|
It seems like a pump action rifle might be faster to operate than a traditional bolt action, or even a straight pull bolt action. Is there any record of pump action rifles being tested by militaries of the past?
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Kanine posted:It seems like a pump action rifle might be faster to operate than a traditional bolt action, or even a straight pull bolt action. Is there any record of pump action rifles being tested by militaries of the past? Henrys Repeaters got some civil war action and Indian war action. I can't recall any pumps. Now I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:The 45mm guns had terrible ammo quality problems early in the war, it's not propaganda. Did not know this, I retract my emote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Skipped to a random bit in the first video. After a bit of a thing about how the t28 was hopelessly under-armoured and under-gunned you get: The T-28 was pretty old by that point, similar in armour and armament to early PzIVs, but much larger. Also yes, there was an issue with 45 mm shell quality against overmatching armour in the early war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:There were tons of wacky schemes for converting Iowas, and they were all abandoned because its way cheaper to build and operate a ship designed for those roles. Yeah, but in some alternate universe, the nuclear powered Iowa launches harriers for air support while a battery of 16" guns fire nuclear shells at a distant land target. As the camera pans out, a regiment of marines slowly make their way towards shore. Edit: Probably the fallout universe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Yeah, but in some alternate universe, the nuclear powered Iowa launches harriers for air support while a battery of 16" guns fire nuclear shells at a distant land target. As the camera pans out, a regiment of marines slowly make their way towards shore. A world in which Raytheon is a kitchenware company instead of a missile maker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Kanine posted:It seems like a pump action rifle might be faster to operate than a traditional bolt action, or even a straight pull bolt action. Is there any record of pump action rifles being tested by militaries of the past? None as far as I know. In fact, pump-action rifles themselves are pretty uncommon and generally exclusive to either hunting rifles or .22 caliber shooting gallery pieces. My guess would be differing needs. Shotguns are commonly pump-action because you often need to fire rapid follow-up shots, such as blasting a flight of birds out of the sky. Military rifles of the day didn't really need to be able to fire fast, just accurately. A bolt-action rifle can be made incredibly strong with ease and give a nice positive extraction when you yank the bolt back. In fact, in the late 19th and early 20th century it was so vogue to focus on carefully aimed single shots that many military rifles designed at the time had a magazine cutoff: you flip a switch and the rifle no longer loads from the magazine. The magazine was meant to be kept in reserve in case of an emergency like suddenly being overrun and getting into closer combat. I believe pump-action guns are also more complex and expensive than bolt-actions and much more finicky to get working reliably, as you have the forend connected to action bars that push and pull the bolt instead of just a handle attached to the bolt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Wouldn't a pump action put more force n the front end of the rifle, and thus take you further off-target for follow-up shots than bolt/lever action?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Kanine posted:It seems like a pump action rifle might be faster to operate than a traditional bolt action, or even a straight pull bolt action. Is there any record of pump action rifles being tested by militaries of the past?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Kanine posted:It seems like a pump action rifle might be faster to operate than a traditional bolt action, or even a straight pull bolt action. Is there any record of pump action rifles being tested by militaries of the past? I can't imagine what a pump-action would have as an advantage over a straight pull bolt action rifle. The pump action would be more complex to build (than a bolt action mechanism), restrict the user from using a rest (since s/he would have to lift the rifle to load a new round). Pump action would also make it way more vulnerable to dirt and grime. Edit: Thinking about it, how would reloading work exactly? Tube magazine under the barrel? Requires a huge redesign, adding a lot more weight in wood (or leave the tube exposed). Your tube magazine might not hold a large amount of rounds anyways, or is slower to reload then magazine/stripper clip. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Apparently my step-grandfather was an air gunner on bomber planes during WWII (Red Army). Given his recent health issues (and the fact that he's 95), if I want to ask him anything, now is probably as good a time as any. He's 96 years old, and is more interested in reminiscing about recent family feuds than ancient history. What I managed to get was fairly scattershot, and basically date free. As the war broke out, he was taken directly out of navigator school, and thrust into the gunner position. None of the skills involved were transferable, and he didn't even get an hour's worth of training / explanations. He flew on a Douglas (C47?). Much better and softer seats than on the similar Russian planes. The recoil from the guns was quite painful, particularly for someone who had received no training. He had to bail out of a burning plane, and was rescued by partisans. I first