|
Fangz posted:On that topic, there's an often quoted stat that the Panther was comparable to the Pz IV in terms of manufacture cost and speed. I always wondered about that, noting that even into the late stages of the war the Pz IV was still being built in substantial numbers. So what gives? Most of the arguments about the Pz V's cost vs Pz IV are based upon the Reichmark cost of them, which considering how much of a Funny Money the RM was by the time the Pz V was in play tells you how useful that is. The Pz V had a lot more *stuff* in it than the Pz IV, including thicker armor plates (more expensive), though there were less cuts involved compared to the Pz IV (cheaper)
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
I kind of suspect that some of the savings are things we rag on it constantly for, like the optics fit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:meanwhile, in mercenary news Should have just become a sworn vassal of Karl von Habsburg first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Should have just become a sworn vassal of Karl von Habsburg first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:meanwhile, in mercenary news Laffo I mean the guy's already had to flee the country - why not do a little side action with Chinese Intelligence? I was really annoyed in 2003 when every was all "Yes, let's use mercenaries in Iraq. They work for profit, and thus are better than the conventional military." I just wanted to huck a copy of "The Prince" at them. In retrospect, though, I imagine people with better historical knowledge were even more annoyed
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Laffo although I remember laughing when I read that he eventually made his employees swear an oath to him personally, not to the US still, if we're going to replay the downfall of Wallenstein i wish Prince wasn't so shabby about it. First time as epic second time as farce, you know? We need a withdrawal to Canada and Joe Biden shanking him with a magical halberd or something, instead we get this douche quote:I was really annoyed in 2003 when every was all "Yes, let's use mercenaries in Iraq. They work for profit, and thus are better than the conventional military." I just wanted to huck a copy of "The Prince" at them. In retrospect, though, I imagine people with better historical knowledge were even more annoyed Edit 2: Seriousposing I would not be surprised if that man ends up in a ditch somewhere HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:you're joking, but the Hapsburgs have never trusted powerful military leaders since the complications between Wallenstein and Ferdinand II. It's probably why they've had no really first rate generals since, unless Eugene of Savoy counts Wasn't Eugene of Savoy a prince and heir? If my memory didn't gently caress this up, here's your explanation. He doesn't count. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Isn't that this thread basically? Well, it's hard to find the relevant posts when people keep going on and on about completely uninteresting subjects like pikes, Habsburgs and the HRE. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Isn't that this thread basically? I admit it's in my interest, but I feel like I've had the conversation a million times already, and this thread's been really cool to read about in terms of things I'm unfamiliar with. I wouldn't want to hijack it with an echo chamber I've participated in before (Even though I only started posting recently and it's all I've done), but that's only my own feelings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:Well, it's hard to find the relevant posts when people keep going on and on about completely uninteresting subjects like pikes, Habsburgs and the HRE. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Wasn't Eugene of Savoy a prince and heir? If my memory didn't gently caress this up, here's your explanation. He doesn't count.  "The Emperor's been misled. I pity him, but I'll forgive him." Like what the gently caress, dude? In public? Talk poo poo get hit. A spare Ferdinand or two is much less of a hassle
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Ask Us About Military History: PYF crazy Germans at war story
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:meanwhile, in mercenary news My favorite part of this is the unstated subtext. Prince's adventures were finally so dumb and dangerous that a bunch of people at his own company decided to ratfuck him, and they determined to do it by giving the incriminating documents to Glenn Greenwald's crew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:My favorite part of this is the unstated subtext. Prince's adventures were finally so dumb and dangerous that a bunch of people at his own company decided to ratfuck him, and they determined to do it by giving the incriminating documents to Glenn Greenwald's crew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottavio_Piccolomini The Assassination Of Albrecht Wallenstein By The Coward Ferdinand The Second
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
What's ten minutes between friends? 100 Years Ago Today's joke: The Royal Navy launches a seaplane raid from a ship that sounds like a bathroom cleaner, against a Zeppelin shed that doesn't exist, in a town that isn't there any more. By rights it should be just an amusing footnote, but then some idiots crash some boats into some other boats, and there but for the grace of God goes Admiral Scheer, who of course has no idea about the ridiculous clusterfuck unfolding under his nose. And so he unknowingly passes up an opportunity to de-bag the Battle Cruiser Squadron and win that crushing naval victory that the High Seas Fleet so desperately needs. Oh well. There's always next time. Also: a quick look at what the men of the Grand Fleet are doing to keep themselves entertained once they just can't masturbate any more; Grigoris Balakian gets run out of town with extreme prejudice; it's started to rain in Africa, prompting dramatic chords; hope for Private Louis Barthas if ever he gets round to putting in that complaint about losing the stripes he doesn't want anyway; and Robert Pelissier is enjoying the novelty of "being able to stand up straight" after five weeks up a mountain. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Laffo I don't know if Machiavelli is the best go to example here because he didn't have any problems 'interpreting' details to support his own thesis. In Machiavelli's time period the attempts at citizen armies were a last resort and got knocked out by professional mercenaries. The reason you don't want to use mercenaries is because those sons of bitches will steal everything they can get their hands on and don't give a poo poo about hearts or minds. (or working for Chinese intelligence on the side)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
don't mercenaryshame
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
You say "steal everything that isn't nailed down," I say "require minimal field provisioning in fresh theatres of war".
