|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:At the start of WWI it was, but after the entire British army died in Flanders, they caught on quick to the power of automatic weapons. The Lewis gun was the archetypal LMG, and it was adopted in 1916. Rifle marksmanship (musketry) in the British army was more than just shooting and hitting. After the boer war they emphasised long range area fire. So they were very good at massing a units rifle fire at a specific location. http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/tcattermole/british-musketry-training-1900-to-1918 See slides 12 to 15 especially for examples of what they were training This is in contrast to us practice which was purely bullseye target shooting. Arquinsiel posted:Wait. It has as an infantry vehicle and as a cavalry vehicle. But not for the million other uses of the M113. Ambulance, mortar carrier, command post vehicle, and so on. There were plans to use the Bradley as a basis for those roles, but they never did cause of expense.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
I cannot quite believe I've arrived at this point from just bashing a few words together about Mons and the retreat, but here we go. A revised and expanded version of the blog entries covering 1914 is now available for pre-order as an ebook. It's called "These Are Our Masters", which is a staggeringly appropriate line from a Gilbert Frankau poem about his guns. Price is £1.99 , or 2.99 of most other units (including USD and €). Amazon USA Amazon UK Amazon Zee Germans It's available on all Amazon Kindle stores and will soon also go up via a large number of other distributors (but I'd prefer you used Amazon; they may be evil but they have the highest royalty rate and the biggest audience). Release date is September 21; but because of the way the Kindle Store works, a pre-order in the hand is worth two in the bush. A big Day 1 splash is literally worth its weight in gold. So, if anyone felt like sharing the book, or the blog, or preferably both, with people who might appreciate it, the next few weeks are exactly the right time for it. Personal endorsements mean a lot, yo. (So do reviews once the thing gets released.) Why do you need this in your life if you've been following along since Day 1? Well, I'm just finishing off the process of revising and expanding 1914 to make it how I'd have done it if I were doing it now (if that makes sense); lots more French Army on the Western Front, more Africa in the early going, and more Eastern Front, among other things. This is more than just "bung it in a Word document, upload it, job's a good 'un". And, yeah, I do enjoy doing this, but it does take up a significant chunk of time, and I can't exchange awesome new custom titles in the wider world for goods and/or services. If there's money coming in it makes it that much easier to give priority to things like working up a buffer again to iron out the occasional gaps in the update schedule, or taking a few evenings to read ahead and get a skeleton for 1916 worked up. Thanks. And now, back to your regularly scheduled tankchat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
WW2 Data Now that we're done with the markings, it's time to start taking a look at Imperial Japanese Navy munitions starting with the 7.7mm, 13mm, and 13.2mm projectiles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
How successful were soviet tank destroyer designs? E: dammit jobbo!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The Bradley was only intended to replace some of the the 113s in mechanized infantry formations, which it did a quite a while ago. The AMPV program is the thing replacing the rest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:How successful were soviet tank destroyer designs? They built 12k SU-76s and over 10k of other types, so pretty successful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Is there any reason that the chassis/hull isn't suitable for flat conversion or is the AMPV program exactly that and I'm just being silly? Haha yep, it is that exactly. The Army actually has kind of back-doored itself into a legtimately modular mechanized force: the new Paladins and the 113 replacements are all on Bradley chassis. I'm not an engineer or a mechanic but the word I've heard is that it is a very, very good platform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Haha yep, it is that exactly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Haha yep, it is that exactly. I think I read somewhere that the Bradley, for all it's other faults, is extremely reliable. Something like 90+% availability when deployed (you know assuming proper maintenance facilities and all that).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:18
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I cannot quite believe I've arrived at this point from just bashing a few words together about Mons and the retreat, but here we go. This is pretty awesome I might add, and keep up the good work!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
What about Stryker? Wasn't Stryker supposed to be the new M113?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
So I've been listening to the Revolutions podcast on the French Revolution, and it owns. The author said he's going to stop at Napoleon's coup though, so does anyone know about any good podcasts on the aftermath and the Napoleonic wars?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I cannot quite believe I've arrived at this point from just bashing a few words together about Mons and the retreat, but here we go. Happy to buy it, this is an awesome project you're doing and I'm happy to support it. Please keep up the great work!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What about Stryker? Wasn't Stryker supposed to be the new M113? No, not in HBCTs at least. Basically look up mechanized vs motorized infantry, and it'll make more sense. Note that this didn't stop GD from trying to shove the Stryker into every role the army put out bids for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
