|
Hazzard posted:How did Fuhrer go from rank to Hitler's title?
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Führer (Führerin for a lady) literally just means leader - could be a CEO or whatever. You can even find Führers all over the world thanks to the German word for tourist guide being Fremdeführer or Touristenführer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Doesn't it just mean leader? I don't think that the title had any sort of progress from simply an officer rank to something that was used to title Hitler, there isn't any link between the two apart from both being used as 'leader' Yeah, just imagine it happening in present day with someone becoming The Commander, even though Commander is a rank
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Yeah, just imagine it happening in present day with someone becoming The Commander, even though Commander is a rank Or, y'know, The President (as opposed to any old chairman of a committee).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted: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 I couldn't tell you why it was so, but I recall reading about one episode with Prince Rupert, the most experienced general of the Royalists. Prince Rupert had served in the 30 Year's War, see, and picked up a few habits along the way. So come the Civil War, he happened to demand that Leicester pay 2,000 pounds in exchange for not getting sacked. Result: Instantly labeled and constantly caricatured as a mad butcher and told by the King to "slow your roll, this is England, not the Continent." I don't know enough about the period to do more than speculate, but maybe the reason the English were so chill was because they were an island nation? I.E. Most of their people wouldn't have had any personal experience of war for a very long time, unlike Continental countries with active enemies on their borders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I don't know enough about the period to do more than speculate, but maybe the reason the English were so chill was because they were an island nation? I.E. Most of their people wouldn't have had any personal experience of war for a very long time, unlike Continental countries with active enemies on their borders. Not really. As Hey Gal pointed out, a bunch of people served overseas before the Civil War; also England is and was not an 'island nation' i.e. entirely occupying one island, because Scotland, Wales and Ireland all exist and were happily fighting each other up to at least the previous century. Then you've got the Wars of the Roses before that. I mean the Civil War kicked off in the first place because a Scottish army beat Charles' English army, and then he tried to raise another army in Ireland to fight the Scots which made the English Parliament a bit nervous-like. All this within the British Isles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I couldn't tell you why it was so, but I recall reading about one episode with Prince Rupert, the most experienced general of the Royalists. Prince Rupert had served in the 30 Year's War, see, and picked up a few habits along the way. So come the Civil War, he happened to demand that Leicester pay 2,000 pounds in exchange for not getting sacked. Result: Instantly labeled and constantly caricatured as a mad butcher and told by the King to "slow your roll, this is England, not the Continent." I hadn't heard about him before. Interesting guy. He also had a magical dog.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Why did he have so many horses, did he put his cavalry on his own horses?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Führer (Führerin for a lady) literally just means leader - could be a CEO or whatever. You can even find Führers all over the world thanks to the German word for tourist guide being Fremdeführer or Touristenführer. The one thing I would add to this is that the Nazis had a whole cult of the leader going on and placed a huge emphasis on charismatic leadership as important to society as a whole. This "Leadership principle" was hammered on at just about every level of Party organization. In this way by calling Hitler THE Leader they were really framing him as a leader among leaders, the top of a pyramid that emphasized leadership at every level. Needless to say that word is one of the ones that became somewhat toxic after the 40s. You can still find it, especially in the verb form, but as a title they usually find some way to work around it and come up with something else. edit: also, German isn't just a language for compound nouns, you can add prefixes to various verbs to alter the meaning. Führen turns into verführen which translates as "to seduce."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So nobody expected them to live long enough for primer reloads to become an issue? Reloading the primers (officially called "vent tubes") is just a matter of swapping the magazine. I pulled up the manual's section on ammunition and this is what was expected to be carried: * 64 shells * 42 charge containers with a total of 84 powder bags (one bag for HESH, two bags for APDS) * 6 magazines each holding 14 vent tubes (for a maximum of 84 shots of the main gun before you're definitely empty) This is the initial loading procedure for the main gun: quote:a. Open the breech. The gun is semi-automatic and effectively caseless, so the breech is left open and empty after firing. This is how you load immediately after firing: quote:a. Place the projectile on the loading platform of the breech and push it into the chamber. This is a picture of the vent tube magazine:  And this is a spent vent tube next to a solid brass dummy tube: 
chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
WW2 Data The Japanese Navy has some 100mm and 120mm shells for us today. Which projectile could use short or long propellant sticks? What round(s) were used against submarines? How exactly does a 120mm Illuminant round work? Check it out!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I couldn't tell you why it was so, but I recall reading about one episode with Prince Rupert, the most experienced general of the Royalists. Prince Rupert had served in the 30 Year's War, see, and picked up a few habits along the way. So come the Civil War, he happened to demand that Leicester pay 2,000 pounds in exchange for not getting sacked. Result: Instantly labeled and constantly caricatured as a mad butcher and told by the King to "slow your roll, this is England, not the Continent." edit: there's actually an entire genre of english writing during the 30yw where they talk about how horrible it is. they were really interested in it and interested in the fact that it was happening somewhere far away from them HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
