|
Fangz posted:Ask him what happens when you shoot a bazooka at the ground You jump higher duh
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Cessna posted:Yeah, this tells you all you need to know about the M-551: Didn't the Sheridan have some kind of flechette round that was liked for base perimeter defense? I vaguely remember reading about it being like a tank sized shotgun shell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
AmishSpecialForces posted:Didn't the Sheridan have some kind of flechette round that was liked for base perimeter defense? I vaguely remember reading about it being like a tank sized shotgun shell. Yes, the infamous M625 canister, AKA "Beehive" round.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Yes, the infamous M625 canister, AKA "Beehive" round. Was it any good inn reality? I read about it in a novel, not historical fiction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I can't talk about the top secret weapons to bombard japan. You got that link? Sounds hilarious. Edit: Looks like it's just some kind of upgrade package without any details then some kind of crazy "Heat Jets can't melt Aluminum beams" alt-physics. Monocled Falcon fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
AmishSpecialForces posted:Was it any good inn reality? I read about it in a novel, not historical fiction. I saw the 1028 rounds for the Abrams being used on a range once. It did not seem to be more effective than the tanks machine guns to me but it was certainly cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
AmishSpecialForces posted:Was it any good inn reality? I read about it in a novel, not historical fiction. Dunno, I never saw an M-551 use one in person. We DID see M-551s in the early days of Desert Shield; the 82nd got them over there quickly. But the Iraqis never moved into Saudi Arabia, so they didn't have anything to shoot. From reading Vietnam low-lever histories the "Beehive" rounds were popular with the crews even if the AFVs weren't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Post-WW2 Western tanks have (generally) had large turrets with a loader, while Soviet tanks and their descendants minimize the size of the turret, and replaced the loader with a autoloader since the T-64. Were/are there any doctrinal differences that lead to this difference? What are the arguments for and against a autoloader?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:You got that link? Sounds hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlTWS7fmuqI&t=265s Geisladisk posted:Post-WW2 Western tanks have (generally) had large turrets with a loader, while Soviet tanks and their descendants minimize the size of the turret, and replaced the loader with a autoloader since the T-64. The main advantage of the autoloader is that it makes the turret smaller and thusly it can be more heavily armored for the same amount of weight- the Soviets took weight fairly seriously and having less internal space helps with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
One disadvantage is one less crew member to assist with field maintenance. Also I think the early models had a bad habit of trying to load the gunners arm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
I think I read something about beehive rounds also being used at relatively close range to punch holes in walls without also destroying half the building. Also, an extra crew member does a lot more than just load. They can help with repairs, stand watch, fight with the crew if they're forced to bail out in hostile territory, take over for another crew member who's incapacitated, cook something other than MREs, etc. I believe the position is also valued as a place for newbie tankers to have a job that's difficult to mess up where they can observe the gunner and commander doing their job before potentially moving up to another crew position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk6wxBQ3f_0
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I believe the position is also valued as a place for newbie tankers to have a job that's difficult to mess up where they can observe the gunner and commander doing their job before potentially moving up to another crew position. Units are almost never at their TO&E strength for crewmen, but they always have attached personnel like specialist engine mechanics, radio repairmen, forward observers, etc. These folks can be taught to load relatively quickly, so they can ride with the tanks instead of being relegated to the rear. Generally the most junior crewman works as loader, then driver, then gunner, then TC (commander). In practice everyone rotates around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:One disadvantage is one less crew member to assist with field maintenance. Have the loader get the water on for a brewup eh, pip pip cheerio guvner S...Sir? We have no loader.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
bloom posted:Have the loader get the water on for a brewup eh, pip pip cheerio guvner tbqh i imagine tea is the last thing to go, like no more tea is how the british know that poo poo Has Gone Down
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Thanks! Thats a badass video. Would a smaller, higher angle version of that be any good for anti drone duties?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
