|
So really it's the culmination of western technological advancement.
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
The hard part is cocking the PIAT initially. Reloading it isn't too hard assuming it doesn't malfunction.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
The really hard part with any complicated equipment in field conditions is making it not malfunction.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
I dunno if the piat counts as complicated given that it's a mortar where the firing pin is spring loaded.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:particularly late war, once use of the VT radar fuse was authorized against infantry  Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:18
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:
Makes for really convenient airburst barrages.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
When an HE shell hits the ground and explodes, most of the destructive force is wasted, as the fragments go uselessly into the ground. The first method of solving this was a time fuse, but small differences in the flight time of each given shell meant that this was still suboptimal even with very precise fuses, as the shell would still burst too low (spreading all the fragments in a fairly small area, minimizing how widely they can do damage) or too high (spreading the fragments so widely that they do little damage). Using a radar proximity fuse (which was named Variable Time or VT during the war as a disinformation measure), you can set your shells to explode at exactly the right distance from the ground. By doing so, your shells do the maximum possible amount of damage to infantry - massively higher than was done before. Anglo-American research projects perfected the shell fairly early in the war, but it was immediately highly classified and restricted to naval and Home Island air defense use for most of the war out of fear that the Germans would capture a dud and copy it. When this prohibition was lifted, and it was used against infantry, even hardened German troops found the result to be particularly horrific.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
I couldn't picture wtf a 1940s era radar proximity fuse would look like so here's a manual https://maritime.org/doc/vtfuze/index.htm Apparently the thing is mostly washers:  Digging the washer that is followed by a supporting washer
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
To be real, the efficacy of American artillery goes well beyond their technological advancements. American fire control was absolutely top-notch throughout the war, and it enabled poo poo like Mortain i.e., single US battalions holding off entire Panzer divisions through liberal usage of divisional and corps level artillery assets. Even in the early war, American artillery was the standout arm in a pretty green-rear end army. Kasserine Pass was the direct consequence of fumbled armour and infantry operations, but the Axis counterattack was severely limited by dug-in artillery crews.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
The main problem the Germans had wasn't lack of knowledge, it was lack of raw materials, lack of industry, and lack of time. Lack of raw materials limits your options for designs. It might mean you are stuck unable to build enough radios. Or it might mean that you don't have enough Tungsten to produce special AP rounds, which means you need to jam larger guns into your next generation of tanks to get the same penetrating effect, which means the turret ring has to be bigger, which means your tank has to be bigger, hey presto your Panther is now 50 tons hope you didn't want manoeuvrability. Insufficient industry is obvious - you have to pick and choose what you are going to build. Insufficient time is probably the biggest one - the Western Allies effectively get to spend 3 years picking and choosing where they fight while putting together the tools they want to liberate Europe at their own pace. The Germans on the other hand find themselves in a race from the start of Barbarossa to bring the war to a conclusion, and every tank, plane, and weapon system they have in development from then on is compromised in some way or another by the desperate need to get something to the front line that will provide a qualitative advantage. Pile Nazi incompetence and corruption on top of all that and it isn't surprising the Germans struggled to leverage their scientific knowledge into wartime technology.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:To be real, the efficacy of American artillery goes well beyond their technological advancements. American fire control was absolutely top-notch throughout the war, and it enabled poo poo like Mortain i.e., single US battalions holding off entire Panzer divisions through liberal usage of divisional and corps level artillery assets. Was that down to training, equipment or doctrine?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
InAndOutBrennan posted:
edit: did you ever hear the Tragedy of Wallenstein? I thought not. It's not a story the anti-Imperialists would tell you... HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:02 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Makes for really convenient airburst barrages. Ah, indeed airbursting is pretty sensible, for whatever reason I was imagining guns direct firing at individual people for some reason, which seemed like just an absurd level of overkill. A random factoid from wikipedia I encountered while trying to see how small a calibre munition proximity fuzes were actually used on: quote:A minor problem encountered by the British was that the fuses were sensitive enough to detonate the shell if it passed too close to a seagull and a number of seagull "kills" were recorded.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
