|
Gentlemen Swords Around A Throne has arrived. If I vanish you will know why. God I miss that game. DICE has big ammunition boots to fill this year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
My hot take: When you consider ridiculously bad material conditions that it was built/developed in, the Ki-84 - and more specifically its engine - were two of the most impressive engineering accomplishments of the war. I did an effortpost on the engine some while ago, and researching that thing was pretty eye-opening even as someone who was already pretty familiar with it. Also the Bf-109 was cool as hell and that post about flying it was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I find the “Empty your pockets here!” box oddly chilling. I realise it’s probably there for safety reasons, but I can’t help but think there must have been some morbid traditions that arose out the of the question of “What do we do with the dead men’s things?” It's to prevent the enemy from gaining useful information if you are forced down behind enemy lines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
bewbies posted:My hot take: yeah I rolled in here to be all like "you can't claim that Japan didn't innovate because the Homare existed and was legit as gently caress" edit: i really don't get what innovation homeboy is looking for - Japan tried to build some innovative Things, some of them were good, they lacked the material capability to field any of them in a way that would significantly alter the war. Not designing and building competitive poo poo is different from not deploying competitive poo poo which is different from not deploying competitive poo poo in outcome-altering numbers. The last one is impossible. Japan could have fielded the Me-262 in 1943 and it would not have changed the fact that Japan was going to lose the war. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Apr 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Gentlemen Swords Around A Throne has arrived. If I vanish you will know why. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
I know Cythereal already shut up and all, but the Panzerfaust is probably the best example proving his point wrong. Objectively better than the Bazooka, produced in massive numbers (so great the Russians captured enough to use them themselves in large numbers), significantly affected the danger German infantry posed to armour, didn't change the course of the war though because you don't judge weapons based on whether a single system can magically change the course of entire conflict because that's madness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
So apparently even by 1942 people were starting to add concrete to their tank(s)... in Libya. Pz.Rgt.8 according to the photo I'm looking at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Hello old friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:the best example proving his point wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:That it often doesn't matter whether a design is "good" or not and I think it's a stupid and arbitrary question in the first place. Huh? It might not matter, depending on context, but the suggestion that it's stupid and arbitrary is utterly wrong. There are real, meaningful, and easy to discern differences between the German jerrycan and the lovely rolled-seam gas cans the US army was using at the time, and those are differences of design. The former was clearly superior to the latter, and when you say something like that it just sounds bad. Hrm, Type 11 Nambu or MG42, which was a better LMG design? Boeing 707 or DeHavilland Comet? Porsche 924 4-cylinder engine or Porsche 944 4-cylinder engine? It's not arbitrariness that makes the answers to those questions. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Apr 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:flintlocks in the late 17th century. they've been around for a long loving time, and are now beginning to be used in combat. France adopts them very late, because when a colonel equips his regiment he pays for it out of his own pocket, and if you've already got the matchlocks that's a hell of a lot of money to eat the costs on
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Does anybody still use stick grenades, and if no, when did it stop?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Does anybody still use stick grenades, and if no, when did it stop? I don't think so, and probably once old German and Russian stocks dried up. I know the Chinese manufactured a ton of the German stick grenades because they were relatively cheap and easy to make [edit: in the 40s and 50s], but not sure when they would have fallen out of use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Does anybody still use stick grenades, and if no, when did it stop? There's old Soviet anti-tank grenades like the RKG-3 and probably even older frag grenades still being used in the Middle East. I don't think stick grenades have been newly manufactured since the 70s?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Does anybody still use stick grenades, and if no, when did it stop?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Manufacture of stick grenades stopped once Fury showed that they only killed Brad Pitt, instead of turning him into hamburger
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:There's old Soviet anti-tank grenades like the RKG-3 and probably even older frag grenades still being used in the Middle East. I don't think stick grenades have been newly manufactured since the 70s? Slim Jim Pickens posted:I've seen a contemporary photo for some PLA ad campaign featuring some guys lugging an old-school crate of ~64 stick grenades. Thats probably not preferred practice though. Variants of the RKG-3 are still being manufactured, but I wouldn't call them a classic stick grenade because the "stick" part serves a function purpose besides being a throwing aid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
They're all concussive right? With optional sleeves? Wonder if there was a doctrinal or logistical divergence. Seems like not only would they weigh a little more but they'd be harder to pack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:45
