|
Gnoman posted:I've read in multiple sources that the British did the exact same thing with 75mm ammunition in Africa. When I was working on my thesis I came across tales of post war Libyans collecting scrap metal left over from the war. Once the easy stuff ran out they started chucking UXO onto fires, running away, and picking up the fragments.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:
There's a whole milsf novel just waiting to be written right here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Isn't one of the arguments for the American 'loader' crew position the fact that you have one extra person to help fix poo poo? To fix poo poo, to stand guard, or to take over other positions as needed, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Isn't one of the arguments for the American 'loader' crew position the fact that you have one extra person to help fix poo poo? Yes. Having an extra set of eyes, hands, and bag of flesh to help out can be a tremendous boost. Tank platoons, or any elements/formations really, are extremely undermanned. A tank platoon has 16 people in it in paper strength, versus a platoon of grunts of 30-40. ”Act of loading” is one of the smallest and least done tasks in the life of an armored crewman when compared against maintenance, garrison tasks, and whatever else needs to be done. Autoloader doesn’t do trackwork, doesn’t pull guard shifts, does not help as a driver when driver is sick, it doesn’t man the machinegun for self defence, et cetera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
Grendel posted:I bought one a few years ago. They're generally considered well-made and pretty historically accurate. They come fairly sharp. Unfortunately, they also rust fairly easily - you'll want to keep it well-oiled. Personally, I find mine to be relatively awkward & heavy - but you have to keep in mind that this is my only full-sized sword, and I'm a collector rather than a user. But it's $200 on Amazon and it's not like anybody else makes them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Yes. Having an extra set of eyes, hands, and bag of flesh to help out can be a tremendous boost. Tank platoons, or any elements/formations really, are extremely undermanned. A tank platoon has 16 people in it in paper strength, versus a platoon of grunts of 30-40. This is all true, but it is also worth keeping in mind that Soviet tank divisions had more support staff to compensate for the lost loader. The autoloader in cold-war Soviet tanks wasn't put in to save manpower, since the total cost of Private Ivan Ivanov is probably less than the production and maintenance cost of the autoloader. It is there to make the tank less tall by making the turret smaller - Most of the volume of the autoloading mechanism is in the hull, so the turret doesn't need to have room for a dude tossing 125mm shells around. A smaller turret not only makes the tank a smaller target, but lets you get more armor thickness out of the same tonnage of armor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 09:47
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:The autoloader in cold-war Soviet tanks wasn't put in to save manpower, since the total cost of Private Ivan Ivanov is probably less than the production and maintenance cost of the autoloader. It is there to make the tank less tall by making the turret smaller - Most of the volume of the autoloading mechanism is in the hull, so the turret doesn't need to have room for a dude tossing 125mm shells around. I thought the soviets used auto-loaders because they valued machines over humans, and they liked the fact that autoloaders bit off the arms of tank crews, the perfect expression of their brutal and inhuman ideology?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 09:56
|
|
|
I suspect the autoloader thing probably is also related to their doctrine, in that IIRC their tank units were not intended for the sort of sustained operation that 'having an extra pair of hands to fix stuff and stand guard' applies to. Their tank units were meant to quickly execute a planned attack and be relieved by the next wave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
Grendel posted:they also rust fairly easily - you'll want to keep it well-oiled. I kave a couple of hundred- year-old British guns worn down to white steel, I know of rust prevention. [quote="Siivola" post=""486587448"] But it's $200 on Amazon and it's not like anybody else makes them. [/quote] That too. So I guess I'll get a Blucher saber and some melons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 12:00
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Siivola posted:From hanging out with sword snobs online, I've gathered the Cold Steel's less nice than the original. The hilt's not quite right and the blade is too thick towards the point so it's even more awkward than the antiques. http://www.armourclass.co.uk/Data/Pages/Scottish%20Collection.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Oh right yeah, Chillbro Baggins was originally in the market for a Scots sword. I meant there weren't a lot of companies making 1796 light cavs. I think Armour Class makes fine basket hilts? Comedy answer: http://kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=501563
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
http://www.kultofathena.com/swords-earlymodern.asp http://www.kultofathena.com/civilwar.asp
