|
chitoryu12 posted:14.5mm anti-tank rifles could penetrate the sides of Panthers at the right range, so I wouldn't be surprised if a close range spray from a 20mm autocannon hosed up a tank. This was in 1940 and would have been a pzkw II or maybe I.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:14.5mm anti-tank rifles could penetrate the sides of Panthers at the right range, so I wouldn't be surprised if a close range spray from a 20mm autocannon hosed up a tank. 20 mm autocannons were very valid anti tank weapons, especially in an era where the vast majority of tanks were only reliably protected against .50 cal bullets, if that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Tias posted:What was those huge rear end crossbows on wheels called? Ballistae? Where they ever any succesful? Ballistae are not... really crossbows I would say. I mean they can be built like them but they also sometimes just have two spring loaded arms (like a pair of catapults tied together) and they generally throw rocks or tree trunks or something stupid like that using a track for accuracy, they're essentially a more accurate form of catapult designed for demolishing large objects like walls, buildings, and siege equipment. They work fine as far as I know, they're just not generally fielded in battle because they're huge and slow. Possibly you might be thinking of the antipersonnel variant which would be a Scorpio as used by rome which I think would tend to be more like a big crossbow on a stand though it still uses torsion springs rather than just the inherent springyness of the arms. Supposedly they're pretty awesome though again they are a bit awkward to lug about all over the place, they'd be used more like a cannon battery would be in later millenia. Or given the rate of fire, probably more like a gatling gun. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Tias posted:This was in 1940 and would have been a pzkw II or maybe I. Or an armoured car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I thought the idea about crossbows was that using a windlass (or just both arms) and a shorter quarrel would allow you to fire things much harder than a bow, a bow being limited by the strength of the bow-arm of the user and the compressive strength of the arrow as to not fracture in flight. The old crossbows have horrible efficiency due to the short powerstroke, heavy limbs and heavy string.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Or an armoured car. Open truck filled with old pots and pans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Possibly you might be thinking of the antipersonnel variant which would be a Scorpio as used by rome which I think would tend to be more like a big crossbow on a stand though it still uses torsion springs rather than just the inherent springyness of the arms. Supposedly they're pretty awesome though again they are a bit awkward to lug about all over the place, they'd be used more like a cannon battery would be in later millenia. Or given the rate of fire, probably more like a gatling gun. Thanks to their accuracy and range they also found effective use providing cover for river crossings, and sniping defenders during sieges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:Thanks to their accuracy and range they also found effective use providing cover for river crossings, and sniping defenders during sieges. They also used them like Owl said, in massed batteries so they could rain big heavy arrows down on formations. It really does not help morale to see your buddies getting shot through their shield from so far away you cannot return fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
WW2 Data The Italian inventory is expanded to the 76mm to 90mm range. Today's projectiles are used in such guns as the 77/28mm Field Gun, otherwise known as the 8 cm Feldkanone M 05, the 76/40 and 76/45 guns are both WW1 guns and very out-dated by World War 2. The 90mm projectiles were used with the 90/50 naval guns which were advanced, but too advanced for the time. The projectile had great qualities to it, which is why the guns were modified into a ground role as the Italian 90/53 Anti-Tank/Anti-Air gun. It had a similar history to the German 88, where it was used against aircraft before being used in an improvised Anti-Tank role where it excelled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I'm a bit out of the loop, but Mark Stretton did some testing Hey, that's pretty interesting, thanks for the link. Though one mostly unrelated thing stood out to me: quote:The formula for measuring the Kinetic energy of a projectile is Mass (gn) x speed squared (f.p.s) all divided by 450240 = Ft/lbs energy, and this is the one that I have used in my calculations.  Christ, I can't imagine doing these kinds of calculations in imperial measurements on the reg.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Open truck filled with old pots and pans. More likely a horse drawn field kitchen. God, this is turning into a Radio Yerevan joke...
