|
Going from a force that couldn't be prodded to at least put up a semblence of a fight against the Germans during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations to winning a civil war being beset from every single direction is really impressive and was remarkable to a lot of people at the time. The German-Russian cooperation during the 1920s-30s did produce some fairly informed opinions.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
WW2 Data Today's update is about British Hand and Rifle Grenades, in both the Anti-Personnel and Anti-Tank roles. As per usual, we get to see what marking and coloring system they used, as well as some notable entries such as the "Gammon" bomb. What other name do they call "Shaped Charges"? How many seconds of delay does a rifle grenade have over a hand grenade? Which grenade is referred to as the "Hawkins" bomb? Which grenade is, as of the time of writing of the manual, soon to be in service, and which US grenade does it copy? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Thanks for the answers, guys. I think in retrospect I ended up conflating the popular media view and some overconfident attitudes I've seen expressed to create a (wrong) impression that it was a commonly held view. You learn something new every day!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:WW2 Data Ah, the good ol' "grenade that's also a mine". Turns out it takes like three of them to sever a heavy tank track, who knew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Hypothetical (and grisly, be warned!) situation: let's say some people are loading a WW2-era mortar, but maybe the shell is degraded or poorly made or whatever and the bomb detonates immediately after hitting the firing pin, while it's still in the tube. I'll assume that everyone standing within a few meters is immediately dead. Would the bodies be identifiable/recoverable, or just blasted to smithereens? Assuming there were remains, would they be burned at all? I always associate "explosion" with "fire", but it seems like concussive force would be the real killer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:Hypothetical (and grisly, be warned!) situation: let's say some people are loading a WW2-era mortar, but maybe the shell is degraded or poorly made or whatever and the bomb detonates immediately after hitting the firing pin, while it's still in the tube. I'll assume that everyone standing within a few meters is immediately dead. Would the bodies be identifiable/recoverable, or just blasted to smithereens? Assuming there were remains, would they be burned at all? I always associate "explosion" with "fire", but it seems like concussive force would be the real killer. They'd probably be recognizable unless they had the bad luck to lose their faces. Even normal mortar impacts don't usually turn bodies into unrecognizable meat chunks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Concussive force also doesn't have the range of fragments. It'll mess someone up really good close to it, but the power of it drops rapidly over distance. Fragments and shrapnel from an explosion are less likely to strike you the further out you are, but they maintain that danger/lethality to a longer distance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Edit: There haven't been many straight up tank vs tank fights bigger than misc. forces after World war 2. I can think of the Six day war, Yom Kippur, India-Pakistan in 65', Iran-Iraq, and Desert Storm. Im sure random T55s and stuff have been engaging each other for the past 50 years all across Africa. In the Ogaden War Somali deployed over 250 tanks, mostly T55s, in a mechanized offensive across a desert plateau. Ethiopia started with M-41s and M-47s but by the end of the war also had several formations of Cuban T-62s and probably more from the Soviets. Unfortunately I haven't seen any detailed accounts actual engagements so it's hard to tell what sort of ranges were like. I believe the early stages of the war were dominated by Somali armored thrusts against infantry in fortified positions, with Ethiopian F-5s wrecking Somali formations from the air. There must have been several big engagements towards the end when Cuban and Ethiopian forces swept the Somalis back across the border but I haven't read any clear descriptions of what engagements were like, both governments at the time were terribly unreliable in terms of their reports. Edit: out of curiosity I started looking for first hand accounts of combat in the Ogaden War, and while I didn't find any I did find this impressive footage of what looks like armored combat from the Eritrean War of Independence, which I did not expect to look so conventional. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGf0gOjh7p0&t=1294s Unfortunately I think it's in Tigrayan, but the images are compelling on their own. I've set the video to start at a point where you can see various armored vehicles firing tracers across the hills, although they don't seem to take return fire so its hard to tell what's happening. There's lots of footage of tanks shooting in other engagements earlier, and shots of tanks blasted apart, although they could be Eritrean vehicles hit by the Ethiopian airforce. There's several shots of them dropping what look like thermobaric bombs I also also found this cool Somali (presumably by a Somali American?) about the Ogaden war. Although it does celebrate war crimes  Based posted:Yo, u hear dat Ogaden war Racks remix? Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Longtime lurker, first time posting. First I want thank everyone in this thread that made an effort post. I learned a lot of things I would have never known about. Second I don't know if submarines (specifically ww2 subs) can withstand any damage or how that works? I know that carriers and other ships have damage control teams. But is it the same on submarines?