|
Cyrano4747 posted:What does this mean on two of the guys above: "We know for sure the dude died, but couldn't retrieve the body." I assume there was a funeral with an empty coffin.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:What would these have been? I can't imagine a tank corps of 10 vehicles that can barely make it to the front having twice as many leather tanker helmets at the scene of the operation. A friend of mine served in the tank regiment around the year 2000 and was complaining about how he was not selected for parade duty where they drove old tanks down the streets, including one of the T-26/Vickerses. The uniform worn by the crews were those of the tankers of WW2 era, that is to say cavalry trousers (or pussihousut), knee hight leather boots, leather helmets and a black leather jacket with a yellor skull covering the whole back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
poland-lithuania, motherfuckers
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
In Russian culture, Hussars drink and party the hardest out of all the military, and also have the raunchiest jokes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
So I came across a interesting little tidbit: that the Luftwaffe at the start of 1944 had built up its biggest fuel reserve since the invasion of Russia in 1941 - 580,000 tons. Was this because of increasing synthetic fuel production?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
they just didn't have that many planes left would be my guess
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:they just didn't have that many planes left would be my guess In fact their production of aircraft became much stronger and was surprisingly robust in 1944
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So what were some of the famous battles in the Burma campaign? Did the troops ever get swag new tanks? Were the Dutch and other losers present in respectable numbers in the later stages? The Chindit's and Merril's Marauders are pretty famous, although not specifically for one specific battle. Then there's always the Battle of Yenangyaung, or the Battle of Imphal. They never got swag new tanks, no. The Dutch didn't participate, or if they did it was incredibly small numbers in comparison to British and Commonwealth troops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Why did the US Navy continue to use torpedo planes after Midway? That battle clearly showed that they were obsolete and dive bombers much better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:but within the parameters of what it was designed to do it makes sense. Can this fit as a new thread title
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:Why did the US Navy continue to use torpedo planes after Midway? That battle clearly showed that they were obsolete and dive bombers much better. Midway showed that the TBD Devastator was obsolete, pilot training for the torpedo bombers was inadequate, and that torpedo bombers were very vulnerable to defending fighters. With the Devastator replaced by the much superior TBF Avenger, improved crew experience, and better fighter cover; torpedo bombers gave very good service for the rest of the war, often being quite a bit more effective than dive bombers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
My understanding is that essentially torpedo bombers and dive bombers did different kinds of damage to a ship, and while dive bombing could gently caress up a carrier just fine as Midway showed, that was hardly guaranteed to be the case against other targets. Also, the TBF/TBM Avenger turned out to be extremely versatile, and eminently worth keeping around for various other missions besides torpedo bombing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Dive bombers would probably have a much tougher time against heavily armored combat vessels as well? For that you'd want torpedo planes to hole them below the water line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 07:07
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Ensign Expendable posted:In Russian culture, Hussars drink and party the hardest out of all the military, and also have the raunchiest jokes. In archaic Danish, "husar" is an amicable way of calling someone an rear end in a top hat. For instance, when discussing the fanservice trope( having conventionally beautiful women star in media), you'd say "it's something that will bring in the hussars"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:Why did the US Navy continue to use torpedo planes after Midway? That battle clearly showed that they were obsolete and dive bombers much better. The Devastators were obsolete, as the Avengers hadn't come online yet, but torpedoes are a much better way to gently caress-up a ship (that isn't a carrier) because you're putting water into the people tank, instead of punching holes into sections of the ship that are exposed to air anyway. (that's a perhaps overly simplistic view of things, of course fire sucks, and general battle damage sucks, but if you need to SINK a ship, you need to put holes in it below the waterline) If anything, it's dive bombers that would become less effective as technology and doctrine progressed, since needing to put yourself on a predictable path in order to release your bombs makes you more vulnerable to AA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
There was also the fact that dive bombers and torpedo bombers attacking in concert worked a lot better than each element attacking individually, as it meant that both enemy AA guns and CAP fighters would have to make a decision whether to concentrate on dive bombers at high altitude or torpedo bombers low. This was a particular problem for the Japanese who had less effective AA fire due to a lack of proximity fuzed shells and relied on directing CAPs onto incoming attacks visually, which was a lot more difficult in the event of a multi element attack at different altitudes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:In fact their production of aircraft became much stronger and was surprisingly robust in 1944 Goering's last gently caress you? e: I mean mostly he was a fat rear end in a top hat with an inflated sense of worth and goddamn the nazi war apparatus was stupid dysfunctional so I wouldnt doubt it. Milo and POTUS fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The Devastators were obsolete, as the Avengers hadn't come online yet, but torpedoes are a much better way to gently caress-up a ship (that isn't a carrier) because you're putting water into the people tank, instead of punching holes into sections of the ship that are exposed to air anyway. Torpedo bombers and dive bombers were most vulnerable when delivering their payloads. A torpedo bomber has to fly low and slow to successfully drop his torpedo and have it run properly. Similarly, dive bombers are vulnerable to aa during their dive as they are forced to either be shot at, a lot, or pull out of the dive and try again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
The early US torpedoes were also extremely unreliable, so that didn't help the Devastators any. Plus, and maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but weren't the early torpedoes restricted to a very low drop speed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
