|
HEY GUNS posted:there are changes of opinion, developments, and fads in everything, even nazis Don’t worry, there is no idea so stupid that people can’t bring it back.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Squalid posted:But surely something interesting happened to SOMEBODY in a massive amphibious landing and occupation of a country in the middle of a massive civil war and famine? It wasn't massive, and it wasn't like it was an amphibious assault. It was a typical ship-to-shore lift, amtracks bringing jarheads to a beach where they could set up a perimeter so that they could start landing heavier stuff (LCACs, Mike-boats, etc) full of food and supplies. It's the sort of thing you do all the time in the USMC. Yes, it's a bit unnerving when the news is waiting on the beach with spotlights when you're trying to maintain a relatively low profile - not because it's being done on the sly, but because, well, let us get set up before you start pointing out where we are, you know? It wasn't Iwo Jima, just the sort of thing that's routine on a float (shipboard deployment). Also, I didn't see a massive civil war. Maybe the big battles were taking place in other areas, but I never saw anything that bad. That is, nothing on the scale of videos coming out of Syria these days. And, with rare exceptions, any locals fighting each other would quit and flee when we were nearby. Edit: Really, there just isn't that much to talk about. It was all trying to feed/bring food to miserable poor people from what I saw, with a total lack of cool stories coming out of it. Cessna fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Aug 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
The difference between heavy, medium, and light infantry in the ancient world was more about how they fought than what armor they wore. As a general rule, you can think of it as, the lighter the infantry, the more they fought in open-order as skirmishers than in tight formations. Lighter troops had their advantages(the Romans had all three in their military system), in particular in broken terrain and in the petit-guerre which was a part of all conflict. With cavalry, it's pretty similar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Wow that book is expensive, 150$ in Maple Syrup monopoly dollars. 90$ here: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Bo..._-srp1-_-title1
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Maybe in a cool Bollywood action movie, where the heroes stand on top of their vehicles and sing during the battle. In real life? Nope. There is actually a small time delay in some AT mines, mostly tilt rod types, so they hit a tank under the turret instead of blowing the driver's feet off. I've seen numbers of about half a second, that's 5 meters at 40km/h, so that seems reasonable given the target. So if you're hauling rear end enough, like say over 90km/h which equals 12.5m over half a second, that mine would explode about a car length away behind you if you're in the usual Toyota Hilux. Completely stupid given that those mines aren't the most common and that delay fuses are very much not accurate, but it's theoretically possible to do it and not die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Also an antipersonnel mine will completely gently caress up your wheel and those aren't delayed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
The most common AT mine is still the old pressure triggered, pure HE, can full of boom. It may only mangle the track and suspension on a tank, but 5+kg of TNT exploding under your Hilux is most definitely not survivable, that's equivalent to a 155mm artillery shell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
Welp, time for this again:
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 29th 1918 posted:Salvaging between LOGEAST WOOD and BUCQUOY.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 09:10
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:So I read this in a reddit thread, from a guy claims to be a milhist author named Self publishing is a big thing these days, you know. 'Some guy on reddit who's written a book' is more likely to be an insane crank than not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
I hope they're bringing back cool loot!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 11:41
|
|
|
 Came across this poem today in English 102: Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo. Shovel them under and let me work— I am the grass; I cover all. And pile them high at Gettysburg And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun. Shovel them under and let me work. Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor: What place is this? Where are we now? I am the grass. Let me work. "Grass" - Carl Sandburg
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
It's a good poem.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jellevanlottum/status/1034160802041917445
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:There is actually a small time delay in some AT mines, mostly tilt rod types, so they hit a tank under the turret instead of blowing the driver's feet off. I've seen numbers of about half a second, that's 5 meters at 40km/h, so that seems reasonable given the target. So if you're hauling rear end enough, like say over 90km/h which equals 12.5m over half a second, that mine would explode about a car length away behind you if you're in the usual Toyota Hilux. Completely stupid given that those mines aren't the most common and that delay fuses are very much not accurate, but it's theoretically possible to do it and not die. Anyone who bets their life on this deserves what they get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
i wonder what accounts for the difference between denmark and schleswig and holstein. similar culture, similar people, different overlords--different careers in the voc? perhaps most danes who wanted to go to sea would have been attracted by danish service first?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 14:12
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Anyone who bets their life on this deserves what they get. I can see this as something that happened once, scared the poo poo out of the guys in the truck, and then twenty retellings later ends up in that book as something that was done repeatedly and on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:Out of curiosity, would you have to do a fuckton of paperwork before doing any actual archeology there? I assume its gotta involve some sort of permit since it dosn't exactly sound like it'll be you and a shovel working on your own private property. I'm definitely not actually digging up anything, I more just want to rummage around in the woods and see if any relics survive on the surface. In the unlikely event I do find something I have a buddy in the history department at KU who would love to make a formal study of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I can see this as something that happened once, scared the poo poo out of the guys in the truck, and then twenty retellings later ends up in that book as something that was done repeatedly and on purpose. Yeah, true. Rack up another entry into the "guys, I totally meant to do that" book of tactics. (And 2500 years from now business executives will read this and nod knowingly at their own enlightenment. "Ah, yes, drive over the mines quickly!")
