|
JcDent posted:By the way, a friend recently noted that the mulched cotton filling was terrible for when you got wounded, since it was by that time dirty and very much willing to foul up the wound. Confirm/deny? I don’t know about mulched cotton being better or worse but clothing fragments being carried into the would in general have been a huge problem ever since penetrating wounds were a thing. My understanding is that GSW is especially bad about it compared to stabbings. Your average uniform in the field isn’t exactly clean either, which makes the issue worse.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Ok I’ll be that guy and ask...why? Did war time Nazi Germany have an obsession with collecting lovely porcelain and the SS saw it as a money making opportunity? Because crappy sad-eyed puppy figurines speak to the very essence of what it means to be German - they are a part of the culture our soldiers are bringing to the savage asiatic hordes! No, I am not joking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Ok I’ll be that guy and ask...why? Did war time Nazi Germany have an obsession with collecting lovely porcelain and the SS saw it as a money making opportunity? RocknRollaAyatollah posted:The whole reason they were making porcelain figurines too was because Himmler thought they were the ideal of Aryan art. That child and sad dog's only purpose was to "awaken" the "racial soul" of the Aryan people. They, like most of that type of stuff such as holding a Thing, were seen as a joke by even devout Nazis. They surprisingly didn't succeed in their mission and they didn't even sell, making them an even worse waste of resources.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The sights on my Luger go out to 800 meters. Pretty sure that’s totally just optimism. Exactly. During WW2 the Soviet ammo being handed out to the average grunt during the first two years of the war was such poor quality, it would have been lucky to hit out past 250 meters. There was some detail about it in Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort by Overy
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Because crappy sad-eyed puppy figurines speak to the very essence of what it means to be German - they are a part of the culture our soldiers are bringing to the savage asiatic hordes! It was a Big loving Deal when some Saxons figures out how to make it and set up for Meissen porcelain. Before that most of it was imported from China and making it in Europe was a game changer. The German stuff was especially prized for being resistant to cracking in temperature extremes, which is handy if you’re boiling and drinking tea. South and central Germans got big into that poo poo. Hummel figurines were basically a way for porcelain makers to show off, then that became its own thing. My mom has a porcelain nativity scene that her grandparents brought over in the late 19th century, pretty much the only stuff besides clothes that they brought with them. So yeah, dumb porcelain figurines is German as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Exactly. Still doesn’t matter. Remember this isn’t shooting at an individual target. You’re literally shooting at a hillside. It’s good enough to get most of the bullets from a company into the same 100 yard by 100 yard box. Your guns and ammo could be grouping 50 MOA and it’s still good enough for volley fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
MOA GSW?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:So yeah, dumb porcelain figurines is German as gently caress. Yeah, there was an actual study into this and it wasn't just Himmler liked them, although I'm sure that was a big factor. The Ahnenerbe's whole mission was to catalog Germanic cultures and although people like to bring up the hunt for evidence of the true Aryans stuff, it was mostly just studying folk songs and crafts in Germany and the Nordic countries. Since this is all ridiculous and Germany itself was a modern concept, they probably landed on porcelain as a concrete and unique form of "Germanic" culture or whatever you want to call it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:54
|
|
bewbies posted:...how?? That is an absolutely ridiculous distance. Did they have a different definition of "fighting" or something? Most of the major fighting was done in awkwardly in a very hilly terrain with the British under confused and awkward leadership and the Boer's were scary good shots even before they got their hands on smokeless powder. The British in South Africa during the first Anglo-Boer War got pantsed hardcore.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It was a Big loving Deal when some Saxons figures out how to make it and set up for Meissen porcelain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:MOA GSW? Gun Shot Wound Minute Of Angle - a measurement for accuracy. The rule of thumb is that 1 MOA puts the shots in a 1 inch circle at 100 yards. This is considered very good mechanical accuracy. It is affected by both the rifle and the ammo. Your typical WW2 era rifle was 3-6 MOA depending on the acceptance standard of the army getting them, to give an idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:MOA GSW? MOA = Minute of Arc/Minute of Angle. Commonly used as a measure of accuracy for rifles. A rifle capable of shooting 1 MOA means that all the shots will fall within a ~1 inch-diameter circle at 100 yards, a ~2-inch diameter circle at 200 yards, etc. GSW = Gunshot Wound.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:this, cranach, augustus the strong, ottoman fan club, the transylvanian katana, and being not very good at war are all saxony ever did in life As I typed the word Saxon I thought to myself “5 minutes, max, before Hey Guns notices the Saxon Signal and comes running”
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:As I typed the word Saxon I thought to myself “5 minutes, max, before Hey Guns notices the Saxon Signal and comes running” i can only sort-of understand them