I think that the whole reloading sequence goes over my head without a video guide. I mean, they fist the propellant in, so that's cool. But it's the same way with describing tank turrets: "you can totally tell it apart by the IR sights and poo poo" means nothing when I can only point out the gun, IR searchlight and hatches.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
The Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish was basically a formal declaration of a practise that had been pretty common during the Tudor reconquest of Ireland, which was to just hang all captured or surrendering Irish soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Which one of you wrote a podcast on Pike and Shot for The History Network? (Not to be confused with The History Channel. THN is a dry-as-hell podcast on history stuff. Imagine a British Ben Stein. But with interesting content usually.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I think that the whole reloading sequence goes over my head without a video guide. I mean, they fist the propellant in, so that's cool. But it's the same way with describing tank turrets: "you can totally tell it apart by the IR sights and poo poo" means nothing when I can only point out the gun, IR searchlight and hatches. Something like this you mean? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NIaoOabF_0&hd=1
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I think that the whole reloading sequence goes over my head without a video guide. I mean, they fist the propellant in, so that's cool. But it's the same way with describing tank turrets: "you can totally tell it apart by the IR sights and poo poo" means nothing when I can only point out the gun, IR searchlight and hatches. This is the best way to describe it: 1. Pull back a handle and then smack down a button above it to load a blank cartridge as the primer. 2. Pull out a shell and shove it all the way in. 3. Take out one or two bags of propellant (which have little handles on them) from the compartments next to you and use a closed fist to shove them in after the shell, with the handle going in first. If they're not all the way in, the closing breech will split the bag and spill powder everywhere that blinds you when you pull the trigger. Two propellant bags are packed into each compartment, surrounded by a water jacket (one jacket for each compartment) that ruptures and drenches the powder in case a shell breaches it. 4. Pull a big handle to the left to close the breech. 5. Pull the firing guard near the breech all the way back. You have now loaded the gun
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:there's actually an entire genre of english writing during the last thousand years where they talk about how horrible war is. they were really interested in it and interested in the fact that it was happening somewhere far away from them The milhist nerd blood runs strong in the British Isles.  FWIW the only goon I have ever met in person is a Brit who lives and works in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Why there isn't a TV series based on Prince Rupert? Whether it would be a serious HBO-style thing, a rollicking sexy comedy or a crazed magical animal anime, I don't know. More seriously, did people in the 30 Years War period compare the quality of the fighting between the various conflicts going on at the time? The little I've read about the ECW gives a vague impression of both sides bumbling around a bit - not that that really matters in the context of the ECW itself because if you win, you win - there's no points for style in war. Can you even make an objective comparison between different conflicts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
I know there's different stereotypical styles of fighting, like the Netherlands is all about sieges and people who fought in Hungary against the Turks in the Long War thought in terms of fast movement and cav. There's different schools of thought, like the one associated with people who hung out with Maurice of Nassau, or the one that was French Calvinists who fought in the Netherlands on the side of the Dutch. "The Flanders Disease," if you're an Imperialist and you're talking about your Spanish friends, is slow, plodding movement and a focus on sieges. But I don't recall anyone talking poo poo about the quality of fighting in a particular area or war--at least not in writing, I'm sure that somewhere in England there was a hired foreigner or two just facepalming as his new charges tried yet again to war, he just didn't write it down. I think the English thought of themselves as peaceful and prosperous though, which was the truth. I think you can talk about quality of fighting in various conflicts, like how the Spanish and the Dutch in the 80yw both got really good at what they were doing, likewise the small, cav-heavy, extremely long-serving units of the second half of the 30yw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I think that the whole reloading sequence goes over my head without a video guide. I mean, they fist the propellant in, so that's cool. But it's the same way with describing tank turrets: "you can totally tell it apart by the IR sights and poo poo" means nothing when I can only point out the gun, IR searchlight and hatches. I went searching and found a really good video showing exactly where everything is on the Chieftain. World of Tanks, I know, but it's really high quality footage of the loader's station. What you're looking for starts at 10:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pvru_RU0ic Funny enough, the only reason I know what I do about the Chieftain is because I'm part of a friend's FATE game on another forum based around tank warfare and my guy is the loader in a Chieftain (and since another player is missing for a few months, I'm handling all the PCs and NPCs in the tank myself for a while). He surprised me with a PDF copy of the manual to study.