|
xthetenth posted:I'm guessing the rationale is that the answer to whether you can get the tank over a given bridge is less relevant than the answer to whether you can get any tank over the bridge and have it last more than a timespan of minutes. Better a tank that can survive to operate in a limited region than one that can't survive anywhere. Which is holy poo poo pessimism about missiles and artillery. If you have a mega-fuckoff-supertank and can't move it anywhere fast enough, the enemy will just attack where the tank isn't with their own tanks, which might have less armour, but that doesn't really matter from the point of view of the infantry it's driving over.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Speaking of all this armor talk: can someone do an effort post or otherwise point out some good places to read up on modern tank armor types/variations? Some of the more fancy proprietary types probably won't have an abundance of information available on them because they're deliberately kept secret.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:If you have a mega-fuckoff-supertank and can't move it anywhere fast enough, the enemy will just attack where the tank isn't with their own tanks, which might have less armour, but that doesn't really matter from the point of view of the infantry it's driving over. Which would not be a problem if (and pretty much only if) the assumption that those tanks' insides are going to be playing host to artillery or atgms almost immediately holds true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:1. Any round will precess/nutate a little bit. As the projectile length:diameter ratio increases, the degree of spin required to keep precession to an acceptable degree becomes impractically high. For a kinetic penetrator, you want to maximize cross-sectional density, which means increasing length:diameter ratio, which means you reach a point where spin-stabilization doesn't work anymore and you use a fin-stabilized projectile at which point you go smoothbore. Isn't that what patriot missiles are for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Isn't that what patriot missiles are for? The Patriot is the only US AD system that doesn't get bullied on the way to school, and there's not that many of them around. Everything else either doesn't exist or it's pretty much a joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Isn't that what patriot missiles are for? Patriot isn't mobile, it's a static emplacement. It's a static emplacement that can be erected and broken down fairly rapidly, but to use it you stop, unlimber the radar and launcher from their prime movers, set them up, raise your antennas, start your generator, and so forth. A mobile SAM system is one that can move along with the vehicles it's supposed to be protecting. Something like the SA-6, where an armored tracked vehicle carries your radar, other armored tracked vehicles communicate with that and carry and launch the missiles. Or the SA-11, where one vehicle is the transporter/erector/launcher *and* radar system: you come to a stop and you're ready to shoot down airplanes 5 minutes later. Patriot's a perfect example of what you procure when you have air supremacy already: a static system you stick in particular places to defend high-value targets from leakers. It's not what you procure when you have any worry at all about actually having to maneuver and hide from enemy airpower.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Why can't you put wheels on it and call it a day? edit: For that matter, why can't you slap some airplane missiles on a humvee with a radar and call it a day?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Why can't you put wheels on it and call it a day? Where would you fit the radar, power supply, and person/people to operate it? Can you still use it for its normal transport capabilities or do you now need more Humvees per unit to fill in the gaps?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Which would not be a problem if (and pretty much only if) the assumption that those tanks' insides are going to be playing host to artillery or atgms almost immediately holds true. Artillery and man-portable methods of killing tanks have been around for almost as long as tanks themselves. Somehow tanks managed to deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Please don't suck. Pleeeease don't suck It seems like a weird thing to focus on, but I like the fact that they didn't all react/duck at once, as opposed to the average movie where they'd just go "okay, script goes duck, wait for the director to cue." It's little things in movies like that that humanize them for me and draw me in. It's like in the early Total War games when soldiers wouldn't all move in perfect sync the second you clicked the button. Ice Fist posted:Speaking of all this armor talk: can someone do an effort post or otherwise point out some good places to read up on modern tank armor types/variations? You're best to read up on specific tanks, like specifically a T-64 tank book or something like that, and even then you won't get a lot of information on modern tanks (as in late '70s or so until now).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:57
|
|
.
