|
Ensign Expendable posted:I too would be surprised if, as a Russian infantryman in 1940, I heard that the Germans were 80 km behind me. I picked representative numbers. e: \/ I was tempted to see if I could find an example of some Germans accidentally finding themselves in Lubin and claim I meant that all along Alchenar fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Nov 3, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:I picked representative numbers. The joke is that in 1940 the Germans and Soviets are pallin' around over the middle of Poland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Arbite posted:Two questions about the H.R.E. Probably the Ottomans at the Siege of Vienna.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Speaking of cars in the Red Army, was the Soviet BA-64 really just ... a car? Any special or notable about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Speaking of cars in the Red Army, was the Soviet BA-64 really just ... a car? Any special or notable about it? It was basically an armored version of the Soviet jeep equivalent. It was useful for reconnaissance and for urban combat because the MG had a good high-angle field of fire so it was easy to shoot up infantry on upper floors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Speaking of cars in the Red Army, was the Soviet BA-64 really just ... a car? Any special or notable about it? There's a little MG on top that goes pew pew. Also I think some of them had AT rifles on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Some more historical photos from Imgur: http://imgur.com/gallery/IAQNB Looks like that body armour has stopped 3 bullets, and maybe fourth where it broke. I've seen body armour used in WWI at least by the Brits and the Germans, in WWII I've only seen Soviets using it. Did anyone else use it? And how common was it for the Soviets?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Speaking of cars in the Red Army, was the Soviet BA-64 really just ... a car? Any special or notable about it? It's a light armoured car that was an improvement over the BA-20 it replaced. Unlike its predecessor, it had sloped armour, and its open turret made it more suitable for the purpose of reconnaissance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Once the encirclement is complete, the infantry liquidates the pocket. In the Winter War Finns usually just besieged the encirclements, because the Army didn't have enough artillery or shells to bombard them, and the commanders wanted to preserve the infantry and so didn't assault them. After the Winter War Finns designed 300mm mortar and 180mm rocket launcher for encirclement busting, but they were left at the prototype stage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Some more historical photos from Imgur: http://imgur.com/gallery/IAQNB It was not common nor particularly effective. It could stop small calibre bullets, from submachine guns and pistols and generally other shrapnel. It wont stop a standard issue rifle bullet, except at very long ranges. Given its limitations it was largely only used in urban combat were submachine guns were prevalent. The allies used flak jackets for their bomber aircrews, was effective but makes you very not mobile. But also keeps you nice and warm at 20000ft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Well quite a lot of the trained military leader types were, y'know, on the other side. All civil wars everywhere tend to be a clusterfuck of incompetence, especially at first, because most of the people involved are amateurs. Also a lot of the priorities are political rather than military. Then again this can be said for a lot of the "why didn't X not do stupid thing Y" questions in milhist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:It was not common nor particularly effective. It could stop small calibre bullets, from submachine guns and pistols and generally other shrapnel. It wont stop a standard issue rifle bullet, except at very long ranges. The Soviets experimented with breastplates that could stop a rifle bullet. Turns out you couldn't really do much soldiering while wearing one of those. The SMG resistant ones were doing okay for specialized purposes (assault groups, scouts, etc), but I read a report from the end of the war about testing the latest prototype against intermediate ammunition and that was the last breastplate they ever made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Stopping a rifle round using material that is light enough to still be wearable is a challenging task for material engineers even today. my biggest take away from all that is that rifle rounds are really drat powerful
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Has the rifle round become significantly more powerful since, say, WW1?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Has the rifle round become significantly more powerful since, say, WW1? I looked and the 5.56 NATO has pretty much the same penetration as the 8mm Mauser from long range but from close it'll pretty much pierce through steel like it's cardboard. Also the 5.56 is smaller and faster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Wouldn't modern rounds have way less penetrating power, at least at long range? Though the whole key to moving to intermediate calibres is recognizing that fire fights don't actually happen at that range, so it doesn't matter, and it's way better to just have more rounds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 05:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Has the rifle round become significantly more powerful since, say, WW1? Back in WWI times the prevailing wisdom at the time was that, effective range, was a very important characteristic of a rifle. So they were designed with that in mind. Similarly, thinking was that a bigger bullet would do more damage and so forth. The Americans at least moved from a 7.62mm round (Garand) to a 5.56mm around, or standard nato round for their M16. It turns out that the maximum range that fire fights tend to occur is about 300m, so having a weapon that has a longer effective range that that is somewhat unnecessary. Also, a 5.56mm round is pretty effective at incapacitating or killing an enemy. And there are a lot of logistical advantages of having a smaller standard round, not least of all that the standard infantryman can just carry more of them. On googling the garand and m16, the m16 has a longer effective range than the garand despite the smaller round, is this just down to better engineering and such? BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Has the rifle round become significantly more powerful since, say, WW1? Military rounds tend to be standardized so I highly doubt that, say, the .30-06 round has gotten more or less powerful. What technology has done is find ways to put still-dangerous amounts of joules on target faster, more reliably, and in a lighter and more adaptive package. Along that path the intermediate cartridge was developed - instead of those big rounds like the .30-06, rifles went with .223, but became magazine fed, select-fire carbines with rail attachments and polymer hardware instead of rolled steel and wood and bolt action or semiautomatic en bloc clips. So basically, no. The "rifle round" that gets issued to your average PFC with their infantry rifle is actually lighter so they can carry more and presumably operate their weapon with more control so fewer rounds are wasted. A .223 round through the lung versus a .30-06 round might have a lower fatality rate around the margins but the recipient of your bullet is going to be a casualty either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
This whole discussion is like waving a red flag in front of Cyrano's face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Pump it up! Do it! posted:You forget to mention that the Republican side was completely incompetent and wasted their offensives and didn't conduct them properly, if they hadn't wasted as many soldiers and materials as they did it would have been likely that they would have held out to WW2. I'm not sure I hold that to be completely evident, because a lot of other factors were in play: Good leaders did commit to the republican side, but had to navigate lovely supplies, political infighting and disobedient troops against regular forces, which is more a testament to how completely hosed up the civil leadership was than their own skills. Not saying there weren't some bad leaders too, though. feedmegin posted:At which point they would still be hosed since their biggest backer was the Soviet Union, which was allied with the Nazis in 1939. Well, they did send a lot of advisors and tanks - but they also militarized the militias and installed the insignificant stalinist PCE as their political organ of choice, unleashing pogroms against all other socialist leaders and forcing their militias to submit to a soviet-style commissar system or die, which completely killed off morale. With friends like these..
