|
100 Years Ago Thank God, today we have a brief break from bullshit to go check out some of more ridiculous experimental British weapons. The War Office is testing a massive water cannon, while the Ministry of Munitions's effort rejoices in the name of "Lemon's Wheel and Rotating Machine" - it's not entirely unlike the Great Panjandrum, which came up in this thread not so long ago. Lord Kitchener continues bumblefucking towards Gallipoli, and Captain Robert Palmer gives us a sense of garrison life in Amara while his mates prepare to march on Baghdad. HEY GAL posted:i successfully got drunk with peter wilson...and he likes my project Hieronymous Sebastian Schutze looks up from shooting his pistols out a window, nods, carries on 
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Hieronymous Sebastian Schutze looks up from shooting his pistols out a window, nods, carries on Steter files a lawsuit.  e: Hegel, did I get the name right? The dude who kept trying to snag Schutze's position? my dad fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:I was curious so i took a pair of side on photos, scaled them by wheelbase, and took a few rough measurements. The T-72 is indeed bigger, it's around 80cm longer, but i'm not sure that would impact the growth potential much knowing what we know now. From the front of the idler to the back of the turret the T-72 is about 25cm longer, and the turret ring is approx the same size as far as i can tell. Most of the size is due to the large engine compartment, since the T-72 engine is quite a bit larger. Ah I see, well any new additional equipment is going to contribute to the weight of the tank, which will stress the suspension on the T-64 tank. As T___A notes here, the T-64 style suspensions had problems here due to the increased dynamic load being placed on them from the extra weight of the engine and the extended hull shape causing them to fail. It appears that the T-72 has a much more sturdy suspension. I guess WoT making you always research a new suspension before anything else more fancy was accurate! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Guess who found his pictures of what the 2008-2010 Cheese & Vegetable Omelette MRE looks like in 2015? That looks like a tamale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Where did you get boxing from?  Yeah I'll shut up now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Didn't the English land some bow armed expeditionary forces in the 1500s or so that got absolutely wrecked by early continental pike and shot? Or is that more a factor of bills versus pikes and troop quality?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
What I've read about warbows' armor penetration, it could only be done from short ranges, and not against good plate armor. And by early modern era good enough armor could be mass produced. Of course it didn't cover the whole body, but even the cloth armor gave some protection against arrows. But why did the Chinese continue to use their bows for so long? Did their enemies lack good armor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Wrt. the ground attack aircraft in WWII, I found this article: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/ It seems to confirm what I've read from other sources, ie. that tank killing by planes was almost impossible, but the planes were good at harassing tanks and good against soft targets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I think you might want a cut and dry quantitative answer, but I have to argue against even giving one. An interesting side note on the decline of the English longbow is that the peasantry were more interested in lawn bowling than practicing their archery. Edward III first banned bowling in 1361, and Henry VIII banned it again with additional recreational games among the working classes to try to force them to practice more. Keeping a bowling green cost £100 per year to make sure only the aristocrats could own them, and the peasants could bowl only one day a year, Christmas Day, and only if invited. The ban wasn't lifted until 1825. Anyway, the longbow was losing its effectiveness as a weapon for a long time, both due to the improvements in armor and the ever-increasing amounts of training required to make an archer effective. Training someone to use a firearm was simple and fast (even if less reliable), producing more damage per cost so the declining curve of archery crossed the rising curve of firearms pretty abruptly. [Ed: changed $ to £. Duh.] Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Thank you very much for an excellent explanation of how this stuff works! I didn't realise ERA was useful against modern kinetic penetrators; I've always been under the impression that it was only really intended to counteract HEAT. Makes me think that the US and UK must be extremely confident in chobham's effectiveness that the abrams and challenger don't even have provisions for ERA (as far as I know, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong). The US and Britain do in fact make use of ERA on MBTs:   Though not as an APFSDS defense, those are intended to combat HEAT warheads from RPGs and ATGMs. The Soviets invested a lot of effort into ERA and they probably still have better panels, but it doesn't mean ERA is superior to the other methods, at least not versus APFSDS. It works very well, but so does the other methods. As for APS, as far as i know the Israelis are very happy with Trophy and how it performed last year, and wants to deploy a lot more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLCVi6PVNdY Xerxes17 posted:Ah I see, well any new additional equipment is going to contribute to the weight of the tank, which will stress the suspension on the T-64 tank. As T___A notes here, the T-64 style suspensions had problems here due to the increased dynamic load being placed on them from the extra weight of the engine and the extended hull shape causing them to fail. It appears that the T-72 has a much more sturdy suspension. Given that they had to lengthen the hull and place all the weight increase at the very rear, i would think that the suspension issue had a lot to do with the weight ending up too far back from the last road wheel and it rocking the tank due to the leverage. This would be a significant problem, and the T-72 wheelbase is in fact quite a bit longer (around 45cm more than a T-64) which would fix that. Trying to research this I see a whole lot of slapfighting and accusations, it's apparently quite political and some people appear to think the T-64 suspension was better http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/3462.html (Andrei is a regular on TankNet and while not an historian he's not a screaming idiot either as far as i can tell)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Re: where do tankers sleep? from several pages back: they sleep on top of the tank. Nice and warm and up out of the mud. Watch Nicholas Moran's other videos, he often gives his opinion of the comfort level of the vehicle's engine deck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:05
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Kafouille posted:Though not as an APFSDS defense, those are intended to combat HEAT warheads from RPGs and ATGMs. The Soviets invested a lot of effort into ERA and they probably still have better panels, but it doesn't mean ERA is superior to the other methods, at least not versus APFSDS. It works very well, but so does the other methods. What would the "other methods" be?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What I've read about warbows' armor penetration, it could only be done from short ranges, and not against good plate armor. And by early modern era good enough armor could be mass produced. Of course it didn't cover the whole body, but even the cloth armor gave some protection against arrows. The Manchu banners were required by law to continue training the bow, a measure aimed partly at military readiness but largely about maintaining a traditional separate culture. If left to their own devices they likely would have switched entirely to guns like the more independent steppe tribes did. Tuanlian militia were officially banned from owning firearms, so they would have often had bows, but this ban was rescinded by the time the Taiping took Nanjing. The Qing basically ran their military on a shoe string budget for over half a century, so there simply weren't enough guns in China to go around, especially once they found themselves fighting six wars simultaneously. The banner cavalry was effective in the small percentage of battles that weren't fought from fortifications, and I read a report claiming that Taiping units from the Yangtze area were quite good with bows (I didn't think the south was bow country, but that's what this guy said) but by and large both sides would take guns over bows whenever possible. It wasn't always possible. I don't see much armor in period artwork, but swordsmen usually have large shields that could cover most of their body if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Speaking of which, P-Mack, you haven't posted any Taiping stuff recently. Is it over, and is it now safe to slowly binge through your posts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
my dad posted:Speaking of which, P-Mack, you haven't posted any Taiping stuff recently. Is it over, and is it now safe to slowly binge through your posts? Nah, just been super busy. Should have a fresh post up this weekend and I'll try to get back in a regular groove.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:35
|
|
