|
Greggster posted:But what if they had heavier armour and the shield strapped to one of their arms instead? Then they would be a lot less terrifying.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 13:15 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:43 |
|
If they were going to invest in tanks they'd obviously pick a BT-5 or BT-7.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 13:33 |
|
JcDent posted:Can't drink the blood of a Panzer I, nor can you make its milk into an alcoholic drink. i beg to differ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_juice
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 13:39 |
|
Carcer posted:I'm not an expert but I suspect its because they wanted to be able to quickly swap between bows at range and swords/spears/axes up close. I assume stowing a shield on a moving horse would complicate this somewhat. This would be my guess, but otoh cataphracts also had spears, bows, and swords, but in addition they used shields too. Greggster posted:But what if they had heavier armour and the shield strapped to one of their arms instead? MikeCrotch posted:The mongols went round in herds with 4-5 horses per warrior so I can't imagine barding was really an option. Mongols used bardings, but probably only wealthy people could afford them. Mounted mongols didn't use shields, but their camp guards had small, round wicker shields, and their infantry used large rectangular shields when assaulting cities.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 13:56 |
|
mongols didn't use shields because they weren't cowards
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 14:06 |
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:mongols didn't use shields because they weren't cowards
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 14:16 |
|
Those dumb Mongols not using shields, this must be why they always did so badly in battles.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 14:55 |
|
Gnoman posted:after Dunkirk. With the near-total los of the BEF's equipment Ensign Expendable posted:The 6-pdr didn't have an HE shell either though. If all you want is AP performance, then the 2-pdr was fine against all but the newest German tanks with 50 mm armour. Also, I know of modern discarding-sabot darts, APCR/HVAP, and squeeze-bore guns; was there ever an AT gun that took a bigger-artillery case and necked it down to a smaller AP shell, in the vein of wildcat rifle cartridges like the .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer? Like, say, a 2pdr shell with the powder load of a 17pdr (thought that particular combination may run into the same physical limits as the .22 EgsLB, namely the projectile vaporizing before it leaves the barrel)? If not, why hasn't some eccentric rich person had one made yet? (.22 Eargesplitten was part of the race to get a rifle bullet over 5000fps; for comparison, the APFSDS round from the Rheinmetall 120mm does a mile a second and then some.) OTOH, maybe Ackley was going the wrong direction with his overpowered .22 -- as the Rheinmetall gun proves, a big bore and small saboted bullet is the way to go, rather than putting a big boom in a small tube. zoux posted:Whoops you just accidentally summed up the entire history of military procurement. There really should be a smiley that links to The Pentagon Wars. Hogge Wild posted:Why didn't Mongol cavalry use shields? Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Apr 20, 2017 |
# ? Apr 20, 2017 14:57 |
Delivery McGee posted:Tangent: I've heard from old dudes (e.g., my father) that Dunkirk was the main reason No.4 Enfields were more common on the market than No.1 MkIII* when said old dudes were my age.Was it really so dire that soldiers were abandoning their rifles, or more a glut of rifles from the more recent war being sold off as the Brits transitioned to FALs, with the vast majority of the WWI-1940-vintage model having been sent to the colonies during the war and still in service 30 years ago when Dad was collecting guns? (Dunkirk happened while they were retooling for the No.4, which was issued beginning in '41. And the recent ~10 years ago glut of SMLEs was because India finally got rid of 'em.)
