|
Type 95 Ha-Go Queue: Type 95, T-70, Dicker Max, T-62, Medium Mk.II, Light Tank M2, Combat Car T4 Available for request:  T2E1 Light Tank M3A1 Combat Car M1  Medium Tank Mk.II Medium Tank Mk.III A1E1 Independent Infantry Tank Mk.I NEW  LTP T-37 with ShKAS ZIK-20 T-12 and T-24 T-55 HTZ-16 Wartime modifications of the T-37 and T-38 SG-122 76 mm gun mod of the Matilda Tank destroyers on the T-30 and T-40 chassis NEW  L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40  TK-3/TKS Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR 37 mm anti-tank gun  SR tanks  Renault NC Renault D1 Renault R35 Renault D2 Renault R40 Char B  PzI Ausf. B PzI Ausf. C PzII Ausf. a though b PzIII Ausf. A PzIII Ausf. B through D PzIV Ausf. A through C PzIV Ausf. D through E Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 21, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
Combat Car T4
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They can only go where the train line goes, but the train line mostly goes to major industrial and population hubs. Which is probably where you want to go as well. And in the era before the tank and anti tank gun, who the gently caress is going to stop a giant rail mounted battleship bristling with armour and guns? You don't need to do anything with the train itself. One well-placed mortar round on the track ahead of it is all it takes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
The Dicker Max will never not be the most hilariously named armoured vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:There's a cool series of articles about how national abilities in Civ and the like reflect our cultural thinking: http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/2010/11/05/national-characters/ That's an interesting article, and I'd be interested to see the author's thoughts on other civs that were introduced later in the series, and updated to include the later Civ 5 expansions and Civ6. There's some interesting moves like redressing America as a cultural powerhouse in Civ6, or Germany getting increasingly flavored in Beyond Earth and 6 as a diplomatic and trade focused nation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You don't need to do anything with the train itself. One well-placed mortar round on the track ahead of it is all it takes. I believe that is why they screened the train with other forces. Also you have to blow up your own railway in that case which is probably not something you want to do. If you cause lasting damage to it it's going to scupper you as well as the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Your armoured train can probably provide cover as your engineers repair the track.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You don't need to do anything with the train itself. One well-placed mortar round on the track ahead of it is all it takes. If by mortar you mean a 81mm-120mm piece then no, railroads can take much more punishment than that and repairing a section of damaged or dismantled tracks is quickly done because you don't need too complicated equipment, just some pieces of track and some gravel. What you need to do is remove sections of the tracks and then place some artillery pieces in guard so enemy engineers can't just come and repair them. During Finnish civil war Reds at one point invented TBIED, train-borne improvised explosive device. They had heard that there was an explosive-ladden train at the White-held railway station just across the front line, so they rigged a locomotive with a car of explosives and set it to full steam with safety valves shut, the idea being that it would roll to the station, hit the ammunition train and explode, after which another manned train would follow and capture the station. Except that the intel was wrong and there was no munition train at the station, and while the unmanned locomotive got through the frontline, it stopped at an obstacle at the station and Whites managed to make it harmless by opening the safety valves. edit: heh these guys were so reckless quote:January 31st: Some 300 men from Varkaus Red Guard commandeer a train from Varkaus and head with it towards Pieksämäki. The Whites found out about this and decided to stop this train by sending locomotive without a crew with full speed in the opposite direction to the same rail. However the Reds had also made precautions by adding three flatcars loaded with sand in front of their train. When the collision happened it derailed the flatcars loaded with sand, but failed to cause serious damage to the locomotive. After this train-accident-by-purpose the Reds were shaken enough that they decided to return Varkaus. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Kanine posted:Do we have any idea whatsoever what would happen if Trumo tried to do something stupid? There wouldn't be much stopping him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hering