I imagine if Nelson was alive today he'd sit in Trafalgar with a Bofors gun shooting at pigeons all day.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:04
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I imagine if Nelson was alive today he'd sit in Trafalgar with a Bofors gun shooting at pigeons all day. In between bouts of discovering the world of tinder and casual sex.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
I'm down with Big Gay Nelson and his antiaircraft love gun.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
He'd really be one of those guys who identifies themselves as pansexual but lets be honest, Horatio Nelson will bugger almost anything but a Hedgehog.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:oh FOR gently caress'S SAKE I should probably read up some more from the other side but OTOH i can recommend everything period centric from Peter Englund (and also everything else he's written). He's good at bringing up the small stories in all the craziness. Karl X, then a duke, hooked up with the rest of the guys at the siege of Prague and apparently got a personal letter telling him that the treaty had been signed in Osnabruck and Munster. So what do you do? You go out and tell your guys to push harder because you know that soon enough the official mail will come through and you have a day or two to actually take the city. Never got over the river but he did try. Also everything Lennart Torstenson. Fun times.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
i say this as someone who prefers imperialists, but torstensson owned ed: torstenssowns
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Today I was reading a book about the operations leading up to and including the attack on Berlin, and I was surprised to learn that White Russians were apparently involved in defending the city. Sure, it was in all likelihood a tiny contingent, but I'd thought that by that point any White Russian units were long gone. And I also found it interesting that the Red Army replenished their units with Soviet POWs freed from prisons. It's also grimly amusing that even at that late stage you still have a fair bit of backbiting and power plays going on among the German higher ups. Of course this book was written in 2005 so perhaps there's more to it than we knew at the time. Tangentially, can anyone tell me what the difference was between "shock" and regular Soviet formations and their role? It seems like it boils down to "higher allocation of artillery" (and later became an honourary title with no special significance) but I've got a feeling that there's more to it than that. Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 01:07 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:Was that down to training, equipment or doctrine? All three were in play. I don't know anything about training for artillery grunts, but the guys involved in fire control are all officers anyways, the gunners just moved shells and adjusted dials. Fire requests were at first limited to Field Observer officers, but during the war the army started to train all infantry officers and all members of Field Observer teams to make proper fire requests. The US was helped moreso by how much equipment they had than the specs of their guns/radios/shells. They were the only military that could afford to have radios all the way down to the platoon level, though I don't really know about the British. They were also producing/shipping enough shells that even platoon-level fire missions were permissable. For contrast, look to the Soviets, who organized artillery as army-level assets, and hoarded up ammunition primarily for massive preparatory barrages. In most WWII militaries, artillery fire was left up to the FO, and nobody else. An FO on the scene would look over their target, make some calculations, then call in the fire order and wait for the shells. Missions were left up to their discretion, meaning that anything outside of their view was going to be neglected. If the FO was knocked out, artillery wasn't available. These were well trained people, but the calculations were complicated and they took time. Time delay of artillery fire was variable, but usually on the order of 10 minutes. This wasn't a problem while defending, because you can pre-sight target areas and table the fire orders somewhere, but it made offensive artillery support awkward. Nazi Germany was actually one of these countries, as their artillery arm had been neglected during their '30s buildup. This is basically how WWI artillery operated. US fire control was centralized in the artillery battalion. Fire requests could be made by anybody, but the battalion had the final control over gun direction. At the battalion, the Fire Control Center would look over ordnance survey maps, and using preconfigured instruments and tables, quickly work out within 3 minutes how to direct their batteries. The FCC was linked up to divisional and corps level artillery assets as well, and could call guns from miles away on single targets, throughout the entire day. A favoured practice was "Time-on-target" missions, which called for all guns in a mission to fire at specific times to account for shell travel time. The effect was a devastating synchronized barrage, which the Germans learned to despise.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
