|
Phobophilia posted:jfc i want to go back in time and steal it all Bad news, Hitler already stole the copper to pay for meth.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:I'm having a hard time picturing FDR giving a poo poo about what engine is in the B-29. Was Hitler's interest in micromanaging unique? I think Lincoln selected the design for the Monitor. Although he tried not to micromanage, there were times when he should have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Was the Monitor the first war ship with a turret?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
HMS Trusty came a little earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Did... did the Nazis seriously think that the Detroit Tank Arsenal was the only place in America building tanks? It wasn't even the only place building tanks in Detroit! Two things: 1) USA had very little pre-war tank production, and locations of the tank factories that sprung up since then weren't announced in newspapers or radio so it's probably outdated pre-war intelligence 2) you'd have to look at the source of the information in that table, in this case one official at the Reich air ministry for the purpose of judging what kind of range would be needed So it's one engineering department trying to define specifications for an Amerika bomber and that's all that can be said. German military intelligence probably didn't have much information on the locations, but they must have understood that the production was spread all over, what with all the mobilization going on. Not all intelligence data was shared at willy nilly with every low level department until our information era and WikiLeaks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
sullat posted:I think Lincoln selected the design for the Monitor. Although he tried not to micromanage, there were times when he should have. Lincoln didn't have anything to do with the design itself. The Monitor's contractor, Cornelius Bushnell, met Lincoln and convinced him to attend the meeting at which he pitched the design to the Navy's Ironclad Board, and Lincoln expressed his approval, but that's as close as he got.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Yeah, Hitler liked Porsche and kept overriding decisions made by people who actually knew stuff about tanks to keep letting him build dumb poo poo like a tank transmission that used two tons of copper. Wait, really? It was literally Hitler who said "Dr. Porsche can do this"? I mean it doesn't suprise me, but still
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Just came across this, now we were talking SMLE   Facebook says it's a sapper job for close encounters while mining.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Tias posted:Just came across this, now we were talking SMLE Could... could you even fire that with one hand without killing the hell out of your wrist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Clutching it to you, yeah I think you could. I mean, priority is clearing a tunnel, not protecting your arms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Pistols chambered for WWI rifle calibers (.303, .30-06, etc.) exist. They allegedly recoil roughly as much as the bigger magnums, though I can't say this from experience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Tias posted:Just came across this, now we were talking SMLE Twisting bolt like maniac between firings and ejecting empty case as big as beer can from action
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Well now we know what gun WWI Arnold Schwarzenegger would have used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
have yall motherfuckers never seen an obrez before, that's a sawedoff rifle
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well now we know what gun WWI Arnold Schwarzenegger would have used. Funny enough, the obrez Lee-Enfield actually makes a fairly notable film appearance as the base for the Jawa Ion Blaster prop from Star Wars: A New Hope. Here's the Internet Movie Firearm Database entry with some pictures. The original trilogy was full of odd choices for prop guns, probably because they wanted the ray guns to look functional but not immediately recognizable as well-known real-life firearms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Renault D2 Queue: LT vz 35, Praga AH-IV, Praga LTL and Pzw 39, T-60 production in difficult years, T-60 tanks produced at Stalingrad, big guns for the KV-1, 122 mm howitzer for the T-34 and KV, A1E1 Independent, PzI Ausf. B, PzI Ausf. C, PzI Ausf. F, Renault FT, Maus in the USSR, 76 mm gun mod of the Matilda, M4A2(76)W, PzII Ausf. a though b, PzII Ausf. c through C, PzII Ausf. D through E, PzII Ausf. F, PzII trials in the USSR, Field modifications to American tanks, Israeli improvised armoured cars, Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR, Polish 37 mm anti-tank gun, T-37 with ShKAS, Wartime modifications of the T-37 and T-38, SG-122, Tank destroyers on the T-30 and T-40 chassis, 45 mm M-42 gun, SU-76 prototype, SU-26/T-26-6, SU-122 precursors, SU-122 competitors, Light Tank M5, Tankbuchse 41, PzVII Lowe, Marder II, Tiger #114, Chrysler K, Swedish tanks 1928–1934, Pak 97/38, 7.5 cm Pak 41 Available for request:   Matilda NEW  KV-1S ZIK-7 and other light SPG designs NEW  L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40 Strv m/42 Landsverk prototypes 1943-1951 Strv m/21 Strv 81 and Strv 101 Strv m/41    s.FH. 18  Czechoslovakian post-war prototypes 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:have yall motherfuckers never seen an obrez before, that's a sawedoff rifle Generally a bit longer than that one I thought?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:have yall motherfuckers never seen an obrez before, that's a sawedoff rifle I've seen one and my wrist hurt just from looking at it
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
It's got to lose a lot of power from having a barrel that short. Perhaps that will make the recoil easier?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
What governs how long the barrel of a gun or cannon should be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What governs how long the barrel of a gun or cannon should be? how small your penis is
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What governs how long the barrel of a gun or cannon should be? How big the projectile is/how much propellant you put in it/how accurate you want it to be. At least for all the times it isn't how small your penis is. But broadly you need it long enough to put good spin on the projectile, and long enough for the propellant to burn and expand and get the projectile up to speed. Heavier projectile takes longer to accelerate both in velocity and spin, more propellant takes longer to fully expand and impart all its energy into the round. If you cut the barrel down the round might not get much spin so it'll tumble and go off course/lose energy faster, and the propellant will just escape out the end of the barrel as soon as the round leaves. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Not all intelligence data was shared at willy nilly with every low level department until our information era and WikiLeaks. Reading about the American Revolution, the amount of secrecy involved in some operations ended up to their detriment. Some believe that Lexington and Concord occurred because most of the British soldiers weren't told about exactly what their mission was to try and preserve secrecy, and they ended up surrounding and confronting militia who weren't planning on actually fighting anyone and causing a standoff that led to a gunfight. In the end it didn't help them maintain their cover at all, as the Patriots are commonly believed to have gotten advanced information about the raid from Gage's wife