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I suspect the autoloader thing probably is also related to their doctrine, in that IIRC their tank units were not intended for the sort of sustained operation that 'having an extra pair of hands to fix stuff and stand guard' applies to. Their tank units were meant to quickly execute a planned attack and be relieved by the next wave. Soviet doctrine was for combined arms strikes that would overwhelm a position so badly before the infantry got there that they'd be doing little but mopping up anyone not dead or concussed. You drop a fuckton of artillery, air strikes, and smoke on a target before the tanks and APCs charge into the softened and possibly destroyed position. The soldiers never fight more than about 100 meters from their vehicle and remount when it's time to move. A standard Soviet soldier's loadout was three magazines and spare boxes and stripper clips of loose ammo because they were only expected to shoot about that many rounds before jumping back in their BMP and reloading. This is why they ended up with so many issues in Afghanistan. Doctrine for attacking positions on the gently rolling hills and wide open fields of Europe was useless for attacking positions buried in mountains and caves that artillery and aircraft couldn't reach. The soldiers had to fight farther from their vehicles in a task that previously only dedicated skirmishers had to do, wearing uncomfortable marching boots and carrying small amounts of ammo on their belts until they started getting issued or stealing chest rigs (and even sewing their own).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Didn't the Chinese chest rigs become really popular at the time? Also, I'm wondering what's the deal with Soviets lagging behind in fighter jet engine technology. Is it the lack of access to resources that the Western world had via colonial empires and what not, the comparative lack of experience and brainpower (I mean, Stalin bootstrapped the literacy and what not in the USSR via some brutal measures, and the West had all of the scientists in Europe, US, Canada, Japan, Korea and so on working for them) or what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Didn't the Chinese chest rigs become really popular at the time? In the late 20s-early 30s the Soviet aviation was absolute bleeding edge, but the purges hit the VVS worse than just about any other organization. It set them back a LONG way, particularly with regard to engine development. Their two main fighter engines were essentially ripoffs of western engines - the M-10X was a Hispano Suiza, and the M-82 was a Wright Cyclone - and I'd go so far as to say without the western engines to work off of they probably wouldn't have come up with a decent powerplant during the war. Jets suffered the same effects. The purges happened right in the middle of when other big countries were starting jet experiments, and it pretty much killed the program. The difference was that the Soviets didn't get a western jet engine to work off of during the war, but our British friends solved that for them after the war was over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Jets suffered the same effects. The purges happened right in the middle of when other big countries were starting jet experiments, and it pretty much killed the program. The difference was that the Soviets didn't get a western jet engine to work off of during the war, but our British friends solved that for them after the war was over. But as far as I understand, the Soviet/Russian engines still aren't as efficient as Western ones and lack such magic as monocrystal blades and whatever. Someone said that the reason why Soviet planes are so sleek/aerodynamic is that they had to compensate for weaker engines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Didn't the Chinese chest rigs become really popular at the time? The Afghans made use of a lot of Chicom chest rigs, both authentic and homemade. Because the Soviets were rocking belt pouches that could hold 3 spare magazines at most, they started looting chest rigs from their former owners or making their own to try and get a more practical method of carrying ammo. Eventually the people in charge caught on and started producing the Lifchik chest rig. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
JcDent posted:But as far as I understand, the Soviet/Russian engines still aren't as efficient as Western ones and lack such magic as monocrystal blades and whatever. Someone said that the reason why Soviet planes are so sleek/aerodynamic is that they had to compensate for weaker engines. They certainly aren't now, but they were closer back in the Soviet era. The R-11 and RD-33 were both relatively close to their American equivalents in performance, though they sacrificed lifespan for cost. Over the last 15-20 years though, high end jet engines, both for airliners and combat aircraft, have made HUGE advances in performance that really aren't that noticeable to laypeople...like, a 737-300 looks pretty much the same as a -900, they fly about the same speed and altitude etc, but the newer plane's engines are WAY more efficient. This is due in large part to crazy wizardry, like the blade metallurgy you mention. The Russians fell off this tech after the USSR fell, and they're a long, long way away from catching up. This was just an issue of money more than anything; the Soviets were making relatively quality engines right up until their society collapsed. There's really only three companies that make fancy pants jet engines anymore (GE, P&W, RR), and they're so far ahead of the game at this point they're playing another game altogether compared to everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The Afghans made use of a lot of Chicom chest rigs, both authentic and homemade. Because the Soviets were rocking belt pouches that could hold 3 spare magazines at most, they started looting chest rigs from their former owners or making their own to try and get a more practical method of carrying ammo. Eventually the people in charge caught on and started producing the Lifchik chest rig. What's the things with what looks like threaded tops at the outer left and right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The Afghans made use of a lot of Chicom chest rigs, both authentic and homemade. Because the Soviets were rocking belt pouches that could hold 3 spare magazines at most, they started looting chest rigs from their former owners or making their own to try and get a more practical method of carrying ammo. Eventually the people in charge caught on and started producing the Lifchik chest rig. And what's the story of the Chicom rig? Were they easier to acquire for the Mujahideen, more discreet than just giving them Western rigs, more advanced than the Western rigs, some combination of all of them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:What's the things with what looks like threaded tops at the outer left and right? Flares.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