|
Ice Fist posted:Speaking of all this armor talk: can someone do an effort post or otherwise point out some good places to read up on modern tank armor types/variations? Okay, so. First we have Rolled Homogeneous Armor which is commonly shortened down to RHA. This is exactly what it sounds like and is just simply steel with a certain range of qualities that you cut, weld, rivet, bend, etc into the desired shape of armor that you want. RHA can have quite a few variables such as ductility, hardness, high-hardness heat treating, and much more. These qualities will determine how it deals with penetrations, non-penetrations, sharp-nose impacts, repeated impacts, blunt-nose impacts, smaller shells, larger shells and so on. Material quality of the steel is extremely important and running out of things like Molybdenum will cause big problems for you. However the basic rule of thumb here is "more is better" so 50mm of RHA is going to be not nearly as good as 100mm of RHA. Cast Armor is steel that has instead been cast into shape instead of forged. This apparently makes it not as strong as RHA but makes getting those lovely curved shapes that cause deflections (See Soviet soup-bowl turrets T-54 and onwards) possible. Both of these are very basic technologies by this point and not up to the task of protecting a tank. Consider how much 200mm of RHA must weigh, and that most basic HEAT weapons can go through 300mm of RHA easily, well plain old steel can't deliver anymore. Next however we get to Spaced Armor which is either of the above that has a gap in between two plates. This gap will cause HEAT jets to dissipate and can create significant lateral forces on APDS and APFSDS that make them shatter or lose energy. Spaced armor works in a pinch even to this day, but it was always much better against HEAT than KE, which soon saw similar development, reaching +400mm RHA equivalent numbers. Against such, the KE round will just punch through the two plates and the gap with no problem. However it dies help against smaller rounds. For example the Germans put 5mm skirts on their tanks to protect against 14.5mm AT-rifle fire as the skirt would deform the bullet and make it fail against the main armor. A modern example is the "slat armor" that you see on nearly everything in the middle east to protect against the very common RPG-7. So what to do? Now we get to Composite Armor where we start adding things like rubber, aluminium-silica glass, fiberglass, ceramics, DU, and other things to fill the space in spaced armor. This is where stuff starts getting very complex (and classified!  ) but broadly speaking this armor type works by making the penetrator go through a mixture of materials. This causes the penetrator, HEAT or KE, to start "refracting" and get bent out of shape due to it existing int multiple phases at the same time. "Combination-K", "Super Dolly Parton" and "Chobham" are all examples of this.Next we get to Non-Explosive Reactive Armor often called NERA. NERA composite armor that is designed to change while under attack in order to counter the penetration in more ways than just a static block. Imagine that you take a big straight-line punch at someone with all of your strength. But, before your fist connects they hit you on your elbow causing it to fold inward. Now it's only your fist and forearm that is "on target" while the real power, your body mass and power merely crumples in a different direction. Same principle applies here. For example, the turret facing of T-72B tanks have arrays of high-hardness plates of RHA surrounded by rubber. When the round hits, the plates will get penetrated, but then the rubber will cause them to vibrate back and forth laterally and repeatedly, introducing shear force on KE rounds which hopefully makes them fragment and the compression and decompression of the penetrator as it breaks through the layers also plays a part. Against HEAT this kind of armor is even more effective as the constant high-low density changes play havoc with HEAT cone formation. Nearly all tank armor these days is some kind of NERA. Finally we get to Explosive Reactive Armor which operates on the same principle. However instead of using differing materials in an array to move steel plates around on a hit, they just use high explosives to cause a much more energetic effect. Basically, angled plates sit in a box surrounded by explosives in an "N" shape. When they are hit, they detonate and push these plates into the penetrator from several directions. This stuff is extremely effective against HEAT, but only certain kinds add to KE protection. Russian Kontackt-1 and 5 are good examples of each. The problem with this stuff is that it's basically coating your tank in frag-grenades which is no good for your supporting infantry. Also keep in mind that modern tanks also have all this fancy stuff concentrated on the front only as it's simply too heavy to armor the sides as well. As an example the Cheiftain Mk.3 would have 200 to +400mm RHA on it's front (including armor angles here too) but only a paltry 50mm on the sides. This can be improves a little by putting ERA blocks here, but against KE threats there is not much to be done aside from "don't get shot". Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Artillery and man-portable methods of killing tanks have been around for almost as long as tanks themselves. Somehow tanks managed to deal with it. Generally I believe they have dealt with it by being produced in large numbers and being fairly expendable. Which is not quite the same idea as the current Abrams. Armored fighting vehicles may not be dead but the consistent trend in design across tanks and naval assets has been that once you start getting too big and too expensive, it becomes ruinously difficult to properly protect the vehicle in the face of advancing weapons technology. For some things such as carriers, they need to be huge to do their jobs, but for everything that can bear it, we've found that using more, less expensive, less difficult to make but still serviceable units gets the job done better. The panther comparisons seem pretty apt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Artillery and man-portable methods of killing tanks have been around for almost as long as tanks themselves. Somehow tanks managed to deal with it. cavalry and firearms have coexisted and complemented each other for centuries, therefore cavalry will last forever
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Why can't you put wheels on it and call it a day? Because they already did that.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TWQ-1_Avenger Not actually airplane missiles, stingers, and it doesn't strictly have a radar though it can be linked into a radar network. But it's basically eight AA missiles strapped to a humvmee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Koramei posted:cavalry and firearms have coexisted and complemented each other for centuries, therefore cavalry will last forever
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Koramei posted:cavalry and firearms have coexisted and complemented each other for centuries, therefore cavalry will last forever Not sure what you're saying here as Air/Armored Cavalry is a thing? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:as far as i can tell there's hell of dragoons in afghanistan, theory checks out i hope the official military term for them is still dragoons
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Koramei posted:i hope the official military term for them is still dragoons
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Artillery and man-portable methods of killing tanks have been around for almost as long as tanks themselves. Somehow tanks managed to deal with it. I'm getting the impression they feel that isn't going to remain the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Isn't that what patriot missiles are for? Patriot could deal with a rocket barrage, sort of, but it'd have to be there in the first place (which is hard as it is slow and fragile and takes a while to emplace) and expending interceptors that cost $6m a shot to take down cheapo artillery rockets isn't a good equation. That is sort of what IFPC is designed to do but it also isn't really mobile as such, at least not how maneuver forces need it to be. Basically unless lasers get a whole lot better the best way a maneuver force can defend itself against artillery is to move a lot or not be seen. Ensign Expendable posted:Artillery and man-portable methods of killing tanks have been around for almost as long as tanks themselves. Somehow tanks managed to deal with it. This is true, but there's been two big changes in recent years. First, ATGMs (and ATGM targeting) that can significantly outrange tanks, and 2) targeting enablers like drones that can direct rocket artillery fire very accurately even on mobile targets. There will probably always be a need for well protected things with powerful weapons and cross country mobility (like there has been since we started putting armored guys on horseback) but the way these things look is going to have to change relatively soon. bewbies fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Why can't you put wheels on it and call it a day? Because then it still wouldn't move. Semi-trailers have wheels on them, but since they're missing little things like engines and transmissions and steering and fuel tanks they don't get far without a prime mover towing them. If you're asking why not just put all that stuff on each separate component of a patriot system, where's it going to fit? Are you sure the electronics are going to handle the EMI put out by a locally-running engine as opposed to a dedicated generator set located some distance away? If you're going to drive around with the missiles in an erected position, is the structure able to handle that or did the designers not have to meet that requirement, because the system wouldn't be moved without the launchers in a locked-down and supported position? You don't just turn not-a-vehicle into a vehicle by putting wheels on it. quote:edit: For that matter, why can't you slap some airplane missiles on a humvee with a radar and call it a day? Again, it's nowhere near that simple, this isn't Lego. How big a missile can a humvee carry? Answer: Not a big one, so this is going to be a short-ranged system. How big a *radar* can a humvee carry *and power*? Again, not a big one, and the size of your radar antenna governs a whole lot of things about your system: angular resolution, gain, it's exactly like the aperture on an optical telescope. Slapping some missiles on a Humvee is called the Avenger; it is a half-assed attempt at a mobile SAM system and is pretty much a joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