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
It sounds like a good stunt for a movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Were/are Marine rangers actually a thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Tias posted:Welp, time for this again: I read an article in National Geographic once on Mali and Chad, it claimed that when the Libyians were retreating they buried a bunch of their APCs because they didn't want the trouble of driving back to Libya with them If the place wasn't an area being disrupted by a terror groups and climate change, I'd say you could score a sweet Soviet APC
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Were/are Marine rangers actually a thing? There were Marine Raiders and if by rangers you mean light infantry / commando ops, they did that
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:If the place wasn't an area being disrupted by a terror groups and climate change, I'd say you could score a sweet Soviet APC You don't need to go quite that far. http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/armoured-vehicles-4/btr-60-8#currency=USD
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:There were Marine Raiders and if by rangers you mean light infantry / commando ops, they did that They've been revived. MARSOC took up the name in - 2006, I believe? - and they did their first deployments in 2007.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:In modern warfare, is it a fair generalization to say that cities are taken with ‘light’ troops or does it once again depend on context? This was kind of conventional wisdom for a long time. Engagements like Stalingrad and Hue and Grozny seemed to tell everyone that mechanized and armored forces in cities were DOOMED, and that was a basic planning assumption all the way through the start of OIF. After 15 years in Iraq though, tactics and equipment evolved a lot. Tanks and mechs became a lot more survivable, and armor support became a pretty fundamental part of urban combat. Obviously you still need dismounts to get into the nooks and crannies of a city, but planning for urban operations now revolves pretty heavily around how you're going to employ your armor. A lot of the same trends happened in the Crimea even more recently. All this kind of makes sense when you think about how tank killing has evolved over the last 20 years or so. For a long time, the tank's most dangerous opponent, apart from other tanks, was a dude with an RPG hiding around a corner. Modern tanks are virtually immune to traditional shoulder fired antiarmor weapons, which has in turn spurred the development of heavy ATGMs that can be fired from standoff ranges. That, plus nasty new artillery capabilities and the growing prevalence of attack aviation really flipped the old dynamic on its head - a tank is now likely safer in a city than it is in open terrain. Artillery, helicopters, and standoff ATGMs have a much harder time targeting tanks when they have to deal with buildings and whatnot. That isn't to say that tankers don't prefer to be charging across open terrain bypassing unpleasant things and looking for crunchies in the rear, but they do seem to have begrudgingly accepted this role of urban land battleship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
I don't think Stalingrad is a good example, I believe the Germans had success in deploying armor in cities previously in I think Minsk in 1941; you divide up the city into zones by taking control of the major roadways/streets using armor to basically "zone" your enemy by creating fields of fire they can't effectively cross or attack through. I also believe the Red Army had reasonable success in Germany during 1944/1945 deploying armor as well and even deployed howitzers and large field pieces for anti building support duty for lack of adequate SPGs. I don't think that the conventional wisdom is that they're DOOMED, they just require vastly more baby sitting and will take heavier losses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Tanks have never been invulnerable juggernauts, though. Like so many other things, the ridiculously lopsided engagements during Desert Storm and OIF distorted common perception of how armored forces would fare in war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't think that the conventional wisdom is that they're DOOMED, they just require vastly more baby sitting and will take heavier losses. Yes, very much so. Tanks can be VERY useful in cities - any grunt that turns down fire support from a bunch of machineguns and a 120mm main isn't making the right decision. But that doesn't mean that tanks should blunder alone around like blind elephants, that's just asking for trouble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
German successes in 1941 with armour taking cities were entirely the result of them managing to show up before any defences had been seriously prepared and drive straight through while the motorised infantry swept up the key locations. They didn't like to do it and it went wrong when they came up against a prepared defence. Today mobility is precisely what keeps armour alive from being knocked out by precision fires or infantry atgm ambushes. You don't stay in the ambush zone and give them a shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Tanks have never been invulnerable juggernauts, though. Like so many other things, the ridiculously lopsided engagements during Desert Storm and OIF distorted common perception of how armored forces would fare in war. This trend is a lot broader than just Iraq , although that was certainly the most significant usage of armored vehicles in recent history. Armored forces just about everywhere are starting to employ ""cities as sanctuary" tactic. this includes everyone from US Army OPFOR to Chinese heavy combined arms brigades. When you are trying to offset threats like long-range antitank missiles and precision artillery you aren't going to do a whole lot better than a city.