|
JcDent posted:"Challenger 2 mounting of the weapon cannot be accurately aimed using the main sight below a minimum range of 200 metres, which has led to at least one death from "friendly fire". Yeah but do your tanks have kettles in them? Thought not. Checkmate, rest of the world 
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
The point of the Rarden (it can load 6 rounds at a time, but doctrine says to try to limit engagements to 3 rounds. Also HE shells do exist?) is that it is really small in terms of the space it takes up in the turret. This is among one of the trade-offs that lets the Warrior, relative to the Bradley, carry more troops, have thicker armour, have better power to weight ratio, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Why did Napoleon go for Moscow rather than St. Petersburg? IIRC, his goal was to defeat the Russian army in battle and impose a peace treaty on the czar. But the czar kept retreating all the way to Borodino, which was bloody but not conclusive, and the czar kept retreating some more. So he ended up in Moscow, because that was were the czar led him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I've been reading War & Peace and really enjoying it, also I'm wondering: how accurate is it in its portrayal of the war? I'd like to know this too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Old Leo Tolstoy served as an Russian artillery officer in the Crimean War, during the siege of Sevastopol. He certainly saw action that is for sure.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
I think the description of Borodino was fairly accurate, but as far as the political maneuvers and the other stuff... Well he was more interested in a narrative of Russia finding its inner Russian-ness rather than an accurate portrayal of the entire was from the home front.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Did the americans ever get a chance to debrief and interrogate Iraqi soldiers? Did they realise that Bradleys were thin-skinned and vulnerable to relatively low caliber arms, or were they treating them as full-on tanks and disengaging without a fight? They certainly did get a chance to perform interrogations. It's difficult to say how much the average Iraqi soldier recognized about the vulnerability of a Bradley, particularly because individual initiative was discouraged, but certainly the leadership of the Republican Guard was quite familiar with it. But by the time the coalition ground forces were moving the Iraqis had already been suffering more than a month of air attacks, and were in a complete disarray. The Iraqis were pretty much prepared to retreat or surrender at the first sign of any military force. And when they didn't, they generally got totally surrounded and mauled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:No wonder that site about British armed forces procurement gently caress ups exists. Link? Google only sends me to the MoD. Or is that the joke?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
There's a page about it on the ARRSE wiki: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/British_Military_Procurement_Mysteries . They really don't like the chaingun.quote:The greatest contributor to British Military casualty figures since Haig's Chief of Staff misunderstood the General's morale boosting idea of a "Song and Dance" and instead initiated the shockingly wasteful Somme Advance in 1916. The Warrior page describes the process of firing the thing: quote:To compensate for its speed, presence and protection it is equipped with comedy weapons that need precognitive abilities (Think I'll need HE in three rounds time) or (when using the Chaingun), a patient and slow moving enemy, "firing now", BANG, clunk, "stoppage, feck hang on a bit - bollocks - dropped the spinny thing" I would like to believe that somewhere in France in 1915, a long-suffering corporal is staring wistfully at his squad, who are trying to fix their Chauchat for the 182nd time, and dreaming about how in the future they will if nothing else have managed to invent a slightly less temperamental machine gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I'd say the JPG is better than either. Not much artifacting if it's encoded properly and takes up a lot less space than a BMP. I did some research on China for a question earlier in the thread. One thing that made China stand out is that they readily adopted European cannon technology (first importing guns and then copying them), but kept crossbows as their primary infantry ranged weapon. This is because China never really got into conflicts where they had a need to advance handheld firearm technology; crossbows were good enough for everything they were doing, but improved artillery was always welcome. This came to an end during the Opium Wars, specifically in 1860 after the Summer Palace got sacked by European armies with rifles. The Chinese got the poo poo kicked out of them and began rapidly trying to update to the newest military tech, but took until the 20th century to really get to a point where they were matching the rest of the world due to a lack of funding and continued traditionalist and conservative beliefs among military leaders at the time. Japan was much the same. After closing themselves off to the world, they spent a good 250 years simply refining matchlock technology with little to no outside influence. Part of this was because the conflicts inside Japan never required heavier stuff than what they already had, so guys with swords, spears, and bows were still viable past the invention of percussion caps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:There's a page about it on the ARRSE wiki: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/British_Military_Procurement_Mysteries . They really don't like the chaingun. The chauchaut was a decent gun in French service. The problem that made it infamous was a terribly lovely conversion to 30-06.