|
When we talk about how breakthroughs and offensives in WW1 would always peter out because the reserves would always arrive to put a stop to it, can't the artillery shift their fire farther out, from the enemy trenches now occupied by your side's troops, to instead hit where the reserve will be/will come from so that they can't get close to your troops as they re-entrench in the newly taken ground? I'm afraid I don't have strong perspective on the numbers and distances involved, so this may be a dumb question.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Wait wait wait They would probably don it before leaving, but the BMP proper has overpressure defense systems, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:When we talk about how breakthroughs and offensives in WW1 would always peter out because the reserves would always arrive to put a stop to it, can't the artillery shift their fire farther out, from the enemy trenches now occupied by your side's troops, to instead hit where the reserve will be/will come from so that they can't get close to your troops as they re-entrench in the newly taken ground? That was the idea. It just falls apart rather quickly when you don't know what trenches have been taken by your troops (because good luck running a wire through the former no-mans land while the enemy artillery is trying to suppress your reserves moving up) so you may be shelling the areas your guys actually want to move through because things are going better than expected (this is the war-winning push after all). Plus the ranges involved make proper interdiction require airplanes with the range and the payload to actually affect the battle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:When we talk about how breakthroughs and offensives in WW1 would always peter out because the reserves would always arrive to put a stop to it, can't the artillery shift their fire farther out, from the enemy trenches now occupied by your side's troops, to instead hit where the reserve will be/will come from so that they can't get close to your troops as they re-entrench in the newly taken ground? Yes, this is part of why even the big failed pushes resulted in fairly even casualties. EDIT: See e.g. the Box Barrage, which is one example of this tactic. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:But the court martial didn't acquit one of the other officers for the unforgivable act of eating a meal with the ship's company rather than in the 'wardroom' (a tent a few yards away). He was reprimanded but his field promotion to lieutenant was substantiated and he was later given command of a brig so there was some leniancy. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The RN can arguably lay claim to having the oldest ship in the world still kicking around, though I don't know if it's still in commission. You call that a ship??? This is a ship: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:When we talk about how breakthroughs and offensives in WW1 would always peter out because the reserves would always arrive to put a stop to it, can't the artillery shift their fire farther out, from the enemy trenches now occupied by your side's troops, to instead hit where the reserve will be/will come from so that they can't get close to your troops as they re-entrench in the newly taken ground? In theory yes but in reality it was often difficult to move up artillery due to the ground they just shredded. Additionally, liaison between infantry and artillery was new and often poor. This was the war where indirect fire finally superseded direct fire for artillery, which brings its own unique need for coordination between arms. Often times the artillery would select targets and create schedules of fires of its own accord and the liaison to the infantry was there to merely give them the heads up. Additionally there was not much flexibility in planning, so once a schedule of fires kicked off, it would be executed to the letter, even if the scheme of maneuver did not occur exactly as planned. That being said, there are instances of artillery moving up and continuing to support the fight and instances of accounting for enemy reinforcements and planning fires to suppress them. Edit: other considerations re moving artillery, horses are the primary means of transport and you'll need to re establish comm FastestGunAlive fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
Watching The Imitation Game makes me think that the mechanical device countries fighting a war would most desire would be a machine that would compute the perfect argument for how they were/are the plucky little underdog in the conflict. Everybody wants to think that, it's universal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
Tias posted:They would probably don it before leaving, but the BMP proper has overpressure defense systems, right? It does. The biggest problem with the BMP-1's NBC protection is that the crew has to open a hatch to reload the ATGM rail, which probably isn't a good idea in an NBC environment. It also has no air conditioning, so operating buttoned up in a hot climate is probably worse than just wearing individual protective gear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Watching The Imitation Game makes me think that the mechanical device countries fighting a war would most desire would be a machine that would compute the perfect argument for how they were/are the plucky little underdog in the conflict. Everybody wants to think that, it's universal. spanish monarchy: maintain their reputation, possibly rule the world kingdom of france: defend and enlarge the glory of the king of france hre: defend that which belongs to the Emperor by right/defend the Catholic religion anti-Imperialists: defend the german liberties/Protestantism--these guys might also have wanted to believe they were plucky underdogs, actually Winter King: possibly a millenialist Sweden: believes his interests in the Baltic are threatened, then goes to Germany, then mission creep like a motherfuck HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:In theory yes but in reality it was often difficult to move up artillery due to the ground they just shredded. Additionally, liaison between infantry and artillery was new and often poor. This was the war where