|
Thank you for this! It's very comprehensive. So to be clear, the Polish army was kind of a soviet army that dressed up like a Polish one? I'm assuming the kit would've been the same, or did they bring loads of polish rifles and such with them too? Edit: Actually if they didn't have loads of captured materiel, how did they get all the uniforms? EDIT: Spec forgets to shorten big posts. spectralent fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Aug 6, 2016 |
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
spectralent posted:Thank you for this! It's very comprehensive. They would've used Russian equipment. All the factories the Poles had were either captured by Germans in 1939, or in 1941. The standard Polish rifle (the Wz.29) was chambered in 8mm Mauser, and was basically a Kar 98k (there were differences, though). A lot of heavy equipment was foreign (French tanks, Italian trucks), and there wouldn't be any benefit to having a separate supply chain just so that the Poles could have something unique.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
So to edge in on armorchat, what do y'all think of Russia's new baby the T-14? (yes I know basically everything is classified and we don't know poo poo, but bear with me) What gets me is that the turret is supposedly completely unmanned - is it smart to trust the machinery that much? I was under the impression that most tanks eschewed autoloaders (ok, fine, I know they've been pretty much standard in Russian designs for decades but I'm thinking of the Abrams and other NATO tanks) because if the thing breaks then you've got this big lump of machinery getting in the way, slowing down manual loading and otherwise screwing with running the tank, so it's better to just stick with a well-trained human. If autoloaders are unreliable enough that it's better to do away with them entirely (again, at least by US design philosophy), is a completely automated turret such a good idea or has technology improved enough to make it viable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
To expand on that question, at what point do we switch over entirely to remotely operated tanks or tankettes? Ditching the crew compartment might open up some interesting design possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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. In most of his history themed videos, he basically looks at pop history stuff, says "that doesn't make much sense, this is how I would do it" and concludes "therefore that's how it was". He also has a bunch of generally reactionary political and social views. My favorite is the one where he concludes class systems are right and good because of Darwinism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 06:53
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
lenoon posted:Anyone got any ideas as to the accuracy of Atonement's fantastic long tracking shot of the Dunkirk evacuation? I know this was from pages ago, but this scene is, like, really incredible? Thanks for posting it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Stryker MGS already has an unmanned turret, so I suppose even the US have seen the light/worship the devil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:So to edge in on armorchat, what do y'all think of Russia's new baby the T-14? (yes I know basically everything is classified and we don't know poo poo, but bear with me) What gets me is that the turret is supposedly completely unmanned - is it smart to trust the machinery that much? I was under the impression that most tanks eschewed autoloaders (ok, fine, I know they've been pretty much standard in Russian designs for decades but I'm thinking of the Abrams and other NATO tanks) because if the thing breaks then you've got this big lump of machinery getting in the way, slowing down manual loading and otherwise screwing with running the tank, so it's better to just stick with a well-trained human. If autoloaders are unreliable enough that it's better to do away with them entirely (again, at least by US design philosophy), is a completely automated turret such a good idea or has technology improved enough to make it viable? Allow me to be a Spartan for a moment  If. The autoloaders on soviet tanks are very reliable and it's an extremely rare case for them to have problems. The French notably have an auto-loader on their Leclerc MBT and so does the Japanese Type-90, both of which can get 4-6 second practical reload cycle speeds. One thing you have to remember is that humans need a lot of space and a loader needs the most out of any crewman. So a tank that removes the loader can reduce it's total size quite a bit. Yesterday I had the chance to look at a T-62M side by side with a T-72B and a T-80U and the latter two are slightly shorter but much more compact. A bigger volume means you must spend more weight on armor of a particular thickness. If you are trying to keep your designs all sub-50T in weight, this is very important. Now is it okay to trust the machinery so much? I'd say that we're at the point that it is. FLIR and other sensor systems are making the inability to stick your head out of the top of the turret and look less of a problem. Of which can still do, just from the hull instead. The other thing is that by making the turret unmanned is that now it's an "inert" area when it comes to hits. If some 120mm DU APFSDS round perforates it, you've lost the armament of the tank sure, but the chassis and the crew are still safe and hopefully able to escape.