JcDent posted:And what's the story of the Chicom rig? Were they easier to acquire for the Mujahideen, more discreet than just giving them Western rigs, more advanced than the Western rigs, some combination of all of them? For where the Chinese rigs originated, China had been making heavy use of chest rigs that basically started as belts making their way higher up the chest. Like here's one for Mosin clips:  A lot of countries made attempts at chest rigs during World War II, but they were issued in small numbers and not all of them were that great (the assault vests issued to some American soldiers for D-Day usually got dumped because of how hot and heavy they were). Virtually every country thus used Y or H-suspenders with belt pouches. This is a West German setup with G3 mag pouches:  And here's what the Soviets of the time got:  Belt rigs stayed for decades after the invention of chest rigs because they're lighter, modular (until the invention of PALS webbing like MOLLE you were restricted on vests to whatever was sewn on by the manufacturer), and you can keep your front clear for crawling. Chest rigs and assault vests distribute the weight on your torso and are often easier to get to, especially if you're seated in a vehicle. East Germany also issued them to paratroopers:  The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took place after the Sino-Soviet Split and China supplied a lot of weapons, ammo, and other supplies to the Mujahideen. Of course, they also made plenty of load-bearing gear themselves: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:How did countries handle the refugees from the towns that wound up getting obliterated into no man's land during the war, and did they try to go back and rebuild or enforce their land ownership over the remains after the war was over? You're not specifying era, for much of history I think governments didn't find it their job to bother with such mundane issues. And probably they also didn't have the resources to help them, for that matter. During WW2 Finland had to relocate 11% of the population due to Soviet annexation of Karelia. At first the evacuees (as the group are called here rather than refugees, though it's the same thing) had to loiter in where ever they could be fitted - families were sent around Finland to distribute the pressure on locals, and most had to live in barns and stables for a while. Soon laws were written to resettle the Karelians, this happened through acquisitions of farmsteads or monetary compensations. At first the hope was that people could return to their homes after Karelia was retaken in 1941 and many returned to their burned homes, only to flee again three years later. They also got to experience racist treatment from western Finns who thought they were foreigners by the dialect they spoke and especially if they were Orthodox Christians as opposed to Lutherans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Soviet doctrine was for combined arms strikes that would overwhelm a position so badly before the infantry got there that they'd be doing little but mopping up anyone not dead or concussed. You drop a fuckton of artillery, air strikes, and smoke on a target before the tanks and APCs charge into the softened and possibly destroyed position. The soldiers never fight more than about 100 meters from their vehicle and remount when it's time to move. A standard Soviet soldier's loadout was three magazines and spare boxes and stripper clips of loose ammo because they were only expected to shoot about that many rounds before jumping back in their BMP and reloading. I think there was an effortpost here at some point that expanded on the connection between doctrine and the choice for/against autoloaders. IIRC the main point was that the Soviets naturally expected their tanks to be on the offensive, and possibly for quite long stretches at a time while they were breaking through successive enemy defensive lines. Under that perspective the already mentioned smaller profile is quite desirable, but also the factor that an autoloader won't fatigue even during prolonged combat. Meanwhile for the western forces it was more or less the opposite, they expected a given tank to only be in contact during short but intense firefights before retreating to the next prepared position, in which case the higher profile is not as significant (as they'll be hull-down anyways), and the somewhat faster reloading by a human loader for short stretches of time would be advantageous (in addition to the already mentioned non-combat factors).