|
PittTheElder posted: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. I kind of understand the layouts (except really sketchy on Soyuz). Figuring out how you get from the CM to the LM on Apollo confused me until I realized the CM was a little hat that the SM wore and the LM got docked by the pointy end of that. Gemini I understand layout-wise, but how you live with another guy in basically the cab of a pickup truck for two weeks still baffles the gently caress out of me. Shuttles I think I have down pretty well, though it isn't strictly milhist until you're  shooting a 23mm cannon from your spacecraft. ** Some of the shuttle missions were definitely Spooky As poo poo™ though e: I follow this thread, the Cold War aviation thread, the space thread, and the aviation thread, so there is quite a bit of overlap; apologies if I drift and please let me know if I wander too far offtopic hogmartin fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Nov 3, 2015 |
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
Fury isn't the pinnacle of realism by any means, but it's probably the best World War II tank depiction in media right now that isn't just "Tank sits on camera and fires at buildings until hit by a Bazooka". For Cold War MBTs, watch The Beast of War. It takes place in the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s and centers around a lost T-55. Both movies have a ton of camera time inside the vehicle. Also, watch that video I posted earlier of the Chieftain. The commander is sitting to the far right of the turret on an elevated seat, the gunner is sitting to the right of the gun in a somewhat reclined position, and the loader is doing the Slav Squat to the left of the gun. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Fury isn't the pinnacle of realism by any means, but it's probably the best World War II tank depiction in media right now that isn't just "Tank sits on camera and fires at buildings until hit by a Bazooka". For Cold War MBTs, watch The Beast of War. It takes place in the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s and centers around a lost T-55. Both movies have a ton of camera time inside the vehicle. Neither is on netflix, sadly. I'll see about tracking down the Chieftain video, thanks! e: I'm getting a real hard Pvt. Walker vibe from this guy's voice. I'm expecting him to tell me the IR lights are three bob apiece but for you, five for the lot. My downfall is hearing every British person through the prism of Dad's Army. hogmartin fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:
Why not use a .su domain? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Also, watch that video I posted earlier of the Chieftain Great video, thanks. The loader's safety switch (disabling the turret traverse) answers a lot of questions and raises some more since it's basically a trivial way of making the tank useless (though obviously not in normal use &c). I was kind of surprised that he was basically standing somewhat upright when he demoed the loader's position. I think I have a better idea of how the stations were manned, but I'm also impressed at how they could move without inadvertently flipping some minor switch (say, the loader's safety switch...) and not realizing it until something horrible happened - again, I say this as an ex-submariner. That driver must have been a lonely bastard though, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
World of Guns has a nice cutaway BMP model, if that helps. https://youtu.be/YLctab0dJxQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:World of Guns has a nice cutaway BMP model, if that helps. A bit, but the part where they included human models was a little short and I'm more trying to understand how 3-4 guys actually live in these things for weeks and still operate them as weapons. Thanks though!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
For spacecraft, you have to remember that they have no gravity to contend with, so they have a lot more space then they appear to have when we look at it on the ground. The Apollo capsules were apparently quite roomy and nice, although Gemini was apparently as cramped as it looks. Two weeks in that was apparently kind of hellish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
When I had the chance to fiddle about inside Soviet-era tanks/IFVs I still didn't know how the gently caress people fit in there. I am 5'11" and weighed about 170-175 pounds at the time. Didn't fit in some positions at all even without a helmet or gear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:When I had the chance to fiddle about inside Soviet-era tanks/IFVs I still didn't know how the gently caress people fit in there. I am 5'11" and weighed about 170-175 pounds at the time. Didn't fit in some positions at all even without a helmet or gear. You're too tall to be a tanker. A Soviet ergonomics guide I have pins the height of an average person at 170 cm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:A bit, but the part where they included human models was a little short and I'm more trying to understand how 3-4 guys actually live in these things for weeks and still operate them as weapons. Thanks though! Well, you get out. I mean, it'd take a lot (specifically WW3 nuclear hellscape) to force you to be closed down in it all day, every day. Out of combat, you get out to: eat, take a piss, sleep, briefings, and so on. My machine always felt more like a camper than a submarine 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You're too tall to be a tanker. A Soviet ergonomics guide I have pins the height of an average person at 170 cm. Woop, too tall to be a tanker! Or something. 175 here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Woop, too tall to be a tanker! Or something. 175 here. I'm 164 and almost to small
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Fangz posted:World of Guns has a nice cutaway BMP model, if that helps. That's a lot of firepower on one AFV. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Well, you get out. I mean, it'd take a lot (specifically WW3 nuclear hellscape) to force you to be closed down in it all day, every day. Out of combat, you get out to: eat, take a piss, sleep, briefings, and so on. My machine always felt more like a camper than a submarine So I've heard of infantrymen complaining about, say a 2-week FTX. I don't know dick about this but I get the impression that they go out into an operating area, sleep in bivvy sacks, eat MREs, and get periodic objectives and periodic supply. What's that like for tankers? Do people sleep in the tank? Where?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:That's a lot of firepower on one AFV. 5 crew? Or are two at the front dismounts too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Come to Finland!  These StuG and T-54/55 were cut open from the side for educational purpose. Now they can be seen at Parola Armour Museum. (You can't sit inside, though.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Come to Finland! Those are no joke what I'm looking for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:(You can't sit inside, though.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