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:If by mortar you mean a 81mm-120mm piece then no, railroads can take much more punishment than that and repairing a section of damaged or dismantled tracks is quickly done because you don't need too complicated equipment, just some pieces of track and some gravel. What you need to do is remove sections of the tracks and then place some artillery pieces in guard so enemy engineers can't just come and repair them. What I was trying to say in a compact way is that an armored train is only as strong and secure as the tracks it's riding on. Tear those up and it's not going anywhere. Thus armored trains are only as useful so far as the track can be protected and maintained. They're pretty much limited to regions with light arms fire; any enemy with artillery will take them out of action pretty quickly. Armored trains always captures peoples' imagination as this really cool weapon that seemed underused. The reality is that they were extremely limited in what they could do and where they could go. Within those uses (primarily shielding troops from sniper fire) they did well, but once heavy guns got in range of them they had to skedaddle. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:Not that I know of. You might be thinking of an incident during the Yom Kippur War when there was a potential crisis that Kissinger handled because Nixon was drunk. Here's a brief writeup about it: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/richard-nixon-watergate-drunk-yom-kippur-war-119021 Didn't Reagan temporarily misplace his nuke-authorization card when he was hospitalized after the assassination attempt, the staff just stuck it in his shoes along with his wallet and other personal effects? Jobbo_Fett posted:The USAAF said fuckit because the Luftwaffe didn't pose a threat, and the bare metal finish was a few mph faster than the painted aircraft. See the middle three ships here:  The contrast is cranked in this particular photo, but the bomber variants of the F-15 are dark, and the fighter is light. (in reality they're more like the two colors on the Vipers there, that particular Mudhen unit may have actually been painted black, like the Navy fighter squadron that used to have the Playboy bunny on the tails) Deteriorata posted:What I was trying to say in a compact way is that an armored train is only as strong and secure as the tracks it's riding on. Tear those up and it's not going anywhere. Thus armored trains are only as useful so far as the track can be protected and maintained.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 07:24
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
On the other hand, armored trains are the fastest thing on the ground around WWI and they use the rail that you want to keep intact for your own movement. So they can always keep changing position, disgorgibg troops in all those important places (if they weren't important, they wouldn't have rail) where they can gently caress up your movement and supply while also supporting said troops. I think it really shines in an RCW scenario where you have huge tracts of nothing connected only by the vital rail you can't afford to sabotage and really nothing approacing an artillery park. And even if you had a park, good luck communicating with it in a timely manner to gently caress up a train.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Yeah, tearing up the rails is pretty much just a Soviet scorched-earth retreat thing. And yeah, the rails the invaded party hopes to take back are great for supplying the invading army. And hell, just put the arty on the rails, they can carry bigger guns than can be dragged through the mud. Though aiming is a bit more difficult, you have to build a switch and siding to traverse the gun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Why were so many planes in WWII painted green? It is kind of interesting how this worked out...camo for planes in the air is generally not worth the weight of the paint (at least in WWII), but if your air force is under constant air attack while it is on the ground, getting your aircraft to blend in with their surroundings increases their survivability a whole lot. The main reason planes are painted today is just corrosion resistance, it has practically nothing to do with visual observability. In WWII this was hardly an issue since the average plane's life expectancy was like 20 minutes or so but when you have airframes that are needing to last decades and or centuries then corrosion resistance becomes significant. If you've ever seen a fighter aircraft in flight from the air or the ground, it is pretty clear that camouflaging it in the traditional sense is a pretty futile exercise. Also I don't know how much this actually holds water but I've long felt like the ACW was kind of a high point for armored trains - they were the fastest thing on the planet, and no one really had the means to indirectly interdict the tracks as yet, so it was actually viable to arm and armor a train as a means of defending a stretch of track so long as you patrolled the track regularly. One Beford Forrest would probably laugh at this argument though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:What I was trying to say in a compact way is that an armored train is only as strong and secure as the tracks it's riding on. Tear those up and it's not going anywhere. Thus armored trains are only as useful so far as the track can be protected and maintained. It looks like we have very different perspectives here. For one, tracks are a lot more robust than you make them sound, they're a bitch to sabotage (especially in winter when ground is frozen solid) and literally the easiest thing on earth to fix. Armoured trains are not invincible wunderwaffe of course, but as defensive weapons they're perfect, basically bunkers on wheels, and for support of attacking infantry they're wonderful. Especially