|
pthighs posted:I was just flipping around in Netflix the other day and noticed there is a Jarhead 2 and Jarhead 3, both of which, judging by the poster art, hilariously seem to be the exact type of macho shoot-'em-up movie the first one isn't. Nenonen posted:I love the idea of using carrier pigeons for tank communications, but I fear it really was done for the same reason that miners used canaries... 
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
100 Years Ago 6th August: It's the first day of the Sixth Battle of the Isonzo and I'm not using words like "slaughter", "failure", and "bastard". What is going on? The Germans give up on the idea of taking the Windmill Hill back at Pozieres; Oskar Teichman is still waiting to be evacuated; Robert Pelissier discusses America and Wagner; Oswin Creighton (Marlborough College & Keble College, Oxford) complains that his officers are just too toffee-nosed even for him and the men appear to have some strange definition of "religion" that he was previously unaware of; Max Plowman meets his company sergeant-major; and Evelyn Southwell watches the trains going by. 7th August: Irony time at Sixth Isonzo! They've finally achieved something worth celebrating, and it's only taken a year. The BEF prepares for another hopeless penny-packet poke at Guillemont; Generals Joffre and Haig convene a mutual admiration society; Edward Mousley is trying very hard not to catch malaria; Oskar Teichman and his broken leg head off to the rear in a train truck without suspension; Max Plowman's new commanding officer bollocks his subordinates for such hideous crimes as "being civil to private soldiers"; Oswald Boelcke has a jolly nice dinner with General von Mackensen, who is apparently rather less stern without his amazing hat; and glory be, Maximilian Mugge is being recalled to Blighty by the War Office. ArchangeI posted:What prevented the designers from using a device known to the modern world as an exhaust pipe? I've been trying to work this out for a year and I still don't know. The first exhaust venting system came on the Mark V, which was basically a really big fan that blew the gases back out of a hole the top. Anyone know the history of exhaust systems on cars? I've got an It-Stands-To-Reason suspicion that perhaps if all contemporary car/tractor/aeroplane engines just belched exhaust straight out of them and nobody had yet thought you might need or want a pipe to take the gases somewhere else... Nenonen posted:Which in turn is because the crew needed to be constantly adjusting gears and fixing the engine. Things were, shall we say, primitive But on the other hand, I remind people once again that the Mark I's engine did have a conveniently-sited shelf that, within a week or so of the training crews getting inside the things for the first time, was being used for frying bacon and any other food they could lay their hands on. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The little gas masks would be adorable though 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Don't trust this too much but I think they specifically tried to get rid of non-Germanic loans in part of federalizing/creating Höhedeutsch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
The Type 3 wasn't poo poo, probably, but only a hundred or so were produced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I'm just saddened that Germans never completed the Großkampfwagen. I'm sure it would have changed the course of the war had the army not been stabbed in the back! drat!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
If Battlefield I lets me do GKW vs Flying Elephant vs Tsar Tank, they can have all my money
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I've been trying to work this out for a year and I still don't know. The first exhaust venting system came on the Mark V, which was basically a really big fan that blew the gases back out of a hole the top. Anyone know the history of exhaust systems on cars? I've got an It-Stands-To-Reason suspicion that perhaps if all contemporary car/tractor/aeroplane engines just belched exhaust straight out of them and nobody had yet thought you might need or want a pipe to take the gases somewhere else... I know WW1 biplanes were a bit notorious for chucking crap at the pilot if the engine suffered damage, and I think they just vented the exhaust out the side of the front of the fuselage rather than bothering to run the exhaust very far. But this diagram of a model T shows a quite clear rear exhaust and what even looks like a muffler:  So gently caress if I know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Don't trust this too much but I think they specifically tried to get rid of non-Germanic loans in part of federalizing/creating Höhedeutsch. i'm serious though, if you speak English and want to learn another language, please consider 17th century german, it's nuts
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
I mean German still isn't a cohesive language ; it's a lot of diglossic people that have agreed to learn a standard form with intermediate steps between High German, High German with an accent, High German with an accent and non-standard features, pure Mundart... (And steps in between I'm not mentioning, e.g. perfect High German with one word or dialect to make a joke work or whatever. ) Should I just do a big post of Language Policy = Hard? That's pretty derail-y. (O and I'm still looking into that Lakota etymology. My colleague that works on Native American languages happens to be on vacation.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:always post pics!  