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:They also got to experience racist treatment from western Finns who thought they were foreigners by the dialect they spoke and especially if they were Orthodox Christians as opposed to Lutherans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:And what's the story of the Chicom rig? Were they easier to acquire for the Mujahideen, more discreet than just giving them Western rigs, more advanced than the Western rigs, some combination of all of them? I don't know but didn't Pakistan used to get much of their equipment from PRC? Pakistan in turn gave lots of support to the Mujahideen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I don't know but didn't Pakistan used to get much of their equipment from PRC? Pakistan in turn gave lots of support to the Mujahideen. China was second only to the US in how much support they gave against the Soviets in the 80s. There's a lot of Type 56 AKs still floating around the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Oh god that G3 rig. I would've rather clamped the mags into my literal asscrack. Germans should not be allowed to design military equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Did the eastern Finns generally regard themselves still as part of Finland in all of this? Oh, totally. The war years were overall a unifying experience for a young nation that had experienced a bloody civil war just before. But I think they did find their presence unwelcome in some regions more than others, and moved on as soon as they could. Part of this is also language politics: in some parts of western and southern coastal areas there are small Swedish majority municipalities, and those were strongly opposed to resettling Karelians there as it could have permanently tilted the lingual balance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You're not specifying era, for much of history I think governments didn't find it their job to bother with such mundane issues. And probably they also didn't have the resources to help them, for that matter. Oh sorry, I meant about WW1. That's an interesting story though. I thought most places that got annexed through war wound up with most of the population just staying put under occupation rather than evacuating en masse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Oh god that G3 rig. I would've rather clamped the mags into my literal asscrack. Germans should not be allowed to design military equipment. What's wrong with it (I have not served in the military)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Oh sorry, I meant about WW1. IIRC the Soviets forced a lot of people to 'relocate' when they redrew the borders in E. Europe after WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:That's an interesting story though. I thought most places that got annexed through war wound up with most of the population just staying put under occupation rather than evacuating en masse. People were aware of what was happening in Soviet Union and it didn't sound attractive, plus of course propaganda. My aunt's husband was born in Soviet Karelia in the 1930's, at the time it was still largely ethnically Finnish region outside the few towns like Petrozavodsk. After the mom died the father took the kids with him across the border to Finland and settled here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Pretty sure the Danish forces, or at least their reserves used or maybe even still use something like that? I go to Nijmegen every year as part of one of the military delegations and I swear I've seen a bunch of -maybe older- Danish guys wearing something very like those. Most soldiers don't wear load rigs for the march, but some of the over sixties who're except from carrying a backpack do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Oh sorry, I meant about WW1. It depended. After WWIi, for instance, millions of Germans were expelled from eastern Europe. After WW1, there was massive resertlements. The whole Greek/Turkish exchange was the most notable, but, for instance. While the numbers are sort of debated, there are estimated that German speakers made up up to 40% of the "Polish corridor" at the end of WWI, and that dropped to about 10% by 1935. Check out Robert Gerwath's "The Vanquished", which deals with some of these issues as part of a look at what happened in the territories of the losers of WWI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Nuclear War posted:Pretty sure the Danish forces, or at least their reserves used or maybe even still use something like that? I go to Nijmegen every year as part of one of the military delegations and I swear I've seen a bunch of -maybe older- Danish guys wearing something very like those. Most soldiers don't wear load rigs for the march, but some of the over sixties who're except from carrying a backpack do. Russian manufacturers like SPOSN still make them too. This is a SPOSN Smersh setup for a PKM: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:IIRC the Soviets forced a lot of people to 'relocate' when they redrew the borders in E. Europe after WWII. Not the Soviets, per se, the Allies as a whole - it's right there in the Potsdam Agreement. look at point 12
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not the Soviets, per se, the Allies as a whole - it's right there in the Potsdam Agreement. Didn't they push west a lot of Poles and Slovaks and stuff too? I mean, a lot of the borders got pushed west.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
Re: Soviet Cold War doctrine. This video is pretty interesting - It's a old VHS primer on Soviet battalion attack doctrine by the British Army, with some commentary by a youtube dude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKPQVvhRpFU "The final 250 meters will be made with all weapons firing" tl;dw - Pack a ridiculous number of tanks and APCs into a tiny frontage, pummel the enemy with a huge amount of artillery, deploy in a line a kilometer away from the enemy, drive at them with all guns blazing, dismount the infantry as close as possible, hope that at this point the enemy is either dead, severely concussed, or lying in a foxhole in a fetal position. gently caress that. That sounds like an absolute goddamn nightmare for both the defender and the attacker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 18:06
|
|