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
bewbies posted:...how?? That is an absolutely ridiculous distance. Did they have a different definition of "fighting" or something? By 'Transvaal Campaign 1880-1881' he means a 3 month 'conflict' with ~1000 total involved on each side and in which most activity consisted of Boers sniping at British forts on the next hill. It's not representative at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Gun Shot Wound Phanatic posted:MOA = Minute of Arc/Minute of Angle. Commonly used as a measure of accuracy for rifles. A rifle capable of shooting 1 MOA means that all the shots will fall within a ~1 inch-diameter circle at 100 yards, a ~2-inch diameter circle at 200 yards, etc. thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
And during the 2nd Anglo-Boer War (the one the world knows more about) the Boers armed with smokeless bold action rifles decided this time around to start digging in and using proper entrenchments. So during the active phase of this war the British got their arses handed to them a lot trying to combat them over their previous tactics (old Boer tactic was to seize and deploy around high ground, this time they built trenches instead of just going low behind rocks and a lot of the explosive shells tossed at them essentially did nothing). Tragically a lot of British soldiers died during this phase as they tried to get the Boers out of their well prepared defensive positions. Like being gunned down in the open or during water crossing tragic because the Boers had dug in quite well. Alchenar posted:By 'Transvaal Campaign 1880-1881' he means a 3 month 'conflict' with ~1000 total involved on each side and in which most activity consisted of Boers sniping at British forts on the next hill. I imagine the data was taken from the series of slap stick actions known Majuba Hill and Ingogo. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Most of the major fighting was done in awkwardly in a very hilly terrain with the British under confused and awkward leadership and the Boer's were scary good shots even before they got their hands on smokeless powder. The British in South Africa during the first Anglo-Boer War got pantsed hardcore. Keep in mind during the US Civil War, the Confed snipers using the Whitworth Rifle were rather well documented as doing 500+ yard to 1000 yard shots. General Sedgwick was killed from a range of at least 500 yards. Some say out to 1000. The Whitworth rifle is a drat cool rifle at that too... hexagon barrel and bullet. With irons it could do 800 yard shots all day long. With the early telescopic sites, it could do well over 1000 yards. The bullets make a very unusual sound too... Truman Head (known as California Joe), was known to take 750+ yard shots regularly with his telescopic sited Sharps Rifle. More than likely it was his use of the Sharps that bought it to the attention of Col. Berdan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Um, what? I've never heard this claim before. Read the book I listed in that post. If I remember correctly it was discussed early on in the book when discussing the downright poo poo that the Russians were trying to force into the war because they had almost nothing. Ammo was found with not just gun powder in it, but dirt, sawdust and other crap... Was downright amazing because it wasn't just small arms ammo they had issue with. EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:07
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Keep in mind during the US Civil War, the Confed snipers using the Whitworth Rifle were rather well documented as doing 500+ yard to 1000 yard shots. Yeah, black powder marksmen and the guns they used were drat lethal.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Read the book I listed in that post. Can you post the relevant extract?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Ever notice the insane range settings on old rifles? Your average Mosin or Mauser has rear sights that go out to 2000 meters. This makes some sense, but that is still an absurd distance to be shooting with the naked eye and relatively primitive guns. Like, that's a "call the mortars or helicopter" target for a modern army...even your machine guns would be wasting ammo shooting at something that far away. I guess what I'm wondering is 1) was this brief window of absurd long range area fire really so influential as to dominate gun and ammo development for the next 80 years or so, and 2) was this actually seen as a good use of time and ammo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Can you post the relevant extract? I will try once I get home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I don’t know about mulched cotton being better or worse but clothing fragments being carried into the would in general have been a huge problem ever since penetrating wounds were a thing. My understanding is that GSW is especially bad about it compared to stabbings. Your average uniform in the field isn’t exactly clean either, which makes the issue worse. half of them anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:12
|
|
bewbies posted:This makes some sense, but that is still an absurd distance to be shooting with the naked eye and relatively primitive guns. Like, that's a "call the mortars or helicopter" target for a modern army...even your machine guns would be wasting ammo shooting at something that far away. I imagine it depends on the terrain they'd be fighting in.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Yeah, black powder marksmen and the guns they used were drat lethal. Indeed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