in a civil war environment like in Finland or Russia where inexperienced troops' morale wavered easily, having a big rear end train in your support helped in many ways. First of all it provided a fire base to which you could depend on; second it took care of your supply needs, and third it kept the infantry together because in case poo poo hit the fan a train was the best way to evacuate. Later on armoured trains' main function was to protect supply lines from enemy air interdiction, but there were also front line support actions in WW2. A Finnish armoured train was operational at the front for all of Winter War, and despite Soviets trying to bomb it out with everything they had, it just kept choo-chooing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Endman posted:The Dicker Max will never not be the most hilariously named armoured vehicle. Same but for the SLAMRAAM as surface-launched AA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Welp, guess I'll be doing British explosives next. If anyone has any objections let me know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Don't care how useful armoured trains are, Echelonnaya is the best war song.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The main reason planes are painted today is just corrosion resistance, it has practically nothing to do with visual observability. In WWII this was hardly an issue since the average plane's life expectancy was like 20 minutes or so but when you have airframes that are needing to last decades and or centuries then corrosion resistance becomes significant. If you've ever seen a fighter aircraft in flight from the air or the ground, it is pretty clear that camouflaging it in the traditional sense is a pretty futile exercise. Painting your aircraft also stops your planes being sighted due to glinting in sunlight though. Also stealth aircraft are coated in radar-absorbing paint (that you need to repaint every time you open a hatch on the F-22 for $$$)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Hey the one time in human history British cavalry did something sort of right. In response to an earlier post of yours, while armored tactics including exploitation of breakthroughs were inspired by (light) cavalry tactics, by 1914 cavalry were dragoons, and they stayed that way forever. I don't care what people chose to carry on the nomenclature of cavalry units. True cavalry died by 1914.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:it's okay, no catholic state has ever had good beer (yeap gently caress those leprechaun buggers!) dude, bavaria
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Welp, guess I'll be doing British explosives next. If anyone has any objections let me know. Go forth!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The main reason planes are painted today is just corrosion resistance, it has practically nothing to do with visual observability. In WWII this was hardly an issue since the average plane's life expectancy was like 20 minutes or so but when you have airframes that are needing to last decades and or centuries then corrosion resistance becomes significant. If you've ever seen a fighter aircraft in flight from the air or the ground, it is pretty clear that camouflaging it in the traditional sense is a pretty futile exercise. Counterpoint: in WWII, visual camo was still a thing (well, as long as the Luftwaffe was still a thing, anyway), they paint 'em all grey now because they're going to be noticed well beyond visual range anyway, so why bother? Edit: Centuries? Even the BUFF's supposed to be retired when the last airframe is 80 years old. But given military procurement, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them made it to the century mark in service. What's the longest-serving military vehicle/vessel? Not including honorary positions like HMS Victory and USS Constitution. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:In response to an earlier post of yours, while armored tactics including exploitation of breakthroughs were inspired by (light) cavalry tactics, by 1914 cavalry were dragoons, and they stayed that way forever. I don't care what people chose to carry on the nomenclature of cavalry units. True cavalry died by 1914. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
For the guy who was saying they never go to other threads so maybe the internet is this bad, this is what's popped up on one of my wargaming threads today:quote:You've got distinctions between british airlanding and paratrooper platoons EDIT: Oh hey there's more: quote:There is still no difference. Theoretically soviets had all these wonderful commanders but none of them dared speak up because of the purges. All advances made in soviet doctrine were ignored, and in practise all soviet troops were undertrained conscripts who were herded forward. You don't need tactics when you outnumber someone 10:1, and indeed they didn't. 14 soviets died for every german. Those are the numbers you get when you charge into machineguns until they run out of ammo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
spectralent posted:14 soviets died for every german Yikes, including Soviet civilians into the Nazi k:dr isn't one that usually gets trotted out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Yikes, including Soviet civilians into the Nazi k:dr isn't one that usually gets trotted out. Hahaha oh man, I didn't spot that, I just thought he'd grabbed numbers out of his rear end since I couldn't work out how he'd gotten that high  (He's also not counting other axis nations  )