I might have missed this, but do we actually still use Gavins for anything?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:I might have missed this, but do we actually still use Gavins for anything? A poo poo load actually. Medical vehicles, mortar carriers, etc. this is what the AMPV is, a true replacement for all these not-frontline vehicles with a turretless Bradley. This is actually a good program from what we know, as They they offer a lot of modularity, BAE can still build them quickly, and the chassis itself is sound (with some improvements, like a V- hull IIRC). Like for this to be where we ended up from the GCV is hilarious, but in a mostly good way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What about Stryker? Wasn't Stryker supposed to be the new M113? Think of the reconnaissance battalion in Generation Kill zooming around Iraq in their lightly armored Humvees and trucks. That's more like it: giving the units better protection while retaining good mobility. SquadronROE posted:I might have missed this, but do we actually still use Gavins for anything? Trigger warning that!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Sorry this is so late, but the demands of work and all that..Kaal posted:I don't really want to get into a discussion about modern combat in a history thread, but I think that your information seems a bit out of date. I mean sure some Bradleys were able to pick apart some Iraqi tanks at 73 Eastings with their autocannons, but they were essentially at point blank range. It isn't practicable to expect a vehicle to blunder its way 25-50 feet away from an oblivious tank before opening fire. What are you talking about? I've never heard of engagement distances that low for 73 Easting. And of course it isn't practicable, that's why they destroyed the vast majority of the tanks engaged with their TOWs. quote:Broadly speaking, they did a decent job during the turkey hunt since they had tow missiles that could plink a couple retreating tanks and then the fight would be over since the Iraqis would be gone. The "turkey shoot" was done by aircraft. Bradleys fought plenty against prepared positions (as at 73 Easting and other engagements), not retreating tanks. quote:I can understand you not hearing about AAVs or EA6Bs, since they're not that hot right now (neither are useful for the kind of combat we're conducting, and actually the last EA6B was retired in June), but if you aren't hearing about F-16s and Strykers then you probably just aren't reading the right journals, since they're both seeing active combat right now in Afghanistan. You're right that the Bradley was never designed to perform street patrols, though, which is precisely why it hasn't been that useful. Journals are not "the news" to my mind, since the peer review process takes a good lick of the "new" out of them. The bolded part is the point I'm getting at. Just because equipment is not useful for the war we fight today does not mean it is, writ large, bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
vuk83 posted:Rifle marksmanship (musketry) in the British army was more than just shooting and hitting. After the boer war they emphasised long range area fire. So they were very good at massing a units rifle fire at a specific location. I love that this is called the Munro Doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I think it's also worth mentioning that while the Bradley wasn't very good at the urban role or whatever specific title you apply to dealing with a low intensity IED war, neither was essentially any other vehicle in any U.S. military except the Abrams. There's a reason we built like 15,000 MRAP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
I would have thought the sheer fuel consumption of that ridiculous jet turbine nonsense engine in the Abrams would make it undesirable. I'm interested to know how it works effectively for this sort of asymmetrical warfare. Or is it just that it's a rolling pillbox that doesn't flip over and catch on fire when hit by an IED or ex-soviet shaped charge?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Endman posted:I would have thought the sheer fuel consumption of that ridiculous jet turbine nonsense engine in the Abrams would make it undesirable. In a word? Optics. e: Actually, I should say optics and electronics. Murgos fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Endman posted:I would have thought the sheer fuel consumption of that ridiculous jet turbine nonsense engine in the Abrams would make it undesirable. I would say mostly the latter. It wasn't specifically good at it, more so then any other modern MBT, it's just a hell of a lot more resilient to your garden variety IED then a flat bottom Stryker or Humvee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I would say mostly the latter. It wasn't specifically good at it, more so then any other modern MBT, it's just a hell of a lot more resilient to your garden variety IED then a flat bottom Stryker or Humvee. I read a British soldier's account of an operation against the Mahdi Army where the battle plan was essentially to park 4 Challengers and supporting troops in the middle of town as an open provocation and blast the hell out of the insurgents as they attempted to close. Nothing about urban/unconventional combat changes the fundamental raison-d'etre of the tank, which is that it's pretty awesome to have a mobile source of firepower that's impervious to anything except the heavy weapons which the enemy doesn't even have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:How successful were soviet tank destroyer designs? That's what I have wondered myself. Take the SU-76M for example which was built until the end of the war - an open top/rear vehicle with no machinegun for self defence, so very much like German Marders. They were fine for their intended jobs as mobile and lightly armoured vehicles but it was poorly suited for infantry support role which an AFV produced in such numbers inevitably was going to be pressed into much of the time when Panzers weren't abound. SU-85 was a stop-gap measure before T-34/85 entered service and was followed by SU-100. SU-100 is still very useful AFV today, as evidenced by the below photo taken in Yemen in 2015.  