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Page 77 here. What is the one MilHist thing I should see while in Warsaw? Maybe two, but I probably won't have time for two.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:More likely a horse drawn field kitchen. Stories grow bigger in the telling, it's a universal human truth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Stories grow bigger in the telling, it's a universal human truth. Bernard Adams, 1915: quote:I listened agape to hear myself the hero of a humorous story. When the mine went up, I had come out of my dug-out rather late and asked if anything had happened. This tale became elaborated: I was putting my gloves on calmly, it seems, as I strolled out casually and asked if anyone had heard a rather loud noise! And so stories crystallized, a word altered here and there for effect, but true, and as past history quite interesting. Michael Green, 1960s: quote:Beaver's remarks about VE night in Cairo started a spate of reminiscence. We all knew each other's wartime stories, of course, and waited politely for each to finish before dashing in with our own. The formula on these occasions is to say, as the laughter for the previous story dies down, 'I don't know whether I told you about the time I was stationed in North Wales....' and everyone else, who has heard the story at least twenty times before, politely mutters, 'No, no,' and then the speaker launches into a tissue of lies based on some long-forgotten original incident. Hearing these stories every year, it was interesting to see how they grew under intense competition from everyone. I love those stories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Or an armoured car. Yeah. You ever notice how if a reporter calls an APC or other armored vehicle a tank, milturds lose their minds? Yet we never question when soldiers of the day said "tank." That, or people outright throw fits and call you disrespectful to our veterans if you question how in one soldier's memoirs, he seemed to have the rotten luck to run into more Tiger tanks than were ever on the Western Front. Back on topic, I'm thinking a lot of "tanks" destroyed through extraordinary means were probably things like armored cars, half-tracks, SPGs, etc. Not to disrespect the accomplishment, but I think I could have saved a lot of time as a kid trying to wrap my head around how some soldier took out a "panzer" in a seemingly impossible way. So I got Hunnicutt's book on light tanks, and as usual I'm stuck re-reading the Sheridan parts. I know every armored vehicle had problems, but the Sheridan's is easily my favorite list to read for pure entertainment value. A few issues over its different versions and lifecycle: -Engine harmonics resulting in equipment coming loose -Missile guidance system not working properly depending on the position of the sun relative to the tank. -Caseless ammunition expanding in humid environments (remember this thing served in Vietnam) and not chambering/getting stuck in the barrel. -Sheridan gunners having a tell-tale bruised eye from the gunsight recoiling into their face every time the gun fired. -Early versions of the barrel cleaning system blowing debris from the bore back into the crew compartment -Test version of the tank flipping over as a result of firing to the side relative to the chassis. And many more. Though to be fair, damned near every one of the problems like this were fixed and probably helped future development. I just have a soft spot for the little thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
In fairness the missile guidance thing is par for the course, early heatseekers really liked to try and commit heliocide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In fairness the missile guidance thing is par for the course, early heatseekers really liked to try and commit heliocide. Yeah, true. It stuck out because once they found a pretty quick fix it started scoring a pretty impressive hit rate in testing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:Yeah. You ever notice how if a reporter calls an APC or other armored vehicle a tank, milturds lose their minds? Yet we never question when soldiers of the day said "tank." That, or people outright throw fits and call you disrespectful to our veterans if you question how in one soldier's memoirs, he seemed to have the rotten luck to run into more Tiger tanks than were ever on the Western Front. Back on topic, I'm thinking a lot of "tanks" destroyed through extraordinary means were probably things like armored cars, half-tracks, SPGs, etc. Not to disrespect the accomplishment, but I think I could have saved a lot of time as a kid trying to wrap my head around how some soldier took out a "panzer" in a seemingly impossible way. My guys are impeccable at pointing out the difference between tanks, SPGs, and armoured cars, but apparently the word "halftrack" didn't gain popularity until after the end of the war, since armoured halftracks are counted as armoured cars and unarmored ones are counted as tractors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:Yeah, true. It stuck out because once they found a pretty quick fix it started scoring a pretty impressive hit rate in testing. I'm guessing either change the detector compound or stick contact lenses over the seeker which filter out the solar wavelengths.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:My guys are impeccable at pointing out the difference between tanks, SPGs, and armoured cars, but apparently the word "halftrack" didn't gain popularity until after the end of the war, since armoured halftracks are counted as armoured cars and unarmored ones are counted as tractors. I seem to recall someone noting though that in many accounts, every tank is a Panther and every SPG is a Ferdinand?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Speaking of Danish WW2 history, I had to read Number the Stars in elementary school like a lot of people and I'm pretty sure it's casually mentioned that somebody's father or uncle died in the invasion suicide bombing a tank. The lesson to children is: suicide bombing is okay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:My guys are impeccable at pointing out the difference between tanks, SPGs, and armoured cars, but apparently the word "halftrack" didn't gain popularity until after the end of the war, since armoured halftracks are counted as armoured cars and unarmored ones are counted as tractors. Huh; does that mean the "tiger terror" thing didn't really happen on the eastern front? I know the Tiger II was initially mistaken for a Panther, but was identification pretty good after they established there were two long-barrelled sloped-hull vehicles? Actually, I wonder if those things would be related; maybe one of the reasons so many American soldiers swore they'd saw a Tiger was there were barely any of them around to compare other tanks to...
