|
aphid_licker posted:Approximately what are the pros and cons of building a more conservative successor to the Pz IV instead of the Panther and Tiger? Apparently the Panther is 45 tons and a late IV is 25. So maybe a 35 ton tank? That's apparently about in the same ballpark as the Sherman or T-34, and those were fine until the end of the war? They did and it was called the StuG IV.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:American flamethrowers don't have pilot flames, they use essentially a cylinder of miniature flares that goes in the nozzle, you hit one trigger to light one and then the other trigger to release the fuel. I think this was the standard for WW2 flamethrowers. Some used cartridges to light the fuel, some used electric charge. This way you could douse a target with fuel after which you would spark the flame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Approximately what are the pros and cons of building a more conservative successor to the Pz IV instead of the Panther and Tiger? Apparently the Panther is 45 tons and a late IV is 25. So maybe a 35 ton tank? That's apparently about in the same ballpark as the Sherman or T-34, and those were fine until the end of the war? That is what the Panzer V was supposed to be. The original design was much more reasonably armed and armored, and would probably have done far better - the only time the V's heavy cruiser levelfrontal armor was all that useful was in longer-range ambush scenarios (otherwise it just got outflanked) where a proper TD would have been a much better choice, and the absurdly long gun was a massive obstacle for maneuvering (and the massive ammunition made operating the vehicle difficult) with little practical benefit - while there was a significant gap between the performance of the gun on late Panzer IVs and that of the Panther, there were fairly few Allied vehicles that the V could penetrate but not the IV within ordinary combat ranges. The V's gun did have a real edge at long range sniping - again something that a dedicated TD would be better for due to concealment reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:That is what the Panzer V was supposed to be. The original design was much more reasonably armed and armored, and would probably have done far better - the only time the V's heavy cruiser levelfrontal armor was all that useful was in longer-range ambush scenarios (otherwise it just got outflanked) where a proper TD would have been a much better choice, and the absurdly long gun was a massive obstacle for maneuvering (and the massive ammunition made operating the vehicle difficult) with little practical benefit - while there was a significant gap between the performance of the gun on late Panzer IVs and that of the Panther, there were fairly few Allied vehicles that the V could penetrate but not the IV within ordinary combat ranges. The V's gun did have a real edge at long range sniping - again something that a dedicated TD would be better for due to concealment reasons. And of course, the big problem that the Panther faced on a strategic level: it kept the same drive train as the original concept despite the weight ballooning into heavy tank territory, giving the final drive a ridiculously short lifespan to the point where you wouldn't even want to drive them from the base to the battlefield for risk of wearing them out too much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Tank destroyers are not tanks and bringing them up in tank chat should be a probatable offense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
It's probably good milhist threads don't predate tanks because what in the world would they have to talk about? Oh to commit my own sin of hypocrisy, I remember when I was reading some Harry Turtledove book where WW1 also happens in the US and the Rebs referred to tanks as "barrels". Was there a debate over what to call tanks when they were invented or something? zoux fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's probably good milhist threads don't predate tanks because what in the world would they have to talk about? Bears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's probably good milhist threads don't predate tanks because what in the world would they have to talk about? It's because the code name for "Tanks" was "Watertank" which ended up being called "Tanks"; while in German they're simply called "Armoured Fighting Vehicles" or "Armour"; so it isn't hard to imagine their code name being "Water/feeding barrel". Funnily enough after reading those books "Barrels" stuck in my mind as what to call for them for a few months, hey "Barrel Divisions" sounds like a good time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's probably good milhist threads don't predate tanks because what in the world would they have to talk about? I'm just finishing my copy of the audiobook of the last book about WWI. I plan on getting the ones about WWII next; the ones in the middle don't really interest me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's because the code name for "Tanks" was "Watertank" which ended up being called "Tanks"; while in German they're simply called "Armoured Fighting Vehicles" or "Armour"; so it isn't hard to imagine their code name being "Water/feeding barrel". Panzerkampfwagen just rooooollllllllls off the tongue. German is funny. Especially when you understand like less than 1% of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:That is what the Panzer V was supposed to be. The original design was much more reasonably armed and armored, and would probably have done far better - the only time the V's heavy cruiser levelfrontal armor was all that useful was in longer-range ambush scenarios (otherwise it just got outflanked) where a proper TD would