|
Animal posted:Jumped into the thread with 700 unreads. Skimming I can see cannon chat, a goon who hacks military drones as a hobby, and apparently our very own HEGEL getting harassed by GBS. nobody's doxxing me, calm down and read the nice rocket artillery chat
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nobody's doxxing me, calm down and read the nice rocket artillery chat Rocket artillery chat is kind of soothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Eela6 posted:This is great stuff. I find the differences between the German and Soviet methodology w/r/t, say, accuracy statistics fascinating. In the stuff you've linked here, the Soviets seem far more interested in not just when shots miss, but °how° and where. That's real thinking. Are these kinds of differences in thought process about statistics, data, and mathematics representative in general? I never made any conclusions regarding thought processes, but the Germans do have a bunch of weird statistics poo poo like tanks in "long term repairs" (ie burnt-out husks shipped back to the factory) not counting as casualties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:There's the great story of the katyusah batteries hiding under the river bank of the Volga in Stalingrad, reversing out of cover to launch then back into cover to reload It sounds like developing a pattern like that would be dangerous, as it wouldn't take very long for the enemy to figure out how long it takes between each salvo. ...now I wonder what it looks like when a rocket launcher battery takes a direct hit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Just listen to this soothing sound.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Animal posted:Rocket artillery chat is kind of soothing. How about the Mattress, which is what the Brits called their nebelwerfer version? They also had the Sherman Tulip, a lend-lease Sherman with rail-mounted rockets on the turret. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
My new ringtone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Someone should make that into a white-noise generating app for smartphones. In-app purchases: nebelwerfer, walking stuka, v1 rocket drone, and Stuka dive bombers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
I'm assuming that at this point there is rocket artillery with semi-guided rockets that can home-glide to some extent to be more effective so I can't help but wonder: is there any point to conventional artillery nowadays? I would guess it'd be handy for suppression but it seems like you can't suppress very well if you're constantly driving around to avoid getting hit by CB fire or aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Here's a question about rocket artillery: is it cheaper than conventional artillery in that you don't need all that precision machining and high quality steel? Or is it just better at saturating an area with fire?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm assuming that at this point there is rocket artillery with semi-guided rockets that can home-glide to some extent to be more effective so I can't help but wonder: is there any point to conventional artillery nowadays? I would guess it'd be handy for suppression but it seems like you can't suppress very well if you're constantly driving around to avoid getting hit by CB fire or aircraft. That would be a false assumption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Here's a question about rocket artillery: is it cheaper than conventional artillery in that you don't need all that precision machining and high quality steel? Or is it just better at saturating an area with fire? The launcher is far cheaper, but the cost-per-round is much higher.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm assuming that at this point there is rocket artillery with semi-guided rockets that can home-glide to some extent to be more effective so I can't help but wonder: is there any point to conventional artillery nowadays? I would guess it'd be handy for suppression but it seems like you can't suppress very well if you're constantly driving around to avoid getting hit by CB fire or aircraft. Fire support benefits from a "combined arms" approach just like anything else. Each kind of fire support offers a specific set of capabilities that meet certain needs; while they do overlap, without a specific system you wind up with a gap in your capability (in example, the US does not have a long range land based deep strike capability....oops). Roughy speaking the US evaluates fire support systems based on the parameters of lethality, scalability, responsiveness, availability, and mobility, both strategic and tactical. Mortars are ultra responsive, nearly always available and are easy to deploy, but can't really be scaled, their precision capability is limited, dismounted ones aren't tactically mobile, and they aren't particularly effective. Towed guns are also very responsive, can deliver scaled, precision effects or area effects, and are nearly always available, but they're not nearly as lethal as bigger platforms (especially in area fire). SPHs are similar, but have much better tactical mobility at the cost of being more sustainment-intensive and harder to deploy. Rocket artillery is somewhat less responsive and is not really scalable, but it is extremely lethal in area fire roles. Its biggest issue is availability: after firing a mission, a fire unit is usually down for quite a while for movement and reload. CAS has been extremely responsive in OIF and OEF and can deliver precise, scalable effects very quickly, but we won't always be in an environment where CAS orbits are 2 minutes away from the fighting; availability and responsiveness go down a lot against a more capable competitor. You