JcDent posted:5 crew? Or are two at the front dismounts too? Three. The two bow machineguns are operated by dismounts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You're too tall to be a tanker. A Soviet ergonomics guide I have pins the height of an average person at 170 cm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
The food situation for Soviet men born in the 1920s can't have been too great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Antti posted:The food situation for Soviet men born in the 1920s can't have been too great. i'm assuming most of them are short as hell, both sexes
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i can't understand your moon runes measuring system, but were there a lot of women tankers in the red army during ww2? Here's one who was a total badass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
thank and god bless
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Woop, too tall to be a tanker! Or something. 175 here. I'm about 187 cm, so a giant compared to a Soviet tanker. hogmartin posted:Great video, thanks. The loader's safety switch (disabling the turret traverse) answers a lot of questions and raises some more since it's basically a trivial way of making the tank useless (though obviously not in normal use &c). I was kind of surprised that he was basically standing somewhat upright when he demoed the loader's position. I think I have a better idea of how the stations were manned, but I'm also impressed at how they could move without inadvertently flipping some minor switch (say, the loader's safety switch...) and not realizing it until something horrible happened - again, I say this as an ex-submariner. You could still see into the driver's compartment from the loader's position. The Chieftain was unique for its time by introducing a heavily reclined driver's seat, which allowed them to make a shorter tank with a severe slope to the hull.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
cool, 170 ish, smack in the middle of "average"! i am finally not on the "small" end of things we discuss here! edit: also, this isn't military history, but it is relevant: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/09/homo-naledi-rising-star-cave-hominin/404362/ tiny cave archaeologists HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I'd be hitting my head on the hatch at 2 meters, probably my jaw. Watching Chief fold himself into tanks makes my knees hurt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Speaking of Soviet tanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRtj_TSOHjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTnS0XS2al8 In the second video, his knees are almost up to the driver's vision port.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i can't understand your moon runes measuring system, but were there a lot of women tankers in the red army during ww2? Not a lot, but some. http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/12/world-of-tanks-history-section-women-of.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:cool, 170 ish, smack in the middle of "average"! i am finally not on the "small" end of things we discuss here! Do we have any data on how tall your dudes tended to be?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Animal posted:Do we have any data on how tall your dudes tended to be? they also had worse joints than civilian burials from the same period, but they ate more fat and protein. both of those findings are corroborated by documentary evidence, both for what soldiers ate and all the walking around toting heavy things they did. about one third of them had what the German text called Reiter-Facetten, Cavalry-Facets, on their hip joints from riding horses, so they were cav. I don't know what the word for that in English is. and everyone in the wittstock mass grave had sinusitis in life if you can read german, pick up ihre letzte schlacht which is about the wittstock excavation. a bunch of people in my reenactment company worked on that with the archaeologists, and my hauptmann said that some of the musketeers had died with bullets still in their mouths. i don't know why that didn't make it into the book HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Assumed family name "Oktyabrskaya", deary me. Just how fanatic party supporter must you be to rename yourself after a revolution?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
Was there a reason why this was the case? I get having a hard time kicking infections before antibiotics, but something that universal seem like there should be a reason beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Was there a reason why this was the case? I get having a hard time kicking infections before antibiotics, but something that universal seem like there should be a reason beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Not a lot, but some. quote:Aleksandra Samusenko A ward of the Army? Why was the Soviet army adopting 12 year old girls? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:my hauptmann said that some of the musketeers had died with bullets still in their mouths. Died with them in their mouths (as ready reloads I, assume) or had them placed in their mouths before burial (as ready reloads, I assume)? The difference is significant but I don't know if you can determine which 500 years postmortem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Squalid posted:A ward of the Army? Why was the Soviet army adopting 12 year old girls? A "son/daughter of the regiment" was a somewhat common occurrence. You see a kid wandering around some forest or burned out village, pick 'em up and make their life a little less lovely. There was an effort to periodically scan front line units for these kids and evacuate them to the rear, but often they would run away and rejoin their unit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Died with them in their mouths (as ready reloads I, assume) or had them placed in their mouths before burial (as ready reloads, I assume)? The difference is significant but I don't know if you can determine which 500 years postmortem. Choked to death on a bullet during a drunken party trick gone wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
hogmartin posted:Died with them in their mouths (as ready reloads I, assume) or had them placed in their mouths before burial (as ready reloads, I assume)? The difference is significant but I don't know if you can determine which 500 years postmortem. probably the first, since although they do care whether or not their dead are buried--sometimes--and will even lay them carefully in the graves--sometimes--they still strip them naked or nearly so and (unless he was important) bury them anonymously
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:32
|
|