|
razak posted:Do you have a good source to start at? My google-fu is weak and I keep on ending up with game arguments. In English? You're kinda hosed. There's always my blog to get a grasp of Soviet post-war heavy tank development, but I'm just one man. Some links: General Soviet tanks, the ISes have their own section. Yuri Pasholok's article on Objects 777 and 752 Yuri Pasholok on the IS-8 Plus maybe some Svirin or Baryatinksiy books got translated to English? Keep in mind that Svirin was a pioneer in Soviet armour research, but a lot of what he wrote was extrapolation based on winks and nods rather than a specific document, so he's sometimes wrong. Plus literally all Tactical Press books are amazing and if they ever get translated to English, you should buy as many as possible. Sadly Tactical Press itself went tits up, but that might just mean someone scored the rights for cheap.
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
hogmartin posted:I've never found an answer as to why the base HMMWV is the M1097 so I've just decided that in my little world there were one thousand and ninety six previous models of utility vehicles that were all fielded in great number and lived long and happy service lives. 998 is the base model, 1097 is the "heavy" base. IDIOT lol why is that confusing but seriously though, there's probably not a thousand plus but there is a shitload: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._military_vehicles_by_model_number
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Ironically enough the loving Germans had a pretty useful numbering system. With guns it's just the type and tear of introduction and with tanks it's sequential numbers. Airplanes its manufacturer and model numbers that while I don't know how they were derived seem to steadily go up. Of course it gets bonkers when you get into captured weapons
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
I'm wondering if the Soviet system was based on the factory, designer/team, and how much people in the procurement system cared, because up to and during part of the war, there were some inconsistencies. I'm sure an answer isn't far off.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The IS-3 and 4 were competitors. The IS-4 (object 701) actually started development as a whole new tank in 1943 in response to the Ferdinand (the Soviets expected it to be the next big threat), while the IS-3 (object 703) was developed later as a modernization of the IS-2. The IS-4 was a much heavier, and thus more problematic vehicle, and didn't make it into production before the war ended, whereas the IS-3 just barely started production in May.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Soviet T- numbers are based somewhat around the year of introduction. Don't know about tanks, but US plabe numbering had a reset during the Cold War, that's why most of the planes are still of "teen" series today, but don't ask me where F-22 and F-35 numbers come from. Incidentally, American plane letter comes from function. F for fighters, B for bombers, etc. Same goes for NATO reporting names for Soviet stuff, like Hind and Hip being Helos, Fishbed and Fagot being Fighters...
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Soviet T- numbers are based somewhat around the year of introduction. P for Pursuit 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Soviet T- numbers are based somewhat around the year of introduction. That would be the 1962 tri-service commission, the year I mentioned upthread. -22 is part of the fighter sequential system (though they skipped over -19 for marketing reasons tyvm Northrop) but the X-35 retained its experimental number after coming out of the JSF fly off.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Soviet T- numbers are based somewhat around the year of introduction. F/A-18 (a multirole plane when no other plane uses the F/A designation) F-111 (it's a bomber with no air to air capability) F-117 (same) The F4B, F-4, the other F-4, F4D, F4F and F4U being 6 totally different airplanes spanning 30 years Not confusing at all! Also for NATO reporting names the F prefix is used for both fighters and high speed ground attack aircraft for some reason, despite there also being a B naming system for bombers.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Question for the thread: Since I'm nearing the end of Imperial Japanese Explosives, what would you want to see next? German British American (I think, have to doublecheck this one) French/Italian
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
french and italian imo, take a look at dudes most people rarely talk about
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:In English? You're kinda hosed. There's always my blog to get a grasp of Soviet post-war heavy tank development, but I'm just one man. Some links: Thank you for the links. I realize that not reading Russian and being interested in Soviet tanks is starting off with a huge handicap!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Same goes for NATO reporting names for Soviet stuff, like Hind and Hip being Helos, Fishbed and Fagot being Fighters... The number of syllables also tells the propulsion type for aircraft. One for prop driven. Bull, Bear, Fin Two for jets. Badger, Blackjack, Fulcrum, Frisco
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
razak posted:Thank you for the links. Solution; learn russian 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Question for the thread: French/Italian plz
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Soviet T- numbers are based somewhat around the year of introduction. T-18: introduced in 1928 T-26: introduced in 1931 (based on Vickers 6 ton, first of which was built in 1928) T-28: introduced in 1932-33 T-34: introduced in 1940, based on prototype A-32 T-54: first prototype in 1945, mass production in 1947 T-10: uhh... With T-35, T-44, T-62, T-72, T-14 and I suppose even T-80 you get pretty close, but I wouldn't use it as a thumb rule for WW2 stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
