|
Despite all these inventions, is solid steel still the best armour per unit *volume*?
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
You can get better performance out of thinner layers of really dense materials like DU or tungsten alloys, but good old RHA is still very good at it's job. It's just that the main constraint is weight, not volume, in most applications, and most of those things are get really expensive fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Despite all these inventions, is solid steel still the best armour per unit *volume*? It probably is as a unitary component but composites will outperform steel in just about every important way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Despite all these inventions, is solid steel still the best armour per unit *volume*? No, because HEAT will gently caress up, say 150mm of solid steel whereas it probably will have problems with two 50mm plates with 50mm of air in between. Boom you just saved a third in weight for free. I don't know if APHE is really part of a modern MBT loadout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:sowing fields with the charred corpses of white babies and lighting every building on fire as he passed. Incidentally, these particular actions ought to improve crop yield  Here's some Falklands war propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:No, because HEAT will gently caress up, say 150mm of solid steel whereas it probably will have problems with two 50mm plates with 50mm of air in between. Boom you just saved a third in weight for free. I don't know if APHE is really part of a modern MBT loadout. As far as i know that's not really true for modern HEAT warhead, the current day HEAT jets are much more cohesive and don't suffer nearly as much from pure standoff, you need something to disrupt the jet. It has to do with the precision of the cone manufacture and ensuring even detonation of the explosive. And APHE and every other full caliber kinetic round are very obsolete now, even in autocannons. It's not really possible to evaluate modern armor in generic terms, you need to specify the threat, the defeat mechanisms are too closely tailored to the expected projectiles for a generic comparison to make sense. Hell that T-72B array I posted earlier may very well have a 500mm+ equivalency in steel for stopping APFSDS darts, but i'm sure it's quite a bit lower than that for a big old WWII style AP round. (Note that you'd still need a goddamn battleship cannon to be anywhere close to the penetration required while firing full caliber AP rounds)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
If that is the case the Iraqi T72's which the challenger 1 engaged during the second gulf should have shrugged off sabot rounds but we all know how that ended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
captain poopfister posted:If that is the case the Iraqi T72's which the challenger 1 engaged during the second gulf should have shrugged off sabot rounds but we all know how that ended. I thought Chally's have HESH stuff, my one tanks book even has a blurb from an excited British tanker talking about HESH and Desert Storm
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Iraqi T-72s were most definitely not T-72B, the best ones were locally produced T-72M1s, meaning export versions of the T-72A, a tank introduced in 1979. They were using poo poo-tier BM-15 steel ammo, bad optics and had downgraded armor packages. The contemporary T-72 would have been a T-72B with Kontakt-5 and BM-42 tungsten alloy APFSDS with nearly twice the performance, a whole other thing and much more comparable to the M1A1s and Challys running around, if lacking in thermal sights (A large disadvantage and a point where even modern Russian stuff is still somewhat behind) For scale, in 1979 the US army was introducing the M60A3. Also HESH rounds would be rather ineffective versus composite armor, as even a small airgap will prevent the shockwave being transmitted effectively through the armor and fail to cause backface spalling. Chally used APFSDS to plink real tanks, just like everyone else. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I thought Chally's have HESH stuff, my one tanks book even has a blurb from an excited British tanker talking about HESH and Desert Storm HESH wants to blow up tank!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Re Sherman: it's pretty devastating to your economy when it's entirely dependent on slave labour and an army sweeps through freeing all the slaves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Also I realise this is pages ago but: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 Hey fellow tabletop goon! I've wanted to run a tank crew game for forever but I've always struggled with how boring 2-3 members of the crews jobs would be to represent via tabletop mechanics. You're playing the loader, so I assume you must've found a way to make that fun in-game; how'd you manage that? To my mind I can see loader being a trap of "spend an action to load a shell" every round.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Also I realise this is pages ago but: Only War with a Russ? Actually, I have no idea how'd you play Only War as, say, an artillery regiment. Roll to load shell, roll to calculate balistics (-5 to windage), roll to enter coordinate runes, etc?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Only War with a Russ? I imagine lots of complaints about dumbass Commissars ordering danger close artillery strikes to get medals. Oldest play in the book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I imagine lots of complaints about dumbass Commissars ordering danger close artillery strikes to get medals. Oldest play in the book. That would be dumbass officers calling them in, Commissars to kill them afterwards if they don't hit anybody 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The situation on the Isonzo is now so ridiculous that even an Italian general nicknamed "The Butcher" (and it's not for his love of fine charcuterie) is going "steady on a minute, maybe we should think about this before carrying on fighting". Gales continue to blow on Gallipoli, and they're starting to wreck the improvised port facilities on the beaches; Lord Kitchener arrives at Salonika with Yet Another Good Idea in tow, this time for landing men in Turkey itself for some ill-defined purpose; the French beadle (played in this performance by General Gallieni) yells at Sarrail's Olivier le Torsion for daring to ask for more gruel; and Flora Sandes goes on a visit to a couple of field-ambulances while waiting for permission to go there permanently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Only War with a Russ? Congratulations! You've been appointed forward observers! Also if I remember right, a loader is among other things another set of eyes looking at