have been a much better choice, and the absurdly long gun was a massive obstacle for maneuvering (and the massive ammunition made operating the vehicle difficult) with little practical benefit - while there was a significant gap between the performance of the gun on late Panzer IVs and that of the Panther, there were fairly few Allied vehicles that the V could penetrate but not the IV within ordinary combat ranges. The V's gun did have a real edge at long range sniping - again something that a dedicated TD would be better for due to concealment reasons. It also suffered from being a tank with rather bad visibility and being more than a bit complicated for fresh crews to use. In the hands of an elite crew it could be very dangerous, but guess what the Nazis were running out of by then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I'm just finishing my copy of the audiobook of the last book about WWI. I plan on getting the ones about WWII next; the ones in the middle don't really interest me. I wouldn't advise that. The interwar series sets up a lot, and the character interplay (which is one of Turtledove's biggest strengths) you lose is too much, particularly since several major characters are quite a bit different by the time the Second Great War breaks out. It's really a shame Turtledove usually goes for the blander scenarios. I'd love to see what he could do with something like "Virginia stays in the Union, Federal Forces under Robert E. Lee defeat Confederacy with ease" instead of just reversing history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:I wouldn't advise that. The interwar series sets up a lot, and the character interplay (which is one of Turtledove's biggest strengths) you lose is too much, particularly since several major characters are quite a bit different by the time the Second Great War breaks out. Oh, I own all the books in physical form and have read them; I'm just getting the audiobooks because they are easier to do while I'm walking around and doing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
The second Great War series sticks to reality much more slavishly though, to the extent that it is just ww2 with the names changed. To be honest the interwar books are significantly better than the notww2 ones, and even by then turtledove's fake homespun characters endlessly reciting what has happened to them in all the previous books while dispensing folksy wisdom or incredibly thinly veiled actual history has grown beyond tedious. Edit: in that case, fair enough!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Oh, I own all the books in physical form and have read them; I'm just getting the audiobooks because they are easier to do while I'm walking around and doing stuff. Ok, that makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Panzerkampfwagen just rooooollllllllls off the tongue. Nazi Germany I feel went a little bit over the top in terms of naming schemes even by military standards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
I like Turtledove and he's like the only military thriller author who doesn't seem like a shithead, so I don't complain if there's aspects to his writing that are a bit of a slog and in a dire need of an editor; I think he writes his books so that for his longer series anyone can pick up any book and not get lost. I don't begrudge him going for the more popular lower common denominator "What if" fiction since it pays for his children's college. He does explore other things, like what if that super volcano in North America explodes. Checking Wikipedia he has the following that look promising: -Korean War escalates to a nuclear war. -Something about a glacier receding allowing iron age peoples to explore new land and kill the people there. Huh, he's about 1 book a year now, he's slowed down. OwlFancier posted:Nazi Germany I feel went a little bit over the top in terms of naming schemes even by military standards. Anyone know where that quote comes from of "Don't call it [overly complicate military designation] call it a rifle."?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
You can either have panzerkampwagen or sonderkraftsfahrzeug. Be thankful you got the former.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can either have panzerkampwagen or sonderkraftsfahrzeug. Be thankful you got the former. I just like the name because if you take away the implied translation you're left with "Armored Battle Wagon" and that tickles my funny bone in a 'I'm imagining Poland was conquered by a bunch of guys driving their heavily armored Conestoga wagons' kind of way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:I just like the name because if you take away the implied translation you're left with "Armored Battle Wagon" and that tickles my funny bone in a 'I'm imagining Poland was conquered by a bunch of guys driving their heavily armored Conestoga wagons' kind of way. Defended, not conquered. Also not quite Poland but almost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Touche Now just add a 75mm gun and some iron plates and we're in my neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