also have some other considerations; in example, guns and mortars can deliver smoke and illumination rounds, aircraft and rockets can't, in the US inventory at least. And...cost is always an issue. For example, precision HE by the pound costs between five and twenty times more when delivered by plane than by towed howitzer, depending on various factors and how you do the math. As it relates to precision rockets specifically, they are both very expensive and very rare. They also go a long way (5-7 times longer than unguided rockets), so their very specific niche is as a deep strike weapon versus high value targets. At the same time, the entire US stockpile of dumb artillery rockets is about to become garbage due to the signing of the submunitions treaty, so the ability of US rocket artillery to do a lot of area effects stuff is going to be significantly curtailed for quite a while. The Lone Badger posted:The launcher is far cheaper, but the cost-per-round is much higher. This isn't necessarily true anymore, at least in the US. A HIMARS launcher costs about what an entire 777 battery does, for example. It also varies wildly according to the type of ammunition you're using; in general, tubes deliver precision munitions far cheaper, but rockets can do area fire much cheaper on a pound-for-pound basis. bewbies fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That would be a false assumption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur Wikipedia posted:The United States plans to procure 7,474 rounds at a FY2015 program cost of $1,934.1m ($258,777 average cost per unit). Sounds practical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:How about the Mattress, which is what the Brits called their nebelwerfer version? They also had the Sherman Tulip, a lend-lease Sherman with rail-mounted rockets on the turret. Interesting, the Soviets built similar turret mounted rocket launchers for the BT-5 before the war, but found them impractical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
This and reading about the Sherman Tulip got me curious: I've heard there were tanks during the Cold War that were designed to fire missiles or rockets through gun tubes, and I'm curious what happened to the idea of missile/rocket armed tanks and why that seems to have fizzled out in favor of traditional cannons.Ensign Expendable posted:Interesting, the Soviets built similar turret mounted rocket launchers for the BT-5 before the war, but found them impractical. From what I've read, they were only used by the Coldstream Guards in 1945 and weren't well regarded by officers. Tank crews liked them for the high-explosive power against entrenched enemies and light fortifications, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Back on subject, ROCKET ARTILLERY. Could you tell us about Napoleonic Wars era and Victorian era British rocket artillery?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
bewbies posted:At the same time, the entire US stockpile of dumb artillery rockets is about to become garbage due to the signing of the submunitions treaty, so the ability of US rocket artillery to do a lot of area effects stuff is going to be significantly curtailed for quite a while. I was under the impression that we very specifically did NOT sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Sounds practical. Stuff like that actually has a lot of room to get cheaper. Building an accurate, compact, and lightweight IMU that can withstand the g-shock of a tube launch is no easy task. Back in '92 that was out on the bleeding edge, if not in front of it. Honeywell in particular is getting insanely good at it now. I don't know too much about their military lines, but their commercial stuff has made leaps and bounds even in the last 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:15
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
MrYenko posted:I was under the impression that we very specifically did NOT sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions. While we aren't signatories, we are abiding by them because the Pentagon is of the opinion that we're the good guys and must always act like it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:This and reading about the Sherman Tulip got me curious: I've heard there were tanks during the Cold War that were designed to fire missiles or rockets through gun tubes, and I'm curious what happened to the idea of missile/rocket armed tanks and why that seems to have fizzled out in favor of traditional cannons. Only in the West, and not entirely. The problem with missiles through gun tubes is that missiles use HEAT shaped charges. HEAT charges increase in penetration mostly through increased diameter of the charge, and 120mm isn't exactly gigantic in that regard. The TOW is 152mm, for example. So you have a pretty hard upper limit to the armor your missile can punch through, given that you won't use a missile on a tiny APC. It's an expensive shot, so you'll want it for high-priority targets, like enemy tanks. Plus it's apparently not that trivial to harden a missile enough so that it can be launched out of a gun tube and/or firing a cannon is not necessarily conductive to keeping the fragile electronics needed to fire a missile in the cannon working. The Soviets employed them in good numbers though, and the Israelis have developed the LAHAT for use with western 105mm and 120mm guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