P-Mack posted:Nah, just been super busy. Should have a fresh post up this weekend and I'll try to get back in a regular groove. Hell yeah, super excited to hear this.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What would the "other methods" be? Reflecting plate arrays, various forms of NERA/bulging plates, things like the ceramic ball matrix in steel the Soviet used, there are a lot of different ways to try and break up kinetic penetrators, plus all the poo poo meant to interact with that like DU or Tungsten layers and air gaps and ceramics. There is a lot of ways to skin that cat but the details on a lot of it are still pretty secretive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What I've read about warbows' armor penetration, it could only be done from short ranges, and not against good plate armor. And by early modern era good enough armor could be mass produced. Of course it didn't cover the whole body, but even the cloth armor gave some protection against arrows. Peter Dekker did this a year or two ago: Peter Dekker posted:My heavy 82# Manchu bow proved its worth with a stunning 190 fps with an arrow of around 80 grams. A yew longbow of 119# got an impressive 170 fps from the same arrow but the test clearly showed the Manchu bow's potential. Both were shot by the same archer, Fairbow Nederland using the three finger draw. More detailed results will follow, and of course we will do lots more testing in the coming period. These bows were +120# on average and the pointblank output of such a weight would produce an amazing amount of energy. Shooting with a ring generally increases arrowspeed by 6-8%, so it's preeetty powerful. These large and heavy arrows are more like javelins. They carry alot of momentum, so they keep going when they penetrate something, which is very handy if you shoot at cloth armors or large animals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Reflecting plate arrays, various forms of NERA/bulging plates, things like the ceramic ball matrix in steel the Soviet used, there are a lot of different ways to try and break up kinetic penetrators, plus all the poo poo meant to interact with that like DU or Tungsten layers and air gaps and ceramics. There is a lot of ways to skin that cat but the details on a lot of it are still pretty secretive. Speaking of this. Does anyone have any tips on good books on the history and development of tanks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Peter Dekker did this a year or two ago: Could you make a comparison between the best Ottoman, British and Manchu bows? Also, how's your bow project going?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago “Lemon’s Wheel and Rotating Machine” is, I think, my favorite thing in all of World War I.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Well, I was about to argue something something French Revolution, but then Wikipedia said that the French King didn't need the States-General to approve taxation law like the English King needed his Parliament to, so I shut my mouth. I'd thought this was a more general requirement, but I guess the rest of the European monarchs weren't dumb enough to be Magna Carte'd or whatever. Understanding the financial state of the Ancien Régime is difficult when you look at it through the lens of the modern bureaucratic state. Theoretically the King's power was absolute, in practice the nobility had many ways to stymie royal authority, and the (from a modern perspective) incredibly underdeveloped royal administration had limited capacity to enforce its decrees. Most importantly the French parlements or regional aristocratic judicial bodies, had the duty of officially "registering" or recording royal edicts. Although this was supposed to be a simple administrative procedure, by the 18th century it had evolved into an effective veto power. While Kings could technically override the parlement and force edicts through anyway, this power was rarely used, and new taxes on the aristocracy were routinely blocked. In a world where authority relied on fragile institutions violating traditional arrangements could seriously undermine legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Siivola posted:I read poorly and thought you said "I haven't tried redirecting a fist, but gently redirecting someone trying to choke you works". So I figured I'd add "it works against fists too", thinking you were talking about BJJ or something (totally works, for generous values of "gentle")
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
my dad posted:Steter files a lawsuit. i was talking to an 18th century specialist the night before last and he said "why don't these people just duel each other?" because that's what the officers he studies would have done. but these guys will brawl like children but there are very few formal duels. instead, incessant lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Reflecting plate arrays, various forms of NERA/bulging plates, things like the ceramic ball matrix in steel the Soviet used, there are a lot of different ways to try and break up kinetic penetrators, plus all the poo poo meant to interact with that like DU or Tungsten layers and air gaps and ceramics. There is a lot of ways to skin that cat but the details on a lot of it are still pretty secretive. Right. What doesn't make sense to me is that it isn't an either/or situation, you can have ERA and whatever built in armour the tank has. Russian tanks are always drowning in the stuff yet you hardly ever see western tanks use it, and even in the pictures you posted it's only really there to protect the tracks and wheels. The glacis and turret front aren't covered, which would make me think that either A. they had a limited amount of weight budget and decided to spend it on protecting the mobility of the vehicle or B. the effectiveness of the frontal armour is somehow reduced with ERA blocks stuck to the front.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The Manchu banners were required by law to continue training the bow, a measure aimed partly at military readiness but largely about maintaining a traditional separate culture. If left to their own devices they likely would have switched entirely to guns like the more independent steppe tribes did. I've heard ridiculous stuff, like the Qing Government demanding a gun be in use for 40 years before replacement and the army being so far behind, that in one civil war, some rebels were excited by finding 1683 muskets in an armoury. Now I'd be excited too, but more from a history than a military aspect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