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Mtthnsly posted:Longtime lurker, first time posting. First I want thank everyone in this thread that made an effort post. I learned a lot of things I would have never known about. I'm positive, say, US Navy submarines would have damage control teams, and I'm sure all the other nation's subs could do damage control as well. That said, a submarine protects itself by hiding - if a sub is damaged enough it can't dive, it's usually hosed. Or if its damaged so that it keeps diving and can't be repaired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm positive, say, US Navy submarines would have damage control teams, and I'm sure all the other nation's subs could do damage control as well. That said, a submarine protects itself by hiding - if a sub is damaged enough it can't dive, it's usually hosed. Or if its damaged so that it keeps diving and can't be repaired. Thanks for the quick reply! I guess more what I'm asking what damage can a submarine withstand and still be operational or at least be able to call for help?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Mtthnsly posted:Thanks for the quick reply! I guess more what I'm asking what damage can a submarine withstand and still be operational or at least be able to call for help? submarines have a lot of similar systems to surface vessels when it comes to damage control. They've got pumps, they can seal off rooms, etc. Depending on how much damage they take, how deep they are, etc, it's not uncommon for a submarine to be damaged by a depth charge and have to surface (and surrender). They're not instantly killed by damage, but it can often mean they can't carry out their mission. Minor damage can make them noisy, major damage can cause them to have to surface (which renders them pretty helpless against actual surface ships), and catastrophic damage will obviously sink them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Subs also have the problem of damaged batteries reacting with salt water, producing toxic fumes. Das Boot has a few great scenes about this kind of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Mtthnsly posted:Second I don't know if submarines (specifically ww2 subs) can withstand any damage or how that works? I know that carriers and other ships have damage control teams. But is it the same on submarines? Suprisingly, they could take quite a bit of damage, as long as the pressure hull holds. Modern subs involve a lot of damage control drills, and the German's trained constantly while under transit to the US coast during the Second Happy Time (a lot of crash dive drills, aircraft drills, damage control drills, etc.) Mtthnsly posted:Thanks for the quick reply! I guess more what I'm asking what damage can a submarine withstand and still be operational or at least be able to call for help? Generally, they don't want to call for help. Especially mid-1942 the US Navy and Royal Navy started using direction finders to hunt down subs that were responding to base. General German tactics for post attack were: 1. Dive, to the bottom if its shallow enough. 2. Bring electric motors online and 'scoot' slowly away to deeper waters Donitz was enforcing specific tactics for U-Boats off the US coast: Stay on the bottom during the day, and then surface and hunt at night. This was pretty effective especially during the first few months of 1942 because there was no real enforcement of coastal lighting yet, and the US Navy didn't have the ships yet to enforce convoy systems on the coast until later in 42. If they were spotted or being harrassed, the only real thing you could do was either hope they'd lose you or lose interest, or else you'd just need to try to get out of the area as slowly and quietly as possible. Its rather ironic, because we were just discussing this in the Shipwreck Ask/Tell thread. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
My impression (and maybe this is just Das Boot) is that surface ships can suffer a wide variety of damage that isn't lethal, whereas with U boats it's much more either/or. You could lose individual turrets, lose fire control, lose radar, get holes in dozens of chambers, lose individual engines, lose the bridge, get the front party of the ship lopped off... and still limp back to port. Whereas with a submarine, the margin between 'barely a scratch' and 'bottom of the sea with all hands lost' is far thinner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:My impression (and maybe this is just Das Boot) is that surface ships can suffer a wide variety of damage that isn't lethal, whereas with U boats it's much more either/or. You could lose individual turrets, lose fire control, lose radar, get holes in dozens of chambers, lose individual engines, lose the bridge, get the front party of the ship lopped off... and still limp back to port. Whereas with a submarine, the margin between 'barely a scratch' and 'bottom of the sea with all hands lost' is far thinner. Its a lot easier to kill a Submarine, for sure. It only takes one or two hits with a depth charge. But for the most part, if the sub successfully dives, and makes it to a sufficient depth, unless you have really good tracking equipment (like the US Navy lacked early in the war during 42) you could lose them easily. But if the sub is caught on the surface, especially by aircraft, its usally a good bet you are going to get sunk. 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Is that a size comparison chart or...