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Show me a soldier who's never conducted informal resupply exercises while on active service and I'll show you a damned liar
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Show me a soldier who's never conducted informal resupply exercises while on active service and I'll show you a damned liar they go over the tax assessments in every new friendly or neutral district and squeeze them accordingly
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:don't mercenaryshame As if mercenaries would ever feel shameful for looting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Show me a soldier who's never conducted informal resupply exercises while on active service and I'll show you a damned liar There's a term "sper" in the IDF, which means equipment that you have but is not on the books. The "official" version is that it's a bastardization of the English word "spare", but a more likely origin is from the Russian word "sper" ([has] stolen).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Apparently the Ukrainians have lost a lot of tanks against the Russians. http://englishrussia.com/2016/03/25/tank-apocalypse-in-donbass/ Not sure what this one was: 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
T-64 of some description, probably T-64BV. There's a great identification guide for Soviet post-war armour here: http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/i...at-doesnt-work/
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Most of those were destroyed by artillery, which is probably the first time in history we've seen that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Most of those were destroyed by artillery, which is probably the first time in history we've seen that. Seen as in the first time we've been able to observe it photographically? I thought that was a pretty common killer of tanks in WWII.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 06:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:You say "steal everything that isn't nailed down," I say "require minimal field provisioning in fresh theatres of war". edit: Ithle01 posted:As if mercenaries would ever feel shameful for looting. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
All those missing turrets... you don't want to get hit in a T-tank 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Seen as in the first time we've been able to observe it photographically? I thought that was a pretty common killer of tanks in WWII. Depends on what you mean by artillery. Direct-fire fixed AT guns? Yeah, that was like #1 most of the time from what I remember. Indirect artillery fire? Not many destroyed directly, but it could screw up an attack by causing bad terrain or disorganizing an attack enough, but I guess I'm cheating with words there. I think it was Aachen where an American artillery battery famously caught a heavy tank unit out in the open and forced them to retreat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
DPICM (artillery cluster munitions) is a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:meanwhile, in mercenary news
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Seen as in the first time we've been able to observe it photographically? I thought that was a pretty common killer of tanks in WWII. No, the first time we've seen accurate, massed, surface to surface anti armor fires. At least to my knowledge anyway. It basically takes a direct hit with an HE round to kill a tank so in the past it was more of a rare/unlucky thing than MASS HUNKS OF TWISTED METAL like this. The army has been kind of making GBS threads its pants over this for a while now, it has an awful lot of implications for a whole lot of different things. Not the least of which, the US is about to completely divest itself of DPICMs pretty shortly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
"You see this tool that's great at destroying tanks? Let's never use it"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
JcDent posted:"You see this tool that's great at destroying tanks? Let's never use it" It's not like we'll ever have to fight tanks again in a conflict where we can't use our overwhelming air power!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:T-64 of some description, probably T-64BV. There's a great identification guide for Soviet post-war armour here: http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/i...at-doesnt-work/ quote:Because T-72 engine is battle-proven diesel based on legendary V-2 engine from GLORIOUS KV-1, instead of small engine with giant airfilters that nullify advantages of smaller engine and doesn't fix disadvantages of that crazy engines that only out of their minds Kharkovites could use for a combat vehicle that was expected to fight the Last war of Humanity, we should also know engine compartment batter than T-64's engine deck.  I love this. Trin Tragula posted:Today's joke: The Royal Navy launches a seaplane raid from a ship that sounds like a bathroom cleaner, against a Zeppelin shed that doesn't exist, in a town that isn't there any more. By rights it should be just an amusing footnote, but then some idiots crash some boats into some other boats, and there but for the grace of God goes Admiral Scheer, who of course has no idea about the ridiculous clusterfuck unfolding under his nose. And so he unknowingly passes up an opportunity to de-bag the Battle Cruiser Squadron and win that crushing naval victory that the High Seas Fleet so desperately needs. Oh well. There's always next time. The British had a definite hate-on for Zeppelins, and had many schemes for attacking Zeppelins or bombing their hangers. While they eventually get some ideas that work, they spend an awful long time dealing with broken seaplanes and dead pilots for not very good reasons. Maybe its the boredom thing you mentioned. (To be honest being stuck on a WW1 warship in the Orkneys for years at a time is one of those trying war circumstances that's never occurred to me up until now.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The British had a definite hate-on for Zeppelins, and had many schemes for attacking Zeppelins or bombing their hangers. While they eventually get some ideas that work, they spend an awful long time dealing with broken seaplanes and dead pilots for not very good reasons. Maybe its the boredom thing you mentioned. (To be honest being stuck on a WW1 warship in the Orkneys for years at a time is one of those trying war circumstances that's never occurred to me up until now.) In a full-on Jutland-type scenario they were expected to be used as scouts for the German fleet. The Royal Navy in particular had pretty good reasons to want to be able to deal with them (the only reason they didn't show up at the actual battle of Jutland was unfavourable wind conditions, in fact).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The army has been kind of making GBS threads its pants over this for a while now, it has an awful lot of implications for a whole lot of different things. Not the least of which, the US is about to completely divest itself of DPICMs pretty shortly. Is that because the cost of giving them up is that much lower now because the capability can be provided by more regular artillery solutions, or are they expensive to maintain?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
The whole thread is gold. I wish there was a "best of..." list in the OP, for easy access to p-mack's posts or EE's tankposting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:Is that because the cost of giving them up is that much lower now because the capability can be provided by more regular artillery solutions, or are they expensive to maintain? it is actually because of the cluster munitions ban. it is still a really important capability, and one that cannot be backfilled for at least a decade
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:07
|
|