^Fire Direction Center* During WW1, the Battery Commander was expected to direct the fire of his battery; he even had the "Battery Commander Scope" to help him observe and adjust rounds. For large-scale plans, preplanned and unobserved fires were possible thanks to advancements in gunnery to enable registration and the use of maps and photos. Counterbattery was possible utilizing sound ranging equipment and techniques. By WW2, the battery commander was expected to stay with the battery and the FO concept came about for observing fires. The FDC concept enabled the gunnery to be conducted in relative safety behind the lines, allowing the FO to stay mobile and respond rapidly up front with the infantry. Big issues for German artillery in WW2 included heavier pieces with limited prime movers (heavily reliance on horses throughout the war), neglect of artillery doctrine because it was believed that speed and mobility would make up for the loss of firepower, and low industrial prioritization (tanks and wonder weapons are much flashier), and the very way they organized their forces and conducted C2 of those forces.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
You've probably seen this so it's more for the people who don't watch this channel, but one of the guns InRangeTV mud tested was the Garand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6J5m4_Is_s It doesn't even fire the chambered round because mud goes straight into the cutout at the rear of the receiver and blocks the firing pin from being struck, and they need to thoroughly clean the gun to even eject the clip. Even when they're careful not to get mud in there, the operating rod having an open track on the side of the rifle makes it ridiculously easy to prevent the gun from firing as soon as it gets gunked up. They mud and sand tested the M14 as well (specifically an M1A in a Troy stock) and it had the same issues. Every single time they did the sand test, where they just blew sand from a mound next to the gun into the receiver as the shooter fired, the M14 jammed immediately and needed cleaning. Ironically, the only guns with a 100% reliability rate (firing every single round flawlessly) in the mud test were the AR-15, Luger, and CETME-L. The tight tolerances that are claimed to result in the AR-15 being easy to jam actually seal the gun from the elements and prevent mud and gunk from getting inside even if you smear it all over the bolt with the dust cover open.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Okay, so, I've had it claimed that heavy tanks in close-quarters with infantry, before the bazooka, didn't care and would be able to drive off without incident. This seems like complete bullshit to me, given that incidents of infantry who're been unable to maintain a defensive line against tanks and are forced to try and gently caress them up with mines, grenades, or molotovs show up all over the place on the eastern front. I mean, gently caress, even wikipedia seems to think close assault is a valid way of destroying tanks if you're SOL on anything else. Do I have this completely wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Two cents on Nazi aircraft: The He 219 was excellent as a night fighter. It is overshadowed admittedly by the Mosquito, which was better, but then the Mosquito was one of the war's best aircraft. Doesn't mean the He 219 was bad. The Mosquito, too, is a fast bomber that actually worked as a fast bomber (and a night fighter, recon aircraft, long range maritime fighter, etc.) The Pe-2 is another good example of a fast bomber/all rounder that was really good at its job. The Bf 110 did find niches it was in fact good at even if it was not a very good day fighter. The Bf 110 and the Ju 88, after all, decimated the RAF in their attempt to level Berlin. If we're talking about good aircraft the Germans had, the Ju 290 was quite good as well. There weren't many of them, but hey. Also the Fw 189: very good recon aircraft that showed a hell of a lot of flexibility. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Okay, so, I've had it claimed that heavy tanks in close-quarters with infantry, before the bazooka, didn't care and would be able to drive off without incident. This seems like complete bullshit to me, given that incidents of infantry who're been unable to maintain a defensive line against tanks and are forced to try and gently caress them up with mines, grenades, or molotovs show up all over the place on the eastern front. I mean, gently caress, even wikipedia seems to think close assault is a valid way of destroying tanks if you're SOL on anything else. Do I have this completely wrong? Depends on the tank and depends on whether it has infantry support. A tank with infantry against enemies who have no anti armour weapons is very useful because if anyone starts poo poo with you you can direct serious firepower at them, and improvised AT weapons are kind of a point blank affair. A tank with infantry against enemies carrying AT weapons is probably the first target. Part of the point of dedicated AT is that it's supposed to be more effective and it works out to about 100 yards with a bit of luck. The thing about thrown AT weapons is unless you nearly run over the enemy, you probably can just drive off if someone comes at you with them, you're probably somewhat faster than a guy with a bomb. Also, like, a Panzer 4 is different to say, a Heavy Churchill which is designed for infantry support and is armed and armoured appropriately, both are good to have but one of them is designed to be a massive brick with a big fuckoff HE cannon on the top for giving infantry extra oomph where they need it, and isn't a huge amount of use in other roles. So it's going to have infantry with it a lot of the time, whereas a medium tank might conceivably be used without infantry support and thus may be more vulnerable to ambush as tanks have kind of poor visibility. Though that said I still wouldn't want to do it because a lot of tanks have hull mounted MGs on them and they also often come with little gun ports for the crew to shoot out of. Not super effectively but, like, a tank is still a heavily armored bunker full of angry men with guns. Not something you'd approach lightly. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:11 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends on the tank and depends on whether it has infantry support. A tank with infantry against enemies who have no anti armour weapons is very useful because if anyone starts poo poo with you you can direct serious firepower at them, and improvised AT weapons are kind of a point blank affair. A tank with infantry against enemies carrying AT weapons is probably the first target. Part of the point of dedicated AT is that it's supposed to be more effective and it works out to about 100 yards with a bit of luck. The thing about thrown AT weapons is unless you nearly run over the enemy, you probably can just drive off if someone comes at you with them, you're probably somewhat faster than a guy with a bomb. Yeah, this is specifically arguing about the implausibility of heavy tanks operating without infantry support attacking infantry without purpose-made AT weapons in close combat. My feeling is that's a drat stupid thing to do because that's just begging for the infantry to chuck a bunch of grenades on the engine deck or molotovs down the hatch or whatever they can grab quickest at the time, whereas apparently that never happens and tanks are more or less invulnerable unless you've got a bazooka or a panzerfaust or whatever. The range here is very short and the tank is very isolated. I'll grant not pleasant for the infantry, either, but it seems like a real dumb-rear end move for the tank to make. Didn't some tiger IIs get knocked out by infantry with some of these kinds of shenanigans in west pomerania?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
It would be... a bit silly to send tanks in unescorted into dense terrain populated by infantry yes, not least because the infantry will probably just avoid the tanks if they can't kill them. Sure the tanks can push the infantry off perhaps but then you've just got tanks sitting in the middle of nowhere surrounded by the enemy who are probably mobilizing to blow them up. They're not just going to sit twiddling their thumbs wondering what to do about the tanks.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:20 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
The only place I can see tanks without infantry support working out in any degree are large mostly empty plains.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Not even there. Anti-tank foxholes are a pretty universal solution: dig a tiny hole for one man that's impossible to see from a tank, the tank drives over it, the guy gets up and flings a grenade onto the tank's engine deck.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
If you need examples of what happens when you send tanks places and don't screen with infantry look no further than practically any place Russian export tanks have been used against their own people in the middle east ever.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Hell, the drawbacks that the Garand had are all part of the reason why the M14 was in turn such a lackluster rifle when it comes to making a target gun. I'm a little surprised to hear that, didn't the Marines convert a bunch of M14s into DMRs?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:I'm a little surprised to hear that, didn't the Marines convert a bunch of M14s into DMRs? M14s are a bastard to accurize. There's a great article about it that I'm hoping a TFR regular has on tap. Once sccurized they need a lot of babysitting to stay that way. The only reason you see marines using them in that role in Afghanistan is due to concerns about reaching out to range with 556. Its really not a great platform for that work
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Not even there. Anti-tank foxholes are a pretty universal solution: dig a tiny hole for one man that's impossible to see from a tank, the tank drives over it, the guy gets up and flings a grenade onto the tank's engine deck. Doesn't that rely on the track driving directly over your tiny foxhole? You'd need a lot of people if you're trying to cover somewhere with wide open approaches (like a plain). In city fighting is it practical for tanks to just drive through buildings that get in their way? Or is there to much risk of the building collapsing and pinning the tank under the rubble?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
your average infantry company has a lot more dudes than a tank battalion has vehicles. You can afford to spread the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:M14s are a bastard to accurize. There's a great article about it that I'm hoping a TFR regular has on tap. Once sccurized they need a lot of babysitting to stay that way. Huh. Why go to all the trouble, then? Was it something like "we needed something semi-auto, full-size rifle cartridge, not too big" and there was nothing else available? If you find that article, I'd be grateful if you posted the link.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
More or less. I'll see if I can dig it up. Phone posting ATM
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Ah hah googled it up. Well either it or one that quotes heavily the one I remember reading. Good enough http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Really the largest issue is how the gun beds into the stock. The Garand has the same issue. Take it apart too much and you fuckthe bedding which fucks accuracy. It also has issues with how the hand guards interact with the barrel. This isn't great in a 1930s iron sighted battle rifle with an accuracy acceptance of about 5 MOA but you can live with it, doubly so if it's a reliable semi auto in a world of bolt actions. For a sniper rifle though it's a poo poo situation.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Ah hah googled it up. Well either it or one that quotes heavily the one I remember reading. Good enough 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 05:38
|
|