While we're on tanks, I've come across two bits of conflicting information about WW2 tank doctrine 1) One unit became famous for looting German equipment, including tanks and trucks. 2) Mixed Allied and Axis columns were bombed by the Allies, because it was assumed that they were German. Neither have a particularly good source, I heard of the former from an Imgur album, which looked real, but I'm not an expert and it could have been photoshopped. Anyone know which is true?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm basically just slightly confused because I thought T-34 to T-80 did constitute some kind of developmental timeline that could be called a series and am wondering if I'm either really misinformed on the history or really wrong on the language (or both). I thought this too but then the T-70 fucks it all up.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:I thought this too but then the T-70 fucks it all up. Yeah, when I was going to bed I remembered the whole T-60 ->T-70 -> T-80 thing. Though now I'm guessing those aren't even related. Is the PT-76 related to any of those, either?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:While we're on tanks, I've come across two bits of conflicting information about WW2 tank doctrine 1) Not sure which it is, but I recall seeing some German tanks put to use by some Russians. Maybe some Panthers + Panzer IVs? 2) This reminds me of some friendly fire the allies experienced in the Normandy campaign (specifically Operation Cobra) when some B-17s carpet bombed an area close to some American units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cobra#Preliminary_attacks As for mixed convoys... never quite heard of that. Do you mean having German and Allied vehicles together? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_friendly_fire_incidents Just look at 1944. Quite a few Typhoon strikes hit friendlies... 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
The main factoid I remember hearing about soviet captured vehicles was that Pz IVs were reused as impromptu replacements as needed, but Tigers and Panthers were typically used for one job then sent back for scrapping or whatever because they were too unreliable to keep using and replacement parts were hard to come by.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
USSR liked StuGs, and fitted their units with them and even re-tooled them into slightly more proprietary vehicles. Western Allies didn't use captured vehicles so much. There were enough of these units and enough friendly fire incidents that you'd need to be more specific about this one event.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
You guys should look up the "bush artillery" we made use of around Tobruk 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, when I was going to bed I remembered the whole T-60 ->T-70 -> T-80 thing. Though now I'm guessing those aren't even related. Is the PT-76 related to any of those, either?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
spectralent posted:The main factoid I remember hearing about soviet captured vehicles was that Pz IVs were reused as impromptu replacements as needed, but Tigers and Panthers were typically used for one job then sent back for scrapping or whatever because they were too unreliable to keep using and replacement parts were hard to come by. In large part this relates to availability and time frames, it's easy to forget how long the war took. PzKpfw III and IV and StuG III were present from the beginning of the war when Soviets were struggling to replace their material losses. By all means they were better than what tanks the Anglo'mericans were sending in the form of Lend & Lease, and available in large enough quantities that you could train crews and mechanics to handle them. OTOH Tiger was never produced in large enough numbers and Panther only started becoming relatively common when Soviets already had gotten T-34/85 into service in far larger numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:1) Not sure which it is, but I recall seeing some German tanks put to use by some Russians. Maybe some Panthers + Panzer IVs? 1) Fairly sure it was an American unit, but I can't find which now. 2) By mixed, I meant a mix of Allied and Axis tanks. Shermans and Panzers bring used by an American unit, presumably because of a lack of spare parts for their own vehicles. The more I think about it, the more dangerous it seems.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
There really weren't terrible spares shortages for American units because of an excellent supply chain (mostly) and better field recovery/repair units. Plus, the direction of (strategic) advance was usually favorable to recovering lost vehicles.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
There were entire Soviet battalions made up of captured vehicles in the early parts of the war. Then the SG-122 and SU-76I made from StuGs and PzIIIs. By the time Tigers and Panthers roll around, the Red Army is fine vehicles-wise, so they don't get used anywhere as much. Plus the whole reliability issue and guzzling aircraft grade gasoline that isn't necessarily available to tank units. Nevertheless, there is a pretty good number of Tigers and Panthers available after the war, enough to design fortifications projects on their platform.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
The doings, people, doctrine, and nature of the German and British navies during WWI have been painstakingly documented, but what about the other navies? I know they didn't get up to all that much and weren't particularly important to the outcome of the war other than the effect they had on British and German strategy, but considering the sheer deoth of fuckupery that was involves in those countries' navies, I find it hard to believe there wasn't anything interesting about the other WWI navies.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
It is a good question, what did the Italian Navy do and change after they lost pretty much all their Battleships? we all know the result of Pearl Harbour with the United States Navy now. Also, I am 3rding the Franco-Italian option as well Jobbo_Fett.
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The doings, people, doctrine, and nature of the German and British navies during WWI have been painstakingly documented, but what about the other navies? I know they didn't get up to all that much and weren't particularly important to the outcome of the war other than the effect they had on British and German strategy, but considering the sheer deoth of fuckupery that was involves in those countries' navies, I find it hard to believe there wasn't anything interesting about the other WWI navies. A whole lot of ink was spilled on the USN and the IJN. Do you happen to be European? I (an american) feel like the USN and IJN are much better documented from a scholarly perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
WWI, guys
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:15
|
|
JcDent posted:WWI, guys Sure was a Great War yes.