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It was removed from combat in 2007 when the MRAP replacements started showing up, and as far as I know it hasn't seen action since. Maybe it just needs its NBC mechanized warfare environment/hellscape to truly showcase its capabilities, but there's still better vehicles for that and frankly I doubt that it will ever get a chance to improve its reputation. I can say with 100% certainty that Bradleys were used in combat in Iraq in 2008/2009
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
A brief list of British procurement successes.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The chauchaut was a decent gun in French service. The problem that made it infamous was a terribly lovely conversion to 30-06. I thought it was still pretty crap due to the design being hard to field strip, open-sided magazines, and poor production quality from certain manufacturers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:A brief list of British procurement successes. The Brown Bess was alright? Maybe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I thought it was still pretty crap due to the design being hard to field strip, open-sided magazines, and poor production quality from certain manufacturers? I don't know about the girls strip issue but it was generally held as a decent weapon I. French use. People lived how light it was. At 16 kilos it was really the only true LMG on the scene at the time and one of the few that got used as such in assaults etc. if you really want a in depth discussion of it someone did a huge, cited effort post on TFR about a year or two back but you'll have to archive dive for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:The Brown Bess was alright? Maybe? Id argue the Centurion was pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Id argue the Centurion was pretty decent. The Queen Elizabeth class of battleship was really well done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
The Valentine and Matilda were solid tanks, the Tetrarch wasn't bad either. The Vickers Mk. E was fantastic, but naturally the British army didn't buy any.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:The Queen Elizabeth class of battleship was really well done. The designed the carrier to cover that up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:A brief list of British procurement successes. If talking aircraft from world war 2, there are a bunch - just for starters, the Spitfire. The Mosquito should be accompanied by David Bowie's Heroes every time it is mentioned. They had a whole range of four-engine strategic bombers that Germany just couldn't produce - the Short Sterling, the Halifax series, and the Lancaster. . While it's something of a quirk of fighting Germany, the Swordfish torpedo bombers was so good in its role that it stayed in service when its replacements didn't. The Short Sunderland was a great flying boat, despite the fact it was developed from a prewar airliner. I imagine you can find failures in World War 2 Britian, but yeah, they fielded a lot of good stuff. The post-war is where the modern malaise slowly set in. To be honest, up until the end of the 1960s, procurement was still pretty strong. The V-bombers soon became obsolete, but were good designs for what they were. The EE Lightning was a great interceptor, and the Hawker Hunter is still flying today. The Jaguar was a good ground attack airplane. e: Ensign Expendable posted:The Valentine and Matilda were solid tanks, the Tetrarch wasn't bad either. The Vickers Mk. E was fantastic, but naturally the British army didn't buy any. Now, I've heard that the Valentine and Matilda were under-gunned and built shitily because union rules insisted on riveting things rather than welding them. This is why American tanks were welcomed in N. Africa - they had a much better build quality. (I'm not trying to argue here - I don't know much about it - I'm just curious as to why you think they were solid.) I'd say the Sherman Firefly was a excellent idea. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:The designed the carrier to cover that up. The carrier itself is fine (not going CATOBAR excepted). It's everything else that's the problem. The original plan was to fly Harriers from it until the F-35B arrived. Then the RAF got the Tories to kill the Harrier to keep the Tornado flying (guess which plane the RAF brass flew in their younger days). Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The Valentine and Matilda were solid tanks Eh, solid infantry tanks maybe. But the concept of a tank that moved only as fast as infantry was less solid, and the 2pdr and 6pdr equipped versions had no HE shells limiting their usefulness. Now Cromwell, on the other hand - probably the best tank of its class in WW2, far superior to M4 Sherman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
         