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:What's the longest-serving military vehicle/vessel? Not including honorary positions like HMS Victory and USS Constitution.. Probably one of the Iowa class battleships. Missouri is a museum in Hawaii now but it formally accepted the Japanese surrender in 1945 and provided fire support for desert storm in 1991. Iowa was technically active through 2006 but it was really only in law only because the law explicitly required no less than two (2) Iowa-class battleships to be kept online. It had previously been decommissioned and stricken from the register in the 90s but hey it was maintained through 2006 even if it was off the books for like 4 years. E: USS Pueblo POW/MIA never forget FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
So I posted "These are the numbers you get when you include soviet civillians so what the gently caress?".quote:Soviet "civilians", by which you mean militia, partisans and terrorists, yes? I am not denying that the Nazis committed many grave crimes, including mass killings, but the vast majority of soviets killed were killed in action; it just depends on whether this was official, organised action by the red army, or independent action by soviet-backed resistance. Those are still soviet soldiers who died.  edit: Some wehraboo palette cleanser: quote:It is undeniable the Germans were the most tactically advanced and highly trained force in the world during WW2. They had the equipment, training and discipline. Politically they were monstrous but their low-level combat effectiveness is undeniable and was vastly superior to that of the soviets, or indeed any other force in the world at the time, to the extent that almost every army in the world took their doctrine and training after the war (including the soviets, who would then attempt to pass it off as a development of pre-war doctrine they were never able to implement). spectralent fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Alright, who cloned loving Goebbels and gave him internet access?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:01
|
|
I am convinced that discussing this stuff on the majority of the internet is loving pointless as you will always get these kind of assholes poisoning the water hole.KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Hey the one time in human history British cavalry did something sort of right. With both Lucan AND Cardigan "working" together I am amazed such a gently caress up didn't happen earlier in that war. Poor old Raglan. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I am convinced that discussing this stuff on the majority of the internet is loving pointless as you will always get these kind of assholes poisoning the water hole. Yeah, basically. If it's true that we spend undue amounts of time dunking on the germans, it's because we talk to idiots like these goobers constantly everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:What's the longest-serving military vehicle/vessel? Not including honorary positions like HMS Victory and USS Constitution. Salvage vessel Kommuna, originally commissioned in 1915.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
quote:Einsatzgruppen were counter-terror units! Good lord, is this guy Goebbels reincarnated? Next he'll be reminding us that Victor wrote all the history, and everybody knows you can never trust him to tell the truth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
The actual kd/r was 1:1.14 iirc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Wow, I've seen some staunch wehraboos, but this guy stands head and shoulders above anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Not genocide guys! counter terrorism!
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom figh 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
The Soviet terroristic army used terrible tactics like lining up in front of a ditch to get shot, gathering inside buildings that are set on fire, or working as slaves for the German war machine until they dropped dead of starvation or exhaustion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:
HMS Implacable? Laid down 1797, launched as Duguay-Trouin into the French navy in 1800, survived Trafalgar, captured by the RN and recommissioned as Implacable in November 1805, in active sea service into the 1840s, then converted to a training ship/ accommodation ship/ coal hulk. Until 1949, when she was scuttled. Video of the scuttling: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/Implacable-to-the-end
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
Fangz posted:The Soviet terroristic army used terrible tactics like lining up in front of a ditch to get shot, gathering inside buildings that are set on fire, or working as slaves for the German war machine until they dropped dead of starvation or exhaustion. Guys you can't argue with military realities. quote:Explain where I have made a Nazi statement. I have stated history as it happened, nothing more or less. Of course I condemn totalitarian regimes such as naziism and stalinism absolutely. I am speaking entirely of military realities. I love the implied "The soviets were just as bad!".
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:36
|
|