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I think there's a real argument for a screwball comedy about rear echelon insanity, but i don't think that's Hollywood fare. If you forget about Catch 22 again I'll have you out on Section 8.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I'm just saddened that Germans never completed the Großkampfwagen. I'm sure it would have changed the course of the war had the army not been stabbed in the back! I love how the front facing guns can't elevate without smacking into those machine guns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Realistic Napoleonic Wars movie, main character is awkwardly to the right in the third line of a four man column. You spent most of it looking at the back of or craning to see over the shako of the guy in front barely seeing the enemy through the smoke before being shot to death. My real life videogame experiences in your company.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:12
|
|
LordSaturn posted:If you forget about Catch 22 again I'll have you out on Section 8. Eat the chocolate covered cotton , Slim Jim.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Heavy tanks were not really prevalent amongst the allies Friendly reminder that the Soviet Union was also 'the Allies' 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I've also never really understood why people think they want realistic war movies. If a war movie was realistic it would be really really really really boring for the first two and half hours and then the last 15 minutes would be really loud and confusing There actually was a movie like that. It was about some knight conflict from long ago and it was 90% boring political stuff and the rest was the protagonist getting maimed by a cannon ball and very slowly dying from it. The epilogue then proudly explained how the Catholic church declared cannons for unholy or something so no-one would use those horrible weapons ever again!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Libluini posted:There actually was a movie like that. It was about some knight conflict from long ago and it was 90% boring political stuff and the rest was the protagonist getting maimed by a cannon ball and very slowly dying from it. wasn't about a knight though, it was about Giovanni Of The Black Bands. not sure if he'd be flattered if you called him a knight or insulted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:; Oswin Creighton (Marlborough College & Keble College, Oxford) complains that his officers are just too toffee-nosed even for him I will note that as Oxford colleges go Keble is historically quite proley. It's built out of bricks for heaven's sake, and it had only been around for half a century at that point! Proper, gentleman's colleges at least pre-date the existence of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I will note that as Oxford colleges go Keble is historically quite proley. It's built out of bricks for heaven's sake, and it had only been around for half a century at that point! Proper, gentleman's colleges at least pre-date the existence of the United States. Keble grad spotted. edit: You're all richer than Cambridge, which is clearly the proletarian part of oxbridge
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Keble grad spotted. New College, actually, which Oxford being Oxford is over 600 years old  (Still not a toff)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
I always regretted my choice because it was only 200 years old and that really bums me out. Still, it's nice to take Americans round - yes, this library is older than your country. You see this drain? Yep, that too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I know WW1 biplanes were a bit notorious for chucking crap at the pilot if the engine suffered damage, and I think they just vented the exhaust out the side of the front of the fuselage rather than bothering to run the exhaust very far. It's been awhile since I did the class at uni that briefly touched on it, but the exhaust pipe does have an impact on the performance of the engine. I'm not sure if they cared in 1916, but it's not completely impossible that putting on a reasonably long pipe would've reduced the tanks engine power when it was already fairly slow. Probably wrong on this, hopefully an AI regular can elaborate. Also an exhaust pipe is just begging for a grenade, perhaps the designers figured the soldiers wouldn't be in the tank too long and could cope rather than add a weak spot to the tank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
I, on the other hand, am a fully rounded human being with a degree from the university of life, a diploma from the school of hard knocks, and three gold stars from the kindergarten of getting the poo poo kicked out of me. And sadly recently too, a ECDL which is sadly not forfit. Alright sorry no more Blackadder quotes from me serious time. There is something just downright depressing reading about history out of the blue about your town in another town that is well, just morbidly embarassingly. In my towns historic and still functioning town hall During Liberal sponsered peace talks about the Boer War Emily Hobson and future primine minister Lloyd George the woman the whole affair was completely wrecked by obnoxious patriotic flag waving dicks who wouldn't shut up and almost started a fist fight with the police that got a certain damp MP involved. This is surreal as gently caress on so many levels as I am reading about the kind of weird people who welcomed the coming crisis that was the Great War. Needless to say, I hate my town a little more. Things haven't really changed.