On tank talk, how good is this quora on the Merkava? Call me a naiive idealistic softie, but crafting a tank with crew survivability first and foremost in mind (instead of "eh, who needs the parts to last that long, if the tank is gonna get blown up sooner?) is rad. ERA, it seems, is a good way to up-armor a tank without major redesigns and replacement of turret and stuff, provided that suspension holds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Nobody likes fortresses. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
my dad posted:Nobody likes fortresses. Don't worry! I'll talk about the ice-fortifications carved into Alpine glaciers later. They were real deathtraps, you'll love it. JcDent posted:Merkava Why don't people put stinger bars on tanks? Steel tubing shouldn't be too heavy to prevent this sort of thing. If you aren't going to pair combat engineering vehicles with your tanks everywhere you go, surely you should give them some rudimentary recovery tools? Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
JcDent posted:On tank talk, how good is this quora on the Merkava? Also how common is it to use the same tank chassis as the base for a bunch of other classes of vehicles like an IFV and an SPG? e: having the engine in front probably helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
my dad posted:Nobody likes fortresses. cmon dude its Friday evening
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Dr. Klas posted:Speaking of this. Does anyone have any tips on good books on the history and development of tanks? All tanks? I don't know if you'll find something like that, but you can't go wrong with Zaloga or Forczyk. Also my posts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Could you make a comparison between the best Ottoman, British and Manchu bows? The first bow pisses me off, but I started to manufacture them. I could make an effort post in the future once they publish the results of Joe Gibbs shooting that heavy Crimean Tartar. I'm using all my free time atm to either shape the bows of the current year for the sinewing, splitting ungodly amounts of deer leg sinew each evening and preparing wood and stuff for the next year. Currently I have around 450g finished sinew which you can split at a rate of 5g/1h Regarding the first bow, I've made the mistake of assuming something in the tiller as if this was a wooden bow, which makes some repairs necessary, which means precious time that could be spent better on other bows. Besides, I've learnt that the final coats of glue on the sanded bow were NOT made with hideglue, which produced this result:  It must have been some other type, maybe palate glue. Something more flexible than hideglue. Weighting, rasping down a layer and applying a new final layer of sinew set me back a day, mopping up the other stuff will also take time, so I let it rest until there is more. One could accomplish ALOT more if one did this fulltime. You simply can't get stuff done that takes a day with 2-4 hour windows. Some stuff needs to be done instantly, once you finish a step. Every time you finish a surface that needs to be glued, you need to glue it up within 1-2 days, or the piece is hosed. That process also takes hours to finish. One day I managed to tiller a hornstrip, coat it and glue it on within a day without screwing it up. How did this work? I don't know. The cold season is approaching, which means that I have to get the sinewing of all 6 or 7 bows done until spring. The bond of collagen glues greatly increases when the glue gels in the cold, which makes more efficient bows (I secretly suspect that is one of the reasons why you don't see such bows in very hot and humid climates so often). The old bowmakers knew this, hence they did that step in winter or the colder season. The turks also used a larger bowtype that launches long and heavy arrows, which is a tad smaller than manchu bows. I don't know of anyone testing these bows in depth yet. Most shooters in this niche niche seem to favor smaller and faster turkish bows. Here's the Crimean Tartar   They require very long horns to make compared to the short turks, which can be made by very common smaller horn. There's an article about the inheritance of a bowyer in Istanbul, who seems to have specialized on these bows. A curiosity, there is one like this in a museum in Beijing, it was a gift for the Qianlong emperor. Apparently he liked it alot and used it to hunt. I guess I'll start to work on 2 of these in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