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Also a lot of the priorities are political rather than military. Then again this can be said for a lot of the "why didn't X not do stupid thing Y" questions in milhist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Some more historical photos from Imgur: http://imgur.com/gallery/IAQNB edit: very nice integral liner HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:look at the fabric strap on his right side. my opinion is that the shoulder bit of the breastplate broke long ago, someone attached a fabric strap through that little hole, and that broke; it's so old it's frayed well spotted Ned Gally 
Nenonen fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:I looked and the 5.56 NATO has pretty much the same penetration as the 8mm Mauser from long range but from close it'll pretty much pierce through steel like it's cardboard. Also the 5.56 is smaller and faster. Lol you looked in the wrong loving place. 5.56 will have significantly less penetration than 8mm at range because it has a lot less momentum. This remains true for close range. To the op: there is no unitary "military round" and some examples are the same type of round that was used in WWI (7.62x54r, .50 BMG and 9mm spring to mind) but even within these there can be quite a lot of variation, depending on the powder used, the tolerances in making them, etc. the .50 used by an M2 machine gun in WWII will not be exactly the same as the .50 used by an anti-material rifle in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Is it possible that the breastplate isn't broken but rather asymmetrical so you can shoulder a rifle stock? e: aw, look how much fun they're having:  
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:well spotted Ned Gally
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Is it possible that the breastplate isn't broken but rather asymmetrical so you can shoulder a rifle stock? Yep. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:It turns out that the maximum range that fire fights tend to occur is about 300m, so having a weapon that has a longer effective range that that is somewhat unnecessary. It turns out that that is not the case in certain mountainous Asian countries. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331 quote:Also, a 5.56mm round is pretty effective at incapacitating or killing an enemy. Provided it hits with sufficient velocity to fracture at the cannelure when it starts to tumble. When it doesn't, it's effectiveness falls off significantly, and out of a short barrel like the M4 it's taking that effectiveness hit well before even 300m. quote:On googling the garand and m16, the m16 has a longer effective range than the garand despite the smaller round, is this just down to better engineering and such? I have no idea under what criteria the m16 will have a longer effective range than a Garand. That sounds like a confused mess to me: .30-06 retains energy a hell of a lot better downrange. If you're taking the abilities of the infantrymen to hit a target effectively into account than I'd expect the same upper limit on both, if you're describing the capability of the cartridge .30-06 is lethal way, way out past 5.56mm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Guys, super important question here: is it Black Gay Hitler or Black Gay Hitler? Also I'm still reading 'A European Tragety.' After two-hundred pages of incomprehensible governments, brewing sectarianism and Emperors being sad (possibly even SAD) sacks that allowed bad poo poo to happen, I got to a single page, where:
and I'm like "Now we're talking!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It turns out that that is not the case in certain mountainous Asian countries. I can see how a burst fire assault rifle would have a much easier time hitting someone at a long range than a big recoil semi automatic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I can see how a burst fire assault rifle would have a much easier time hitting someone at a long range than a big recoil semi automatic. This is a wildly untrue statement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
The idea of a rifle having an effective range has always been kind of amusing to me because you can't see what you're shooting at 99% of the time everyone put fire on that rock! No not that rock, the other one! And so on
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:This is a wildly untrue statement. Well my reasoning is that your average infantryman using iron sights is not gonna be a good shot, but the soldier with the burst fire weapon is putting more shots in the general area of the enemy and so is more likely to hit something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well my reasoning is that your average infantryman using iron sights is not gonna be a good shot, but the soldier with the burst fire weapon is putting more shots in the general area of the enemy and so is more likely to hit something? That works for suppression but single aimed shots are better for actually hitting something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
I've heard that one of the many conclusions of WWII was that whomever could put more lead in the air was generally the victor of any engagement. Is there anything to that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:well spotted Ned Gally ah aphid_licker posted:Is it possible that the breastplate isn't broken but rather asymmetrical so you can shoulder a rifle stock? lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:Yep. Random side question: what's with the flared barrel ends? Heat dissipation? Deflecting noise and flash away from the operator? They certainly show up in a lot of places, most notably in my memory, on the pom-pom. They seem to be field up-gradable/removable as well? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Random side question: what's with the flared barrel ends? Heat dissipation? Deflecting noise and flash away from the operator? They certainly show up in a lot of places, most notably in my memory, on the pom-pom. They seem to be field up-gradable/removable as well? Probably flash suppressors, to preserve night vision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
They're just flash suppressors. On things like rifles and auto cannon they're there to try and conceal your firing signature but on something like antiaircraft gun it is more to hide the flash from the operator when you're shooting in low visibility
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
i'm the sheet metal scythe
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:14
|
|