thought he meant "the plane was shot down by partisans", and reviewing the video footage, that's kinda what he said, but I rather doubt that was actually the case. He fractured his shoulder... at some point, for some reason, and his fingers still don't bend properly. His major wound was taken while transporting ammunition crates, by hand, in the airfield. A crate was thrown at him (?) and took him below the knee, breaking his foot. He made the mistake of leaving the hospital without his papers and ID (?) to rejoin his comrades before he was declared fit for duty (this is mostly a guesstimate). His unit moved on, and he was left behind as a part of the airfield crew, guarding and maintaining the planes. I suppose that happened fairly early in the war, because he doesn't have any combat stories. His airfield did get bombed every once in a while, and they had to dig trenches and covers. They also took shots at bombing planes with rifles and machine guns, but that's a tough target even if you have some training. I recorded the interview, and could probably upload it somewhere once I delete all the family feud stuff? It's in Russian though, so not sure how interesting it would be. Edit - Oh yeah, and he was everywhere, moving with the army. Ukraine, Belarus, Poland. He got a medal and a written commendation from some sort of a Belorussian veteran association on the 70th anniversary of the war, with the thanks of a grateful people, and a printed signature of Lukashenko. He values that poo poo greatly. ... In completely unrelated news. Reading through the Sharpe series, there's a lot of "those (Napoleonic) French columns are only good for scaring poo poo armies with their perceived numbers. The line formation is far superior for pouring out firepower, which is why we use it, and the French are stupid for not doing so." True / False? Xander77 fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Right, so: Sounds like he actually flew in the Li-2, basically a C-47 but with armament. Pretty cool! If he was shot down over enemy territory, it could easily have been friendly partisan troops that helped him. Honestly, uploading it to youtube might be neat, but you should see if there are any websites/museums looking for that sort of item.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
I think one thing people didn't mention is that the bolt action is possibly more convenient to work and more reliable from a prone position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
A big thing is that bolt actions are very simple to troubleshoot if something goes wrong, you have direct control over the action and it's right there where you can see it, and in extreme cases you can hammer the stupid thing out if poo poo gets stuck. On a pump action if something goes wrong you can try to pump it again with little leverage, or disassemble it. Not ideal for combat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:In completely unrelated news. Reading through the Sharpe series, there's a lot of "those (Napoleonic) French columns are only good for scaring poo poo armies with their perceived numbers. The line formation is far superior for pouring out firepower, which is why we use it, and the French are stupid for not doing so." Well, the column was specifically introduced in the early French Revolutionary armies because it required a lot less training compared to line-only 18th century style warfare, so there's that. Napoleonic French armies were perfectly capable of fighting in line too, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
So I stumbled upon this article on The Atlantic about this thread's favourite historian and his newest book  The Key to Henry Kissinger’s Success The statesman understood something most diplomats don’t: history—and how to apply it. Niall Ferguson has crafted his biography of Kissinger not only as the definitive account of an incredible personal and intellectual odyssey, but also as an opportunity to initiate a debate about the importance of history in statecraft. The book plants a flag for a project in “Applied History,”... By Applied History we mean the explicit attempt to illuminate current policy challenges by analyzing historical precedents and analogues. How does Kissinger apply history? Subtly and cautiously, recognizing that its proper application requires both imagination and judgment. As Kissinger put it, “History is not … a cookbook offering pretested recipes. It teaches by analogy, not by maxims.” History “can illuminate the consequences of actions in comparable situations.” But—and here is the key—for it to do so, “each generation must discover for itself what situations are in fact comparable.” Ferguson is fawning way too much over Kissinger and Kissinger's “Applied History,”  seem to be very informed by "Great Man" and Realist theories (which maybe isn't that surprising). What I found most interesting was this passage: “In researching the life and times of Henry Kissinger, I have come to realize that my approach was unsubtle. In particular, I had missed the crucial importance in American foreign policy of the history deficit: The fact that key decision-makers know almost nothing not just of other countries’ pasts but also of their own. Worse, they often do not see what is wrong with their ignorance.” Is this true, does the U.S have a 'quote unquote' history deficiency when it comes to foreign policy and what about other countries, are they any better? Also I understand the need for contextualising events when you analyse them but Kissinger's approach seem to be: These current events sort of resemble past events and may play out sort of the same way but they may also be totally different. You can't really know for sure so just go with your gut? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