JcDent posted:On tank talk, how good is this quora on the Merkava? It's Quora, assume it's wrong until proven otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
about the bones thing, my callouses and JaucheCharly's callouses are on different parts of our hands due to our different hobbies, and we don't even shoot bows/hit people with pikes every day. you can have physical changes that people who know about bones can pick out without being deformed or whatever also my joints suck and loving hurt all the time and once i die some archaeologist will be able to look at them edit: this is a  and relevant articlehttp://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/csi-italian-renaissance-4796118/ so sick quote:A CT scan and digital X-ray revealed a calcification of the knees, as well as a level of arthritis in elbows, hips and lumbar vertebrae surprisingly advanced for anyone this young. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Hmm. Or you could argue that Elizabeth didn't have any major land wars going and didn't expect to be getting into one, which means the continual expenditure in terms of training to maintain an archer force didn't make any sense any more. Especially considering how Elizabeth inherited a terrible financial situation. Except Elizabeth did fight a major land war in Ireland, the 9 years war. Which almost bankrupted England and she didn't live to see the end of. Speaking of English armies in Ireland, the last time I'm aware of a contingent of longbow armed men being present at an actual battle is at Knockdoe in 1504, but it's not known for sure if they took part in the fighting (Knockdoe appears to be a fight purely between the Gaelic mercenary contingents of both armies). When we get to the 9 years war itself, the English forces in Ireland consisted of 3 main parts: English conscripts, Anglo-Irish levies and Gaelic allies and mercenaries. A large number of the conscripts were press-ganged, since serving in Ireland was basically a death sentence. You can probably imagine that training up a bunch of press-ganged conscripts with muskets and pikes is a lot easier than turning them into effective longbowmen. On the battlefield, some of the Irish "traditional" troops (used by both sides) came equipped with bows, but they were never used for massed archery, bows in Ireland were used at close range, intermixed with the melee guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Why don't people put stinger bars on tanks? Steel tubing shouldn't be too heavy to prevent this sort of thing. If you aren't going to pair combat engineering vehicles with your tanks everywhere you go, surely you should give them some rudimentary recovery tools? Even if it were possible to mount a stinger bar capable of holding up under the weight of a 60+ ton tank, it's unnecessary weight and bulk. Tanks are already extremely capable at traversing terrain - adding another ton of weight and ten feet of length to the front is not worth it. That Merkava flipped because it was going down a sheer rock wall, which doubtless could have easily been bypassed via a better route. A Jeep doesn't have to worry about air mobility or concealment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
JcDent posted:On tank talk, how good is this quora on the Merkava? Last I checked the Abrams was designed with a list of around fifteen priorities. The top was crew survivability. There's a reason for things like all of the ammo being stored in a blow-out rack in that thing. The family of tank derived vehicles thing is catching on, I think, with the Russian Armata and one of the US design studies for a next generation armored vehicle family. ERA is the most weight efficient way to increase armor protection. I think the western resistance to it has a lot to do with it being very dramatically ablative, but tanks like the late model M60s got it when deemed necessary. The Soviets seem to have been really keen on weight savings to prevent the sort of nasty spiral projects can get where one increase causes five more, so it fits in really well for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Surely the answer is 'the 16th century', because that's when this actually happened. Henry VIII still had longbowmen, Elizabeth didn't, and this change happened for a reason. Even if it's just logistics or 'it's easier to train people to use muskets than bows' (which it was), that's still a perfectly valid reason - having 100 longbowmen doesn't do you much good if your opponent has 500 musketeers. Well in terms of training and logistics then sure, firearms are much better than bows. The principal advantage of a firearm has always been that it is cheap and easy to use. But the question intentionally excluded those categories of determination in lieu of a matched battlefield comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
There's a reason George Washington wanted Pike and Longbow armed soldiers and the Duke of Wellington asked for archers to defend his cannons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:31
|
|