AmishSpecialForces posted:Thanks! Thats a badass video. Would a smaller, higher angle version of that be any good for anti drone duties? You are basically describing a standard airburst flak round.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
I don't know how true it is, but I was told way back when that an autoloader doesn't reload as fast as a well motivated 19 year old, but unlike a 19 year old it won't get tired after fighting for a while or drunkenly drive a car into the base gate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:You are basically describing a standard airburst flak round. Not really. Your airburst AAA leaves the barrel as a solid shell then detonates at either a predetermined altitude (old school German ww2 AAA style) or at a specific distance from the target (USN did this during WW2 - it was high tech as gently caress at the time). That poo poo is basically a giant shotgun. The shell goes off and a clump of ball bearings followed by a wad and cup exit the barrel. The key point is that the sub-munitions start dispersing pretty much as soon as everything leaves the barrel. edit: you can really see this around the very beginning of the video. The bits of the shell that held it all together are going in different directions and the base is following the shot on towards the target.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
I'm'a gonna start an argument with Jobbo_Fett and maybe Bewbies here I go [ahem] "IF THE GERMANS HAD LICENSE PRODUCED DC-3s LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, THEIR AIRLIFTS WOULD HAVE GONE SLIGHTLY BETTER."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:if they had no pistol ports how did they get rid of their poo poo Actually... what are the toilet facilities in MBTs? If you get the grumbles in enemy territory do you just have to use an ammo can then hold your breath until it's safe to open the hatch? Or is there a special port on the underside?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:"IF THE GERMANS HAD LICENSE PRODUCED DC-3s LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, THEIR AIRLIFTS WOULD HAVE GONE SLIGHTLY BETTER."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Actually... what are the toilet facilities in MBTs? If you get the grumbles in enemy territory do you just have to use an ammo can then hold your breath until it's safe to open the hatch? Or is there a special port on the underside? Assuming you cant exit the tank you either poo poo in a can or a helmet with a bag in it and then get rid of it. Some tanks have holes meant for draining that can be used if you really want to but youre gonna have to get into some awkward and uncomfortable positions to get it done. The only exception is the Challenger 2 which has a sealed toilet that the crew can use to take a poo poo right under the loaders seat so your gunner and commander can watch as you empty your bowels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Or the classic “poo poo in an empty shell casing and throw it out”.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
What did crewman in strategic bombers do when they had to relieve themselves?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What did crewman in strategic bombers do when they had to relieve themselves? hope you like frostbite
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Actually... what are the toilet facilities in MBTs? If you get the grumbles in enemy territory do you just have to use an ammo can then hold your breath until it's safe to open the hatch? Or is there a special port on the underside? If you can get out, you do so. If you're in a safe position, bring the wooden sleeve .50 cal ammo cans are packed to use as a stool and bring a shovel for cleanup afterwards. If you're stopped at a brief halt, get out on deck and hang over the side.* (In peacetime we'd have contests to see who could go the longest without actually stepping on the ground/off the tank. Once you master bathroom necessities, if you have a crew who is willing to help by bringing you food and stuff you can go pretty much indefinitely without touching the ground. Crew would make it a whole week without much effort.) If you can't get out, use an ammo can and toss it out when you can. Older tanks - the M-60A1 had a "drop hatch" under the driver's seat for emergency exits. Pull a lever and it drops. This is not usable as a toilet, as it isn't hinged - it DROPS out of the tank. If you want to close it you need to send a motivated crewman under the tank to bench-press it back into place while someone inside the tanks re-secures it. M-1s do not have this hatch. The hull plugs - small (2", if I remember correctly) plugs that you'd unscrew to drain the bilges - weren't located where you could get to them from inside conveniently. * As an aside, during the 1st Gulf War we were on the move - fast, for the whole thing. We didn't really have time to stop for longer than a few minutes - jump out, crewmen check the suspension and exterior of the tank, TCs run to the Command Tank and get a briefing, then you run back and keep moving. On one briefing we ran to the Command Tank, and out platoon sergeant was hanging off the side of the tank relieving himself. Hey, it's a war, you do what you have to do. What made it odd was the fact that he'd managed to produce a