The French fought in line. Bayonet charges in column happened in rare instances at the start of the revolutionary wars when the French army was suddenly full of untrained conscripts and towards the end of the Napoleonic wars when he ran out of quality soldiers and had to rely on the same. The British certainly engaged French formations while they were in column a fair bit, but that's because Wellington's favourite tactic was to take up a reverse slope position, wait until the French had marched almost to the top in column, then suddenly advance over the crest and attack before they had any time to deploy into line. Finally, there's a difference between a battalion in marching column formation, and a division structured into an attack column of several battalions in line stacked up one after the other. The second is really people fighting in line but with shitloads of reserves massed at one point to keep up momentum and exploit the breach in the enemy line when it happens. For more reading material see: http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Xerxes17 did a bunch of good posts about Russian tank development that covered the T-64, T-72, and T-80. He even talks about the naming stuff. In Napoleonic times, the government was a bit more proactive, mostly thanks to that peasant-leader who had nearly destroyed the Russian Empire 40 years ago: When the peasant militias raised to help fight Napoleon weren't needed anymore, they were disarmed and the best fighters among them were rounded up and massacred.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
B-person posted:Niall Ferguson aaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
I wish I could read a book on military history written 500 years into the future. I bet future schoolchildren will be looking down on today's tactics like we do on fighting in line. "lolz they used computer networks to communicate information and thought that stealth aircraft is the shiznit; what total noobs"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:There were tons of wacky schemes for converting Iowas, and they were all abandoned because its way cheaper to build and operate a ship designed for those roles. Sorry if we already talked about this, but I went to the Stevns Fort cold war underground fortress (here in Denmark) recently, and it turns out that they had the repossessed 15cm guns from the Gneisenau, used in a coastal battery! Even had the nazi crest and everything still on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
Libluini posted:When the peasant militias raised to help fight Napoleon weren't needed anymore, they were disarmed and the best fighters among them were rounded up and massacred.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Citation needed. Adam Zamoyski, in "1812. Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow", published by HarperCollins Publishers in 2004. Do you need the page, too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
Just how big a nuclear shell would you need to be effective against a (buttoned up) armour column anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Adam Zamoyski, in "1812. Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow", published by HarperCollins Publishers in 2004. This thread is awesome. What is the deets on this Ferguson character?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Hypha posted:This thread is awesome. Have you ever found yourself wishing for an alternate universe where Imperial Germany had won WW1 and ruled over all of continental Europe, so that the British could have concentrated on maintaining their colonies through whatever means necessary in order to be stamping on brown faces to this day? If so you might be Niall Ferguson. Also he hates Muslims, and has really lovely ideas about economics. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:
This is a thing that happened a lot. Also, people would sometimes escape the units they were reassigned to in order to rejoin their friends. This was a huge pain in the rear end for internal affairs, since these people weren't technically deserters, but it was hard to tell until you found them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Have you ever found yourself wishing for an alternate universe where Imperial Germany had won WW1 and ruled over all of continental Europe, so that the British could have concentrated on maintaining their colonies through whatever means necessary in order to be stamping on brown faces to this day? I might regret asking this, but how in the swamp-dwelling zombie Christ would Imperial Germany winning World War 1 have kept the British Empire a going concern?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I might regret asking this, but how in the swamp-dwelling zombie Christ would Imperial Germany winning World War 1 have kept the British Empire a going concern?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I might regret asking this, but how in the swamp-dwelling zombie Christ would Imperial Germany winning World War 1 have kept the British Empire a going concern? An absence of Hitler, thus an absence of a (ruinously expensive for Britain) World War 2, and a remaining-isolationist America not interested in going into the global superpower business and pushing Britain to decolonise. Oh, and the Soviet Union is much less of a powerful thing too if Brest-Litovsk sticks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I might regret asking this, but how in the swamp-dwelling zombie Christ would Imperial Germany winning World War 1 have kept the British Empire a going concern? Well you see it's all England's fault WW1 escalated into a world war and if they'd stayed out of it Germany would have won in short order, beaten France and Russia in 1914, formed something similar to the European Union and ruled over a peaceful democratic continent where fascism and communism could never take hold. Thus there would be no WW2 and all this rascally anti-colonialism would never have happened oh and did you know Imperial Germany was actually the most anti-militarist country on the continent at the time of WW1? Germany was waging a preventative war it was forced into! These are things Niall Ferguson actually believes and I feel dirty as hell for writing it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
