|
For what it�s worth, Manchester wasn�t saying he was in all those battles. It�s a weird book and a weird device he uses in it, but he wasn�t saying he fought from Pearl Harbor all the way through to Okinawa. Edit: what in the gently caress has happened to my apostrophes there ‘
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
SA is having issues sitewide on that
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Go on... They were a bunch of them that were tested on either British, American, or captured German tanks. Typically they relied on letting off a cloud of gas near an intake vent or hitting an observation port and shooting poison liquid into it. Both approaches proved effective and would very likely prove lethal on the battlefield. As far as I am aware they were never deployed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:For what it�s worth, Manchester wasn�t saying he was in all those battles. It�s a weird book and a weird device he uses in it, but he wasn�t saying he fought from Pearl Harbor all the way through to Okinawa. I get that, but in that case write "The USMC did this" or "K/3/5 did this." And there's no excusing page after page of "oh, noes, my penis is just so, so big."
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
OK, so What's the difference between a musket and a Arquebus? For that matter, I get that 30 years war 'pistols' were these large muzzle-loaded guns you could fire one-handed, but now the term carbine has also shown up, and I know what that is in modern-speak, but have no idea what that is 16th century style, aside from yet another style of firearm. Phanatic posted:Most. It was considerably more expensive than the Manhattan Project. Just out of curiosity, is there any comprehensive ranking of most expensive projects in WW2? The V-2, the B-29, and the Manhattan Project seem to be benchmarks, but I've no idea how that compares to others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Fangz posted:And trying to put on a gas mask in the cramped confines of a tank is a nightmare. No, it's not THAT bad. The interior of an AFV isn't like a fighter plane where you just can't move. There's plenty of room to put on a mask and continue to work. I don't know if WWII tank crews carried gas masks routinely - I know infantry tossed theirs when they could, but if gas HAD been used they would have held onto them, and it's a lot easier to carry more gear when you're in armor. When we worked on M-60A1s - pre M-1s - in the late 80's (yeah, I'm old) the tanks didn't have overpressure systems, so we trained to fight in MOPP gear and masks CONSTANTLY. The standard gas mask we had was the M-17, same as the infantry used. We were also issued M25s, which had a separate canister filter and a hose that led to it; they were more comfortable than M17s, but I never trusted them, it seemed too easy to snag the hose on something and rip it. The tanks also had a CBR system that was pretty much useless - you could plug the hose leading from the filter into it and it would force filtered air into the mask, but this was pointless and, again, it was too easy to snag the hose. (The CBR system DID help cool the crews a bit, as you could stuff the hose into your shirt to cool down.) Working with a gas mask or MOPP gear on is no fun. It makes everything worse - it's harder to do pretty much everything. But working on an AFV is already hard. I wouldn't call working with a mask a nightmare as much as "makes things more of a hassle." For reference, we fought the entire first Gulf War in MOPP gear and gas masks and did pretty well there. The big problem with a gas mask in an AFV is that it makes it harder to use the sights - you can't get your eye up on the reticle/sight as well. But, well, you deal with it. The big problem I can see with use of gas vs. AFVs is that it isn't a "hard kill" system. If the crew can get their masks on they'll do so, then kill you. Sure, they'll have to decon (wash off) their vehicles later, but you'll be dead. Source: I was a USMC tank crewman and my Comany's NBC NCO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
One is called a musket, and the other is called an arquebus. Less flippantly, the arquebus is the first shoulder-fired gun, and was the first design to include a trigger. The musket was a heavier version to deal with armor. The arequebus was an excellent skirmishing weapon that could easily be moved around and fired from the shoulder, but was fairly lacking in armor penetration. Meanwhile, a musket was a much heavier piece firing a much heavier ball. Muskets had excellent armor penetration, but were far too cumbersome for skirmishing and (ideally) were fired from a rest. As technology improved, it became possible to get musket-grade performance out of a gun much closer to an arequebus in size, and the general decline in armor rendered the full musket performance unnecessary. By the time flint-based firing systems became common, the two weapons had effectively merged into one, and the name "arquebus" faded away. A carbine was a horseman's weapon, essentially a musket or arquebus with the barrel cut down to be easily carried in the saddle. They were rarely used from horseback because reloading was too cumbersome even with the shorter barrel, but they allowed men to ride to remote locations and dismount to fight as infantry, providing firepower in a way that was otherwise unobtainable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, so Arquebus was a smaller earlier version of the musket. Cavalry pistols were longer than normal pistols and used by one hand. A carbine musket was about the size of an arquebus, but a later invention with a different stock. Then there are also blunderbusses, ie. shotguns, and their smaller one-handed versions dragons which gave name to the dragoons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
I mean musket is a general term really, if you want differences it usually comes in length/the firing system/how they are deployed and used in combat.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Which is ridiculous, since obviously Finland is the true heir to the Roman Empire. Soviet taint assault
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:do they still make wheellocks? https://www.facebook.com/bolek.maciaszczyk/photos_albums
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