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I went searching and found a really good video showing exactly where everything is on the Chieftain. World of Tanks, I know, but it's really high quality footage of the loader's station. What you're looking for starts at 10:45 Disregard any negative connection to WoT there, that guy and those videos are some of the best tank-centric stuff you can find on the web today. Gloss over the WGEU Challenger guy though, he's poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Disregard any negative connection to WoT there, that guy and those videos are some of the best tank-centric stuff you can find on the web today. Gloss over the WGEU Challenger guy though, he's poo poo. I never got why he's on their staff. He's got a lot of legit knowledge about armored vehicles and a relatively good way of sharing it in an approachable fashion, but then there's the rest of WoT right there throwing all manner of source material at an RNG and seeing what comes out. I have a Type 59 in that game and every once in a while I install the game, stomp some pubs, then uninstall because it's world of tanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Nick Moran's part of the OG tank-net crew since tyool 2000 and I've always appreciated his posts. Dude kept a diary there when he went to Afghanistan. e: also in Operation Think Tank they had Ken Estes do his bit, another stalwart internet duder. Strange to see how bideo james brought those folks out in the open. Koesj fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Phwoar that's a great commie tank writeup. Very true. It's sometimes hard to forget that the probable enemy (heh) of these tanks would have been these older tank and not the big scary Leo2, M1, Challenger, etc. That said, I have begun to have a real disdain for the T-80 that i'll have to fully explore once I get up to it. T___A posted:You should stop using English resources because you get stupid poo poo that is openly contradicted by the people involved. My Russian is not good enough yet to use their sources unfortunately, but you are right. I've lost count of the number of times in Zaloga's book that the D-54T gun changes from smoothbore to rifled and back. T___A posted:The rounds were entirely loaded by human power, however the Object 430 did have spent shell ejection system: Zaloga!  I had a feeling it was a pure human loader (WoT taught me this  ) but I assumed that in this case it was some mechanical assist system with 16 shells in the ready rack so to speak.T___A posted:While there were proposals using other engines the 5TD was always a thing from day one. I don't doubt it, but source? T___A posted:While there was a crisis of sorts it was due to the armor of the tanks not the gun they used. The Soviets thought the D-10T could not penetrate the new tanks at ranges required to maintain the edge. Also the D-54TS was deemed the solution, which is why it saw limited service with the 5 T-62As they built. This was another contradictory thing that I noticed in Zaloga's book, it was written that the D-54 would fix the issue as you said, but then later on in the book the reverse is stated. T___A posted:While it's true the U-5TS was the brain child of Lenoid Karcev the U-5TS was a compromise solution between Karcev and Khrushchev who originally wanted the 100mm T-12. However the ammunition of the T-12 was too long for the T-62 so Karcev proposed removing the rifling on the D-54TS to get the U-5TS. Correct, but I decided to gloss over this aspect as it's mostly important in regards to the T-62 rather than the T-64. I'll get to the T-62 later. T___A posted:First of all Morozov decided to mount the U-5TS on his own initiative, second of all this resulted in the Object 435 not the Object 430A (the Object 430A was the initial designation for the Object 432) T___A posted:The armor layout is a bit incorrect: Well, the glacis is right at least, (80steel+2(52Fiber)+20steel), but you're right the turret is off. Is that a diagram for the production version of the T-64A? What year? I should probably have you proofread my next ~tankspost~ JcDent posted:So T-55AM2 is basically old as balls T-55 with the latest updates? TBH, I don't know if T-55 ever got a B The T-55 didn't get a B version, but the T-54 did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I've lost count of the number of times in Zaloga's book that the D-54T gun changes from smoothbore to rifled and back. Surprising feats can be achieved given sufficient conscripts and time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:
 quote:
quote:Well, the glacis is right at least, (80steel+2(52Fiber)+20steel), but you're right the turret is off. Is that a diagram for the production version of the T-64A? What year?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Well than, not sure if I should edit my post or simply add links with your rebuttals to the further reading section. I certainly don't think that an updated re-post is appropriate. Work on the T-72 post has begun as well, comrades 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I certainly don't think that an updated re-post is appropriate. Nah man, post it again. No reason to go through this thread's backlog unless we have to. Thing's unwieldily long already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I went searching and found a really good video showing exactly where everything is on the Chieftain. World of Tanks, I know, but it's really high quality footage of the loader's station. What you're looking for starts at 10:45 Cool! Not everything is tained by WoT. Only WoT and everyone who plays it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