horrendously long turd, which was dangling towards the ground as he tried to give a fast sit-rep and briefing. While running back to move out again one of the other TCs looked over at the rest of us and said," did you see...?" One of the others replied, "you think if it hit the ground without breaking it would have completed a circuit, or rang a bell or something?" After that, it was back in the tanks and back to the war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What did crewman in strategic bombers do when they had to relieve themselves? Ammo can or lunchbox followed by sticking it in the bomb bay to automatically get dumped when they got over the target. I've read more than one account of dudes in the 8th AF who had either fear or low pressure induced shits (don't eat beans before flying an unpressurized aircraft at 20k+ feet) who expressed joy that they were raining poo poo and piss on the heads of the flak crews shooting at them. Other military making GBS threads story. Not mine, but a good friend from grad school. Dude was commander of a bradley for the opening weeks of the invasion of Iraq. While rushing forward to wherever they were going as part of a convoy he got a massive attack of the MUST poo poo NOWs and had to go at the side of the road in an ammo can. At night. While an entire convoy of vehicles spotlighted him one after another after another squatting his pale white rear end at the side of the road and dropping a deuce. edit: same guy had another military making GBS threads story involving him getting dysentery or something and being hooked up to two IVs with a pair of enlisted orderlies holding onto them while he tried to poo poo his stomach into the porta john or pit shitter or whatever they had in the first couple months of post-invasion occupation detail. Basically from all his stories I've gathered that being in the cav is like 1 part running everywhere and 3 parts pooping all the time. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Ask us about military history:Cyrano4747 posted:1 part running everywhere and 3 parts pooping all the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:if they had no pistol ports how did they get rid of their poo poo Poop hole. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
My best friend passed some kidney stones during navy boot camp. Not as funny but apparently, pretty miserable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
These were shared in another thread discussing the black comedy gold that was the Tsarist Russia navy. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
You could write a dark Blackadder comedy on that whole farce.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
Somewhat related, but USAF flight crew all get official callsigns which are usually based on a humorous personal characteristic or anecdote. One of my brother's B-1 weapons officer friends has the callsign "Blue Eyes." You see, there is a small chemical toilet in the cabin of a B-1 with the standard blue goop you see in many port-a-potties. On a training flight, Blue Eyes apparently hosed up the closing/flushing sequence on the toilet and... blue eyes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Between that, the battleship that almost killed FDR, and all the warships that smash into each other even to this day, I'm getting the impression that it's really hard to run a navy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:These were shared in another thread discussing the black comedy gold that was the Tsarist Russia navy. Missed in that is the fact that the only reason the "2nd Pacific Squadron" was going around the Cape of Good Hope was because after the Dogger Bank incident, the British denied permission to take the Suez Canal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Between that, the battleship that almost killed FDR, and all the warships that smash into each other even to this day, I'm getting the impression that it's really hard to run a navy. In 1902, the Royal Navy launched its first British-designed submarines, the HMS A1. It was accidentally rammed and sunk two years later by a British mail steamer. It was the first of a great many Royal Navy submarines to be accidentally rammed and sunk by other British ships.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Between that, the battleship that almost killed FDR, and all the warships that smash into each other even to this day, I'm getting the impression that it's really hard to run a navy. Also the minelayer Boyarin
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Somewhat related, but USAF flight crew all get official callsigns which are usually based on a humorous personal characteristic or anecdote. Friend of mine was in NFO school down at Pensacola, and someone in his class was given the name FUNGUS. As an acryonym, it stood for "gently caress You, New Guy, You Suck."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Between that, the battleship that almost killed FDR, and all the warships that smash into each other even to this day, I'm getting the impression that it's really hard to run a navy. Fletcher Class Destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_William_D._Porter_(DD-579) https://taskandpurpose.com/wwii-naval-ship-unlucky-almost-killed-fdr/
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 04:31
|
|