Cessna posted:No, it's not THAT bad. The interior of an AFV isn't like a fighter plane where you just can't move. There's plenty of room to put on a mask and continue to work. I don't know if WWII tank crews carried gas masks routinely - I know infantry tossed theirs when they could, but if gas HAD been used they would have held onto them, and it's a lot easier to carry more gear when you're in armor. I would not extend the cold war tank experience to the WWII tank experience. IIRC, by modem standards those tanks were typically insanely cramped. (Edit: Well, maybe not the Sherman) Fangz fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 09:05
|
|
|
Why did the Brits get a new LMG to replace the Lewis Gun?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 09:36
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Only book I've ever tossed was a really smug obviously pumped out during the Brexit hype smug POS explaining why beating the Napoleonic French clearly made my country some sort of 19th century supermen and everything is wrong because. How is Niall Ferguson doing these days?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 09:52
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Soviet taint assault Surely Poland would like a word
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 10:25
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:Why did the Brits get a new LMG to replace the Lewis Gun? The Bren is about 2/3rds of the weight and also you can change the barrel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 10:28
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The Bren is about 2/3rds of the weight and also you can change the barrel. Interesting. Was overheating a big problem for the Lewis guns? WWI guys, have you read many accounts of them getting hosed up from heat? Was is also impossible to change the barrel for BAR? And was it easy for Brens?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 10:36
|
|
|
Yeah the Lewis is kind of awkward and bulky for the role of a light squad support machine gun.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:How is Niall Ferguson doing these days? Still trash, still publishing op eds in major newspapers to their eternal discredit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
I don't have any anecdotes about the Lewis gun, but to achieve the ultimate potential of a machine gun; sustained fire, you need sufficient cooling or quick-change barrels. As for the BAR, some variants did have quick-change barrels but not the one used in WW1. Speaking of the WW1 BAR, it wasn't made to be a machine gun in the first place, but an automatic rifle. Changing the barrel on a Bren is pretty easy, yeah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcbFEIomzm4&t=423s
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
IIRC the BAR was too heavy to be an assault weapon and had too little ammo to be a support weapon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:Interesting. Was overheating a big problem for the Lewis guns? WWI guys, have you read many accounts of them getting hosed up from heat? Was is also impossible to change the barrel for BAR? And was it easy for Brens? The Lewis gun definitely overheated in combat. It wasn't notably bad in this regard - in fact for a weapon of the era it did very well, especially compared to things like the Chauchat or the BAR. But it would seize up under sustained fire, somewhere around 700 rounds (sources differ on this but they're pretty consistent that you can get more than 500 but less than 1000, and that degraded performance starts around 500). That's honestly enough for an LMG in most combat situations, but a quick-change barrel flat out eliminated this problem while also lowering weight and adding some other benefits. And the Bren's barrel is incredibly easy to change. You flip a latch, grab the handle, rotate, pull. It's designed to be done in combat, after all. Changing the barrel on a Lewis gun is an armorer's job. As is changing the barrel on a BAR, and in that case a tricky one - even if you have the right tools its easy to damage the receiver trying to get the barrel out. But really the impetus for replacing the Lewis wasn't that the Lewis was a bad weapon. It was that technology and understanding of the LMG's role had advanced quite a bit by the late 20s. The Lewis was a complicated design that was very expensive to produce - it actually cost more per unit than a Vickers. That complexity also made it difficult to repair and keep working in the field. The pan magazines were also a significant draw back. They worked fine, but carrying spares was a real pain in the rear end. The British - correctly - decided they could get the same or superior performance out of a cheaper and easier to produce weapon, which would also probably be lighter, easier to maintain, and easier to handle in the field. And that is exactly what the Bren is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:Interesting. Was overheating a big problem for the Lewis guns? WWI guys, have you read many accounts of them getting hosed up from heat? Was is also impossible to change the barrel for BAR? And was it easy for Brens? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...heating&f=false This is about 2 minutes of sustained firing, going through 10-20 magazines though. Brens, being without the air cooling mechanism, overheat about twice as fast, but of course you have the barrel change for that. MG42 and MG34 need a barrel change even more often, with their higher rate of fire. The BAR isn't really meant for sustained fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yQeyi2Fc40
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
My dad (pushing towards sixty) who is a former serviceman always talks about the Bren with a wry smile and bemused tone. Apparently according to him it wasn't a bad little gun, he still finds it's weird accuracy for it's role amusing in the present day. But yeah didn't the 1st generation of BAR need like some sort of sling or harness for walking fire?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
I always wonder how realistic 'walking fire' is. I would not want to walk towards an enemy trenchline, LMG carrying or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