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Twisting bolt like maniac between firings and ejecting empty case as big as beer can from action I'm guessing it's a single-shot weapon unless your got yourself a really long tunnel melee 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How big the projectile is/how much propellant you put in it/how accurate you want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
If I understand correctly, a given cartridge will be designed for a certain barrel length. The propellant reaction-speed has been chosen such that the last of the propellant will be consumed just as the bullet clears the muzzle. If you use a shorter barrel then unburned propellant will be ejected from the muzzle, creating a large flash and bang. If you use a longer barrel then the pressure will start dropping rapidly as the bullet nears the end of the barrel, possibly so much that the bullet starts getting slowed down instead of accelerated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Somewhat relatedly: What happened to tank ammo to make it so easy to load? At least in WW2, having a 2-part shell of more than 100mm calibre relegates you to "fires one shell a minute" territory. But modern 120mm and 105mm guns have higher rates of fire than autoloaded cannons do. Are the shells enormously lighter somehow? Are we all swole compared to our grandparents? Is it just "turret space"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Somewhat relatedly: What happened to tank ammo to make it so easy to load? At least in WW2, having a 2-part shell of more than 100mm calibre relegates you to "fires one shell a minute" territory. But modern 120mm and 105mm guns have higher rates of fire than autoloaded cannons do. Are the shells enormously lighter somehow? Are we all swole compared to our grandparents? Is it just "turret space"? Not an expert, but modern day ergonomics are better now. Instead of contorting your body around parts or lifting it from odd places/angles it's easier to grab from a shot locker and load. Additionally better propellants might make the ammo lighter for the same bang.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Breech design is a factor too. The ROF of the ISU-122 went from 1-1.5 RPM to 4-6 when the screw breech was replaced with a sliding breech and a loading tray was added.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Somewhat relatedly: What happened to tank ammo to make it so easy to load? At least in WW2, having a 2-part shell of more than 100mm calibre relegates you to "fires one shell a minute" territory. But modern 120mm and 105mm guns have higher rates of fire than autoloaded cannons do. Are the shells enormously lighter somehow? Are we all swole compared to our grandparents? Is it just "turret space"? Part of it is weight, the 122mm round used in the ISU-122 weights about 55 lbs without the propellant charge, and then you have to push another ~15lb propellant charge in after it. Whereas the M829 round for the 120mm gun on the Abrams tank weighs a little over 46 lbs for the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Firing an obrez one handed is no biggie. You're not going to break your wrist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Firing an obrez one handed is no biggie. You're not going to break your wrist. You don't need anyone to hold your beer either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Part of it is weight, the 122mm round used in the ISU-122 weights about 55 lbs without the propellant charge, and then you have to push another ~15lb propellant charge in after it. Whereas the M829 round for the 120mm gun on the Abrams tank weighs a little over 46 lbs for the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:It also helps when you can shove half the projectile into the propellant casing. While you're not wrong, that has far less to do with weight specifically and more that those long rod penetrators actually get considerably better the longer they can possibly be, as a function of the dynamic of penetration. The wiki on APFSDS has a decent paragraph on the mechanics for those interested, and I used to have an incredible article (it might of been a goon who posted it originally) that explained it well but I can't find it anymore. On an interesting side note, I remember reading one of the biggest problems with the vertical auto loader mechanism of the T-72 and T-90 was that there was a physical length limit to what the loader could handle that reduced the effectiveness of possible APFSDS designs for those tanks. This was part of the reason the T-80UM2 had such a drastically different turret design with a bustle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
More on ergonomics: it's also a thing that the ammo used to be stored in vertical ready racks on whatever wall/floor, so the loader would have to muscle it up, flip it over, and so forth. The Abrams loader pulls a round big-end-first out of the bustle, pivots at the waist, and slams it into the gun. The ammo being in the turret bustle (with an armored door to the people space and blowoff panels on top) is also why the Abrams is much more survivable when penetrated than old tanks/Russian autoloaders that have the ammo on the walls of the fighting compartment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 23:55
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Would tank crews ever choose to not carry their full compliment of ammunition into battle, for having fewer things inside the tank that could explode?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Would tank crews ever choose to not carry their full compliment of ammunition into battle, for having fewer things inside the tank that could explode? If anything, tank crews would often carry more than their full complement of ammunition into battle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Firing an obrez one handed is no biggie. You're not going to break your wrist. I haven't fired a gun in years so my wrist would probably hurt regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
WW2 Data Part 1 of the German 105mm projectiles is up! What did the smoke round contain? What data is available (in my manual) for the "Long Distance" High-Explosive round? How many types of Hollow Charge projectiles will we see today (and how many in the next update)? Which rounds have smaller rotating band widths based on the gun they are shot from? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:If anything, tank crews would often carry more than their full complement of ammunition into battle. Where would they put them? Just have shells loose on the turret floor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 05:54
|
|