trigger warning: hegel Hanau, mid fall, 1627 Allwig von Sulz, like a bunch of German colonels including Pappenheim, had led a regiment in northern Italy for Spain along with Wolff von Mansfeld from '25 to mid-'27. And now something's wrong with him. It's not his attitude; from some letters he dictated, we can see that he's dedicated, loyal, and close to his regiment. He's also a pretty emotional writer, which is how we can tell the first three. He describes his journey from northern Italy to Hanau in vivid terms. After the people he had led to Lombardy were dismissed, he decided, "along with other cavaliers, to set my life, my goods, and my blood against the enemy." He raised a regiment of 3000 infantry and supplied it "out of my own small patrimony," which was difficult since he was only "a poor Reichsgraf." With this he appointed his captains and officers, "so that on a good springtime the regiment was brought complete onto its feet." They were "happy and strong" then. Unfortunately, their appointed muster-place denied them quarters, so "part of these newly enrolled soldiers, in the second month, miserably went into exile." At last the commissary assigned him a place in Hanau. But he has gotten no orders to leave, and they've been hanging around ever since, "unmustered." Sulz "begs and pleads" the emperor to allow him to lead them out, and make sure the Count of Hanau and the knightly estates in the region pay him the contributions they owe. This is an admirable stance. Not to mention that the presence of the Sulzsches Volk enables Wallenstein to squeeze roughly six thousand gulden a week from the County of Hanau. Graff von Hanau isn't complaining about that, even though he's now in serious debt; he just can't pay the contributions that Sulz is demanding on top of that money. (Sulz is doing this even though he sold the Count of Hanau a Salva Guardia, which is supposed to exempt you from contributions, a while back. I don't know if this was a legitimate error and he didn't anticipate needing the money, or if he simply doesn't care.) Incidentally, of that six thousand gulden a week nothing is going to Sulz's regiment's upkeep, which is where his demand for contributions comes from; what doesn't go into Wallenstein's pocket off the top probably gets shipped straight back to Bohemia, to be turned into the capacity to commit violence and exported west again. The total has come so far to “Dreyzehn mal hundert tausend gulden,” and the juxtaposition of the Graff von Hanau's description of his own precarious situation with the way he is forced by convention to address Wallenstein--”your gracious lordship,” “you graciously thought to do this,” etc—is grotesque. So why does Wallenstein want to give the Sulz Regiment to Wolff von Mansfeld? quote:We would have well seen, we would have liked it, if God the Almighty had led this young man to a longer life, and if his service to His Imperial Majesty had been lengthened, but because it fell otherwise to him, we must submit ourselves to his gracious will. quote:I have exactly this instant received aviso that Graff von Sulz obrist has died. Now I have wanted to offer his regiment to the lord. But on the 30th of October letters start showing up again with his signature on them. It's shaky though, and often paler than the rest of the text, as though the hand holding it didn't press very heavily on the paper. If he was sick, he might be recovering. If so it's slow: the signature remains trembly for the rest of this collection of documents, and Sulz is described by others as wanting things or making decisions only rarely. Most of the business of the Sulz Regiment is handled by Mansfeld and Rudolph Wolff von Ossa, colonel and imperial war commissary. Since they aren't staying in the same city (Mansfeld is still on his own estates), Ossa writes to Mansfeld about the decisions he makes with a level of detail I don't often see, like when he lists the towns he wants to quarter companies in by religion. Eventually, the Sulz Regiment is mustered, “cash in hand,” and marches out, although they later get into trouble when they plunder regions owned by Leopold, Archduke of Further Austria and the Emperor's brother. But it turns out from a secondary source that I had been right the first time—Wallenstein and Mansfeld do hate each other. Wallenstein was giving Mansfeld the positions he did--a supervisory position over all the Imperial armies within the Reich as well as command of Sulz's regiment--hoping that he would come into conflict with the Catholic League once he had them. Maybe these people would destroy each others' lives less avidly if they were civilians? Oh. Oh dear. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Only in the West, and not entirely. The problem with missiles through gun tubes is that missiles use HEAT shaped charges. HEAT charges increase in penetration mostly through increased diameter of the charge, and 120mm isn't exactly gigantic in that regard. The TOW is 152mm, for example. So you have a pretty hard upper limit to the armor your missile can punch through, given that you won't use a missile on a tiny APC. It's an expensive shot, so you'll want it for high-priority targets, like enemy tanks. Plus it's apparently not that trivial to harden a missile enough so that it can be launched out of a gun tube and/or firing a cannon is not necessarily conductive to keeping the fragile electronics needed to fire a missile in the cannon working. The US developed guns specifically for the purpose of firing missiles out the tube- the Soviets managed to make missiles fire out of their normal guns, though they still required modernizations to work. The advantage of firing ATGMs out of tank guns is that it signifcantly improves their ability to kill enemy tanks at range. The US had a long flirtation with these from the Abrams during the 90s. The improvements in ranged engagements may be useful for the T-55 and T-62s that have this missile capability- their AP rounds are mostly obsolete against tanks but they can still fire powerful ATGMs which have promising range. To be fair, though, we haven't really seen T-62M or T-55M in combat against other tanks, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Every game, both table top and video, seems to regard artillery as something you do to irritate and discombobulate the enemy in preparation for killing them all with your troops. But every game is also built on the premise that destroying enemy troops = winning so if arty was as effective as it is IRL there would be no fun games. You should play as grit in advance wars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Advance Wars is a drat fine TBS series, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:05