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Speaking of Danish WW2 history, I had to read Number the Stars in elementary school like a lot of people and I'm pretty sure it's casually mentioned that somebody's father or uncle died in the invasion suicide bombing a tank. The lesson to children is: suicide bombing is okay. The Chinese "dare to die" units put on bomb vests and suicided against tanks on the reg. It's not barbarous fanaticism until your enemies start doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I seem to recall someone noting though that in many accounts, every tank is a Panther and every SPG is a Ferdinand? And every artillery piece is an 88.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:Yeah. You ever notice how if a reporter calls an APC or other armored vehicle a tank, milturds lose their minds? Yet we never question when soldiers of the day said "tank." That, or people outright throw fits and call you disrespectful to our veterans if you question how in one soldier's memoirs, he seemed to have the rotten luck to run into more Tiger tanks than were ever on the Western Front. Back on topic, I'm thinking a lot of "tanks" destroyed through extraordinary means were probably things like armored cars, half-tracks, SPGs, etc. Not to disrespect the accomplishment, but I think I could have saved a lot of time as a kid trying to wrap my head around how some soldier took out a "panzer" in a seemingly impossible way. I broadly agree with what you're saying, but it should also be kept in mind that tanks aren't half as invincible as popular culture (or your average milhist loving 10 year old) thinks they are. There are tons of documented cases of crews abandoning vehicles because a bunch of superficial fire and smoke made them think they were about to cook alive, weak points in armor that led to spectacular one in a million kills, etc. Also, most soldiers probably don't really grasp the difference between a mission kill where their sticky bomb or cluster of grenades or whatever fucks up a bogy and everyone leaves, and a actual kill-kill. Doubly so if you're talking Americans, because most of the time the loving thing ends up behind their lines in a couple hours anyways so there really isn't much of a difference. spectralent posted:ually, I wonder if those things would be related; maybe one of the reasons so many American soldiers swore they'd saw a Tiger was there were barely any of them around to compare other tanks to... Any armored vehicle is loving terrifying if you are out there in nothing but your khakis and a pot helmet with maybe, maybe a buddy with a 40s era RPG that requires you to get well inside a hundred yards of it to have any hope of killing it. Your average GI who just stained his shorts another shade of brown because a PzIV hosed his day up thinks that's a tiger because holy poo poo that MUST be the big scary super tank everyone's been talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Any armored vehicle is loving terrifying if you are out there in nothing but your khakis and a pot helmet with maybe, maybe a buddy with a 40s era RPG that requires you to get well inside a hundred yards of it to have any hope of killing it. Your average GI who just stained his shorts another shade of brown because a PzIV hosed his day up thinks that's a tiger because holy poo poo that MUST be the big scary super tank everyone's been talking about. Yeah, my hypothesis here is that the GI's seeing a Pz IV on it's lonesome and going "Tiger!", while the, uh, I don't know the word for soviet troops, but he's there with a Pz IV and a Tiger nearby and going "Okay well the bigger one's probably the Tiger".