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Eh, solid infantry tanks maybe. But the concept of a tank that moved only as fast as infantry was less solid, and the 2pdr and 6pdr equipped versions had no HE shells limiting their usefulness. What made the Cromwell so much better than the Sherman? Because at least the earlier Cromwells got absolutely drubbed by the Sherman for reliability in a way that made for serious operational differences between the two tanks. http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Dracula/?page=1 has some info on comparative tests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
What was so good about Bren?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:What made the Cromwell so much better than the Sherman? Because at least the earlier Cromwells got absolutely drubbed by the Sherman for reliability in a way that made for serious operational differences between the two tanks. Yeah, at its best the Cromwell was pretty much the Sherman, but made by the UK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:The Queen Elizabeth class of battleship was really well done. Counterpoint: decades of loving around in the Middle East because of the switch to foreign oil fuel from domestic coal. Sure, oil is ridiculously superior to coal by any standard. Any standard except access during wartime. North Sea oil platforms wouldn't last a week in shooting war; protecting convoys from the ME is more practical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
The Comet was a good British tank IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What was so good about Bren? Stolid squad-level fire support and excellent tolerance of environment and idiocy go a long way towards greatness. Contrast with the Type 96, Breda 30, or BAR. Compared with the French FM 24, it had a faster fire rate and an easier barrel change, which allowed the Bren to lay down more supporting fire. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Counterpoint: decades of loving around in the Middle East because of the switch to foreign oil fuel from domestic coal. Sure, oil is ridiculously superior to coal by any standard. Any standard except access during wartime. North Sea oil platforms wouldn't last a week in shooting war; protecting convoys from the ME is more practical. By that logic, the current state of affairs in the Middle East was caused by the launching of the Queen Elizabeth battleships. Switch to Oil >> Churchill sets up Iranian Oil >> Shah of Iran >> Iranian revolution >> Iran-Iraq War >> Gulf War 1 >> Gulf War 2 >> ISIS >> Magical Clusterfuck of today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Ok, that's all cool poo poo, I'm a dumb rear end on an internet forum again.  Also, it seems like your average British grunt is insecure unless he can club someone to death with his rifle. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Stolid squad-level fire support and excellent tolerance of environment and idiocy go a long way towards greatness. Contrast with the Type 96, Breda 30, or BAR. Shouldn't it be compared to their main enemy's squad support weapon, the MG 34?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Shouldn't it be compared to their main enemy's squad support weapon, the MG 34? The MG34 was literally twice the weight, and that's not counting ammo. Also the Chain Home radar network was probably the thing most responsible for Britain surviving WWII uninvaded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Also the Chain Home radar network was probably the thing most responsible for Britain surviving WWII uninvaded. Besides the Royal Navy, you mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The MG34 was literally twice the weight, and that's not counting ammo. Bren: Mk 1 and 2 - Weight 10kg Mk 3 and 4 - Weight 8kg MG-34: Weight - 11kg
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Bren: Sorry, I was counting the tripod. It was still significantly heavier though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
wasn't the Bren a knockoff of some pre war Czech gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
The MG 34 was also far more expensive and complex to manufacture (I've seen the inside of one and it probably made at least one German armorer just shoot himself when asked to take it apart), which is why the MG 42 was made in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The MG 34 was also far more expensive and complex to manufacture (I've seen the inside of one and it probably made at least one German armorer just shoot himself when asked to take it apart), which is why the MG 42 was made in the first place. I own one, it's not super complicated (to me at least) but it does involve a lot of parts. Fangz posted:Sorry, I was counting the tripod. It was still significantly heavier though. IF you count the tripod, which changes its status from a light machine gun to a medium or heavy machine gun. Which
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:37
|
|