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
JcDent posted:WWI, guys durrr i read good
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:There really weren't terrible spares shortages for American units because of an excellent supply chain (mostly) and better field recovery/repair units. Plus, the direction of (strategic) advance was usually favorable to recovering lost vehicles. My hazy recollection is that someone (British or US) found a fairly large tank depot at Mortain in the mop-up of Falaise which the Germans hadn't had the opportunity to blow up and there was a lot of enthusing at the prospect of equipping a company with Panthers before cooler heads considered the issue of spare parts, ammo, and fuel and realised it wasn't worth the effort.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It is a good question, what did the Italian Navy do and change after they lost pretty much all their Battleships? we all know the result of Pearl Harbour with the United States Navy now. I want to say that the Italian Navy didn't do much differently after Taranto. They transferred ships to Naples and beefed up defenses at Taranto. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto#Aftermath Wikipedia is also ho-hum about the aftermath.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The doings, people, doctrine, and nature of the German and British navies during WWI have been painstakingly documented, but what about the other navies? I know they didn't get up to all that much and weren't particularly important to the outcome of the war other than the effect they had on British and German strategy, but considering the sheer deoth of fuckupery that was involves in those countries' navies, I find it hard to believe there wasn't anything interesting about the other WWI navies. The Italians and Austro-Hungarians spent the war beating the piss out of each other in the Adriatic, with some French, British and Germans thrown into the mix for good measure. Italian naval specials forces were the stars of the war, sinking 2 Austo-Hungarian dreadnoughts with a human torpedo carried limpet mine and a motor torpedo boat. There was also a lot more use of mines, naval aviation and submarines than the North Sea campaign due to the restricted nature of the battlefield.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:My hazy recollection is that someone (British or US) found a fairly large tank depot at Mortain in the mop-up of Falaise which the Germans hadn't had the opportunity to blow up and there was a lot of enthusing at the prospect of equipping a company with Panthers before cooler heads considered the issue of spare parts, ammo, and fuel and realised it wasn't worth the effort. The cynic in me feels that this sounds like one of those modern internet stories of how they wanted to get good tanks out there instead of lovely Shermans. They certainly did test out captured vehicles to get performance and capability info, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The doings, people, doctrine, and nature of the German and British navies during WWI have been painstakingly documented, but what about the other navies? I know they didn't get up to all that much and weren't particularly important to the outcome of the war other than the effect they had on British and German strategy, but considering the sheer deoth of fuckupery that was involves in those countries' navies, I find it hard to believe there wasn't anything interesting about the other WWI navies. The scale was significantly smaller which i think is part of it, the French had entered into an agreement with the British that in the event of war Britain would control the north sea and the French would control the Med, and given that Italy never entered the war the French navy didn't end up doing a whole lot as the ottomans never really had a credible navy, they were involved heavily in Gallipoli and in keeping the Austro Hungarian navy bottled up, but once Italy joined there waws no real prospect of AH leaving port, so there was just an extended blockade. The Italians pretty much engaged in skirmishing with the AH navy and kept them blockaded, they got a couple of AH battleships using torpedo boats, both in port and at sea, which illustrates the problem of naval warfare in the Med, in the North sea the navies kept missing each other and had difficulty maintaining contact due to weather, high seas and just the scale of it, in the Med its much easier to see, weather is much less a problem and its a lot smaller, especially given that AH had a very limited coastline, so they had no real incentive to come out of port to try and raid because it was just too risky, so they stayed in port to deny total control of the sea to the French & Italians. The Italians did do their first exercise in midget submarine attacks at the end of the war where they blew up an Austrian battleship just after it had been handed over to the Slav National Council (the ships that left on that mission left before the surrender was announced and there was no way to contact them). The Russian navy had not really recovered since its obliteration against the Japanese in 1905, they did skirmish with the High Seas Fleet in the Baltic, laying minefields and trying to interdict shipping from the scandanavian countries, but it couldn't really risk an open engagement with the germans because it would lose badly, in the black sea they did a lot of land bombarding of the Ottomans, the Ottomans also used its fleet to bombard the Russians but it was pretty small, they had a couple of Pre-Dreadnoughts and the Battlecruiser they got from the Germans but was smaller than the Russian Black Sea fleet, so they couldnt really risk fighting them, and the battlecruiser they did have had several narrow escapes. The Japanese navy hunted German commerce raiders for a bit until they were all caught and sunk and sent some destroyers to the Med but didn't really have the capability to do a lot, and by the time the Americans entered the war the Naval War had already been won. I guess its not that there isnt anything interesting about other navies in WW1, its just that the forces were typically so imbalanced that they had to do hit and run or just stay in port, whereas the British and Germans were actively trying to achieve each others destruction which lead to interesting occurances, but it was never really feasible that the AH navy could close the Mediterranean or that the Ottomans could defeat the Black Sea fleet or that the Russians would wrest control of the Baltic from the germans, whereas there was a possibility of the Germans being able to damage the RN and hence interdict trade to Britain. So most interesting occurences are with small things like mines, motor torpedo boats etc. E: Also the German navy had a specific political imperative to try to win, Tirpitz had sold the Kaiser on creating the greatest navy, and there was a great deal of, "Well now prove it, we have spent all this money", the German navy high ups really wanted to prove it was worth it given that Germany had been a traditionally land power, most other navies didnt really have the same urgency. Polyakov fucked around with this message at 15:40 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
the Baltic was kind of interesting, there have been some OK books written on it. Lots of amphibious action, shore batteries, torpedo boat, and mining actions.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:37
|
|