My personal read of the near future is that tanks still have a place in the battlefield. A tank is more than it's armor, the fact that they have mobility, excellent armament and can fight on the move still makes them absolutely necessary. Men are still squishy and light vehicles can be taken out by anything heavier than a HMG and both are even more vulnerable to artillery than tanks. If anything, I wonder if tanks will go back to being "penny packeted" out to infantry units instead of being operated in large tank groups to avoid the threat of precision artillery. The awesome power of a Cluster MLRS is kinda wasted if there was only ever 2-4 tanks in that area to begin with instead of a massed grouping of 30.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Why can't you put wheels on it and call it a day? We tried that sort of, it worked really well but the USAF/USN priced the missiles out of the realm of reasonable.  Basically NATO needs to buy these or maybe steal one from Iraq/UAE and reverse engineer it like they did with the B-29: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:If anything, I wonder if tanks will go back to being "penny packeted" out to infantry units instead of being operated in large tank groups to avoid the threat of precision artillery. The awesome power of a Cluster MLRS is kinda wasted if there was only ever 2-4 tanks in that area to begin with instead of a massed grouping of 30. I can see that happening, it's still a big gun that can move fast and carry a bunch of useful optics. A tank as an infantry's heavy fire support would make sense. I'd still expect to see probably a lot more development into lighter, smaller tanks to fill that role though, or greater use of IFVs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Okay, so. There's also the various new "hard-kill'" types of "armour" which work by shooting the rounds as they get near, and stuff like that. I think they're mainly for missiles, but I've seen some talk about shooting down HEAT too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I can see that happening, it's still a big gun that can move fast and carry a bunch of useful optics. A tank as an infantry's heavy fire support would make sense. I'd still expect to see probably a lot more development into lighter, smaller tanks to fill that role though, or greater use of IFVs. The issue of going lighter than present means that you're taking an additional step backwards in terms of toughness. The range of threats that a tank is really worried about is a shorter list than the same for an IFV. For example, compare a BMD-4M to say, a T-72B3. Both have FLIR, advanced FCS, mobility and big guns. However the BMD is going to get hosed up by anything 20mm and above (maybe even .50 BMG AP), rifle grenades, grenade machine guns, old RPGs and LAWs and etc. The T-72B however will shrug these off. This additional toughness opens up maneuver options for the vehicle(s) in question and thus make better use of it's weapons. spectralent posted:There's also the various new "hard-kill'" types of "armour" which work by shooting the rounds as they get near, and stuff like that. I think they're mainly for missiles, but I've seen some talk about shooting down HEAT too. There are them, and they're not even new (Soviets had working systems in the 70's) but they still haven't reached mass-employment so I skipped them. I also figure them to be an additional form of equipment that lets you avoid fire like ECM, rather than being a direct additive to armor capabilities and thus outside the topic of an armor summary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Thanks for this. I basically did a spit take when I learned that Britain's first labor prime minister 1) endorsed hardcore austerity and then 2) managed to stay prime minister by making a coalition government with everybody but his own party. Like certain recent events, it's like a surrealist is riffing on politicals. Senility, whatever that means? Dementia? Depression? I don't know. He was getting old, his health was declining, he legendarily worked ludicrous hours and he took everything very personally. Add to that the National Government situation - believing that he was and could save the country by taking an unpopular line, and that after a period of austerity, he could put britain back on the track to utopian parliamentary socialism - and what must have seemed like an abandonment from his friends? I think that was what did it, to be honest. Ramsay Mac had been the first real politician - not the first real leader, or the first socialist, or the best, or anything like that - of the Labour party. It was his actions that won Labour it's first seats, after negotiating that the Liberals wouldn't contest some Labour target seats. He had been the one to bring Hardie's Independent Labour Party into a Parliamentary context. He had been one of the glorious 29, who walked arm in arm into the Commons* to announce that now, finally, the working people of the Empire had political representation, that Labour, and Socialism were going to be the new political order, some immanent day to come. He was the first who could play the game. And then, from his point of view, the party that he had