I remember a book that has some very unprofessional bitching about military historians. I'm pretty sure that Neil Ferguson was one of the people that was name dropped. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I read it in a book! The peasants were in fact forcefully disarmed when the war was over, but the "best fighters" among them got their medals and / or were given NCO ranks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Good on you. You probably shouldn't believe everything you read, though. Instead you want me to believe some crazy guy on the internet, right on. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Good on you. You probably shouldn't believe everything you read, though. Did you interview these people yourself or did you also read it from somewhere, and if so, from where?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Just how big a nuclear shell would you need to be effective against a (buttoned up) armour column anyway? How close is the impact and what formation is the column in?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:An absence of Hitler, thus an absence of a (ruinously expensive for Britain) World War 2, and a remaining-isolationist America not interested in going into the global superpower business and pushing Britain to decolonise. Oh, and the Soviet Union is much less of a powerful thing too if Brest-Litovsk sticks. They'd probably still start a war with Russia to contain Bolshevism later on, either via incitement by Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russia or unilaterally under the view that German Communist circles were proper arms of the Soviet government attempting to overthrow the Kaiser. The hatred of communists was a pretty consistent thing between the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic, and the Nazi regime and it was one of the main ways Hitler rose to power since he kept promising to stick it to the Communists - especially after he lit the Reichstag on fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Isn't this ignoring that an Imperial Germany with access to additional resources and the addition of French colonies would be in direct competition with the British empire as a global hegemonic power?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Just how big a nuclear shell would you need to be effective against a (buttoned up) armour column anyway? You don't get a choice in how 'big' your nuclear shell will be! There are pretty hard limits on how much yield you can put into regularly fielded 152/155 or 203mm artillery, and if you want anything bigger then just put that baby on a missile. With tube-delivered nukes the physics package (its nuclear components) has to be pretty small, depressing potential yield, and its non-nuclear components will also be inefficient in helping criticality due to those same space constraints and the robustness needed. The US tested a 203mm gun-type weapon (like Little Boy) with a 40 kiloton yield, but seeing as how those are IIRC a bitch to stockpile and maintain I'd gather it's best to stick to more exotic implosion weapons (two-point linear) with vastly reduced explosive power. From what I can quickly gather you're looking at <1-2kt devices wrt 152/155mm arty. Also, AFAIK tanks themselves are very hardy against nuclear attack - what with the story about that Australian Centurion surviving an 8.1kt test 500 yards out and being driven away under its own power afterwards. In order to fully 'destroy' AFVs at these kinds of distances you could use a bigger bomb, but effects suffer under the inverse square law so there's quickly diminishing returns. In the end you'd probably want to look into enhanced radiation weapons (ERWs aka 'Neutron Bombs') since the squishy meaty parts inside tanks and such cease functioning way quicker when under hard radiation bombardment than the non-living, breathing parts. Now you're into 'effects of modern armors and radiation liners on ERWs'-territory, which I'm sure is well covered in some 1980s articles out there. I want to say a couple of hundred meters lethal radius for a regularly fielded, normal-sized nuclear shell? Then you'd have to look at standard groupings/formations to see what you'll be able to destroy with your bucket of sunshine. e: Jobbo_Fett posted:How close is the impact and what formation is the column in? What they said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The hatred of communists was a pretty consistent thing between the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic, and the Nazi regime and it was one of the main ways Hitler rose to power since he kept promising to stick it to the Communists - especially after he lit the Reichstag on fire. Imperial Germany specifically let Lenin into Russia on a sealed train in order to foment a revolution. Like, Imperial Germany was never going to be pro-Communist, but it wasn't viscerally opposed to it either, at least in someone else's country. No more so than the British or French governments, anyway, who were quite happy to trade with the USSR by the 20s. Given a much stronger Germany and a weakened Russia, Soviet Russia isn't going to be seen as (or indeed be) a particularly big threat, so I don't see a German invasion as long as Russia behaves itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:36
|
|