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Speaking of sub movies vs. sub reality I was very disappointed to learn there's only been one sub vs. sub combat in history. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Is that a size comparison chart or... While the submarine is impressive I think the crewman five times the size of Florida might be the more effective weapon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
zoux posted:Speaking of sub movies vs. sub reality I was very disappointed to learn there's only been one sub vs. sub combat in history. Yup. But hey, cheer yourself up and go lookup German Surface Raiders. Pretty neat history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Kormoran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Atlantis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Pinguin OwlFancier posted:While the submarine is impressive I think the crewman five times the size of Florida might be the more effective weapon. "Ze Allies will never suspect our new micro subs, manned by midgets!" CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
What are some other pop culture/movie myths about the military that are fake? Here's one: you can't blow up a propane tank by shooting it with any kind of bullet. Every action movie and video game ruined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
I feel like it'd be easier to make a list of things that pop culture/Hollywood gets RIGHT about the military/spies/whatever
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
zoux posted:Speaking of sub movies vs. sub reality I was very disappointed to learn there's only been one sub vs. sub combat in history. Speaking of sub movies I've been told second hand from submariners that the only movie true to the service is Down Periscope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:I feel like it'd be easier to make a list of things that pop culture/Hollywood gets RIGHT about the military/spies/whatever Yeah but I don't want to watch Come and See.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:While the submarine is impressive I think the crewman five times the size of Florida might be the more effective weapon. Seaman Manhattan
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
zoux posted:Speaking of sub movies vs. sub reality I was very disappointed to learn there's only been one sub vs. sub combat in history. Only one submersed submarine sinking another submersed submarine, you mean. There have been more cases of a submarine surprising a surfaced enemy submarine. And then there have been submarines crashing into each other, sometimes with fatal consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-129_(1960) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-219
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:
The lesson here is don't get onto a Soviet Sub with a 2 a 1 or a 9 in the designation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Only one submersed submarine sinking another submersed submarine, you mean. There have been more cases of a submarine surprising a surfaced enemy submarine. And then there have been submarines crashing into each other, sometimes with fatal consequences Yeah that's what I meant. Is underwater sub combat even something they train for in the submarine service?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah that's what I meant. Yes, that's what contemporary attack submarines are intended to do, to catch enemy missile boats before they can release their nuclear missiles, and also escort friendly surface ships against enemy attack subs. In WW2 it was more of a theoretical possibility because there wasn't a practical way of locating a submerged boat until late in the war with better sonars and acoustic torpedos. Oh, and there's a few more WW2 instances of submarines sinking submerged submarines in combat, but those were due to the launched torpedo, fired at a surface vessel, circling back to the submarine due to a damaged gyroscope or in the case of German acoustic torpedos, the sub being the loudest detected noise source. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:While the submarine is impressive I think the crewman five times the size of Florida might be the more effective weapon. He's drunk on torpedo fuel and passed out in the mess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:He's drunk on torpedo fuel and passed out in the mess. Was brewing up some torpedo fuel hooch just an American submariner thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Was brewing up some torpedo fuel hooch just an American submariner thing? I think so. The Germans used either kerosene for fuel or batteries. The think the Long Lance used methanol?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Was brewing up some torpedo fuel hooch just an American submariner thing? Probably. Most other nations' navies weren't dry like the USN. The British and Australians used to be able to barter for supplies by trading whisky to American crews. That's not to say there wasn't illicit drinking going on in those navies. One example that comes to mind was an Australian petty officer catching some of his ship's crew passing beer into the ship through the (empty) sonar dome mounting while the ship was in dry dock. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Mtthnsly posted:Thanks for the quick reply! I guess more what I'm asking what damage can a submarine withstand and still be operational or at least be able to call for help? This much.  quote:Normal procedure was to leave the main air induction valve open until the engines had a chance to come to a full stop, this operation being so timed as to occur just prior to complete submergence. In the case of S-5, however, the chief of the boat, Gunner's Mate Percy Fox, the man responsible for operating this valve, was momentarily distracted. Noticing the mistake, he grabbed the valve lever and jerked hard, causing the valve to jam open. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 17:43
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Speaking of Navy chat. Have there been any ship-on-ship engagements since WWII that don't involve patrol craft or anything of that class? What I mean is, has there been an instance where a Destroyer from one navy fired on another? I thought the Falklands War might have had something along those lines, but it appears the British sank a chunk of the Argentinean navy before they could get close enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Speaking of Navy chat. Have there been any ship-on-ship engagements since WWII that don't involve patrol craft or anything of that class? What I mean is, has there been an instance where a Destroyer from one navy fired on another? I thought the Falklands War might have had something along those lines, but it appears the British sank a chunk of the Argentinean navy before they could get close enough. The Indians and Pakistanis clashed a few times at sea in the 70s. Notable for being some of the first uses of ship to ship missiles in combat. Destroyers and frigates mostly from what I recall. The US also used naval aircraft off CVNs to gently caress up some Libyan ships in the late 70s or early 80s if you're counting carrier ops. I'm pretty sure that involved killing some old destroyers or something of that magnitude. edit: pretty sure there have been some submarine attacks on surface vessels too. I think I recall that being part of the India-Pakistan dust up, and more recently you have the DPRK torpedoing an ROK ship, but I can't remember how big that one was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:edit: pretty sure there have been some submarine attacks on surface vessels too. I think I recall that being part of the India-Pakistan dust up, and more recently you have the DPRK torpedoing an ROK ship, but I can't remember how big that one was. And, of course, the Belgrano in the post you're replying to!  With a World War 2 vintage torpedo in the 80s no less, since the new ones were deemed a bit shonky by the sub's captain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Was brewing up some torpedo fuel hooch just an American submariner thing? Hell sometimes you didn't even need to brew it up if you were a man who takes his vodka with a splash of oil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Guessing this is a case where the torpedoes run on ethanol fuel? Seem to remember there's a soviet fighter jet that needed ethanol to run too, achieving similar results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
There was an endless arms race between the military denaturing the alcohol and conscripted chemistry students finding ways to make it drinkable again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:58
|
|