created, all of his comrades (when comrades really meant something) abandoned him, and he never really recovered. Apparently by 1935 he was standing in Parliament and making nonsense speeches, but I've been through a fair few of his contributions in late 1934 and 1935, and I can't find anything that's absolutely crazy. He's certainly a lot more flowery than he had been, and more circuitous - in fact he speaks a lot like a modern politician dodging a question. He starts to call them all "Sir" a lot, and by March 1935 he is speaking very little. It's slightly amazing to realise that Labour's foreign policy from 1929-31 was being run by a very competent minister with a wide ranging brief and a free reign, and then from 31-35, at this absolutely critical time, British foreign policy is being run ex cathedra by a man who is slowly slipping into severe mental illness. The only slightly odd thing I can find is this: Hansard posted:Mr. LANSBURY (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Dominions to the effect that the General Election would not come for some years—perhaps three years from now—is to be regarded as an authoritative declaration that the Government have decided upon an extension of the life of this Parliament in order to postpone the General Election? And odd because that's just not a politicians answer in the commons - why leave yourself open to attack? Lansbury, incidentally, would take over the Labour party after Henderson, and, as a really hardcore christian pacifist, would be a major figure in the appeasement movement. Oddly enough, there's a certain type of (conservative) historian who blames him for appeasement altogether, while I'm more inclined to put the responsibility for foreign policy 1935-40 on the party that planned and enacted it - the Tories under Baldwin and Chamberlain. edit: * this may have only happened in my mind as I'm sure I read it somewhere but I can't find any evidence for it whatsoever
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Was there ever a battle where people on horseback beat the poo poo out of people in tanks? Yes! (And on some occasions in 1920.) spectralent posted:Sorry to repeat a question, but anyone got much on the 1st Polish army/Polish I Corps? It's really easy to get polish army stuff... If you want the II Corps, but the soviet-organised army is much harder to dig up info on. From the context of your question, I suppose you want the 1st Army. The I Corps was a unit of the Polish Army in the West made up of soldiers who made it from occupied Poland to France in 1939 and then to Britain after the Fall of France. It included the 1st Armoured Brigade, who was a lynchpin at the Falaise pocket and liberated Breda in 1945. But that's not what you're asking for, I believe. The story has to begin in 1939. After the Germans and the Soviets invade Poland, NKVD gets essentially free reign in newly-annexed territories. The Soviets take relatively few POWs - most of the Polish forces were in the West. But they strike a deal with the Germans which says that all officer POWs would be given over to the Soviets, while all privates and NCOs would be passed to the Germans. This left the USSR with some 20,000 Polish officers in captivity. After some deliberation, Stalin ordered them shot. Most died in Katyn, Miednoje and Kharkiv, but some were left alive. This included the prisoners held by the NKVD in Lyublyanka prison at the time of the massacre (including General Anders) and those that the Soviets believed could be useful (like General Berling). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Poles were deported or resettled from what until recently had been Eastern Poland into Siberia and Central Asia. The living conditions were harsh and they were provided very little in the way of aid when essentially colonising areas of frequently empty and barren steppe. This was the group that eventually provided the overwhelming majority of recruits for the lower ranks of the Polish forces formed in the USSR: it was pretty much their only chance to get out. In 1941, the Anders Army was formed. In face of consistent Soviet refusal to cooperate, and even properly supply the newly-built force, as well as pressures to send it piecemeal to the front as early as possible, General Anders decided to leave and join the British in Iran. They find a bear, yadda yadda yadda, this is not their story. In 1943, USSR State Defence Committee ordered the formation of the 1st Tadeusz Kościuszko Infantry Division (much later known as the 1st Tadeusz Kościuszko Warsaw Infantry Division). Aside from the obvious military benefits, it was also useful politically - in the short term to undermine the Polish Government in London, in the long term to aid in the establishment of the puppet regime in Poland, which the Red Army was slowly moving towards. (Naturally, the legal government immediately disowned the unit, saying it is simply a Soviet division under Soviet orders and has nothing to do with Poland.) The division had pretty much a standard Soviet infantry division TOE in principle and was trained according to Soviet doctrine. It was mostly a pure infantry force with substantial artillery, but very little mechanised equipment. However, great care was taken to ensure that the force looks Polish: it had uniforms modelled after the pre-war Polish Army uniforms (one minor, but notable difference was that the emblematic eagle lacked a crown), the banners were similar in design, the force even had a chaplain. But on the other hand, there was plenty of Communist political indoctrination and oversight. Supposedly, the division oath included allied loyalty to the Soviet Union and preserving brotherly relations with the Red Army. One substantial problem that the Soviets ran into while forming the division was a lack of an officer corps. What little was left of it after Katyn had mostly left the USSR with Anders. Between those who did not and old Polish Communists, including some who fought with the International Brigades in Spain, and large numbers of straight-up Soviet officers (occasionally with Polish roots) who often didn't even speak Polish, the division still had 20% officer posts and 36% NCO posts vacant by the end of August 1943, and its rank and file was mostly still in training. So it was in battle by October already. But before we go there, let's look into its commander for a moment. Zygmunt Berling was a former Legionary. He fought with distinction during WWI and the Polish-Bolshevik War, where he was given the Virtuti Military (highest military decoration in Poland) for his role in the defence of Lwów. But his career between the wars was less impressive. He eventually became a lieutenant colonel and was in charge of an infantry regiment. He supported Piłsudski in the May Coup. Then in 1939 he was stripped of his command and left the military in circumstances that are still not quite clear. His then-superior, Stefan Rowecki, later commander of the Polish resistance, claimed in his diary that Berling was sacked for poor organisation of his regiment. Berling supposedly said he left on his own, as he did not want to be moved from his regiment elsewhere. Another version is that he chose to leave after an officers' honour court decided his actions during his divorce were tantamount to trying to scam his wife out of her part of their property and sentenced him to being removed from active duty. In any case, he was refused commission in September 1939. In Soviet captivity, he cultivated a relationship with the NKVD. We do not know why, but Beria wanted to use him as a mole in the Anders Army. When the latter chose to leave, Berling essentially deserted. Later on he was competing with the Polish Communists to gain himself as good a role in the post-war order as possible. He proposed that the future Polish state be founded on the military, rather than the Communist Party. Needless to say, that got the Communists in a rush to denounce him before Stalin. So, in October 1943, the 1st Division was moved to the front at Lenino (in Belarus) as part of the Soviet 33rd Army under General Gordov.  Blue is Polish, Purple is Soviet, Red is German. Gordov ordered his soldiers to break through the German line of defence in a sector five kilometres wide, with the Polish division in the centre and a Soviet division on each of its flanks. The attacked was planned for October 12, with the division going in two waves after a 100-minute preparatory bombardment and following a double rolling barrage. But the reconnaissance on October 9 was poor: the scouts were spotted and chased away with artillery fire. Particularly painful was the lack of eyes on the valley of the river Miereja, some 150-200 metres wide and partially flooded after recent rains. So on October 11, Army HQ ordered a recon by combat with a battalion-sized force to take place at 6 a.m. the next day. Berling tried to get the order changed, but to no avail. He passed it on to regimental command, who were a little tardy in passing it on to the battalion that was supposed to perform the recon. And by "a little tardy" I mean "the order came at 4 a.m." The battalion charged at 6 a.m. after 5 minutes of artillery fire, broke into the German trenches, then was repulsed. They dug in some 150 metres away from enemy positions and tried to keep up the pressure. But three hours later, an hour after the preparatory bombardment for the main attack was supposed to begin, the battalion had suffered 50% losses and gained next to no intelligence aside from "Yep, the Germans are still there, and probably brought in some more guys." The bombardment was supposed to begin at 8.20 a.m., but was postponed due to the fog. So it started at 9.20, but it ended right on time: after just 60 minutes of artillery fire, Gordov decided that the Germans surely have had enough (in fact, he believed they had vacated the positions even before the disastrous recon operation). But the attack was not supposed to start for another half an hour, and no-one thought to move it up earlier. Meanwhile, the Germans, who had retreated from their first line during the barrage, had time to return to their positions and start repairing them. What is worse, they most likely knew what the Soviets were up to with the shooting: their communications were supposedly broadcast in plain text. So, off they went. Zygmunt Berling posted:I was then at the observation point at the jump-off area between the 1st and 2nd Regiments. With my heart beating hard and my throat squeezed tight, I waited for the signal to start the advance. When the rockets went up and both regiments of the first wave rose and started to go, (...) I could not keep still and I went with