|
Bulgaroctonus posted:Hey, I'm hopelessly behind on the thread, but plan to catch up. Anyway, can some of y'all linguists translate "Shut the gently caress Up More Often" for me? I've used google translate, but don't really trust it. Ideally in Latin, German, Russian, or Portuguese. I can handle the Mexican Spanish. It'd be highly appreciated to anyone who responds. Du solltest öfter mal das Maul halten. You wouldn't say it that way. Schweigen ist Gold, deine dumme Scheisse ist der beste Beweis dafür. Sounds better.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:You're going to stand them in a rank with pikes sticking out of the barrels, aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my pike! Alternatively, this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Owlkill posted:He served on the Atlantic and Arctic convoys and after the war he was in contact with a u-boat veterans organisation, I turned up some correspondence he'd had with one German guy where he referred to an incident his ship (I think it was the delightfully named Flower-class corvette HMS Pink) had run over a uboat, believed they'd sunk it but it had actually survived and he was trying to track down any survivors. I've been meaning to digitise the correspondence. There's a pretty good documentary about PQ-17, an Arkhangelsk-bound arctic convoy that you might find interesting. They were ordered to scatter and then it was a week of being exposed in perpetual daylight, painting ships white and hanging sheets out for camouflage, putting tanks from the hold on deck to act as naval artillery, and the Reserve captain of an armed trawler leading ships into port with an ordinary atlas for navigation. https://vimeo.com/95372252 Anything from your grandfather that you care to post is welcome; if you'd rather not, be sure to at least preserve it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Owlkill posted:He also described seeing what he thought was a football floating in the water and then realised it was a severed head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:halt maul oefter (umlaut on the o instead of e after it) "Öfter mal Maul halten" would sound more natural in German, though "Shut the gently caress Up More Often" -> "Mal öfter die Schnauze halten" would be closer to the original meaning by introducing rude German slang someone who wants to use these options should add a personal touch like this: "Öfter mal Maul halten, Kumpel" and "Mal öfter die Schnauze halten, Alter"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
david_a posted:Can a severed head actually float? Seems legit, particularly if it's decomposing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Heads and limbs flying and floating are one of the many grisly details you don't see in movies where roundshot hits a group of men. I grudgingly give The Patriot some points for showing that. It hurts to type that.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Tias posted:Seems legit, particularly if it's decomposing. Well this was in the immediate aftermath so probably not decomposing just yet. Tbh I'm inclined to give the guy a pass for some slightly flawed recollections, considered he was treading water in the North Atlantic after a horrifying shipwreck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:There's a pretty good documentary about PQ-17, an Arkhangelsk-bound arctic convoy that you might find interesting. They were ordered to scatter and then it was a week of being exposed in perpetual daylight, painting ships white and hanging sheets out for camouflage, putting tanks from the hold on deck to act as naval artillery, and the Reserve captain of an armed trawler leading ships into port with an ordinary atlas for navigation. Thanks for this! Will def. check that out. Yeah I've been meaning to type it up for some time now (I've just got photocopies of hand-written and typed letters) so when I do I'll be sure to put it on here too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
It's not exactly H.M.S. Gay Viking, but I found the best U.S. Navy ship name of the Second World War.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
It's a very admirable name 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Owlkill posted:Bringing this back up from a couple of pages back but I've got a family interest so couldn't let it lie. The escorting cruiser was HMS Curacoa, my grandfather was a telegraphist aboard her and one of the survivors (338 were lost from a complement of 439). It being wartime the Queen Mary couldn't stop to pick up survivors so he and the other survivors trod water for a few hours until he was rescued. He died in 1997 but was interviewed for a documentary where he described how "gradually the numbers in the water got less and less... there was no panic, if people had had enough they just threw their arms in the air and went under". He also described seeing what he thought was a football floating in the water and then realised it was a severed head. Thank you for sharing this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Some people say tanks shouldn't have bow MGs any more, and they're right, they should have bow pikes instead. Why shouldn't they? Do the MGs on the other parts cover that area sufficiently, or do they think it's redundant to the main gun?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Why shouldn't they? Do the MGs on the other parts cover that area sufficiently, or do they think it's redundant to the main gun? How do you put an MG into the hull? If you answered a hole in the hull, that's very relevant to the armor plate around it which is now compromised as well as the actual hole, which basically can't be filled with something as resistant as the original plate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Remote ball turret outside the hull? With, like, infinity billion bullets out there being extra armour?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Ablative armor made out of machineguns
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Ablative armor made out of infantry