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Did they put socket bayonets on the matchlocks or was that something that came about later? Plug bayonets came before the ones you mentioned. Not sure if they bothered with putting bayonets on Matchlocks?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:They're all concussive right? With optional sleeves? Wonder if there was a doctrinal or logistical divergence. Seems like not only would they weigh a little more but they'd be harder to pack. They fell out of favor for exactly the reason you mention - you can carry more of the canister or ball style grenades. The main advantage of a stick grenade is that it's easier to throw - better accuracy and distance. If you've practiced with them the difference is small and doesn't make up for the extra bulk. That's also the rationale the Chinese had in mind - they wanted to give the stick grenades to conscripts, who would mostly be fighting from fixed defensive positions and where the throwing aid would make a significant difference and they didn't need to worry about carrying them around. SeanBeansShako posted:Plug bayonets came before the ones you mentioned. Not sure if they bothered with putting bayonets on Matchlocks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant did they keep the matchlocks long enough that ring and socket bayonets were available, and if so, did they bother to fit them to the matchlocks? I can't quite remember how close in time the flintlock's rise in popularity coincided with the invention of ring and socket bayonets, whether the new bayonets came when the switch over was mostly complete or if it was happening at about the same moment. that's why the plug bayonet looks the way it does, you can stick it in many sizes of musket
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
I mean it was better than going old school butt club. Though depending on the gun it sometimes kind of jammed on and made it very hard to remove in the heat of battle?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I mean it was better than going old school butt club. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i am VERY bad on the chronology of the late 17th c but the socket bayonet does not depend on the kind of gun you have--what you have to develop first is a standard size of gun for everyone in your army Hearing the French held onto their matchlocks until quite late made me wonder if they'd overlapped with the adoption of the new bayonets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:and now you don't have two different kinds of infantrymen that you pay on two different scales and equip with two different kinds of poo poo and they probably get into dumb slapfights with each other as well dude in the center foreground is like "i'm shelling your fuckin city so what"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Huh? I was dumb and argued myself into a pretzel because I'd been drinking and got way too invested in an online argument last night.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:So apparently even by 1942 people were starting to add concrete to their tank(s)... in Libya. Pz.Rgt.8 according to the photo I'm looking at. The British note that the Germans are willing to hang anything and everything on their tank, as long as it improves protection, reliability be damned. Can you post the photo?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:dude in the center foreground is like "i'm shelling your fuckin city so what" More likely to be solid shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
But the bombardier on the left is clearly lighting a fuse?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Those also look like bombards and not field guns? Did bombards use solid shot?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Holy poo poo where is this from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Holy poo poo where is this from? Spokane air show in 1944.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Hot drat I wish there was a straight-up battlefield 1942 remake with modern graphics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I was dumb and argued myself into a pretzel because I'd been drinking On the plus side, this is a very milhist reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Hot drat I wish there was a straight-up battlefield 1942 remake with modern graphics. Or the Galactic Battlegrounds mod with actual players. Not the new Star Wars Battlefront games, but the actual gameplay from that mod. A map based around doing the Death Star trench run as Imperial players man guns or attack in TIE fighters, or a fight between a Star Destroyer and Corellian cruiser over a space station where people are landing fighters and shuttles to try and capture the interior. On that map I once stole a Lambda shuttle with another guy and tried to attack the Star Destroyer that was the main Imperial spawn. I ended up escaping by coming to a dead stop inside the hangar bay and doing a 180 degree flip upside-down before rocketing away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Huh? So if you could pick and choose from every side, what would give the best bang for your buck when outfitting a mid-sized WWII mechanized unit?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:So if you could pick and choose from every side, what would give the best bang for your buck when outfitting a mid-sized WWII mechanized unit? Honestly it would probably be mostly American, just augmented with MG 42s if you could convert them to .30-06. I don't really know of any weapon category where another side was superior for the cost of manufacture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:06
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Those also look like bombards and not field guns? Did bombards use solid shot? When they first showed up a few centuries before the image.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Since SMGs use their own ammo anyway, you wouldn't add any logistical hassle for swtiching to Soviet SMGs instead of Thompsons or Grease Guns. Apart from that, you're probably right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
I don’t even need a remake/remaster, give me a regularly full 64 player server for the Forgotten Hope mod for Battlefield 1942 and I’ll never need another FPS again. Man that mod was batshit insane with all of its minute detail for vehicles and weapons and I loved every bit of it. Had like 30 maps too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:26
|
|