indirect fire finally superseded direct fire for artillery, which brings its own unique need for coordination between arms. Often times the artillery would select targets and create schedules of fires of its own accord and the liaison to the infantry was there to merely give them the heads up. Additionally there was not much flexibility in planning, so once a schedule of fires kicked off, it would be executed to the letter, even if the scheme of maneuver did not occur exactly as planned. That being said, there are instances of artillery moving up and continuing to support the fight and instances of accounting for enemy reinforcements and planning fires to suppress them. The failings of the box barrage etc are less about coordination (you need coordination for stuff like creeping barrages, not so much for planned barrages to deny particular areas to the enemy) and range, and more about that sort of area target, being maintained over a period of time requiring a huge amount of shells and guns to be effective. Shelling into the enemy back lines can and did cause lots of casualties, but they could only isolate small sections of the front for short periods of time, not enough to make a difference strategically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Wait wait wait If it's like with the Bundeswehr, there's probably a light version they could have worn instead for this. But I can attest even a light anti-NBC suit makes you nearly blind and deaf. Wearing it inside a BMP sounds like a recipe for disaster. The better way concerning NBC-dangers is probably to take something like the German NBC-version Fuchs (Fox) and mark dangerous areas you find so your troops can avoid them. (The NBC Fuchs is more like a NC-tank, by the way. The original version can only retrieve samples for bio-detection, which then has to happen elsewhere. There was a mobile lab called BIRD which was supposed to help the tank detect bio-weapons by itself, but since 2002 Rheinmetall is advertising a new Bio-Fox variant so I guess that attachable lab idea is now for the birds.) Edit: Added a picture!  Spürpanzer Fuchs from ABC-Abwehrbataillon 750 / NBC-Defense Battalion 750 Libluini fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
The ABC-defense battalion: we don't need no stinkin' alphabets
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:When we talk about how breakthroughs and offensives in WW1 would always peter out because the reserves would always arrive to put a stop to it, can't the artillery shift their fire farther out, from the enemy trenches now occupied by your side's troops, to instead hit where the reserve will be/will come from so that they can't get close to your troops as they re-entrench in the newly taken ground? What you're talking about (I think) is interdiction or disruptive deep fires...and that is hard to do well even today, let alone back then. Getting observation and acquiring targets that far away is very hard. Hitting those kinds of targets was one of the major tenets of blitzkrieg - not so much attacking the reserve itself, but attacking the important things that allow the reserve to be moved around rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The failings of the box barrage etc are less about coordination (you need coordination for stuff like creeping barrages, not so much for planned barrages to deny particular areas to the enemy) and range, and more about that sort of area target, being maintained over a period of time requiring a huge amount of shells and guns to be effective. Shelling into the enemy back lines can and did cause lots of casualties, but they could only isolate small sections of the front for short periods of time, not enough to make a difference strategically. This is true. When I talk about coordination I'm talking about a large disconnect between the artillery and infantry commanders. So there are instances where they don't even talk at all while planning an attack. The artillery would develop fire plans without input and turn them in to the infantry, not for refinement or approval, but as a notice that this is what's going to happen. Edit: not to say this was the standard, as it is something that was worked on over time in order to improve FastestGunAlive fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The failings of the box barrage etc are less about coordination (you need coordination for stuff like creeping barrages, not so much for planned barrages to deny particular areas to the enemy) and range, and more about that sort of area target, being maintained over a period of time requiring a huge amount of shells and guns to be effective. Shelling into the enemy back lines can and did cause lots of casualties, but they could only isolate small sections of the front for short periods of time, not enough to make a difference strategically. Surely though you could argue that by the end of the war, when "bite-and-hold" had become the norm, isolating small sections of front for short periods of time literally was the strategy. The whole idea of the final Allied offensives at an operational level was to completely pin all German reserves so that they couldn't be shuffled around to deal with an offensive elsewhere in the region. Thus they used artillery (amongst other methods) to pin those reserves in place with at the very least the threat of an offensive, allowing the Allies to assault basically as and when they desired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I never quite understood that logic. Were the gunports sealed in any way? It sounds like it would just produce openings for the VX to seep in, forcing anyone inside to still wear full MOPP gear. There are fume extractors on each port but I think I wouldn't trust that and the overpressure to stop nerve gas from getting in... Actually I'm curious if the rifle ports on any IFV or APC have been used in 'real' combat in a meaningful way, that is outside of some counter-insurgency patrol or such. It would take big cajones or a defective brain to intentionally get into a situation where they become handy. But then it takes balls to drive into any combat situation in those little tin cans, future active protection systems possibly changing this slightly when any AFV can zap a few RPGs (then you'd want to be inside the vehicle).