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Splode posted:It's been awhile since I did the class at uni that briefly touched on it, but the exhaust pipe does have an impact on the performance of the engine. I'm not sure if they cared in 1916, but it's not completely impossible that putting on a reasonably long pipe would've reduced the tanks engine power when it was already fairly slow. Probably wrong on this, hopefully an AI regular can elaborate. Also an exhaust pipe is just begging for a grenade, perhaps the designers figured the soldiers wouldn't be in the tank too long and could cope rather than add a weak spot to the tank. Exhaust back pressure robs you of some power, like having a muffler. It's why WW2 aircraft exhaust manifolds are just pipes that run from the cylinders to the outside  Still, I don't think that's a very good reason not to have an exhaust pipe; In a military application like this you just could have made the exhaust manifold a big straight pipe to the outside. If you are worried about grenades, as some kinks to said pipe, or have many small ones. When the engine is on and especially applying power, the exhaust pressure alone (let alone the immense heat) would make shoving a grenade up its exhaust pipe suicidal anyway. My reading of the whole thing is that the people building the Mk. I just didn't have enough experience to know what a inherently lovely idea "no exhaust pipe" was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Exhaust back pressure robs you of some power, like having a muffler. It's why WW2 aircraft exhaust manifolds are just pipes that run from the cylinders to the outside I thought that was so you could get in on that sweet flame spittin' Merlin action. You know, for morale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I thought that was so you could get in on that sweet flame spittin' Merlin action. You know, for an uncontrollable erection lasting 1939-1945
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Bit of a side question to this topic because I was thinking about it the other day but wasn't sure how to ask the question. When tanks were first fielded, it rapidly became clear that heavy tanks are expensive as gently caress to build and run. Light and medium tanks were quickly developed, and you could do 90% of the same things that a heavy tank could with a Whippet or a Renault FT. During the war, that other 10% was fighting other tanks, a fairly important thing, at least until the war ended. Now the primary enemy of the tank was no longer a well organized enemy army, but bandits, revolutionaries, uppity colonials, that sort of thing. Against them, a light two-man tank was more than enough. In the early post-war years, the Renault FT and its many many clones and modernizations reigned supreme. Improvements in rifle caliber armour piercing ammunition and development of heavy machineguns made heavy tanks completely impractical, since their armour could easily be pierced by a much smaller tank. These smaller tanks were also an easier pill to swallow for militaries who no longer enjoyed beefy wartime budgets and industrializing nations. Some amount of medium tanks are built during this time, but their advantages over light tanks can be boiled down to "more machineguns". Crazy one-offs like the Independent also exist, but the majority of the world prefers light vehicles. The difficulty in making long-lasting track links makes convertible drive tanks very popular, which isn't really a solution you can apply to heavy machines. In the early 1930s, the world is ravaged by a financial crisis, but the Soviet Union has money to burn. Out of the ridiculous poo poo like the Grotte tank and the other Grotte tank comes a fairly reasonable line-up of tanks, including the medium T-28 and heavy T-35. The point of these tanks is to break through enemy fortified regions. The 76 mm cannon can fling enough HE against light entrenchments, and the machinegun turrets can sweep through trenches. The two 45 mm gun turrets on the T-35 are there to destroy enemy tanks, since the low velocity 76 mm gun leaves much to be desired in that respect. These "heavy" tanks have pitiful amounts of armour, up to 30 mm, but even that is enough to resist low velocity 37 mm guns and heavy machineguns, which is what most of the world is using. In the mid-1930s, the Spanish Civil War shows the world what a real clash of armoured vehicles looks like. Machinegun-only PzIs fall easily to the 45 mm cannon on the T-26, but the latter is equally vulnerable to the newcomer: the light and high velocity 3.7 cm Pak anti-tank gun. Small, concealable, and easy to reposition, this weapon became a serious headache for tank manufacturers. Heavier armour was needed, not just on specialized breakthrough tanks, but on every tank. Here's when you see bigger and beefier tanks appearing. The French have impressively thick armour on even their light tanks, but their heavy B1 and medium S35 tanks are built to be completely impervious to this new threat. The FCM36 comes around: a revolutionary new design that offers armour which is both sloped to improve the chance of ricochet and welded, a superior alternative to rivets or casting. In the mid-to-late 1930s, the French are kings of heavy tanks. Unfortunately for them, these new tanks are expensive. The majority of the French tank park still