lenoon posted:The second Great War series sticks to reality much more slavishly though, to the extent that it is just ww2 with the names changed. To be honest the interwar books are significantly better than the notww2 ones, and even by then turtledove's fake homespun characters endlessly reciting what has happened to them in all the previous books while dispensing folksy wisdom or incredibly thinly veiled actual history has grown beyond tedious. Yeah, the fact it wasn't that different was kind of annoying, but I suppose in some ways what happened makes sense. The Confederacy was like Japan, they had to have a knockout blow to end the war quickly on their terms or else they lose. Edit: Actually, what do you guys think would have happened if the Confederacy had won WWI in Turtledoves stories? Would their actually have been a liberalization within the Confederacy in regards to blacks or what? Mycroft Holmes fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Yeah, the fact it wasn't that different was kind of annoying, but I suppose in some ways what happened makes sense. The Confederacy was like Japan, they had to have a knockout blow to end the war quickly on their terms or else they lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's probably good milhist threads don't predate tanks because what in the world would they have to talk about? Believe it was a trin blog post where some British eccentric on the Landships Committee argued for tanks to be named "armordillos". He was completely correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:I just like the name because if you take away the implied translation you're left with "Armored Battle Wagon" and that tickles my funny bone in a 'I'm imagining Poland was conquered by a bunch of guys driving their heavily armored Conestoga wagons' kind of way. I love italian AT guns reading as "counter-car".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:That's an interesting notion, but perhaps we'd best take it to another thread at this point. we have in character star wars debates in here all the time. Edit: y-wing is superior
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:That's an interesting notion, but perhaps we'd best take it to another thread at this point. Alternate alternate history? In my milhist thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:It also suffered from being a tank with rather bad visibility and being more than a bit complicated for fresh crews to use. In the hands of an elite crew it could be very dangerous, but guess what the Nazis were running out of by then? Literally everything?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I love italian AT guns reading as "counter-car". Well they do work on cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:I wouldn't advise that. The interwar series sets up a lot, and the character interplay (which is one of Turtledove's biggest strengths) you lose is too much, particularly since several major characters are quite a bit different by the time the Second Great War breaks out. I like the idea of this, except let's be real, the first two years of the ACW were going to be non-stop bungling no matter who was involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Yeah, the fact it wasn't that different was kind of annoying, but I suppose in some ways what happened makes sense. The Confederacy was like Japan, they had to have a knockout blow to end the war quickly on their terms or else they lose. This is really impossible to answer because not only are we dealing with a what if counterfactual (The CSA winning the civil war) but dealing with nearly a hundred years of butterflies, within the context of an authors long running series. It's a better question of "Would have the CSA, if it were independent, ever have emancipated the slaves?". Which they made it hard coded into their constitution "No"; so we're dealing with what is essentially South Africa; its possible but its hard to predict if Southern racists were more irrational and stubborn than South African ones? Like Harry Turtledove posits the CSA forcing itself to industrialize in order to have some sort of armaments industry subsidized by Britain and France; for all we know the CSA degrades into bring essentially a third world petro economy apartheid hellhole until collapse and civil war. Counterfactuals are fun in small doses, but the above is probably why the thread generally uses the phrase "gay black Hitler" because who knows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This is really impossible to answer because not only are we dealing with a what if counterfactual (The CSA winning the civil war) but dealing with nearly a hundred years of butterflies, within the context of an authors long running series. Ah well, that's why I'm a member of alternatehistory.com.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Comedy option: socialist revolution, ex-slaves and poor whites form CSSA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:we have in character star wars debates in here all the time. The y-wing's superiority is being able to mount a twin-laser turret honestly. Starfighters which are limited to fixed forward firing weapons are obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Starfighters which are limited to fixed forward firing weapons are obsolete. Tell that to the X and A wings
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Ah well, that's why I'm a member of alternatehistory.com.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Comedy option: socialist revolution, ex-slaves and poor whites form CSSA. The communist option for South Africa in HoI4's expansion is goddamn hilarious. Tricky, but absolutely hilarious when you forcibly decolonize Africa in the glorious African workers' revolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Comedy option: socialist revolution, ex-slaves and poor whites form CSSA. Honestly, I'd read that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Europe does World War II like this. Asia does World War II like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
Has anyone read H. C. Bywater's The Great Pacific War? The full text is free on Google Books last I checked and it's not too long (about 200 pages, as I remember). I found it pretty interesting, although I think people tend to over-emphasize its predictive value.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:13
|
|