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:There are fume extractors on each port but I think I wouldn't trust that and the overpressure to stop nerve gas from getting in... The Bradley is weird because it started with firing ports, but eventually the military realized that full size rifles were awkward to shoot out of it and you didn't really want soldiers spending their ammo shooting out of the vehicle before getting out and doing actual infantry stuff. So they developed the M231 Firing Port Weapon, an M16 with no stock, converted to open bolt with a ridiculous rate of fire, and a side plate attached over the normal fire selector to keep the gun from being switched to semi-auto. It's meant to be screwed down into the firing port and used as a mounted machine gun. Most of the firing ports have been removed, but the modern Bradleys still have two of them in the rear door ports. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjVE6bocSNk chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Having to develop a M-16 variant specifically for the firing port on a Bradley sounds like a fitting sub-plot for The Pentagon Wars 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
They have no usable sights and are meant to only be loaded with tracers, so the user just has to hope they can walk the stream onto the target before they burn all 30 rounds they have with 1.5 seconds of continuous fire. Our favorite Sparky suggested taking the unused FPWs and mounting them on remote turrets on Bradleys and M113s and in the weapon ports of M113s with 90-round drums. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-KCFrqwVZM
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:There are fume extractors on each port but I think I wouldn't trust that and the overpressure to stop nerve gas from getting in... Hmm, maybe not in terms of shooting lots of people, but extra sets of eyeballs in your transport is not the worst thing in potential ambush situations. You can't really just dismiss counter-insurgency patrols, given they made up a lot of what these vehicles ended up being involved in. They actually added additional firing ports for the variant they used for the Afghan war. INinja132 posted:Surely though you could argue that by the end of the war, when "bite-and-hold" had become the norm, isolating small sections of front for short periods of time literally was the strategy. The whole idea of the final Allied offensives at an operational level was to completely pin all German reserves so that they couldn't be shuffled around to deal with an offensive elsewhere in the region. Thus they used artillery (amongst other methods) to pin those reserves in place with at the very least the threat of an offensive, allowing the Allies to assault basically as and when they desired. Sure, my point is more that it took a lot of time getting to that point and you can see why earlier attempts didn't work. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
So, some goon in a facebook group I frequent is actually making a complete Danish civil war of 1157 mod for M&B Warband. It's the kind of thing that really takes the free time and spergin drive of a teenage basement lord, and I'm duly impressed! Anyway, I'm going to talk about it for a bit, because it's a pretty underrated conflict with some cool bits and most of you have never even heard of it: It lasted from 1146 to 1157, and was the last chapter of the long-running pretender feuds between the various branches of the Danish royal lineage. Without going into these for too long, it kind of all started with murder of Knud Lavard in 1131. After this, Knud Magnussen( som of Lavards murderer Magnus Nielsen) and Sven Grathe were hailed as kings by their respective followers after king Erik Lams abdication in 1146. This split the realm, as the Jylland peninsula backed Knud Magnussen, and the zealanders and Skåne inhabitants went with Grathe. There's a twist ending, so read on! Phase One: Sven Grathe advances succesfully I the time of 1146-1152 Sven Grathe was the strongest of the two pretenders both in military assets and economical resources, and he had political clout, with most of the powerful lords of the realm backing his claim to the throne. Rasmussen suffered several stinging military defeats, as his invasions of Zealand in 1147 and 1150 were repelled, and after being defeated by Sven outside of Viborg, he gave up the fight and fled to Sweden. Knud went to Germany in 1152, where he asked King Friedrich the 1st for aid. Friedrich called the warring parties to a negotiation meet, to be held under the reichs day in Merseburg in May 1152. Here Friedrich decided, that Sven should be king of Denmark, while Knud could be Earl of Zealand. Sven decided to break the settlement shortly after getting home. Valdemar, son of the late Knud Lavard, whom Sven had named Earl of Slesvig, prevented new hostilities from breaking out by screwing with the text of the settlement! Now, Knud was allowed to have spread-out lands in both Jylland, Zealand and Skåne, and in return he should recognize Sven as king, which all parties accepted. Peace had returned to the realm, if only for a short while. The alliance between Knud og Valdemar 1154 Sven now screwed up big time, by starting poo poo with his former allies in the nobility. He took from them titles and glories, and( according to Saxo) gave these to "buskers, womanish scum and people of no account". Sven passed laws and decrees outside of the thing court, and he did some hinky stuff like plundering inheritances and raising taxes to pay his personal hird guard. Those who