consists of light tanks that are using the same low velocity 37 mm gun from the Renault FT. By the end of the 30s, the rest of the world begins to catch up. Britain comes up with the Infantry Tanks MkI and MkII, boasting impressive amounts of armour. In parallel with attempts to slap more armour on their existing designs, the Soviets develop the T-100 and SMK tanks, which are comparably protected but still bogged down by the archaic multi-turret paradigm. Partly by chance, the "budget" single-turret version of the SMK, the KV, shows its superiority and is chosen over the competing designs. This tank has 75 mm of armour and regularly returns from the front peppered with small dents from 37-47 mm guns. The Americans and Germans, however, continue to focus on lighter vehicles with up to 30 mm of armour. Their doctrines don't require anything heavier. The French campaign makes the Germans reconsider their approach to tanks. The heavy armour of French tanks proves to be troublesome, and their 25 mm high velocity cannon eats 30 mm of armour for breakfast. Plus, the Finns passed on knowledge of the Soviet T-100, referred to by the Germans as the T-35C. Bigger guns and thicker armour were needed. The solution was a short 50 mm gun for the PzIII and extra armour plates for the most progressive tanks the Wehrmacht possesses: 25-30 mm of armour bolted onto the front. This bolted armour is a half-measure as it cracks and falls off when hit, but designs enter production with homogeneous front plates up to 50 mm thick. By 1940, medium and even light tanks have more armour and firepower than heavy tanks could have dreamt of in the mid-1930s. The KV-1 concept appears satisfactory to the Soviets, and is worked upon incrementally. The KV-2 is a modification with a huge 152 mm howitzer to take on fortifications. The KV-3 is a slightly improved version of the KV-1: thicker armour, stronger engine, high velocity 76 mm gun based on ballistics of the mod. 1938 AA gun. This is considered fine until rumours of German tank development are picked up by Soviet intelligence. Reports of a 90 ton tank armed with a 105 mm gun (this was an abandoned German project for a breakthrough tank with a short 105 mm howitzer) were assumed to be a new superheavy tank with a 105 mm AA gun. Soviet trials determined that this gun could penetrate up to 130 mm of armour, making their 90 mm KV-3 obsolete before it even came out. This was a huge game changer. Existing heavy tank projects (the old KV-3, proposed again under the index KV-6, and the T-220) are cancelled. A new KV-3 tank with 120 mm of armour and a huge 107 mm gun is designed, along with its more enormous KV-4 and KV-5 brethren. One of these three tanks is destined to become the Red Army's heavy tank in 1942 after all three are built and comparative trials are held, but the start of the Great Patriotic War sobers up tank designers. There are no German heavy tanks. A whole host of mega-guns and super-tanks is swept into the bin. As single KV and T-34 tanks prove to be an enormous hassle for the Germans, every effort is made to resurrect old tank programs. The Durchbruchswagen (breakthrough vehicle) concept is revived, its short 75 mm gun growing into a long 75 mm gun, then a tank version of the 88 mm AA gun, the only effective weapon the Germans had against British Matilda tanks, eventually evolving into the Tiger we know and love. The tank combined some interesting new innovations with a critical drawback. The hull was a good old fashioned box shape, and while 82-100 mm of armour was a lot in 1942, the rest of the world wouldn't be sitting still. Even now, Soviet 85 mm AA guns and 57 mm anti-tank guns were capable of destroying the Tiger. Before the first Tiger saw combat, the Tiger II was already in the works, incorporating the progressive sloped hull design and an 88 mm gun based on an even bigger AA gun. The price for these huge jumps in armour and firepower were weight and complexity. The Tigers had to be collected into specialized battalions with a hilarious amount of engineers and technicians behind them to maintain even the humble availability rate that they did. Meanwhile, across the front lines, Soviet light, medium, and heavy tanks served in the same units. However, the concept of a heavy tank was changing. Instead of going heavier like the Germans, the Soviets valued reliability and ease of production. The KV tank became lighter and faster, pre-war ideas of a medium tank with heavy armour were brought back. The result was the T-43 and KV-13: medium tanks boasting more armour than the Tiger, but still that same old 76 mm gun. Work on bigger tank guns shifted down a few gears in 1941 and progressed slowly. 