Military History Mk. III: One that I know of is an archaic word for dick, another is

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Military History Mk. III: One that I know of is an archaic word for dick, another is

«‹›1216 »

Hunt11: Jul 24, 2013; Grimey Drawer

Greggster posted:

But what if they had heavier armour and the shield strapped to one of their arms instead?

Maybe that would get too heavy for one horse, they should've had two horses and a chariot instead.

Or maybe that could limit their mobility if one horse died... Why didnt the mongols put barding on their horses?

Tbh they should've invested in tanks.
Imagine mongols invading medieval europe on top of Panzer Is, that would be loving rad.

Then they would be a lot less terrifying.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 13:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 10:26

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

If they were going to invest in tanks they'd obviously pick a BT-5 or BT-7.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 13:33

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

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

Hogge Wild: Aug 21, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Pillbug

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?

Maybe that would get too heavy for one horse, they should've had two horses and a chariot instead.

Or maybe that could limit their mobility if one horse died... Why didnt the mongols put barding on their horses?

Tbh they should've invested in tanks.
Imagine mongols invading medieval europe on top of Panzer Is, that would be loving rad.

MikeCrotch posted:

The mongols went round in herds with 4-5 horses per warrior so I can't imagine barding was really an option.

In any case the real mongol strength was their strategic mobility - essentially they always wanted to fight a battle at a time and place of their choosing, so having soldiers & horses with a bunch of heavy equipment (assuming that was possible for them, which it probably wasn't) was not in their interest.

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

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

mongols didn't use shields because they weren't cowards

# ? Apr 20, 2017 14:06

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

mongols didn't use shields because they weren't cowards

# ? Apr 20, 2017 14:16

Koramei: Nov 11, 2011; I have three regrets
The first is to be born in Joseon.

Those dumb Mongols not using shields, this must be why they always did so badly in battles.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 14:55

Chillbro Baggins: Oct 8, 2004; Bad Angus! Bad!

Gnoman posted:

after Dunkirk. With the near-total los of the BEF's equipment

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.)

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 the Soviets put a 76 mm gun into the Matilda and there was a project to put an 85 mm gun into the Valentine somehow, a small turret ring is not an issue if you believe in yourself.

Watching the Chieftan's Hatch (in which Wargaming.net's tank historian/former tanker does reviews of tanks featured in the videogame) is fuckin' hilarious. Soviet tanks were built around a smaller standard crewman than the American ones, and the presenter is a lanky 6-foot-tall Irishman. In a lot of the more cramped vehicles (Soviet and German), he folds away the seat and kneels on the floor in certain stations. If the seat doesn't move, he'll have his head cocked over and one shoulder touching the turret roof. :v:

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? :getin:

(.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.

~~Kinda surprised the discarding sabot concept wasn't invented sooner.~~ The French developed it and were just beginning to issue it before the Nazis took over, the Brits made further developments and fielded it in '44. You don't hear about those much because they were in extremely short supply in WWII, because tungsten was scarce.

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?

They went for the light and fast version of cav, as opposed to armored cuirassiers/lancers. So basically the equivalent of Vietnam-era airmobile 1CAV vs. modern 1CAV driving around in M1A1s.

Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Apr 20, 2017

# ? Apr 20, 2017 14:57

Gnoman: Feb 12, 2014; Come, all you fair and tender maids
Who flourish in your pri-ime
Beware, take care, keep your garden fair
Let Gnoman steal your thy-y-me
Le-et Gnoman steal your thyme

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.)

I'm not sure about rifles, but would be highly surprised if they were not left behind. Every three or four rifles carried could potentially be one more man (space wise, weight wasn't the main problem), and there was a truly epic number of men to cram onto the evac ships.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:14

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

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

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

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

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

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

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

HEY GAIL posted:

that you know of

don't kinkshame

# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:47

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

You mean that wasn't borscht

# ? Apr 20, 2017 15:49

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

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

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

Delivery McGee posted:

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.

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

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

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

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

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

Power Khan: Aug 20, 2011; by Fritz the Horse

Hogge Wild posted:

Why didn't Mongol cavalry use shields?

Shhhh, they did.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 16:30

Gnoman: Feb 12, 2014; Come, all you fair and tender maids
Who flourish in your pri-ime
Beware, take care, keep your garden fair
Let Gnoman steal your thy-y-me
Le-et Gnoman steal your thyme

Delivery McGee posted:

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.

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

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

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

Gnoman: Feb 12, 2014; Come, all you fair and tender maids
Who flourish in your pri-ime
Beware, take care, keep your garden fair
Let Gnoman steal your thy-y-me
Le-et Gnoman steal your thyme

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

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Gnoman 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.

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

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

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

Power Khan: Aug 20, 2011; by Fritz the Horse

I think this pic is a reconstruction of the equipment that they found on the Kulikovo battlefield

# ? Apr 20, 2017 17:38

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

Gnoman 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.

Haha, yeah, L/100 is nuts, nobody would ever design that.

Except Germany. Germany did.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 17:56

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Greggster posted:

But what if they had heavier armour and the shield strapped to one of their arms instead?

Maybe that would get too heavy for one horse, they should've had two horses and a chariot instead.

Or maybe that could limit their mobility if one horse died... Why didnt the mongols put barding on their horses?

Tbh they should've invested in tanks.
Imagine mongols invading medieval europe on top of Panzer Is, that would be loving rad.

The Mongols would have loved British Cruiser tanks.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 18:05

Ainsley McTree: Feb 19, 2004

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

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

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

Gnoman: Feb 12, 2014; Come, all you fair and tender maids
Who flourish in your pri-ime
Beware, take care, keep your garden fair
Let Gnoman steal your thy-y-me
Le-et Gnoman steal your thyme

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

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

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

Gnoman: Feb 12, 2014; Come, all you fair and tender maids
Who flourish in your pri-ime
Beware, take care, keep your garden fair
Let Gnoman steal your thy-y-me
Le-et Gnoman steal your thyme

This should very clearly illustrate the problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXYRQjzZZbk

# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:19

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

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?

Why does the size of the shell matter greatly?

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

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

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?

Why does the size of the shell matter greatly?

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

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

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

Kafouille: Nov 5, 2004; Think Fast !

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

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

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

Xerxes17: Feb 17, 2011

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

Eela6: May 25, 2007; Shredded Hen

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 10:26

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

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

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Military History Mk. III: One that I know of is an archaic word for dick, another is

«‹›1216 »