And of course there'd be a T-34/85.  SU-122, ISU-122 and ISU-152 I don't consider pure blooded tank destroyers - SU-122 because its combination of low velocity howitzer and by then weak 45mm armour made it bad both at long range sniping and short range ambushing so it was better suited as an assault gun/SPA, and ISU's because they also excelled as heavy assault guns and bunker busters because of their heavy armour and superb guns. Late in the war they probably engaged with infantry targets more than with tanks. There were also a few unsuccessful wartime designs, like the ZiS-30 built on a Komsomolets carrier:  At least it had a bow MG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Trigger warning that! Seconding that, I need some time to hug myself in the corner and shake Nenonen posted:Think of the reconnaissance battalion in Generation Kill zooming around Iraq in their lightly armored Humvees and trucks. That's more like it: giving the units better protection while retaining good mobility. So, Stryker is speed vs. M113 tracked mobility? Because I don't see M113 being mechanized-levels armored, it's still a taxi. Mazz posted:There's a reason we built like 15,000 MRAP. Didn't you leave those things behind since there's no need of them anywhere else? Granted, the current Humvee replaced is being built with exploding in mind, but still, what a waste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So, Stryker is speed vs. M113 tracked mobility? Because I don't see M113 being mechanized-levels armored, it's still a taxi. Slightly better protection than a truck, which is the alternative, and much better operational range and operating cost than anything on tracks, I'd say. Stryker is to M113 is to Bradley like BTR is to MT-LB is to BMP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
the tiny little moravia with its tiny little ruff 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Slightly better protection than a truck, which is the alternative, and much better operational range and operating cost than anything on tracks, I'd say. Stryker is to M113 is to Bradley like BTR is to MT-LB is to BMP. That implies that I understand what the gently caress is the deal with that umpjumped artillery tractor. HEY GAL posted:the tiny little moravia with its tiny little ruff Surprising amount of detail in some of those.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Fangz posted:They built 12k SU-76s and over 10k of other types, so pretty successful. The SU-76 wasn't a tank destroyer. GAZ actually put a 57 mm AT gun on the chassis, since the mounts were interchangeable, the military told then to quit loving around and give them infantry support vehicles like they were supposed to. SU-76es could fight tanks, but that's not what they were designed for. As for the effectiveness of the TDs, they were pretty good. The T-34 chassis was sturdy enough that a 100 mm gun could be swapped in once the 85 mm was mounted on turreted platforms. That could pop any German tank in the front from a respectable distance, and even the 85 could take on a King Tiger provided you pounded it enough (I don't know if the two vehicles ever met in combat though). The idea of a medium tank destroyer survived the war, but the SU-122-54 (the only mass production one) wasn't a particularly notable vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:That's what I have wondered myself. Take the SU-76M for example which was built until the end of the war - an open top/rear vehicle with no machinegun for self defence, so very much like German Marders. They were fine for their intended jobs as mobile and lightly armoured vehicles but it was poorly suited for infantry support role which an AFV produced in such numbers inevitably was going to be pressed into much of the time when Panzers weren't abound. SU-85 was a stop-gap measure before T-34/85 entered service and was followed by SU-100. SU-100 is still very useful AFV today, as evidenced by the below photo taken in Yemen in 2015. The SU-85 wasn't a stop-gap measure. The T-34-85 was envisioned a fair bit after the SU-85 was. Also the ISU-122 was explicitly designed as a tank destroyer, the fact that 122 mm also ruins structures as well as tanks was a pleasant side effect. Late in the war, the ISU SPGs primarily excelled in urban assaults as a part of assault squads, although the occasional Tiger did find itself facing 152 mm guns once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Seconding that, I need some time to hug myself in the corner and shake My favorite thing in Wargame: Airland Battle was to create an army completely out of Gavin and Gavin derivatives. It was surprisingly successful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:My favorite thing in Wargame: Airland Battle was to create an army completely out of Gavin and Gavin derivatives. It was surprisingly successful. Were there Aerogavins? chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Seconding that, I need some time to hug myself in the corner and shake http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/04/dod-asks-what-to-do-with-all-these-fing-mraps/