I kind of imagine the whole walking fire thing was sort of part of the mop up process working in tandem with more mobile armed soldiers and a creeping accurate barrage.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Is this about walking while firing or walking the fire? e: I'm slow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Walking while firing. The idea was to be able to throw rounds downrange at the enemy trench while approaching it, then go full auto when you actually get to the trench. The BAR was designed for those roles in mind and was pretty drat advanced for when it came out. The big issue it had was that it was a very good weapon for 1918, but by the time WWII rolled around you had stuff like the MG-34 and the BAR did not compare favorably to it. It's German counterpart in WWI was the MG 08/15, which was still a crew served weapon. Walking Fire (WWI trench warfare edition) was pretty quickly shown to be a bad idea compared to 'get to the other side quicker'. SeanBeansShako posted:But yeah didn't the 1st generation of BAR need like some sort of sling or harness for walking fire? Ian touched upon this in his BAR video. The BAR Gunner's ammo belt had a cup on it to support the buttstock while the gunner advanced to allow for walking fire. 3 different ammo belts in total. Gunner, 1st Assistant (8 mag pouches + Pistol Ammo), 2nd Assistant (4 mag pouches + rifle ammo) Taerkar fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:My dad (pushing towards sixty) who is a former serviceman always talks about the Bren with a wry smile and bemused tone. Apparently according to him it wasn't a bad little gun, he still finds it's weird accuracy for it's role amusing in the present day. You can walk and shoot from the hip with any shoulder-fired machine gun that's not made completely weirdly, even huge ones like MG 42s. Ian McCollum and Bloke on the Range did a video covering some gun myths, including the one about the Bren being "too accurate" for a machine gun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rv337snZ9k Basically, not a single person has ever complained that their gun is too accurate and the recoil of firing the gun will result in a natural cone of fire anyway. A machine gun being intentionally inaccurate would make it useless for anything but spraying bullets that miss everything you're trying to hit. As for the BAR, it's sort of in the proto-assault rifle category. It was meant to be operated by a single soldier and fired from the shoulder or on a bipod, in addition to the obsolete WW1 tactic of walking fire. It was never intended to provide the same amount of gunfire as a belt-fed machine gun and was designed to be a portable individual weapon. The early version didn't even have a bipod and some WW2 soldiers removed their bipods to lower the weight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Basically, not a single person has ever complained that their gun is too accurate
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I would not extend the cold war tank experience to the WWII tank experience. IIRC, by modem standards those tanks were typically insanely cramped. (Edit: Well, maybe not the Sherman) If there's enough space inside the vehicle to move around and work the gun - especially loading - there's more than enough room to put on a gas mask and a MOPP suit. Why wouldn't there be? It's not like AFVs are form-fitting. It's uncomfortable, sure, but there's room. I've spent many, many hours restoring a T-34/85, and spent time driving multiple WWII era tanks, mostly Shermans and a "Hetzer"/38(t). I've also been able to crawl around on other WWII tanks, from Pz IVs to Stuarts to LVTs. There isn't THAT much of a difference between WWII stuff and modern stuff - in some cases the WWII vehicles are more spacious, in others it's the other way around. All were, after all, designed to accommodate people. When in the service I restored a BMP-1 APC and got to go to the Army's "OPFOR" facility in Fort Irwin; there I got to drive T55s, T-72s, BRDMs, and a number of other Soviet-made vehicles. Soviet stuff is more cramped than US equivalents, but even in those there's more than enough room to put on a mask and MOPP suit - even in the insanely tight BMPs. The Soviets worked and trained in NBC conditions constantly - and if they could do it in a BMP-1 it would be possible inside any WWII tank. Of the WWII vehicles I've worked on the "Hetzer" was the smallest. Even in that it little thing would be possible to put on a gas mask and continue to work the vehicle. The space available inside the T-34/85 and the Sherman is roughly comparable to the space inside modern tanks. Edit: Bonus pic of the current state of the T-34/85: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
Well, I guess it is Breast Cancer Awareness Month...
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
tank gay so what
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Well, I guess it is Breast Cancer Awareness Month... That's primer. It'll be 4B0 green when it's done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
I was hoping we finally had a tank that would feel about me the way I feel about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
The most fabulous T-34 is the one that was left in a London park for years, and was constantly graffitied
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Cessna posted:That's primer. It'll be 4B0 green when it's done. Well, yeah! She missed the book clubs! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Okay that's actually funnier to me because I assume it's colored that way so you know for drat sure if you missed a spot; video games like to use a purplish-pink color for texturing stuff for the same reasons. So now it looks like "Greg is getting behind on his texturing." That's a concession to modernity. The USSR didn't use a separate primer; they just painted green paint onto the bare metal. (Actually that's not entirely true. Some factories used a primer post-1942; it was a pale green color.) On this T-34 we chipped back the paint until we got to bare metal and couldn't find any evidence of primer, green or otherwise. It was just layer after layer of 4B0 green paint. While that's fine for a tank with a limited lifespan, we don't want to apply a new layer every year only to have to scale it back to bare metal eventually; that would be a mess and probably do more damage to the metal than it would prevent. As a result we went with a good modern primer that will help preserve the metal, protect it from rust, and give the green something to adhere to. Edit: I keep saying "we," it's the tank's owner's decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:30
|
|