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:You don't need to go quite that far. Well thanks, now I`m onto this site and marveling at all the nations that make their own military trucks poo poo I find on Wikipedia: Bombardment of Ellwood quote:Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, seven Japanese submarines patrolled the American West Coast. They sank two merchant ships and damaged six more, skirmishing twice with U.S. Navy air or sea forces. By the end of December, the submarines had all returned to friendly waters to resupply. However, several had gone to Kwajalein, and would pay a return visit to American waters. One of these was the Imperial Japanese Navy submarine I-17. The I-17 displaced 3,654 long tons (3,713 t) when submerged and was 365 ft 6 in (111.40 m) long. Her armament included six 20 in (510 mm) torpedo tubes and 17 torpedoes, plus a 14-cm deck gun. She carried 101 officers and men, captained by Commander Kozo Nishino. Fu-Go Balloon bombs. Involved in the discovery of the Jet Stream, drifted as far east as Manitoba in Canada I had no idea the British had a similar program The only real Amerika bomber e: when you think of RAF commands in WW2, remember British Balloon Command Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Aug 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
bewbies posted:All this kind of makes sense when you think about how tank killing has evolved over the last 20 years or so. For a long time, the tank's most dangerous opponent, apart from other tanks, was a dude with an RPG hiding around a corner. Modern tanks are virtually immune to traditional shoulder fired antiarmor weapons Hmm is this still true if we're talking about a shot into their top armour, eg from a third floor window?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
I think we all know what a tank's greatest enemy is
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:I think we all know what a tank's greatest enemy is Civ 3 spearmen
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Hmm is this still true if we're talking about a shot into their top armour, eg from a third floor window? No, or the rear or sides. A tandem warhead RPG punched through the side armor of one M1, and out the other side in the 2003 Iraq invasion. There are areas you can definitely kill a modern tank with anything like a modern AT rocket. But it's a question of relative risk. What's a bigger threat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Hmm is this still true if we're talking about a shot into their top armour, eg from a third floor window? A lot is going to depend on the tank and the munition. There isn't a lot of overlap between munitions that you can fire indoors and those that can defeat a modern MBTs top armor, and a lot of those, in turn, are fancy expensive missiles that you'd much prefer to be utilizing from a healthy distance away from the tank if at all possible...if you paid for an ATGM that can standoff against an MBT, you'll generally want to use that capability. In addition, if a tank is expecting an elevated engagement, the CROWS gunner (or foreign equivalent) is going to be scanning windows and rooftops, and in most cases that is not a showdown you want to take on with any enthusiasm if you're an RPG gunner. All that said, outside of IEDs or other similar preplaced devices, elevated engagements are the biggest threat to armor in cities, and tankers spend a lot of time training to try and offset that threat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:So I read this in a reddit thread, from a guy claims to be a milhist author named "Tom Cooper". I don't know a thing about tanks, but I was bored, and this sounded like bullshit. Anyway, this (slow-loading) source says it takes a t55 21 seconds to traverse its turret 360 degrees. https://ia801001.us.archive.org/20/...tle%20Tanks.pdf So by my maths, you'd have to be going about 107kmph to outpace the turret of a t55 100 metres away, assuming you were going at a tangent. You'd need to be going 214kmph if the tank was 200 metres away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:I don't know a thing about tanks, but I was bored, and this sounded like bullshit. Anyway, this (slow-loading) source says it takes a t55 21 seconds to traverse its turret 360 degrees. If you're within 100m, the tank already has problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:I don't know a thing about tanks, but I was bored, and this sounded like bullshit. Anyway, this (slow-loading) source says it takes a t55 21 seconds to traverse its turret 360 degrees. I was going to comment on this part but you covered it perfectly. Quite simply the writer does not understand how battles are fought - the tank would be gunning your HiLux long before you got close enough to outrun the turret, unless the crew was confused and demoralized by the approaching wave of mine explosions. If you somehow got close enough to run circles around a tank (which apparently is isolated from its platoon mates and has no infantry support) the main problem for the gunner would be to acquire your bouncing car in a narrow sight that is better designed to look at targets kilometers away, not that a turret can't be swung fast enough (if need be, the driver can assist by simultaneously rotating the hull).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 20:24
|
|
