|
Koesj posted:The front/side armor layout on a cast turret is a bit in flux anyway, so maybe we're talking about two different slices on the same vehicle here?
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
What's this talk of one and two piece ammo? I thought all tanks used a shell that looks like a giant cartridge and the separate powder and shot was a ship and artillery thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What's this talk of one and two piece ammo? I thought all tanks used a shell that looks like a giant cartridge and the separate powder and shot was a ship and artillery thing. Some tanks, like the Soviet IS-2 and American M103 have indeed used two piece ammo, though it's generally avoided because it makes loading the gun a lot slower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Remember folks that those 'advanced' NATO tanks of the early 60s http://www.armslist.com/posts/46162...0mm-live-cannon And you can still have them today!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Some tanks, like the Soviet IS-2 and American M103 have indeed used two piece ammo, though it's generally avoided because it makes loading the gun a lot slower. The Americans experimented with liquid binary propellants for artillery, but never got it to work right (the pressure kept unpredictably spiking and wrecking the artillery piece).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What's this talk of one and two piece ammo? I thought all tanks used a shell that looks like a giant cartridge and the separate powder and shot was a ship and artillery thing. Ammunition for guns like the 122 and 152 mm the Soviets used in their heavies weighed 25 - 50 kg. Way too big and cumbersome to manhandle in one piece in the cramped confines of a turret.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Ammunition for guns like the 122 and 152 mm the Soviets used in their heavies weighed 25 - 50 kg. Way too big and cumbersome to manhandle in one piece in the cramped confines of a turret. If they were smart, they'd just install a crane system to load really heavy rounds! But yeah, some rounds came in several "pieces" either because they were too heavy or to adjust how much propellant was used, similar to using mortars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
This is exciting; while I didn't find anything on a civil war general who thought he was made of glass, this was a 'popular' delusion in the middle ages. Charles the VI of France had it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
For reference, here's what one piece ammo for a D-25 looked like:
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:If they were smart, they'd just install a crane system to load really heavy rounds! That isn't exactly a flawless approach either. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:That isn't exactly a flawless approach either.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
I don't get it, is that a homemade boondoggle or a crane that was actually intended for use on that platform? Seyit hand-carried his 3 artillery shells because the crane failed- my point was that they can break (not that that's a reason not to use them, but it's a warning).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Some tanks, like the Soviet IS-2 and American M103 have indeed used two piece ammo, though it's generally avoided because it makes loading the gun a lot slower. No it doesn't, the Soviets experimented with one-piece ammunition for the IS-2 and ISU-122. Not only was loading slower with the one piece shell, the gun could only be loaded within a very limited range of angles and the tank could fit less shells this way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
I'm disappointed that there isn't a wonderfully overcomplicated system that runs the crane off of the tank engine, while also having a fair chance of burning the tank to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Obviously for loading large caliber guns the approach used in Churchill AVRE was the best, as you weren't limited by the cramped confines of the turret.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:No it doesn't, the Soviets experimented with one-piece ammunition for the IS-2 and ISU-122. Not only was loading slower with the one piece shell, the gun could only be loaded within a very limited range of angles and the tank could fit less shells this way. Isn't it the case that two piece ammunition is the faster way to load guns that tend to have two piece ammunition, while lighter shells are made as one piece?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Yes, the idea is to give your loader something short enough to maneuver around the turret and light enough to lift.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Some tanks, like the Soviet IS-2 and American M103 have indeed used two piece ammo, though it's generally avoided because it makes loading the gun a lot slower. Lots of tanks today use two-piece ammo. The Challenger 2 has the projectile, and a combustible-case charge that's loaded separately. Once you get to a certain size of ammunition, trying to do it in a single piece results in a cartridge too big and heavy to be easily manhandled around the turret by a single guy. Having two smaller units can result in faster loading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Well poo poo, thanks for correcting me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Lots of tanks today use two-piece ammo. The Challenger 2 has the projectile, and a combustible-case charge that's loaded separately. Then why is the rest of NATO using single piece loading for the 120mm? It's so the loader can have a moment to take a sip of tea, isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Funny how this never comes up when discussing the pros and cons of the russian love affair with auto loaders considering it seems like an easy way to solve the problem entirely whilst also removing all the equipment and poo poo you need for an extra crew member.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Then why is the rest of NATO using single piece loading for the 120mm? I think modern 120 mm range guns are right near the inflection point where it starts making some sense to use two parts, and I wouldn't be surprised if the HESH shell was heavy enough to push it over the edge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
I just now discovered this thread and I love you all so very much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Lots of tanks today use two-piece ammo. The Challenger 2 has the projectile, and a combustible-case charge that's loaded separately. The Chieftain could go as far as 4-piece ammo, as it used a shell with powder bags behind it. The gunnery manual (I have a digital copy on Dropbox if anyone's interested) lists differing numbers of bags for different types of shell. The "primer" was a magazine full of what were basically blank rounds automatically loaded behind the powder bag. So a separate piece, but the gunner only had to reload the primers every 20 or so rounds I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Modern 120mm ammo is really light for it's caliber. The whole round for a M829A1 (Gulf war era US ammo) 120mm APFSDS round is just about 21kg, and the projectile + sabot is about 9kg. A WWII era 122mm from an IS-2 is 25kg for an AP projectile alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The "primer" was a magazine full of what were basically blank rounds automatically loaded behind the powder bag. So a separate piece, but the gunner only had to reload the primers every 20 or so rounds I think. So nobody expected them to live long enough for primer reloads to become an issue? By the way, I'm listening to the revolutions podcast about the English civil war and I'm still confused as to how everyone is able to both raise and equip armies thousand strong. Are there that