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:14 |
|
I could never make it as a Mongol because I could neither drink fresh horse blood nor fermented mare's milk.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:21 |
|
Koramei posted:Those dumb Mongols not using shields, this must be why they always did so badly in battles. They did use shields sometimes, the primary reason they did not was because they were archers and its a pain in the rear end to deal with a big shield on horseback and also use your bow. They did use lancers as well and I think those guys used shields decently often. you can see the dude with the spear has a shield, but everyone else does not, so he went into that fight knowing his job and did not bring his bow.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:32 |
|
zoux posted:I could never make it as a Mongol because I could neither drink fresh horse blood nor fermented mare's milk. that you know of
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:33 |
|
HEY GAIL posted:that you know of don't kinkshame
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:47 |
|
You mean that wasn't borscht
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:49 |
|
Canadians should note that Moose to Horse conversion is not on a 1-to-1 basis and steps should be taken to insure you don't come down with Neigh Fever.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:51 |
|
Delivery McGee posted:
Off the top of my head, there was a project where a 14.5 mm bullet was put in a 45 mm shell casing and one with a 25 mm shell in a 45 mm casing.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:56 |
Also in weird rounds, the 7.92×107mm DS round for the Wz. 35 anti-tank rifle. They took the same "high velocity is key" thinking in a rifle form.
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 16:13 |
So I am assembling the war diary of the 2nd Boer War British soldier right now the transcription from paper to digital compelte, getting the relevant images from Wikimedia commons. If any goon has ever had the urge to break out a brief colonial history of South Africa and the Boer Wars now would be good timing.
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 16:18 |
|
Hogge Wild posted:Why didn't Mongol cavalry use shields? Shhhh, they did.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 16:30 |
Delivery McGee posted:
Missed this earlier. There is a fundamental difference between the constraints on a personal small arm as opposed to those of an anti-tank gun, primarily due to the size of the projectile. The most fundamental limitation on muzzle velocity (because, among other things, it critically affects how much powder you can burn) is the ratio of barrel length to bore diameter, generally expressed in "calibers long". If you look at a lot of artillery, you'll see things like "75mm L/70", which means that the bore is 75mm, and the gun is 70 times longer than it is wide. For personal arms, this is never a problem. The barrel on a 5.56mm L/70 would be only around 39 CM long, which is a very short rifle or absurdly long pistol. The sort of .22 rifle that I (and a huge number of other people) learned to shoot as a kid tends to have a 20" barrel, which works out to an L/90. In other words, for personal small arms, you can always fit a long enough barrel to get the muzzle velocity you want. However, cartridges become a huge hassle to deal with if they get too long, because that stretches the part of the gun you're directly manipulating. So bottlenecks become a very attractive option. For AT guns, the story's a bit different. The 75mm L/70 on the Panther was 5.25 meters long, and your hypothetical 2-pounder would probably have to be at least an L/100 to use up that much powder, clocking it in at a 4 meter barrel. Guns this long are incredibly impractical for actual direct-fire use, making the weapon incredibly difficult to conceal (for towed guns and TDs) and causing huge mobility problems (for tanks). However, the length of the round is usually not that big an issue because you can always use two-piece ammo if you need to. Thus, it is better not to use bottlenecks because that complicates manufacturing and storage.
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 16:53 |
|
And after all the reasons not to... They did. It's called the Littlejohn adapter. Turned the 2 pdr into a squeeze bore.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 17:17 |
Squeeze bore and Discarding Sabot rounds are something different. Both are just ways of firing a smaller projectile out of a large barrel, and get their effect by a lighter projectile instead of increased powder.
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 17:24 |
|
Gnoman posted:Missed this earlier. Case size is still an issue, compare the cases of the 75/L70, the 76mm M1A2 and the 17lbr. Also a longer breach means more space inside of the turret at less space for crew. The long case of the 75/L70 combined with the size of the breach significantly impacted the RoF of the Panther.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 17:33 |
|
The Littlejohn actually put a regular 40mm shell in but it had a soft wrapper around a hard core and got squeezed down to just 30mm by the time it left the bore. It also turned out that the shell was just as good fired without the adapter and by this point they actually had some HE shells around for the Tetrarch so crews tended to lose it.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 17:38 |
|
I think this pic is a reconstruction of the equipment that they found on the Kulikovo battlefield
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 17:38 |
|
Gnoman posted:Missed this earlier. Haha, yeah, L/100 is nuts, nobody would ever design that. Except Germany. Germany did.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 17:56 |
|
Greggster posted:But what if they had heavier armour and the shield strapped to one of their arms instead? The Mongols would have loved British Cruiser tanks.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 18:05 |
|
I think a lot of mongols just didn't want to spend money on horse armor on principle, when you could get it from a mod for free
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 18:22 |
|
The Russians had a L/93 with the PTRD, and the Poles had an L/151 with the WZ.35 Anti-Tank rifle!