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:To expand on that question, at what point do we switch over entirely to remotely operated tanks or tankettes? Ditching the crew compartment might open up some interesting design possibilities. South Korea's looked into this, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Christ you guys post a lot.Dick Trauma posted:This might be too hard to answer but I'm curious about the weight of equipment infantry have had to carry throughout the ages. When I see modern soldiers they appear to be festooned with equipment, packs, bags, bandoliers, pouches... it looks overwhelming. Post-Marian Roman soldiers are believed to have carried 75-100 pounds or so of equipment, which is in the ballpark of a modern soldier. A typical load from say around 100 AD would be: Weapons: dagger, sword, at least two javelins. Armor: Torso armor, typically lorica hamata which was a ring mail adopted from the Gauls or lorica segmentata, which is the lobstery looking thing you picture for a legionary. It is disputed how much both were used. Lorica segmentata was much better--lighter and stronger, but was probably more expensive since it stops being used once the empire no longer has the kind of military mass production resources it had during the classical height. Shield and helmet were the other standard armor pieces. Some soldiers would also have arm and leg armor but this was never standard. Clothes: Tunic, belts, cloak, boots, underwear. In colder climates socks and pants were used. Other stuff: A pack, waterskin, mess tin, cooking pot, field rations, shovel, an unknown number of wooden stakes for use in constructing the marching camp, and a wooden pole for carrying poo poo. One can expect soldiers would have some changes of clothes and personal items like games or writing tablets. Good bet everybody had dice. Keep in mind a good portion of the weight is the body armor, which if you've ever worn, is not that bad at all as far as carrying goes. The weight is well distributed and it doesn't impede your movement much/at all unlike what you've learned from D&D. I suspect soldiers forgot they were even wearing the stuff a lot of the time, if the weather wasn't turning it into an oven. I would guess the shield is the most annoying thing to carry (a scutum is really big and heavy) and so they probably had some rig to carry it on their backs while marching. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Koramei posted:i hope the official military term for them is still dragoons Sure is! http://www.army.mod.uk/armoured/regiments/26872.aspx http://www.army.mod.uk/armoured/regiments/26876.aspx
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Sure is! on the other hand, their dissolution in 1918 means the regiment was never filled with nazis, so there's that
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Poland in WWII effortpost
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Christ you guys post a lot. We need a :tankchat: emoticon. spectralent posted:South Korea's looked into this, IIRC. Eh, this then gets into the problem that EW can straight up disable you as I assume the technology would be wireless. Then we also have the issue of things like input/output lag from tank to the controller. I just thought of another thing about unmanned turrets. Generally speaking, penetration to the crew compartments is when ~bad things happen~ to a tank. If we consider the threat of HEAT attacks from above (rocket artillery), by making the turret unmanned you have made that area into a spaced armor array that happens to have equipment in it rather than a juicy crew compartment. Then, following from this you have reduced the cross-sectional area that bomblets can catastrophically effect. Furthermore, by having a long sloping upper glacis where the crew is located, you're making your armoring there more efficient. The upper glacis is already being heavily armored, so now you just need to spend a little extra on the roof above the crew compartment.  Let's look at the profiles of the T-14 and the T-90. A penetration to the top of the T-90 turret is likely to be catastrophic as it's crew and then ammunition in the same area. On the T-14 these are separate areas, so the crew is more likely to survive such an attack. This is of course before we get into the whole suite of active protection systems, RADAR controlled AA-MGs (for shooting down missiles) and other such unproven things. In any case, poo poo's about to get very  for tanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:We need a :tankchat: emoticon. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Thank you for this! It's very comprehensive. The gear was 100% Soviet-spec. The uniforms were made in the USSR based on those taken from POWs, but it's not hard to reverse-engineer a uniform. And even then, some uniform pieces (e.g. helmets and overcoats) were Soviet-spec. As for whether it was a Soviet army dressed up to look Polish - that's kind of a political question? Certainly it was overwhelmingly made up of Poles, not Soviets, aside from a large part of the mid- and high-ranking officer corps. The London government denounced it as Soviet, because it did not recognise its authority (and rejecting the legal government is a serious strike against the unit in this regard). Unlike the Polish forces in the West, which at least nominally were subordinate to the Polish Commander-in-Chief and were legally forces of an independent and legal government (even if in practice they operated like British units), the 1st Army did not answer to any sort of Polish political authority, its only superiors were the Soviet army headquarters. We can also note that at least a large part of its soldiers - if not the majority - did not share its political outlooks or goals. But fundamentally, it boils down to how you define "a Polish army".