bushes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I imagine lots of complaints about dumbass Commissars ordering danger close artillery strikes to get medals. Oldest play in the book. Commissars know only one way to call in artillery: "All batteries, fire on my possition" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Mirificus posted:This is a pretty unusual tank: UDES XX20 Light Tank Late reply, but anyway. It was a one-off prototype intended to test the viability of an unmanned turret on an articulated chassis. The engine is actually in the rear half of the vehicle. It survives to this day stuffed in a garage at the Arsenalen tank museum; I've seen it and walked on it:  (in this photo I'm standing on the strv 103 "No Hands" prototype used for tests with remote control) The main thing they were trying to test was the articulated steering system on a vehicle significantly heavier than the Bv 206. Conventional tanks steer by making one track go faster/slower than the other; this thing (and the bv 206) steer by forcing the two halves of the vehicle to bend against each other. This is more efficient than conventional steering, you get more of the engine power to propel you forward instead of wasting it on transmission and friction losses, and you also avoid the tracks cutting down into the ground too much - the bv 206 has some truly exceptional terrain performance. On the UDES XX 20 and its precursors they took this one step further, because they wanted to be able to turn the vehicle on the spot. They tested steering with both two and three axes of control - pitch and yaw, then pitch, yaw and roll. By standing both vehicle halves "on their toes" (raising the center of the vehicle above the ground) you could also turn using the conventional method and turn the vehicle on the spot. Like this:   The test vehicle they used here (UDES XX 5, a modified bv 206 chassis) was a bizarre creature that was not stopped by any conventional obstacle. It could climb up on a tank transport railroad car without using any ramps. In the end though they concluded that while terrain performance was better, it wasn't worth the increased costs and complexity and the increased vulnerability around the articulation between the two halves of the vehicle. If you want more pics go here and ctrl-f xx 20: http://www.ointres.se/udes.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
And Germans make an armored ambulance version of BV206:
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I doubt the outer layer would be that easily punched through, if it couldn't withstand at least small arms fire then it would be just too easy to short circuit. I do recall Brits were researching something like that just now... ah, here it is: http://youtu.be/o7rxBifd0cY Phanatic fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Congratulations! You've been appointed forward observers! Bushes have been phased out in 2015 bud
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Only War with a Russ? Yeah, that's kind of the issue I see with a lot of tank positions. Driving the tank (and potentially ramming things) could be fun, as would getting to shoot things, but the guy who's commanding is at best just rolling a load of spot checks and loaders have nothing to do that's not "keep loading shells". Assistant might get a hull MG or something depending on era. The solution I always came back to was "The PCs are tank commanders and do everything through NPC crew members", so it'd end up like WoT or WT with funny dice, but the siren call of having one tank for a party has always interested me, I just couldn't make it work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, that's kind of the issue I see with a lot of tank positions. Driving the tank (and potentially ramming things) could be fun, as would getting to shoot things, but the guy who's commanding is at best just rolling a load of spot checks and loaders have nothing to do that's not "keep loading shells". Assistant might get a hull MG or something depending on era. The solution I always came back to was "The PCs are tank commanders and do everything through NPC crew members", so it'd end up like WoT or WT with funny dice, but the siren call of having one tank for a party has always interested me, I just couldn't make it work. When tanks call it a night, all crew members have as much responsibility in guarding the lager? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Seems like a strong argument for an autoloader.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Drive a Baneblade? Driver and up to eleven barrels of hell! (Then spend the game trying to pull it out of a mud pit) Our go full  and get one with a fighting platform so your players can use carronades to fight off boarding parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, that's kind of the issue I see with a lot of tank positions. Driving the tank (and potentially ramming things) could be fun, as would getting to shoot things, but the guy who's commanding is at best just rolling a load of spot checks and loaders have nothing to do that's not "keep loading shells". Assistant might get a hull MG or something depending on era. The solution I always came back to was "The PCs are tank commanders and do everything through NPC crew members", so it'd end up like WoT or WT with funny dice, but the siren call of having one tank for a party has always interested me, I just couldn't make it work. Focus on the non-combat aspects, perhaps? Make the bulk of the campaign be about all the stuff the tank does between actual engagements - scrounging for food and supplies, arguing with/stealing from the quartermaster, keeping a close eye on the tank's state of repair, building a good working relationship with the units you'll be alongside, schmoozing with the CO and any other brass in the area, figuring out how to get the goddamn thing across a ditch too steep to simply drive across, keeping an ear out for intel and on the spot rumors about what's going to happen in the future and perhaps a little personal reconnaissance. The actual combat becomes more of a reward and payoff for all the good prep work the players did leading up to the fight than the primary challenge of each session, so that even if in the actual fighting the loader just keeps loading the shells, he can say to himself "Yeah, but I was the guy who managed to figure out how to jury-rig that bridge out of the broken chimney so that we could get here to the fight in time to matter in the first place." Or the commander can say "I was the guy who convinced our LT to allow us to pull this flanking maneuver to begin with, if I hadn't done it we'd have been doing a frontal assault against heavy fortifications." Focus on the feel of a team of dudes trying to figure out how to make their way through a war together instead of the action hero, high-octane shooting stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