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
"Strelki" I think would be "riflemen" but I dunno what the catchall term would be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I broadly agree with what you're saying, but it should also be kept in mind that tanks aren't half as invincible as popular culture (or your average milhist loving 10 year old) thinks they are. There are tons of documented cases of crews abandoning vehicles because a bunch of superficial fire and smoke made them think they were about to cook alive, weak points in armor that led to spectacular one in a million kills, etc. Also, most soldiers probably don't really grasp the difference between a mission kill where their sticky bomb or cluster of grenades or whatever fucks up a bogy and everyone leaves, and a actual kill-kill. Doubly so if you're talking Americans, because most of the time the loving thing ends up behind their lines in a couple hours anyways so there really isn't much of a difference. Oh yeah, definitely. Descriptions of "knocked out" could be vague and tanks were more vulnerable to things like fire more than people assume. I'm talking about passages that were more obviously kind of an issue like "Then a panzer moved up, and with a burst of my friend's Tommy, we were able to knock out one of the crew and it pulled back," (loving Stephen Ambrose was the worst about passages like that) probably meant they ran into something like a Marder or another open-topped vehicle, but when I was younger, I was wondering what the hell happened since I just took "panzer" to mean "a Panzer tank, and absolutely nothing else." spectralent posted:Yeah, my hypothesis here is that the GI's seeing a Pz IV on it's lonesome and going "Tiger!", while the, uh, I don't know the word for soviet troops, but he's there with a Pz IV and a Tiger nearby and going "Okay well the bigger one's probably the Tiger". That, and if you're in a tank facing another tank, and you're seeing it from hundreds of meters away and only one or two crewmen have magnified optics, a Panzer IV could easily be a Tiger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
France was where all the 21. Panzerdivision's weird french SPG/Tank hunter things were, and those were all open topped, so I expect a load of american soldiers disabled "panzers" on foot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
i took Trin Tragula to a museum in dresden today and i would like to say that i was wrong: small portable telescopes date from 1608, which i learned today, and one of the oldest ones in the world is in that museum. so you totally could have been staring downrange with a spyglass in the 30yw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:54
|
|
HEY GAL posted:actually, imperial measurements are good Not for doing science
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:actually, imperial measurements are good This time heygal you've gone too far
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Page 77 here. What is the one MilHist thing I should see while in Warsaw? Maybe two, but I probably won't have time for two. Warsaw Uprising Museum is most likely your best bet, it's modern, well-stocked, has a nice long guided visit route and tons of WWII gear. It does suffer from being both very specific about one particular event and quite depressing at times. Otherwise, you should probably try the Polish Army Museum. It's more old-fashioned, but has a wide range of interesting exhibits from pretty much all of Polish history, including an outdoors exhibition of artillery guns and aircraft. I am fairly sure there are also smaller museums or museum departments with all kinds of tanks and guns and stuff hidden all over the city, but they're like that magical store in The Light Fantastic - you go there once on a school trip and can never find it again, although you swear up and down it should be right there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:(loving Stephen Ambrose was the worst about passages like that) probably meant they ran into something like a Marder or another open-topped vehicle, but when I was younger, I was wondering what the hell happened since I just took "panzer" to mean "a Panzer tank, and absolutely nothing else." Ambrose took veteran accounts way, way, way too on face value. I don't know if that was due to the kind of book he was writing, which was mostly focused on the experiential aspects of it, or if he was just that unquestioning of his sources. I'm inclined to believe the former, as that is some basic poo poo that a loving first year grad student should know better than. Say what you will about him (and hoo boy will I) but he was a trained historian, so I'm inclined to believe that he knew the audience he was writing for and understood that getting into the weeds about the technical details would take away from what he was trying. On a side note, "what he was trying" can be charitably read as zeroing in on the lived experience of the war as understood by the people who went through it. Uncharitably it could be "grandpa's patriotic bedtime stories." edit: there is no excuse, however, for how loving lazy he got with the pale excuse for an actual argument that most of his books had.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Also the fog of war, literally and figuratively, would have a major impact on what was perceived. I'm not about to stick my head up or try to get closer to make sure that's really a Tiger. Meanwhile, there's smoke, gunfire, chaos everywhere. Plus the weather could be poor or I could be far away or there could be dense vegetation. If I'm requesting support or reinforcements my situation may be a bit inflated as well
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:My guys are impeccable at pointing out the difference between tanks, SPGs, and armoured cars, but apparently the word "halftrack" didn't gain popularity until after the end of the war, since armoured halftracks are counted as armoured cars and unarmored ones are counted as tractors. Do you know what they called the American tank destroyers???
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Do you know what they called the American tank destroyers??? Gun motor carriage?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Do you know what they called the American tank destroyers??? An open coffin for
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
At least a few claimed Panther kills were probably because the transmission shat itself at the same time somebody shot at it and missed. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:59
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!