What were the sniping distances of the pre-18th century rifles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This makes some sense, but that is still an absurd distance to be shooting with the naked eye and relatively primitive guns. Like, that's a "call the mortars or helicopter" target for a modern army...even your machine guns would be wasting ammo shooting at something that far away. The late 19th century was really influential in developing tactics to match the new weapons being fielded, and it happened to coincide with a moment in time when the average infantryman carried a weapon potentially lethal out to multiple kilometers but heavier ordinance wasn’t portable enough to be rapidly deployed yet. As to whether it was a good use of ammo, it’s basically suppressing fire. Would you rather assault the position held by the dudes who are free to shoot you up in peace as you advance or one where they’re being harassed by that company to your rear throwing rifle rounds all around them? It’s an odd time in military history that happens to coincide with the major development of the rifles that served most countries for the next 50 years and put the cartridges in the supply system that some are still dependent on to this day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The late 19th century was really influential in developing tactics to match the new weapons being fielded, and it happened to coincide with a moment in time when the average infantryman carried a weapon potentially lethal out to multiple kilometers but heavier ordinance wasn’t portable enough to be rapidly deployed yet. That all makes sense too...I guess what I find baffling is why no one did the math on the advantages of intermediate rounds once all of the other gear (machine guns and IDF and so on) came around to much more effectively engage stuff at longer ranges. I can kind of see wanting to finish out WWI with the old stuff just because of logistics and production concerns, but why on earth did they not make the switch in the intervening years? Pure organizational inertia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
bewbies posted:That all makes sense too...I guess what I find baffling is why no one did the math on the advantages of intermediate rounds once all of the other gear (machine guns and IDF and so on) came around to much more effectively engage stuff at longer ranges. I can kind of see wanting to finish out WWI with the old stuff just because of logistics and production concerns, but why on earth did they not make the switch in the intervening years? Pure organizational inertia? What's IDF apart from Israeli Defence Forces?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:bold action rifles I assume this is a typo, but it seems like something that could plausibly have been the name of something...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
I can not emphasize enough how loving much WW1 cost and how broke as gently caress everyone was in the intervening years. Like, it’s not the only reason the Depression happened, but it’s a big part of why it was so bad. You just fought an apocalyptic war. You have no money. Your public is extremely anti war right now because you just killed most of a generation of young men. Oh and you’re trying to not be quite as autocratic anymore as a hedge against this international communism thing. Military budgets are getting slashed. No one expects another war of any consequence for a long time right up until it happens. Look at it through that lens and it’s a loving miracle that the development that happened went down. Even then decisions were made on the basis of cost, like changing the Garand to .30-06 at the end because goddamn we have a literal mountain of ammo in that caliber and goddamn we do not have a lot of money for this right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:56
|
|
Arban posted:I assume this is a typo, but it seems like something that could plausibly have been the name of something... No doubt the press or advertisement has used it at least once.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What's IDF apart from Israeli Defence Forces? Indirect Fire. Squad portable mortars and the like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:speaking of female soviets, didn't ensignexpendable mention some bright lieutenant who had her men lie down in a ditch and point their rifles up at some really high angle to hit a target with volley fire at extra-long range? I would've assumed a move like this to be for Anti-Aircraft fire rather than added distance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:I would've assumed a move like this to be for Anti-Aircraft fire rather than added distance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:with mosins? would that do anything It’s a thing they trained. Same basic principle as volley fire just aiming at a patch of sky rather than a patch of ground. Now is it super effective? Not really, but you get lucky sometimes and shoot down an airplane and at the very least it keeps them from just loitering and loving you up at their leisure. Edit: the Japanese went so far as to put AA sights on their rifles to help calculate lead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It’s a thing they trained. Same basic principle as volley fire just aiming at a patch of sky rather than a patch of ground. Were any planes ever actually shot down with just rifles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:with mosins? would that do anything There's a thing known as "Golden BB." Despite what they tell you about armoring airplanes like the IL-2 or the A-10, a lucky shot in the wrong place has the potential to bring down an airplane. You certainly can't count on it - we're talking blind luck here - but throwing enough metal in the air increases the odds a bit. No, it's not like a lone infantryman is going to reliably shoot down Stukas with his trusty Mosin-Nagant. But if you're being strafed anyway you might as well throw some lead at them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:05
|
|