many people willing to march off to war at the drop of the hat? Are the arms that easy to manufacture? Does nobody hear about the continuous defeats? Does nobody know about wages going unpaid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So nobody expected them to live long enough for primer reloads to become an issue? Beats starving to death and/or being looted by the armies of people who already enlisted. Also, in some cases at least, genuine religious conviction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Did the problems that applied to continental mercenary armies even apply during the English Civil War? Given that parliament had to finance a army before it was raised,and early on in the conflict there was no central figure borrowing money to finance the army (like a king) it might be that they actually had steady cash flows and weren't all in piles of debt. Maybe, at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Did the problems that applied to continental mercenary armies even apply during the English Civil War? Given that parliament had to finance a army before it was raised,and early on in the conflict there was no central figure borrowing money to finance the army (like a king) it might be that they actually had steady cash flows and weren't all in piles of debt. Maybe, at least. Ahahahaha. (It's hard raising taxes in wartime, and there wasn't much in the way of infrastructure for it before the war either which didn't help; one of the big conflicts before the war was Charles I trying to develop this and a lot of people who would end up on the Parliamentarian side resisting). Places like France had a much more developed system of local government compared to 17th century England.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Did the problems that applied to continental mercenary armies even apply during the English Civil War? Given that parliament had to finance a army before it was raised,and early on in the conflict there was no central figure borrowing money to finance the army (like a king) it might be that they actually had steady cash flows and weren't all in piles of debt. Maybe, at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army#Second_English_Civil_War it interests me, though, that most of their mutinies are about politics--these guys are comparatively very invested in this stuff. despite the pay problems, the ECW is like baby's first early modern conflict compared to the poo poo i study. there aren't even that many atrocities, and lots of times the soldiers don't loot feedmegin posted:Ahahahaha. edit: feedmegin, why are the soldiers in this war so chill and nice, it weirds me out. is it that a bunch of them served in the Empire and hated what they saw, or what HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
I'm slowly going through Peter Wilson's history of the Thirty Years War, and only just got to the part where the organization of regiments is described. He mentions that colonels and lieutenants and the general ranking system in use today was around then, which this even this thread has noted before, but something about his language reminded me that somehow that ranking system wasn't always around. When did the modern ranking system appear? I know the Romans had centurions and decurions and so forth, and I know that by the early modern era there were majors and sergeants, but I have no idea what was in-between, and how those majors and sergeants ever actually came to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I'm slowly going through Peter Wilson's history of the Thirty Years War, and only just got to the part where the organization of regiments is described. He mentions that colonels and lieutenants and the general ranking system in use today was around then, which this even this thread has noted before, but something about his language reminded me that somehow that ranking system wasn't always around. (infantry company, german organization) officers: captain lieutenant fendrich fuhrer fourier profoss musterschreiber feldscherr (company doctor) sergeant (one per company) corporals (three or four per company) drummers (three per company, they're officers) fife (one per company) common soldiers: gefreyters lance passades, experienced people who get a little extra because they also help train the newcomers--this is probably pretty casual, since the word turns up in conversation but not on the rolls everyone else, divided into pike, halberds (if applicable), rodeleros (if applicable), muskets cav has rittmeisters instead of captains, trumpeters instead of drummers, and a whole bunch of saddlers and poo poo the modern organization is from after the military reforms of the turn of the 17th/18th century or from the 18th century. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:france? nothing works in early 17th century france. try spain Yeah, I was thinking more late 17th century France. I'm not sure, but I don't think it's the Empire (we mostly didn't have one yet, especially compared to Spain!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Yeah, I was thinking more late 17th century France.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:no, the Empire. The Roman one. I was asking if they had been to the Thirty Years' War. Ohhhh. Hmm. How common is it for your guys to have families with members on both sides of the civil war? That was common with gentry in the ECW as 'insurance', and I can see it making it hard to really demonise the other side (not that that always helped since first Parliament won then the Royalists came back sooo). Also, no language/ethnic barriers, and not as big a religious difference (except when there were, e.g. Ireland, and then you get more in the way of atrocities).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Ohhhh. edit: the language barriers thing reminds me of something interesting. in civilian accounts of atrocities, they're blamed on "Croats" or Finns a lot of the time. This could be because that's what light cav is for, sort of, it could be because Germans/Bohemians/Lothringians are more likely to blame bad things on people who are very distinctively Other, or it could be because people from the Balkans or Finland are least likely to speak good German/French, and can't ask for something, say they'll pay, negotiate, etc HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
I don't know, that sounds like every other historical description of Finns abroad I've heard. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Yesterday: Two Entente ships are wrecked in heavy weather at Gallipoli, where the weather is rapidly becoming downright hostile. Serbia resorts to Dad's Army for national defence in the face of the invasion, the Greek parliament prepares to vote down the King's preferred prime minister, General Cadorna re-re-renews fighting at Third Isonzo, and another long day for Louis Barthas begins with yet another missive from the captain. Today: Good news, for a given value of good news, coming out of Third Isonzo. On the other hand, one of their regimental commanders on Mount San Michele has just tried to refuse a direct order to attack for the tenth day in a row, but eventually he relents under the weight of all the brass hats leaning on him. The invaders in Serbia now begin the fight for Nis, and Louis Barthas makes what I hope is an accurately-translated (and excellent) pun as he goes to see Captain Cros-Mayrevielle to explain himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:light cav horses are small, cheap, and hardy, the expensive ones are for important people (wallenstein owned thousands of them and kept a very good stud on his estates) or the really heavy cav. Why did he have so many horses, did he put his cavalry on his own horses?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
How did Fuhrer go from rank to Hitler's title?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 15:42
|
|