote and our resident soviet tank sperg produced two instances with the caveat that they were the only ones that he's aware of. I'm kind of wondering if that's how the US stashed the gear in mines in the alps. They found some of these stashes a few years ago that were meant for partisans, should the russians roll in. Lots of gear and ammo. M1s, Bars, .30 cals, mortars, lots of explosives. A few months ago, there was an article about how they trained all kinds of public figures in alpine survial and combat skills. Dudes from unions and all kinds of officials. Tells how much neutrality on paper is worth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:They ran out of precision bombs. If all you want to do is blow poo poo up and you aren't super concerned about which poo poo you blow up you can make a shitload of dumb bombs in a very short amount of time and drop them all over the place. Doubly true if you pull an Assad and just drop literally anything that will explode on your enemy. Germany ran out of regular bombs after the Poland campaign and because production runs take nine months they improvised with a lot of 50kg cement bombs for use half a year later. Shows you how simple you can make stuff to throw out of planes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
The various Israeli-Arab wars also showed both sides burning through their ordnance stockpile much faster than expected, leading their sponsors to fly in loads of replacement stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
So I might get to translate a book about the defence of Moscow from the Germans. I am so giddy already
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:By way of an example, the US unloaded a poo poo ton of Vietnam-era dumb bombs on Iraq in Gulf War 1 and they (mostly) still went boom. The USN also tapped WW2 ammo stockpiles in Subic Naval Base for use in South Vietnam during the early part of the Vietnam War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Which significantly contributed to almost sinking an aircraft carrier. Turns out Composition B doesn't store well in tropical climates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
100 Years Ago Things are about to get rather busy. Today sees the start of the Second Battle of Ypres, and it's a battle that will have major ramifications for the rest of the war. And not just because the Germans have unleashed poison gas for the first time, falling squarely on Zouaves from Algeria and completely shattering the line at the northern base of the Ypres salient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 10:14
|
|