protested were executed or lost their property. The peasants in Skåne rebelled, while the disgruntled nobles and even Earl Valdemar went over to Knud Magnussens faction. Knud and Valdemar now formed a new alliance, sealed with Valdemars egnagement to Knuds sister Sofie. In 1154 they let themselves hail as kings of Denmark at the national thing of Viborg, and bereft of all allies Sven hauled rear end to Germany, where he stayed for three years. Blood Feast and Supreme Rule With the help of the duke of Saxony Sven tried to to attack Jylland in the winter of 1156/57, but this failed, and he went to Fyn in the spring of 1157, where Knud and Valdemar - likely pressured by the realm nobility and the church, who wanted to prevent further bloodshed - offered Sven a truce. At a meeting on Lolland, it was decided to make peace, and split up the realm into three parts. Valdemar was to have Jylland, Knud Fyn, Zealand and the smaller isles around them, and Sven got the lands in Skåne. After the agreement, Knud and Valdemar invited Sven to the awesomely-named "Blood Feast in Roskilde". According to Saxo, this is where Sven tried to double cross both Knud and Valdemar, by straight up murdering their poo poo! Unfortunately, Sven only managed to kill Knud, while Valdemar, injured, withdrew to Jylland. Here, the two rivals armies met on Grathe Heath outside of Viborg the 23rd of October 1157. Here Svens army was soundly routed and he himself killed, leaving Valdemar, by dint of being unkilled at this point, the supreme king of Denmark! Welp, that's my war of 1157 post, hope you enjoyed it  E: Oh, an extra thing! When I was a child my mum would sing "'twas Sven, 'twas Knud, 'twas Valdemaaar" any time someone mentioned the name Knud, Svend or Valdemar. She says she don't remember why it's a thing, and I was all   when I read about it the first time.
Tias fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Tias posted:
Man, Sven was kind of a douche
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
WW2 Data We've now reached the 150mm calibre projectiles for the Italians. We get to see projectiles for another Austrian gun, this time acquired via captured equipment and reparations from WW1, under the name Obice da 149/13. The 149/12 version was the original, while the 149/13 was just slightly longer and consequently had some new projectiles for it. The 149/35 projectiles are for the Cannone da 149/35, obviously, which was a heavy piece of artillery introduced at the turn of the century, lacking such useless things as traverse or a recoil system. The last projectile in today's selection is from the Cannone da 149/40 modello 35, which was a relatively new gun at the time, initially being produced in 1940. (Un)fortunately, Italian production could never keep up with demand, and so very few were ever produced. Interestingly, it was to be used as a Self-Propelled Gun as the Semovente da 149/40, of which only one exists, and currently resides in the United States after it was captured.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Sure, my point is more that it took a lot of time getting to that point and you can see why earlier attempts didn't work. Gotcha. Yeah it must've sucked being a WW1 general big time. Trying to figure out whether your limited attack worked (or didn't) because it was a bad tactic, or whether it was just weird circumstances. Only way to know is to try it again 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Hmm, maybe not in terms of shooting lots of people, but extra sets of eyeballs in your transport is not the worst thing in potential ambush situations. The new German Puma IFV apparently has video screens in the infantry compartment so they can help spot targets for exactly that reason. Although presumably it would be preferred if they spotted the ambush before they drove into it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:This is routine, btw. Lose your ship, get court martialled, no matter the circumstances; if you lost it honourably it's a formality. Though I would think perhaps the fact that he was commanding a million tonne sloop might make the deliberations as to whether his loss was "honourble" a bit more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
IAmThatIs posted:Man, Sven was kind of a douche He thinks fools had it coming. During the brief peace with Knud, they both joined the Wendish crusade, and when Sven participated in naval battle against the wends, Knud was supposed to have his back, but didn't support him and he lost his flagship. Still no reason to act like a dick, though. Word has it he was killed by peasants when his horse got sucked into a bog, which is a delightfully Danish way to die!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:The new German Puma IFV apparently has video screens in the infantry compartment so they can help spot targets for exactly that reason. Although presumably it would be preferred if they spotted the ambush before they drove into it. I thought driving into ambushes were how you found them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