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:The gear was 100% Soviet-spec. The uniforms were made in the USSR based on those taken from POWs, but it's not hard to reverse-engineer a uniform. And even then, some uniform pieces (e.g. helmets and overcoats) were Soviet-spec. That sounds like what I'd meant; apologies if I phrased it in an offensive way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:To expand on that question, at what point do we switch over entirely to remotely operated tanks or tankettes? Ditching the crew compartment might open up some interesting design possibilities. Soviets tried it a while back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletank
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:The Lakota were badass horse archers who got high off of sweat lodges, sage incense, exhaustion, food and sleep deprivation with bonus blood sacrifice (sun dance) because they didn't have alcohol or other intoxicants. They ain't about no pussy pike-and-shot gout-ridden drunkard European warfare. I'm apprenticed to the apprentice of a Lakota medicine man, and unless you're being facetious, that's dumb and wrong. Sweat lodges and the sun dance are religious ceremonies, and you don't get high off them as much as it makes you feel really tired and lovely. The express purpose is to suffer in order for the great spirits to take pity on us, and so help the community.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Tias posted:I'm apprenticed to the apprentice of a Lakota medicine man, and unless you're being facetious, that's dumb and wrong. Sweat lodges and the sun dance are religious ceremonies, and you don't get high off them as much as it makes you feel really tired and lovely. The express purpose is to suffer in order for the great spirits to take pity on us, and so help the community. Tias, I love your Danish pagan posting, but, er, please read your post again and consider what you just did...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:08
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You wait till insurgents start trying to fight the new abrams by sticking RPG7 rounds on the end of pikes and waiting for it to charge them. The Taliban used to tie people with RPG's to trees in a bit to shoot down passing low flying Hinds.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So I just got spun up on the latest iteration of Abrams upgrades and their solution to the next generation of missiles is just to slap more ablative armor on the thing and no poo poo I'm not kidding you it's new curb weight is no less than 93 tons. God bless America Is there anything public about this yet btw?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:12
|
|
PittTheElder posted:In most of his history themed videos, he basically looks at pop history stuff, says "that doesn't make much sense, this is how I would do it" and concludes "therefore that's how it was". A lot of the amateur military history out there seems to be based on this kind of totally ahistorical thinking. People like this often seem to be unable to deal with the concept of forms of warfare that are highly ritualised, for example.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
my dad posted:Tias, I love your Danish pagan posting, but, er, please read your post again and consider what you just did... Apart from posting 4 pages on (which, agreed, is dumb, but I didn't notice), I can't really see what you mean? E: By 'us' I mean participants in a sweat, not that I am lakota, if that was unclear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Eh, this then gets into the problem that EW can straight up disable you as I assume the technology would be wireless. Then we also have the issue of things like input/output lag from tank to the controller. The solution is obviously just dump all our resources into AI research until we get something sophisticated enough that it can run a tank(-like vehicle, would it even be a 'tank' at that point?) all on it's own. Building autonomous killbots worked out great in Terminator, let's try it for real. On a slightly more serious note, drones seem to be pretty popular despite said problems. Though, the more I think about it, the more it looks like drones are so popular because: 1) The only (declassified) engagements they've fought have been against 3rd world insurgents who couldn't even detect them much less shoot back 2) It's a lot easier to hide a drone than a tank (at least from a Mk. I Human Eyeball), what with being much smaller and having a third dimension to play with 3) They're a lot cheaper to produce, operate, and maintain than traditional manned aircraft 4) Holy loiter time, Batman, these make amazing recon vehicles/eyes in the sky/support vehicles for ground operations rather than because they'd make sense as combat vehicles in a modern battlefield flooded with ECM. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Tias posted:Apart from posting 4 pages on (which, agreed, is dumb, but I didn't notice), I can't really see what you mean? Your post is very easy to interpret as you telling someone you know the cultural significance of their customs better than they do because of your neopaganism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Is there anything public about this yet btw? I know they announced the SEP v3 upgrade last year sometime, I think this was just the final decision following prototyping and whatnot. I'm not for sure on this, but I think this pic is an early prototype in testing...and the things on the fronts of the turrets are weights simulating the additional armor additions. You can still see the additional armor from the last round of SEP underneath the weights. 