If you're going to choose, choose the dive bomber though. Dive bombers may be slow pieces of poo poo, but in a dive even a refrigerator will pick up some speed. A torpedo bomber is just slow always forever. Torpedoes are for torpedo boats. Comrade Gorbash posted:The early US torpedoes were also extremely unreliable, so that didn't help the Devastators any. Plus, and maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but weren't the early torpedoes restricted to a very low drop speed? Torpedoes these days have little parachutes on the back and advanced guidance systems so they can be dropped from a random altitude and bearing, but until those arrived, the only way to drop a torpedo was to go really low and slow. And for airplanes even 100kts is very slow. Truga fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:poland-lithuania, motherfuckers the winged hussars are the dopest cavalry in history don't @ me
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Truga posted:Torpedoes these days have little parachutes on the back and advanced guidance systems so they can be dropped from a random altitude and bearing, but until those arrived, the only way to drop a torpedo was to go really low and slow. And for airplanes even 100kts is very slow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
American airborne torpedoes advanced significantly throughout the war. I believe the late-war ones could be dropped from a significant altitude and at much higher speeds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Were any underway heavy armored ships sunk by bombs alone? The ones Fritz X got I guess, I can't think of any others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
The Mark 13 torpedo article has some points about this: * the Americans experimented with attaching a "drag ring" made of plywood to the torpedoes, which would slow down the torpedo as it fell, but would break apart upon hitting the water. The Japanese pioneered the use of this idea with their own torpedoes, and they used it as early as in Pearl Harbor, but the Americans only really observed it during Coral Sea * studies found that the "low-and-slow" approach was actually bad, because it would cause the torpedo to "slap" the water flatly, causing damage to components * flight profiles for the Avenger were eventually developed allowing it to drop from as high as 800 feet, and as fast as 260 knots I don't know how relatively high 800 feet is compared to how they used to do it, or how fast 260 knots is compared to Devastators and/or fighter aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Definitely. I thought there was something about the US torpedoes of the era requiring a lower drop speed than comparable ones used by the Japanese and other combatants, though. Even a difference of a couple knots could be important there. Again, I may be mis-remembering or thinking of something else. Japanese torpedos could be dropped from a higher/faster speed because the way they used a wooden housing for the propeller/propulsion that broke away on contact with the water, preventing it from diving too deep or go out of control.  For comparison, the Mark 13 Aerial Torpedo that the US used at the start of the conflict needed the following requirements to run correctly* (50 feet (15 m) high, 110 knots (200 km/h; 130 mph) *Did not always run correctly. The Late Mark 13, however, had been modified to allow reliable drops from as high as 2,400 ft (730 m), at speeds up to 410 knots (470 mph).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Were any underway heavy armored ships sunk by bombs alone? The ones Fritz X got I guess, I can't think of any others. The Russian Marat was one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Tias posted:In archaic Danish, "husar" is an amicable way of calling someone an rear end in a top hat. For instance, when discussing the fanservice trope( having conventionally beautiful women star in media), you'd say "it's something that will bring in the hussars"  this dude fucks
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:the winged hussars are the dopest cavalry in history don't @ me 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Japanese torpedos could be dropped from a higher/faster speed because the way they used a wooden housing for the propeller/propulsion that broke away on contact with the water, preventing it from diving too deep or go out of control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Were any underway heavy armored ships sunk by bombs alone? The ones Fritz X got I guess, I can't think of any others. Is Fritz X still a bomb or is it really a different category of weapon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Is Fritz X still a bomb or is it really a different category of weapon? Its a guided bomb, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:poland-lithuania, motherfuckers I've been summoned. Btw, since I was in Poland some time ago, I've spoken to some dudes who rummaged through the depots of some bigger museums there. It's amazing how much they copied or imported from the Ottomans in that period. Regarding archery tackle and quivers it's Crimean Tatar equipment all the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I've been summoned. Btw, since I was in Poland some time ago, I've spoken to some dudes who rummaged through the depots of some bigger museums there. It's amazing how much they copied or imported from the Ottomans in that period. Regarding archery tackle and quivers it's Crimean Tatar equipment all the way. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Were any underway heavy armored ships sunk by bombs alone? The ones Fritz X got I guess, I can't think of any others. HMS Cornwall, Dorsetshire, and Hermes. The naval portion of the Indian Ocean raid by the IJN carriers was executed purely by dive bombers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Barbara Tuchman quotes a period memoirist, one Sir Osbert Sitwell, to the effect that the cavalry officer mindset was equally indebted to a "daily routine of port and a weekly fall on the head from horseback" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Barbara Tuchman quotes a period memoirist, one Sir Osbert Sitwell, to the effect that the cavalry officer mindset was equally indebted to a "daily routine of port and a weekly fall on the head from horseback" it's ok to cav 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Greatest danger to a cavalryman is their own stupid horse, c/d?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Greatest danger to a cavalryman is their own stupid horse, c/d?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The Devastators were obsolete, as the Avengers hadn't come online yet, but torpedoes are a much better way to gently caress-up a ship (that isn't a carrier) because you're putting water into the people tank, instead of punching holes into sections of the ship that are exposed to air anyway. Actually there was one squadron of Avengers that flew out Midway itself during the battle. They were part of Hornet's VT-8 but the planes hadn't been delivered yet and, in the spirit of "oh gently caress that's a lot of Japanese carriers" they were flown directly off the island. They got the gently caress mauled out of them, which goes to show that part of the shitshow of early USN torpedo attacks was training and tactics (plus lovely torpedoes)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:07
|
|