I had a thought about the battleships versus aircraft carrier chat a few pages ago. Wouldn't a carrier as capable as a battleship need lots more supplies and crew (e.g. ordnance, spare parts for aeroplanes, accommodation for aircrew and pilots, food, etc) than a battleship, and maybe be more trouble to resupply or keep at sea for a long period? Might that be why everyone didn't switch over immediately?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:I had a thought about the battleships versus aircraft carrier chat a few pages ago. Wouldn't a carrier as capable as a battleship need lots more supplies and crew (e.g. ordnance, spare parts for aeroplanes, accommodation for aircrew and pilots, food, etc) than a battleship, and maybe be more trouble to resupply or keep at sea for a long period? Might that be why everyone didn't switch over immediately? I think it's a comparison of apples and oranges with carriers versus battleships, and it was doctrinal holdouts who did most of the foot-dragging. A carrier could send up a sortie from far, far, far, far beyond the reach of a battleship's guns and deliver far more effective ordnance on target than battleships of the day. Iowa class BBs basically kept pace with their contemporary CVs (Yorktown class) in terms of surface speed, though you saw a few tenths of a knot separating the two once you got the Essex and later classes coming in. Both had about 5 kts on the Yamato class and the IJNs battleships got slower as you go back. Aside from the doctrinal holdouts, you've got people who view battleships as national investments and The way of projecting power on the seas. And you can see why some men in power thought so highly of them, they were loving big expensive heavily armored ships with huge fuckoff guns, barrels erect, brimming with fresh seamen, ready to charge in and shoot their load and penetrate the other guy's assets. A lot of material went into them and it was hard for a lot of people to just go "welp, times they are a-changin'" and scrap them to build carriers. Sunk cost is a hilariously apropos term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:huge fuckoff guns, barrels erect, brimming with fresh seamen, ready to charge in and shoot their load and penetrate the other guy's assets. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:I had a thought about the battleships versus aircraft carrier chat a few pages ago. Wouldn't a carrier as capable as a battleship need lots more supplies and crew (e.g. ordnance, spare parts for aeroplanes, accommodation for aircrew and pilots, food, etc) than a battleship, and maybe be more trouble to resupply or keep at sea for a long period? Might that be why everyone didn't switch over immediately? Yeah, that's basically it. People didn't switch over immediately because carriers started being built in the '20s, and absolutely no aircraft in existence was capable of matching a actual warship. The state of the aircraft industry also wasn't really in the right place to achieve the sort of numbers and reliability needed for the sorts of rigors you get with carrier warfare. That said, most new technology starts out the same way. The very first guns were probably pieces of poo poo, the first attempts at start forts probably fell over in the rain, and the first guy to ride a horse probably got kicked in the face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The very first guns were probably pieces of poo poo, the first attempts at start forts probably fell over in the rain, and the first guy to ride a horse probably got kicked in the face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:the first attempts at star forts are slightly pointier, slightly squattier, medieval castles I want to make a joke about medieval dildos being similar, but I just can't get it to work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Thank you by the way to everyone who answered my WW1 question yesterday, I have a better idea of how the artillery interaction with infantry and breakthroughs works now. I'm reading The Eastern Front by Norman Stone and it's a little depressing how hopeful it all sounds for the Tsarist army after the Brusilov Offensive, only for most of the gains to have been pissed away by the central and northern front commanders still being incompetent despite Brusilov's relative brilliance, followed up by Romania joining the Entente, getting beat up terribly, then looted to keep the Central Powers going just that much longer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thank you by the way to everyone who answered my WW1 question yesterday, I have a better idea of how the artillery interaction with infantry and breakthroughs works now. Yes, but how would artillery interact with  I am imagining a TOT barrage destroying pallets of Turtledove books and finding it very amusing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Yeah, that's basically it. People didn't switch over immediately because carriers started being built in the '20s, and absolutely no aircraft in existence was capable of matching a actual warship. The state of the aircraft industry also wasn't really in the right place to achieve the sort of numbers and reliability needed for the sorts of rigors you get with carrier warfare. The dominance of aircraft carriers does not really show up until the US starts to have enormous numbers of them- before that battleships were still able to roll around and were a major factor in naval operations. When they're at full readiness in the open sea they're pretty hard to sink.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Yes, but how would artillery interact with The WWI books were good, the Interwar books tolerable, but the WWII stuff was just a copy paste of real life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:The WWI books were good, the Interwar books tolerable, but the WWII stuff was just a copy paste of real life. As someone who's read everything he's written, multiple times, it's all bad. Honestly the worst copy paste potboiler stuff you could imagine, it's all terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:43
|
|