bewbies fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I know they announced the SEP v3 upgrade last year sometime, I think this was just the final decision following prototyping and whatnot. It's just that with the current M1A2 hitting 72t, some other people I've been talking to find the 93t figure to be unbelievable. 20t of new additional armor? It'd have to be pure plates of DU for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:It's just that with the current M1A2 hitting 72t, some other people I've been talking to find the 93t figure to be unbelievable. 20t of new additional armor? It'd have to be pure plates of DU for that. I'm just parroting what the maneuver center guys said, I really don't have any other info past that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'm just parroting what the maneuver center guys said, I really don't have any other info past that. A shameful post. You're supposed to give us the exact blueprints of the tank, so that our finely tuned tactical minds can evaluate its most important traits like, for example, its ability to shoot down a Tie Fighter if placed in orbit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Bloody hell, that thing is a bit of a design departure for Russian tanks? Well, the basic design put forward with the T-64 is now roughly 50 years old at this point and has reached the end of upgrade space. The smallest volume, lightest weight possible design from back then limits how far you can stretch things out even when you change dimensions, swap suspension models and etc. After a point, an entirely new design was needed and has been delivered. Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Looks kind of like Hind > Ka52 in tank form.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Well, the basic design put forward with the T-64 is now roughly 50 years old at this point and has reached the end of upgrade space. The smallest volume, lightest weight possible design from back then limits how far you can stretch things out even when you change dimensions, swap suspension models and etc. After a point, an entirely new design was needed and has been delivered. T-64 Kharkovite trash never had upgrade space, only superior Tankograd T-72 can be modernized into 21st century 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:
According to Dan Howard segmentata was the inferior armor. First, segmentata was significantly cheaper to produce. Pulling wire of the size used in lorica hamata requires more highly refined iron than the lames of segmentata, and this not only adds to the labour cost but to the material cost, which was the more significant of the two to my understanding. Segmentata was also in some ways inferior to hamata in practical terms. It didn't protect the lower abdomen, and the brass hinges on the shoulders were liable to break and thus disassemble the armour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:According to Dan Howard segmentata was the inferior armor. First, segmentata was significantly cheaper to produce. Pulling wire of the size used in lorica hamata requires more highly refined iron than the lames of segmentata, and this not only adds to the labour cost but to the material cost, which was the more significant of the two to my understanding. Segmentata was also in some ways inferior to hamata in practical terms. It didn't protect the lower abdomen, and the brass hinges on the shoulders were liable to break and thus disassemble the armour. I ask in a non dickish way, who is Dan Howard? I've not encountered an argument for hamata as a superior armor before and would like to read it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:1) The only (declassified) engagements they've fought have been against 3rd world insurgents who couldn't even detect them much less shoot back Is this true? I guess it probably depends a lot on what model of drone it is, but I've heard numerous times that drones are loud as all gently caress (there are plenty of videos out there too), to the point that their noise combined with them loitering in the air for hours, days on end is leading to some serious emotional trauma in affected groups in e.g. the West Bank and western Pakistan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:T-64 Kharkovite trash never had upgrade space, only superior Tankograd T-72 can be modernized into 21st century I mean 64, 72 and 80 being all brothers of the same generation, the distinctly "Soviet Cold War era" style of tank, not the specific design itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Tias posted:I'm apprenticed to the apprentice of a Lakota medicine man, and unless you're being facetious, that's dumb and wrong. Sweat lodges and the sun dance are religious ceremonies, and you don't get high off them as much as it makes you feel really tired and lovely. The express purpose is to suffer in order for the great spirits to take pity on us, and so help the community. Yeah I was mostly being facetious and making a bit of a joke about HEY GAL's dudes who are drunk 24/7. The Lakota indeed did not have any kinds of intoxicants, and as you say the sun dance is intended as a sacrifice to win favor from the gods. Sweat lodges are also a very social thing, I know some traditional Lakota families that sweat like once a week or more (including old dudes for whom it's really dangerous health-wise, but they loving love it). They're not really getting "high" of course, but visions are associated with deprivation and exhaustion. To go on a vision quest you consult with a medicine man, sweat a lot, fast, and then go out into the wilderness alone for a night or similar. They're deliberately exhausting themselves to better have visions and commune with spirits. Waci posted:Your post is very easy to interpret as you telling someone you know the cultural significance of their customs better than they do because of your neopaganism. Well, I'm not Lakota and don't claim to be any sort of authority on this stuff. I grew up on the reservation, went to tribal schools, had language and culture classes as a result of that. I've been to a ton of dances, sweats, ceremonies, even a couple sun dances (I don't think they let non-tribal members attend anymore?). I'm a somewhat informed outsider and nothing more. This isn't a dig at Tias, but I would be incredibly skeptical of the authenticity of anyone claiming to be a Native American medicine man or shaman who isn't actually living in a tribal community. Legit medicine (wo)men and tribal elders don't tend to leave the reservation because they're living traditional lifestyles and teaching in their own communities. Also for the Lakota in particular there is a lot of (very justified) animus towards governments, white people, and outsiders in general. Leaving the reservation to teach the wasicu would be seen as a bit of a betrayal, because they're not at home sharing their knowledge, participating in ceremonies, and working to preserve the language and traditional culture. (on a completely unrelated note, the guy that announced the DNC votes from South Dakota was Lakota and gave a traditional Lakota language greeting which was very cool to see on national TV) Edit: and a quick Google tells me it was actually the vote announcement that officially won Hillary Clinton the nomination, neato Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
If you were born on a reservation, how are you not a Lakota? And yes, I guess I came off a bit hot before, sorry about that. I don't reckon myself any kind of medicine man or even very knowledgable about that sort of spirituality, though I do go to yearly retreats where I learn from an ordained medicine man who was taught by the Lakota. He has gotten a lot of flak for taking a month off teaching Danish people, but last we heard was that they blessed the endeavour, because they had themselves seen the reason of teaching people who respect the ways. At any rate, I don't think being a neo-pagan makes me better at history, because, let's face it, we're reconstructing some very old beliefs with a bare minimum of sources.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 19:01
|
|