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 18:28 |
Taerkar posted:The long case of the 75/L70 combined with the size of the breach significantly impacted the RoF of the Panther. That is because they insisted on keeping one-piece ammo. Most of the time guns at that power level used two-piece ammo, were you shove in the round then shove in the charge. Of course, the Panther can pretty accurately be described as "Bad decisions: The Tank", so that's nothing unusual.
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:13 |
|
I thought tanks loaded from the rear, as in, the entire back comes off the breech and you just stick a round in and close it again like a break open shotgun, rather than a big side loading rifle? Why does the size of the shell matter greatly?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:17 |
This should very clearly illustrate the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXYRQjzZZbk
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:19 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I thought tanks loaded from the rear, as in, the entire back comes off the breech and you just stick a round in and close it again like a break open shotgun, rather than a big side loading rifle? A Panther's round is really long, and the turret is not that big. Plus, the round starts out not parallel to the breech, and you have to flip it around so that it's aligned properly. Add the fact that it takes 10 seconds to get a round off the rack (at least in the BAOR tests where they admit they might have hosed up the clips), the loading process takes a while.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:24 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I thought tanks loaded from the rear, as in, the entire back comes off the breech and you just stick a round in and close it again like a break open shotgun, rather than a big side loading rifle? It's a big, long heavy thing that you're trying to manipulate and move inside a small, cramped space that has tons of things for it to hit or get hung up on. Basically imagine trying to hand a scuba tank to the front seat of a sedan from the back seat, only pissed russians are shooting at you.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:24 |
|
Oh so they're just big and awkward to lug around. I thought it was like, you had difficulty getting it into the breech like if the gun was using a big bolt action and you had to wangle the round down sideways into the chamber. I guess looking at the size of it I can see why a two piece round would probably be faster even if you have to find two pieces and load them both.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:27 |
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Off the top of my head, there was a project where a 14.5 mm bullet was put in a 45 mm shell casing and one with a 25 mm shell in a 45 mm casing. Was not the ZIS-2 57mm round a ZIS-3 76mm necked down too ?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:28 |
|
Kafouille posted:Was not the ZIS-2 57mm round a ZIS-3 76mm necked down too ? I don't think so. They used the same mount though.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:31 |
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's a big, long heavy thing that you're trying to manipulate and move inside a small, cramped space that has tons of things for it to hit or get hung up on. Basically imagine trying to hand a scuba tank to the front seat of a sedan from the back seat, only pissed russians are shooting at you. That's a great image.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:48 |
Cyrano4747 posted:It's a big, long heavy thing that you're trying to manipulate and move inside a small, cramped space that has tons of things for it to hit or get hung up on. Basically imagine trying to hand a scuba tank to the front seat of a sedan from the back seat, only pissed russians are shooting at you. This is a fantastic explanation. I can see why it makes such a big difference. How many times are you expected to do this during a battle? Is physical exhaustion a major factor in battle for these soldiers?
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 21:14 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:43 |
|
Eela6 posted:This is a fantastic explanation. I can see why it makes such a big difference. How many times are you expected to do this during a battle? Is physical exhaustion a major factor in battle for these soldiers? A few dozen times per battle, at least. There's a recollection either in Sledgehammers or in Tigers in Normandy about a Tiger loader collapsing from exhaustion in the middle of a battle. They managed to get a new one though.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2017 21:21 |