many 17th century images of soldiers are somewhat idealized, physically. everyone's clean and spruce and prosperous. one exception is the engravings of Hans Ulrich Franck. Like Callot, this period's other great war engraver, his people are skinny, tattered, hungry, and murderous, but unlike him he also has a delicate eye for the positive things in their lives: 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Apropos nothing, while researching something else I stumbled across this letter to the editor from 1901 in the New York Times, from Alexander Chisolm regarding the Battle of Shiloh. He was Beauregard's aide and was a first-hand observer of the battle and its preparations. ACW buffs may find it interesting. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Pretty much. As far as I know, the image of Sherman burning down the South largely comes from Gone With the Wind, which not only was a fictionalized account but wasn't even set during the March to the Sea. Not that Americans would let such things interfere with their impressions of pop history. While some damage was caused to wealthy estates and such, the vast majority of economic damage came from Confederates practicing scorched earth tactics, Sherman's forces breaking up the rail lines (which were legitimate military targets), and the liberation of tens of thousands of slaves. Sherman's March was traumatizing for the South, but largely because it was such a shock for the citizenry to realize how weak their military really was. I have the memoirs of my multiple Greats Aunt who remembers Sherman passing through her town. An officer let her ride on his horse and they left my family alone. They were wealthy landowners, for what it's worth. sleepy.eyes fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:I have the memoires of my multiple Greats Aunt who remembers Sherman passing through her town. An officer let her ride on his horse and they left my family alone. They were wealthy landowners, for what it's worth. How old were they when they told you this story?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:How old were they when they told you this story? I was confused, too, but I think he means "memoirs" of great great great Aunts. Multiple greats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
sullat posted:I was confused, too, but I think he means "memoirs" of great great great Aunts. Multiple greats. Yeah, this. She was a young kid, maybe 10. I'd have to dig them out of wherever they're stored to find out for sure. Phone posting is not always helpful when you misspell a lot in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I've wanted to run a tank crew game for forever but I've always struggled with how boring 2-3 members of the crews jobs would be to represent via tabletop mechanics. You're playing the loader, so I assume you must've found a way to make that fun in-game; how'd you manage that? To my mind I can see loader being a trap of "spend an action to load a shell" every round. We're playing it in FATE in play-by-post, so I get the opportunity to do narrative writing as well (and I'm "lucky" enough to currently be controlling the whole tank after the only other player in the four-man crew had to go on hiatus). But along with loading, the loader mans a hatch-mounted machine gun when not actively involved in keeping the main gun fed. So urban combat has the loader spending a lot of time blasting poo poo. Our Chieftain even had a field modification to fit an ASG-17 grenade launcher to the loader's hatch for some extra firepower. In an emergency like something needing to be removed from the outside of the tank or picked up that's fallen and too important to leave behind, the loader will probably be the first guy to be told to jump out and fix it. And sometimes a tank crew has to fight as infantry; in Iraq, tank crews in certain situations would sometimes be asked to do normal infantry operations like market raids and searching vehicles. The loader position is also one that may have to take over for another (like the gunner) in case of a casualty taken. Loaders are the newbie job of a tank crew, since it's relatively easy and lets them see how stuff in the turret works. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Incidentally, these particular actions ought to improve crop yield Good God. I did my undergraduate honors thesis on the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty debate. This was incredible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Yeah, this. She was a young kid, maybe 10. I'd have to dig them out of wherever they're stored to find out for sure. Phone posting is not always helpful when you misspell a lot in the first place. Dig them out, and then scan them. If they're delicate, ask your local university library about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Dig them out, and then scan them. If they're delicate, ask your local university library about it. They'd probably be interested in a copy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Sunshine Mix posted:Good God. I did my undergraduate honors thesis on the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty debate. This was incredible. I think that video came from this very thread, many pages ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:They'd probably be interested in a copy. Hell the Library of Congress ought to get a copy, that's the memoirs of someone who essentially lived through the "lost century" of American history where every curriculum that isn't an upper division humanities course ignores how hard the last causers and their ideological descendants fought the march toward racial equality. That poo poo's some important scar tissue, and we continue to ignore it at our peril.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
100 Years Ago Today, sadly, is a day for Important Personages. On the Italian Front, General Cadorna effectively subcontracts out the continuation of the Fourth Battle of the Isonzo while he himself concentrates on shelling the shite out of Gorizia for no adequately explained reason. In Greece, Lord Kitchener is applying a little leverage to the King of Greece to stop His Maj getting unhelpful ideas about "defending his country's declared neutrality". Good thing Kitchener's country didn't enter the war with a casus belli a year and a bit ago which was about defending a neutral nation from a bigger nation who wanted to march their armies through it! That might be a little embarrassing if they'd done something like that. Oh. Anyway. On the other side of the hill, General von Falkenhayn is now planning something to do with the Western Front, of which more very soon once he's had his thinking Pickelhaube on for a while; and Flora Sandes, badass extraordinaire, leaves Prilip for the Second Regiment's field ambulance. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 13:14
|
|