This caught my eye on the wiki front page:wiki posted:Did you know: So I had a look. Lt V. Van Eyre posted:All have heard of the British squares at Waterloo, which defied the repeated desperate onsets of Napoleon's choicest cavalry. At Beymaroo we formed squares to resist the distant fire of infantry, thus presenting a solid mass against the aim of perhaps the best marksmen in the world, the said squares being securely perched on the summit of a steep and narrow ridge, up which no cavalry could charge with effect ... Our cavalry, instead of being found upon the plain, where they might have been useful ... were hemmed in between two infantry squares, and exposed for several hours to a destructive fire from the enemy's jezails, on ground where, even under the most favourable circumstances, they could not have acted with effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelton_(British_Army_officer)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Wow quite a record of incompetence, he was second to Elphybey in Kabul quote:Only he could have permitted the First Afghan War and let it develop to such a ruinous defeat. It was not easy: he started with a good army, a secure position, some excellent officers, a disorganized enemy, and repeated opportunities to save the situation. But Elphy, with the touch of true genius, swept aside these obstacles with unerring precision, and out of order wrought complete chaos. We shall not, with luck, look upon his like again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
PlantHead posted:Wow quite a record of incompetence, he was second to Elphybey in Kabul People in this thread who have not read the Flashman series of novels may care to do so - the first one covers the first Afghan war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
And this was before the cluster gently caress that was the Crimean War as well.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Well than, not sure if I should edit my post or simply add links with your rebuttals to the further reading section. I certainly don't think that an updated re-post is appropriate.  there?Jaguars! posted:This caught my eye on the wiki front page:
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The British War Council falls over, mortally wounded, and regenerates into the War Committee, which will set a new British record by operating as designed to provide serious and sober oversight for a full 24 hours before starting to make some ominous spluttering noises and eventually careering headlong into a ditch. Anyway, they decide to prevaricate on the Gallipoli question by sending Lord Kitchener to have a look for himself. (Cries of "About bloody time!" from noises off.) Third Isonzo careers headlong towards its inevitable conclusion, Louis Barthas succumbs to the siren call of cafard, and it's finally time for the grand entrance onto the stage of my favourite person of the war: Flora Sandes, late of Nether Poppleton in Yorkshire, a British nurse who's been living and working in Serbia for a while now. She's been having a holiday back home, but has managed to find passage to Salonika and arrives today. Arquinsiel posted:Use this thread as proof-reading for an offsite blog, eventually Oh sure now everybody gets a blog
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Oh sure now everybody gets a blog You people can always count on me not getting one if that's of any consolation  Besides, it's not like he's gonna start reporting cold war soviet tank development day by day. Cold War HEAT posted:November 15, 1965: Today, Shurik is drunk and a cow wandes into the factory to eat the projects of the ATGMs...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
I'm kind of fascinated by the insides of tanks, because I really can't visualize where all the stuff is. Even with plan diagrams, I don't understand what it's like to be inside one, except maybe the Renault FT. Cameras can only pull back so far and cover so much, so perspective of cramped spaces is hard to understand that way (and I say this as an ex-submariner). The turret-hull interface, on the inside, is the biggest point of mystery. The commander and gunner (and presumably loader) sit in a rotating basket under the turret, with the driver in the hull, but they all have some kind of access to the other, right? Like, I imagine there's a way for a driver to worm himself through the hull, past the basket supports, into the turret basket? And the loader has to have some way to get to ammo once he's gone through his ready stores, so he needs access to magazines in the hull, right? Wacky outliers like the Stridsvagn 103 and Merkava aside - though I'd love to hear about them too - how does the crew manage themselves in a conventional MBT? If a gunner suddenly gets pointed to a target by the commander, is the loader in danger of losing limbs as the basket rotates and the hull doesn't? A confined space seems a hell of a place to manage a rotating space with a relatively stationary one, but clearly people do it and I don't see how.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Buy a full interior model kit, it helps to see how cramped these things are. As for getting around the tank, it's usually possible. However, for Soviet cold war super- compact MBTs the driver could be hard to get to since he was blocked off by the autoloader. On the Ferdinand, the driver and radio operator were blocked off by the engine compartment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
hogmartin posted:I'm kind of fascinated by the insides of tanks, because I really can't visualize where all the stuff is. Even with plan diagrams, I don't understand what it's like to be inside one, except maybe the Renault FT. Cameras can only pull back so far and cover so much, so perspective of cramped spaces is hard to understand that way (and I say this as an ex-submariner). The turret-hull interface, on the inside, is the biggest point of mystery. The commander and gunner (and presumably loader) sit in a rotating basket under the turret, with the driver in the hull, but they all have some kind of access to the other, right? Like, I imagine there's a way for a driver to worm himself through the hull, past the basket supports, into the turret basket? And the loader has to have some way to get to ammo once he's gone through his ready stores, so he needs access to magazines in the hull, right? This is always how I've felt about spacecraft too. I've long wished somebody had high-fi replicas of Gemini, Apollo and Soyuz capsules that one could sit down in. I did have a chance to stick my head and shoulders into an Orion capsule mockup at JSC, but it's just not the same as getting to sit in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:35
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.