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Owlkill posted:Well this was in the immediate aftermath so probably not decomposing just yet. What if there's oil on the water, which there would be after a sinking, could that cause a head to float?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Hey Gal, is it at all clear in whatever archives you go digging into just how long opposing pike blocks would be in active contact with one another? Curious how long it takes before one side breaks through or withdraws. Also, battle casualties are horrendously high for your guys right? I think you posted a graph once that showed regimental strength over time, and you could see the fall around major battles; are most of those guys dying/deserting, or is there a huge number of wounded that eventually recover (assuming their side holds the field at the end of the day I guess)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:54
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Why shouldn't they? Do the MGs on the other parts cover that area sufficiently, or do they think it's redundant to the main gun? Basically yes, in addition to the concerns about armour, bow MGs require crew, so you need space for the gunner to operate the gun, and also for a dedicated gunner if you're planning on using it seriously. Considering tanks don't generally fight infantry close in any more if they can avoid it because everyone and their dog can have an anti tank launcher, the need for personal defence weapons mounted on the tank is rather slim, and nobody wants to spend space and weight on housing gunners when you could put more ammunition, armour, or a kettle in there instead. If your tank is fighting close in, it's probably not doing so alone, you would generally screen it with infantry like you would a carrier with destroyers. Basically: Ensign Expendable posted:
Is actually the solution to hull mounted machineguns. On an unrelated note, pictured: the rare aquatic variant of the sherman: 
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It's not exactly H.M.S. Gay Viking, but I found the best U.S. Navy ship name of the Second World War. My favorite is still the carrier USS Shangri-La
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It's not exactly H.M.S. Gay Viking, but I found the best U.S. Navy ship name of the Second World War. "Candid", "Disdain", "Gayety", "Mirth", "Scrimmage" and "Graylag" are pretty good as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Admirable_class_minesweepers
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Considering tanks don't generally fight infantry close in any more if they can avoid it because everyone and their dog can have an anti tank launcher, the need for personal defence weapons mounted on the tank is rather slim, and nobody wants to spend space and weight on housing gunners when you could put more ammunition, armour, or a kettle in there instead. How many MGs are there on the latest TUSK Abrams? 3-5?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:What if there's oil on the water, which there would be after a sinking, could that cause a head to float? Oil is less dense than water which means a body is actually less buoyant in it. It's a lot easier to drown in a vat of oil than water. Basically the opposite of people floating easy in the Dead Sea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Oil is less dense than water which means a body is actually less buoyant in it. It's a lot easier to drown in a vat of oil than water. For that reason, the oil should spread out pretty thinly along the surface. I don't think it would make much difference re: buoyancy. An object might float a quarter-inch lower than otherwise, I guess.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
JcDent posted:How many MGs are there on the latest TUSK Abrams? 3-5? Erm, I think one coax, one for the loader, one for the commander, commander turret being remote operated? They like adding MGs to cupolas certainly but they're just glued on, they don't really add any extra space or weight in the tank, being neither particularly protected or requiring their own compartment or crew to use. Hull MGs would probably not be very useable by crew because the driver is going to be driving, the gunner is going to be manning the turret, the commander is going to be doing situational awareness, and the loader is probably sitting in the turret. So cupola guns are the exception I guess, because they in theory allow the commander to still do commanding while manning their gun, and the loader can turn out to help with observation if needs be, and use theirs. Hull MGs afford neither visibility nor do they really allow you to do any other job in the tank. I'd also argue that the TUSK kits represent a reaction to using the tanks contrary to their design, modern MBTs are generally designed (or have been designed) to fight other modern MBTs, this being the thing they need to excel at because major military powers generally arm themselves against other major military powers and they need their equipment to stand against their enemy's. Deploying said MBTs in urban warfare and occupation roles against comparatively poorly equipped forces is rather outside the design goal, but the tanks can be adjusted to function in that role. So, the TUSK equipped Abrams probably can shrug off a lot of things it might be attacked by, and therefore is more viable to just glue a bunch of guns and armour onto it and use it like some kind of mobile murderbunker. I think if it were ever used in a war against a properly equipped military power, the TUSK system would become a lot less effective because no amount of armour is going to really keep the tank safe from good modern AT weapons. Fighting old RPG7s and improvised bombs used by people with little training perhaps, but not likely an opposing equivalent military force. TUSK style tanks make sense when your goal is policing an area with a militia presence while losing as few soldiers and as little equipment as possible, having already achieved your objectives, and having a bunch of MBTs around that you want to get some use out of. Their function is to be ambush proof, not necessarily to function as MBTs as-laid-down are intended, which is why people don't build bespoke MBTs for that role, at least not currently, given we're all still using late cold war designs for our MBTs. TUSKs are notable for being added onto tanks, with the implication that they could be taken off again should the tank be needed for something else. A good contrast is the MRAP, a vehicle specifically invented to deal with asymmetrical warfare and occupations. It's a military popemobile and it's very good at it, but it would be interesting to see what its role in a more symmetrical war might be, perhaps we would see it being stripped down of some of its ambush protection, or fitted with a better electronics package and pressed into service as a scout or observation vehicle, or perhaps as a weapons carrier similarly to the hummvee. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Erm, I think one coax, one for the loader, one for the commander, commander turret being remote operated? I think the TUSK package machine guns are also designed specifically for urban environments (as the name suggests), as they're capable of easily shooting at high angles like balconies and rooftops. Not quite the same as a bow machine gun, which can only shoot whoever's directly in front of the tank. And nobody's dumb enough to fight directly in the open in front of a tank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
[quote="chitoryu12" post="465349019". And nobody's dumb enough to fight directly in the open in front of a tank. [/quote] Well, there were, they're just all dead now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Either I can have this lovely MG mounted on the front of my tank OR I can use the extremely ballin out optics of my main gun to shoot a machine gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
This is actually a really great video showing T-72s in urban combat in Syria. You can see exactly how many rebels jump in front of the tank: approximately zero. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awTs34HhPzM On the other hand, there's plenty of places for someone to hide in tall buildings and shoot down at tanks. Sometimes not very effectively. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tLThZ2L7PE
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:45
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:This is actually a really great video showing T-72s in urban combat in Syria. You can see exactly how many rebels jump in front of the tank: approximately zero. There's also plenty of video of tanks being destroyed by people destroying them pretty up close because they're unsupported by infantry. Most famously in one instance by throwing grenades down the barrel of the main gun.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:47
|
|
Disinterested posted:There's also plenty of video of tanks being destroyed by people destroying them pretty up close because they're unsupported by infantry. Most famously in one instance by throwing grenades down the barrel of the main gun. Dammit Snake.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:A good contrast is the MRAP, a vehicle specifically invented to deal with asymmetrical warfare and occupations. It's a military popemobile and it's very good at it, but it would be interesting to see what its role in a more symmetrical war might be, perhaps we would see it being stripped down of some of its ambush protection, or fitted with a better electronics package and pressed into service as a scout or observation vehicle, or perhaps as a weapons carrier similarly to the hummvee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:On an unrelated note, pictured: the rare aquatic variant of the sherman: This tank is about a mile west of my house, and there’s a second one a few hundred yards further from the beach. Some people like to swim laps between them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There's also plenty of video of tanks being destroyed by people destroying them pretty up close because they're unsupported by infantry. Most famously in one instance by throwing grenades down the barrel of the main gun. That's gotta be a case where the breech was open, right? The barrel's got to contain an explosion that's a hell of a lot more energetic than a grenade, even if the grenade set off a loaded round that'd be inconsequential for the barrel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:54
|
|
OwlFancier posted:On an unrelated note, pictured: the rare aquatic variant of the sherman: Ah, the Shmerman.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:55
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's gotta be a case where the breech was open, right? The barrel's got to contain an explosion that's a hell of a lot more energetic than a grenade, even if the grenade set off a loaded round that'd be inconsequential for the barrel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndIpj97PA08 The vehicle isn't destroyed first time so possibly so yeah.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There's also plenty of video of tanks being destroyed by people destroying them pretty up close because they're unsupported by infantry. Most famously in one instance by throwing grenades down the barrel of the main gun. Right here: Yeah, the breech had to be open. This is fantastically bad training on the part of the tank crew. "Oh hey, a small explosion right by our tank. Let's sit right here, we're in a tank so it'll be ok." If they had been operating alone in contested territory and got stuck somehow the crew was just unlucky, but then the failure is on command's part in sending them out there. Big brass ones on the second guy to go out there with a grenade. I give the first guy a lot of credit for knowing how long he had before the grenade went off though. E: fb
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
The joys of people with access to equipment bigger than their training budgets, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 23:46
|
|