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Could you tell us about Napoleonic Wars era and Victorian era British rocket artillery? I expect KYOON GRIFFEY JR can certainly go into more detail, but the British rocket artillery of the Napoleonic Wars was more of a psychological terror when first encountered than a physically dangerous one. Once the French/American soldiers saw the rockets hilariously twist, trail and slam harmlessly in the ground by the 2nd volley they kind of caught on. As for the Victorian era, I heard they improved slightly. Enough to almost land in the area where they shot at it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Once the French/American soldiers saw the rockets hilariously twist, trail and slam harmlessly in the ground by the 2nd volley they kind of caught on. Was there a major American presence fighting for France in the Napoleonic Wars, or are do you mean 1812? I've not heard of this before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:16
|
|
Slaan posted:Was there a major American presence fighting for France in the Napoleonic Wars, or are do you mean 1812? I've not heard of this before. I meant War of 1812 yeah. I imagine there could have been some American volunteers who had a Jackson level of hatred for the British that volunteered though. To be fair, I expect the rockets were more useful attacking fortifcations. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Was there a major American presence fighting for France in the Napoleonic Wars, or are do you mean 1812? I've not heard of this before. Yep,1812, it's where we get the line "rocket's red glare" in our national anthem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Yep,1812, it's where we get the line "rocket's red glare" in our national anthem. Right. Was just making sure he didn't mean a significant volunteer force in France.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:As for the Victorian era, I heard they improved slightly. Enough to almost land in the area where they shot at it. Didn't they pinch the tech from the Indians?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:21
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Didn't they pinch the tech from the Indians? The Rockets? Pretty much yeah.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:There were also periodic attempts to attach rocket artillery to front-line tanks, particularly during WW2 including the Calliope and Whizbang. These were promised for World of Tanks and I am pissed they still aren't there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:These were promised for World of Tanks and I am pissed they still aren't there. I'm waiting for the Sturmtiger and Brumbar in the original tech tree. Or would be, if I still played and/or gave a drat about that game. Soz for derail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
So, who wants an hour long video on how rifles were built in the 18th century? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lui6uNPcRPA Always fun when making the barrel includes the phrase "several hundred welding heats." chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I never made any conclusions regarding thought processes, but the Germans do have a bunch of weird statistics poo poo like tanks in "long term repairs" (ie burnt-out husks shipped back to the factory) not counting as casualties. The serial number is intact, just slide a new tank under it! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
I'm looking for a book about early (Jan-May) 1942 in the dutch east asia area. Read Pacific Crucible: War at Sea in the Pacific, 1941-1942 Reading The Conquering Tide: War in the Pacific Islands, 1942-1944 But want something more about ABDA and such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Found a neat little animation that shows a colored map of Europe representing Allied and Axis territory over World War II. It's excellent for seeing the big offensives and the moment when Germany starts to really go "Oh poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:These were promised for World of Tanks and I am pissed they still aren't there. The Calliope is already in War Thunder as a premium vehicle for some exorbitant price, and in the next patch they're adding more premium rocket vehicles for every nation. I'm pretty sure the Germans just get a half-track with some rockets on the back. Fake edit: Having checked, it's the 'Panzerwerfer 42 auf Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.4/1' which in terms of real military history was used to some effect in Russia against partisans and during the invasion of Normandy.    Before this I wasn't really aware that the Germans had a mobile MLRS capacity in WWII.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Generation Internet posted:Before this I wasn't really aware that the Germans had a mobile MLRS capacity in WWII.   Semi related: why didn't the nazis use poison gas tactically? Was it just not that useful, or was there some other reasoning? They seemed willing to try basically anything else. Slavvy fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 07:15
|
|