85 and 122 mm guns were tried, but the military's reaction was lukewarm. This changed in 1943 when the Ferdinand hit the battlefield. The appearance of the Tiger resurrected the 57 mm anti-tank gun and 85 mm designs, but it was really the Ferdinand's greatly improved armour and firepower that forced the Red Army to make the next big jump in armour. Both the T-43 and KV-13 were too expensive to replace the medium tank, so a compromise was reached. The more protected and roomier turret from the T-43 along with its 85 mm gun would go on the T-34 to give it enough firepower to combat heavy tanks while keeping costs low and production high. The KV-13 became the IS-2, a more expensive heavy tank, but with a much bigger gun. With 120 mm of front armour, it was incomparable to anything else on the battlefield at the time. The new tanks were formed in new units: the Guards Heavy Tank Breakthrough Regiment. Unique among the Red Army, IS-2 crews were given their Guards badge in advance. Much like the German Heavy Tank Battalion, these were envisioned to be the spearhead of offensive operations, except unlike the Germans, these tanks were actually used in their doctrinal role instead of as plugs for vulnerable sections of the front lines. Naturally, while Germany and the USSR duked it out in the east, the rest of the world wasn't sitting still. The Churchill tank was developed in Britain, with quite obvious roots in WWI heavy tanks. This was an awkward boxy design which was very long, very narrow, and had very confusing choices for armament. Unlike the Tiger or IS-2, various modifications of the Churchill carried guns that were also available on much lighter vehicles, with the exception of the "flying dustbin" engineering spigot mortar. The Americans had more interesting things in store. The massive M6 Heavy Tank was excellent at being a propaganda machine, but shipping these things overseas caused problems. The lighter and more compact Pershing was developed, but it suffered from growing pains and only arrived towards the end of the war. In the meantime, the Sherman "Jumbo" assault tank was the closest thing that the Western Allies had to a heavy tank. This tank was almost indistinguishable from a regular Sherman, but carried a hell of a lot more armour. These tanks were mixed in with regular Shermans and didn't form special units like the Soviets or Germans did. The Americans also developed the T28 super-heavy tank to take on the Siegfried Line, but the line fell before the tank could be completed. After the completion of WWII, heavy tanks reached their zenith. The Soviets reached the end of what they could do with traditional hull and turret shapes and began producing ridiculously armoured behemoths with variable thickness casting and piked hulls. At a mass of ~60 tons, these tanks were better protected than the German super-heavy prototypes. The Pershing grew into the much more polished family of Patton tanks (now classified as a medium). In Europe, British and French "medium" tanks were hanging around the 50 ton line. In the meantime, the Soviets set a hard 50 ton limit for their heavy tanks. Just as in 1941, a whole heap of potential designs was trashed. It didn't matter much, however, the age of the heavy tank was at an end. Much like in the interbellum period, proxy wars and minor conflicts were better fought with medium tanks, and the development of high velocity smoothbore cannons and new types of armour piercing projectiles made old fashioned steel no longer viable. Not being hit at all became the preferred alternative to carrying enough armour to weather a hit. By the time armour technology caught up with guns, the heavy tank class died out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:This changed in 1943 when the Ferdinand hit the battlefield. The appearance of the Tiger resurrected the 57 mm anti-tank gun and 85 mm designs, but it was really the Ferdinand's greatly improved armour and firepower that forced the Red Army to make the next big jump in armour. Both the T-43 and KV-13 were too expensive to replace the medium tank, so a compromise was reached. The more protected and roomier turret from the T-43 along with its 85 mm gun would go on the T-34 to give it enough firepower to combat heavy tanks while keeping costs low and production high. The KV-13 became the IS-2, a more expensive heavy tank, but with a much bigger gun. With 120 mm of front armour, it was incomparable to anything else on the battlefield at the time. Huh, was that based on intelligence reports or actual frontline experiences? I'd always kind of assumed that the Ferdinand was another white elephant (  ) like the Sturmtiger or Jagdtiger, produced only in small numbers and with such reliability and mobility issues that it never really made a meaningful impact anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:that was The Business of Arms and it goddamned ruled. The Profession of Arms http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245276/
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Knowledge And then the M1/Leopard 2 happened; and today, after living through the Iraqi occupation, the latest upgrade to the M1 Abrams is rumoured to push it to 93. metric. tons. Tankchat!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Naturally, while Germany and the USSR duked it out in the east, the rest of the world wasn't sitting still. The Churchill tank was developed in Britain, with quite obvious roots in WWI heavy tanks. This was an awkward boxy design which was very long, very narrow, and had very confusing choices for armament. Unlike the Tiger or IS-2, various modifications of the Churchill carried guns that were also available on much lighter vehicles, with the exception of the "flying dustbin" engineering spigot mortar. This was rather by design, as the Churchill was a very different style of tank from the IS-2 and Tiger. As has already been pointed out the British produced a few types of "infantry tank" which were basically intended to be big slow boxes that the infantry could hide behind, and which carried guns not for taking out other tanks, but for providing support to the infantry. A Churchill is not a tank designed for independent operation or blitzkrieg, being slow as poo poo and poorly armed to take on tanks, but it was quite good at not exploding when shot at, and taking shots at buildings, bunkers, church steeples, and anything else that looked the wrong way at the infantry. The armament choices were indeed rather odd, the ones that spring to mind are the aforementioned spigot mortar on the AVRE (armored vehicle, royal engineers) variant, which fired 290mm high explosive shells at, well, anything you wanted replacing with a bloody big crater. Generally stuff like concrete bunkers.  (shell pictured right) The AVRE variant was also used as a general engineering vehicle which meant it carried bridges and trench-crossing tools, and mine-clearance tools such as this... thing:  (decidedly less metal than the American approach to mine clearance, I might add) The tank was also equipped occasionally with a flamethrower instead of its forward hull mounted machinegun. Just in case it wasn't offputting enough.  As well as being used as a mobile crane, again the utility of the large body and powerful engine of the tank showing through:  The primary default armament of the tank however, was a bit shite. It started off with a pretty pissweak 40mm (2pdr) cannon which, for a tank as big and slow as the Churchill, is very poor. It was upgunned for the invasion of Normandy with an improved British 6pdr (75mm) gun which significantly improved its firepower but was still identical to the gun used on the much lighter Cromwell tank. (for reference, the Churchill weighed about 40 tons, the Cromwell 26) The Churchill really was a quite specialized, if versatile tank. It was a chassis generally able to carry whatever equipment the situation called for, while in its most basic form, being very durable and well suited to working with infantry in confined spaces and slower advances, where the speed of the Cromwell cruiser tank would not be very helpful. It contrasts quite strongly with things like the IS-2 and Tiger/Panther designs which were very much geared towards fighting other tanks with superior armour and weaponry giving them the edge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Huh, was that based on intelligence reports or actual frontline experiences? I'd always kind of assumed that the Ferdinand was another white elephant ( Frontline experience. The Ferdinand was expected to be a hell of a lot more common than it ended up being. I don't know when/if the GRU discovered that production was very limited, but the IS-4 was envisioned as an anti-Ferdinand tank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:And then the M1/Leopard 2 happened; and today, after living through the Iraqi occupation, the latest upgrade to the M1 Abrams is rumoured to push it to 93. metric. tons. Tankchat! While at the same time, multiple countries have what are essentially light tanks in wheeled configuration, particularly to support airborne or expeditionary forces. The Germans have an honest to God tankette in the Wiesel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:While at the same time, multiple countries have what are essentially light tanks in wheeled configuration, particularly to support airborne or expeditionary forces. Light tanks have never gone away for recce, see also the Scorpion and M3. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Well the Scorpion was replaced largely by the Scimitar which is identical but for the gun. They replaced a short 76mm gun with the Rarden autocannon made famous last thread for having a six round magazine loaded by two three round clips and occasionally deciding to fire all by itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Huh, was that based on intelligence reports or actual frontline experiences? I'd always kind of assumed that the Ferdinand was another white elephant ( You can compare this to the T-34 and KV-1, though; even if the tank isn't actually accomplishing very much because of strategic factors, the existence of a capability that could be dramatic generally prompts a move to counter it, as was the case with the Panther, or Britain's experiences with the Tiger prompting the creation of things like the Archer, Avenger/Challenger, and Firefly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Frontline experience. The Ferdinand was expected to be a hell of a lot more common than it ended up being. I don't know when/if the GRU discovered that production was very limited, but the IS-4 was envisioned as an anti-Ferdinand tank. OK, EE, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. The Ferdinand had a loony toons hybrid drive system (gasoline/electric for those that don't know) because Prof. Porsche was obsessed with the idea of very large tanks, and once you get so big you actually have to use the hybrid system? Porsche was right, BTW, the tracked vehicle thing that moves the space shuttle uses engines generating electricity to drive the treads, and those crazy huge coal miner things use the same system (though conveniently they don't need an engine; they just plug themselves in via a gigantic power cable.) PS> I know I've already said it in this thread, but I love how people latched onto the idea of super-mega-tanks the instant they came up with the idea of tanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:big slow... 290mm high explosive shells ... the utility of the large body and powerful engine... HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
While I'm all for the dashing stuff, that really sounds like a neat and helpful thing for the poor bloody infantrymen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 20:21
|
|