the first waves to the Miereja [river] so as to show them, at least, that I was with them: the soldiers advanced standing straight, as if they were on parade (...). It was so impressive that observers for Soviet artillery, which supported the kościuszkowcy attack, jumped out under all that fire in front of the trenches, onto the breastworks, throwing their caps up and shouting in some insane euphoria: "Long live the Poles!" When the first wave reached the German trenches, it turned out they were not much harmed by the barrage. After a fierce struggle, the Poles had captured the first trench line, but the Soviets on their sides failed to do the same. This created a dangerous salient, made even more precarious by the Miereja making it difficult to move anything up to the troops on the line. Despite the risk of a flank attack, Berling ordered the troops to continue the advance. He ordered the 1st Polish Tank Regiment, so far held back, to support the attack and secure the villages of Trygubova and Polzukhy. But the marshy terrain around Miereja stopped the tanks, which had to find or build bridges or crossings, where they were relentlessly bombarded by German planes. Only six ever made it to the other side. The Soviet artillery mistakenly fired on positions already secured by the Division, while the Red Army air force was completely absent, giving the Germans complete air superiority. Even though the Poles managed to secure the two villages they were supposed to, by the evening the German counter attacks against their flanks and constant pressure from the air forced them back to the former German first line. On the next day, Berling argued to Gordov that trying to do the same after having suffered huge losses would be pointless. Gordov said that he should shut up and keep attacking. October 13 was essentially a pointless meatgrinder. This time, the Soviet divisions did not even begin to move. Isolated Polish units managed to just about take over Polzukhy before running out of ammo and withdrawing. They were relieved by the Soviets during the night. The division lost 3,000 men (25% of the entire division) for almost no gain and was sent back to Smolensk for more training and recovery. This battle would not really merit so many words if not for it role in the future. Under the Communist government, Lenino was celebrated as the baptism by fire of the new Polish army, a great occasion. It was featured in paintings, posters, films, it was shown as a great feat of heroism. Naturally, the "utter clusterfuck" angle was not very popular. Meanwhile, further units were formed. Although technically the Division was augmented into a Corps by Lenino, it was really in name only. Berling was in charge of the whole force anyway, but only the 1st Division saw combat at this point in time. The Polish forces in the USSR really started to grow after the liberation of erstwhile Eastern Poland - Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. In March 1944, they were reorganized as the 1st Polish Army in the USSR. By July, it was renamed the 1st Army of the Polish Army (1. Armia Wojska Polskiego, yes, it sounds weird in English, so it is usually called the 1st Polish Army), period, as it had entered the part of Poland that was not disputed by Communists. By the end of the month, the 1st Polish Army reached the Vistula, recruiting and conscripting civilians and pressing Home Army soldiers disarmed and arrested by the NKVD into service. At some point around then, they picked up my grandfather. I'm not sure. If you allow a personal digression of this sort, I've seen his pictures and letters from late 1944, when he was already in service. He told me he was with the artillery and that he went all the way to Berlin. But I can't prove it. He was an old man when he told me that, and I was an idiot who didn't listen or ask questions. Also he used to steal from trains. I've been thinking about trying to dig in what he's left behind. Maybe I should. The 1st Army took part in the fighting for Warsaw (and, abortively, in the Warsaw Uprising). With the new base of troops to fill the ranks, a 2nd Polish Army was also founded under Świerczewski. Its trials and tribulations have already been (in a concise version) linked to in this post. But I'll just say that there were plenty of private soldiers to recruit, but so few officers that the 2nd Army officer corps was 56% Soviet.  1st Army parade in ruined Warsaw All Polish formations under Soviet command start suffering from a huge desertion problem at this point. For most troops, the main goal has already been reached: they're back in Poland, and if they carry on, they might get killed in yet another retarded operation butchered by Soviet SNAFU or that idiot Świerczewski, and even if they survive, they trust the Soviets so little it's not hard for them to imagine Poland might get incorporated into the USSR and they would be sent back to Siberia, or that they would be used to fight in the next world war. This is what stops dead the efforts to create a 3rd Polish Army. And the later operations of the existing Polish forces do not lend credence to a claim the soldiers were anything other than cannon fodder. Somehow they kept ending up in situations where the Soviet operational brilliance was replaced by knuckleheaded wave attacks against prepared positions, such as