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:What are you talking about? I've never heard of engagement distances that low for 73 Easting. And of course it isn't practicable, that's why they destroyed the vast majority of the tanks engaged with their TOWs. Bradleys fought plenty against prepared positions (as at 73 Easting and other engagements), not retreating tanks. The 25 mm autocannon that Bradleys carry of course doesn't have the penetration power to compete with actual tanks, but at 73 Easting there was a significant dust storm that led to the forces blundering into each other. The American front-line forces were literally within a few dozen yards of the dug-in enemy tanks (which were dug-in facing the wrong direction) when the dust cleared, which then meant the Bradleys were so close that their autocannons actually could penetrate the Iraqi side armor (which is nominally rated for 30 mm shells). The reports of Bradleys blowing apart T-55s with their autocannons come from that specific event. quote:The bolded part is the point I'm getting at. Just because equipment is not useful for the war we fight today does not mean it is, writ large, bad. Well it certainly doesn't make it good. Bradleys are vehicles built for a type of mechanized, NBC environment, air-contested warfare that we will probably never fight, and in the meantime have a bunch of compromises for the wars that we actually do fight. They're a Jack-of-All-Trades that just doesn't excel at very much, and actually represent something of a logistical liability since they are so slow and heavy. The fact that we're talking about the merits of a Bradley's tank-hunting capability is exactly what's wrong with the vehicle: It is supposed to be an armored troop-transport, not a light anti-tank / heavy reconnaissance / short bus compromise. Just about anything the Bradley can do, other vehicles can and should be doing much better. Strykers outshine them in virtually every category, being significantly faster than a Bradley on a road (60 mph v 40 mph), able to traverse 96% of the same terrain types off-road (with superior fording capability), and can be easily air-lifted, while having better IED protection and being actually capable of carrying an entire nine-man squad. The one thing that the Bradley is great at is carrying an awkward* six-man team into the middle of an open-field armor confrontation, and frankly it's a mystery as to why anyone would ever want to do that. *It's awkward because modern American infantry tactics are predicated on four-man fireteams and nine-man squads (two fireteams plus a squad leader). A six-man team is rather unwieldy for urban operations, particularly house-clearing, and splitting it up into smaller three-man or two-four teams has similar problems. A platoon leader either needs to double the number of vehicles needed, split up the squads into road groups and then reassemble at the objective, or breakup the squads entirely and teach everyone to deal with the new system. As I understand, generally the answer is a mixture of all three approaches, but it's an ongoing and needless problem. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:My favorite thing in Wargame: Airland Battle was to create an army completely out of Gavin and Gavin derivatives. It was surprisingly successful. My favourite was the t34 horde because you could trade them 10 for 1 with Abrams and still come out way ahead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Grant, in his memoirs, states that the election of Lincoln was the transition from minority rule to majority rule of the nation. That this issue, loss of power for the 'Southern Aristocracy', was a large part of the south's behavior in the years preceding the event as it was obviously coming based on voting trends. That is, that even with the south voting in blocks they could no longer overcome the population difference with the north to get their president installed and that they also were losing control of the senate as non-slave states begin to outnumber slave states. That in some ways the north was also fighting to allow the southern poor to be allowed to express their own political views because southern politics were so dominated by the interests of the relatively few wealthy southern slave owners I don't think I've ever heard it put quite that way before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Were there Aerogavins? I dunno. What's an Aerogavin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:I dunno. What's an Aerogavin. Hoo boy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHqLtK_TpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Rr03hqDec chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Grant, in his memoirs, states that the election of Lincoln was the transition from minority rule to majority rule of the nation. That this issue, loss of power for the 'Southern Aristocracy', was a large part of the south's behavior in the years preceding the event as it was obviously coming based on voting trends. That is, that even with the south voting in blocks they could no longer overcome the population difference with the north to get their president installed and that they also were losing control of the senate as non-slave states begin to outnumber slave states. Yeah, in the South the Civil war was very much a rich persons war, and a large chunk of the population there knew it. Admittedly this is because by the time Union armies were in the south to talk to these people the true believers would be dead of disease and shrapnel, but still. Even after the war the the whole "Southern Aristocracy" concept was well known and people tried to dismantle it... until Andrew Johnson lost his goddam mind. You see, during the war he was probably one of the largest detractors of the plantation politics in the south. When he became president and started to manage reconsruction he pulled a massive turn to trying to buoy the upper class in terms of influence since he was incredibly paranoid of there being a unified poor white/black voting bloc that would go on to do...something or another I dont think anyone is really sure what crawled up his rear end [spoilers]probably bribes lol[/spoilers]
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 22:16
|
|