the Pomeranian Wall and the Oder crossings. Indubitably, the army's finest hour was its role in the siege of Berlin. After securing the Hohenzollernkanal, the army pressed on, throwing back the German Ninth Army and ensuring the safety of the push to Berlin. Then, the 1st Division was rerouted to the city. It attacked from the north-west, through the heavily fortified Charlottenburg. One famous legend has it that when faced with a lack of good artillery positions, they just pulled their heavy howitzers onto the third floor of a Berlin house and shelled the Germans from there. They captured the Tiergarten rail station, the Siegessaule and took part in the assault on Reichstag. (Another legend, this one very popular after the war, said that it was the Poles who first flew a flag from the Reichstag - but the man carrying it was shot by the Soviets, who did not want to pass on the glory.)  The Polish flag on the Siegessaule
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:The issue of going lighter than present means that you're taking an additional step backwards in terms of toughness. The range of threats that a tank is really worried about is a shorter list than the same for an IFV. I'm telling you now, the future of warfare is prop fighters and Panzer IIs made out of composites.  Edit: Actually, wasn't the Leopard developed because of basically this same problem back in the day? Siivola fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
you guys wanted to know what (middle class and up)(civilian)(dutch) beds would have looked like in the period, right? http://www.sandragulland.com/a-treasury-of-information-on-daily-life-in-17th-century-holland/ of course you do quote:The Vermeer household of 3 or 4 adults and 11 children had few blankets. People slept sitting up, two to a bedstead, propped up by pillows. The children slept in wheeled drawers which slid under the bed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago These both have Jun, not Jul, in their titles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Isn't part of the problem with IFVs that they have to carry a bunch of people and all their crap, which means you can't load it down with armour? Conceivably you could replace the peeps with steel plating and you'd have a really tall, undergunned tank. The concept has been explored before, in the BMPT. It may yet be actually used. The Leopard was developed at a crossroads where western engine technology wasn't good enough to have really high mobility and armor at the same time, and that this newfangled HEAT thing was making RHA worthless. So rather make a tank with armor that was going to get superseded quickly anyway, they eschewed the armor required to protect against tank guns, only enough to protect against autocannons. This was also at a time where infantry AT and ATGMs were still in their infancy and not nearly as prolific/effective as they are now. Nowadays you have the engines that let you get that kind of mobility with much better armor, so you might as well keep it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Didn't know about the non-featherable props, which is quite surprising considering, like you said, the increased drag. That flying porcupine bit is intriguing, do you have a link? I've never heard of it being a myth and it would be neat dispelling that. Unfortunately, I don't. Have some images from where I got it from, though: Aeroplane: Icons: Short Sunderland   In the series they also cover the Fairey Swordfish  Phanatic posted:And what happened to the electrostatic armor? Outer plate charged up to some fuckoff voltage, a dielectric, and a grounded inner plate, when the HEAT jet bridges the gap you get a big current pulse through it that breaks it up. There've been live-fire tests where it appears to work pretty well, but I guess it never went anywah? It's a good question; Gordon Freeman needs to know HEY GAL posted:you guys wanted to know what (middle class and up)(civilian)(dutch) beds would have looked like in the period, right? Not enough sleep! Ug, so unhealthy
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Not enough sleep! Ug, so unhealthy
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Unfortunately, I don't. Have some images from where I got it from, though: Aeroplane: Icons: Short Sunderland God help us if Lindybeige ever sees this...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Unfortunately, I don't. Have some images from where I got it from, though: Aeroplane: Icons: Short Sunderland That's pretty cool, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Groda posted:God help us if Lindybeige ever sees this... What's the deal with that guy anyway? He's fun when whingeing about minute errors in historical stuff but he seems pretty up his own arse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Requested effort post Hey thanks for the effort post. It is appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Koramei posted:cavalry and firearms have coexisted and complemented each other for centuries, therefore cavalry will last forever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u04KA8eYwBg
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
I just wanted to thank you for this post, it's posts like this that make this thread so good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:37
|
|
