|
FrangibleCover posted:That's roughly my holistic impression as well, except that unlike what you and I would think of as motorised formations, MRDs have tanks and tracked artillery and I think usually both IFVs and APCs. This kills the strategic mobility of the unit and makes you want to use it against people who have heavily armed things that you need tanks and IFVs to kill. This doesn't necessarily preclude the use of an APC, and the BTR series is blurring the line into IFV anyway, but I don't understand why they didn't do what everyone else did in combined arms formations with APCs: Tracked Shitboxes. They even had the MT-LB for the role but for some reason they wanted wheels. Don’t forget that the wheeled stuff is cheaper and requires less logistical support.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Don’t forget that the wheeled stuff is cheaper and requires less logistical support. Presumably it often has greater tactical as well as strategic mobility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Depending on the era, wouldn't most warships meet bad ends? Unless they're scrapped (something I understand wasn't done to wooden ships), wouldn't they be used until sunk by incompetence/weather/deterioration? During the 17th century, say, English warships would be "rebuilt" periodically. This meant essentially disassembling the ship, discarding the bad wood, and building a new ship with the remaining good wood and new material as necessary. The new ship would retain the same name and be treated as a continuation of the old ship in official documentation, but could end up quite different in particulars. That said, I recently read a history of 50-gun ships from the Stuarts to the fall of Napoleon and it seems like half of them were lost to storms or other hardships in the first century of that period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Don’t forget that the wheeled stuff is cheaper and requires less logistical support. I was just going to say that. Pretty much any industrial country that can make large trucks can make a BTR-60 knockoff, or at least something like the various South African APCs. A joking theory I've seen is that the number of domestic Warsaw Pact APCs were partially a political resistance to Russian rule via making equipment the Red Army couldn't use the spare parts for. See also stuff like the Vz.58. OpenlyEvilJello posted:During the 17th century, say, English warships would be "rebuilt" periodically. This meant essentially disassembling the ship, discarding the bad wood, and building a new ship with the remaining good wood and new material as necessary. The new ship would retain the same name and be treated as a continuation of the old ship in official documentation, but could end up quite different in particulars. Baltimore claimed for a long time that their USS Constellation was the actual original Constellation via Ship of Theseus timber reuse, but it turned out it was a different ship entirely. And IIRC after capturing the USS President in the war of 1812, the British used her for a while as the HMS President, scrapped her after the war, and then rebuilt a exact copy because apparently the design was good enough for the Royal Navy and they wanted to keep the ship around as a "reminder" to the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 08:15
|
|
|
One of the weirdest things about the period of absolute supremacy of the Royal Navy is that a huge proportion of the fleet consisted of ship designs copied from captured vessels. British shipyards were horribly antiquated and were very much artisan craftshops at a time when everyone else was standardizing and the French in particular leaning on scientific experimentation to guide designs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
Vaginal Vagrant posted:Presumably it often has greater tactical as well as strategic mobility. there aren't a lot of places wheeled IFVs can go that tracked IFVs cannot
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 09:44
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:The area was next to a route from Kathmandu and a Chinese border post. Its also not really in any national preserves or hiking trails so no tourists. Nowadays its right next to a busy crowded highway choked with trucks. Also here is something involving guns for this thread. where do they get caps? this is why matchlock supremacy
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 10:35
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:That's roughly my holistic impression as well, except that unlike what you and I would think of as motorised formations, MRDs have tanks and tracked artillery and I think usually both IFVs and APCs. This kills the strategic mobility of the unit and makes you want to use it against people who have heavily armed things that you need tanks and IFVs to kill. Motor/Rifle Divisions have three Motor/Rifle Regiments, usually two BTR-regiments and one BMP-regiment, though sometimes the other way around. There's also an BMP battalion in the Tank Regiment, and BRMs in the recon company. I'm not sure how much it kills the strategic mobility though: it seems like there's enough trucks and trailers to go around in an MRD for all their tracked vehicles to ride on tank transporters. You could always do the same with an all-BMP division but each regiment is another 150-ish tank transporters so I imagine it gets expensive after a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 11:03
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Wheeled APCs without too much armour, meanwhile, are nice when you want a vehicle that can serve as an APC but also use roads effectively. This gives far greater strategic mobility, and are cheaper, which is very good when you're trying to give one to every squad in your army. Here's a thing a friend of mine discovered back when he was doing research for Eugen for Wargame: Red Dragon. An APC with even a single piddly .50 or the Soviet counterpart is a huge increase in firepower for an infantry squad, far beyond what you could imagine based purely on the equipment used. Even a lovely APC works out well as a stable firing platform and can react better than a man portable HMG team. Of course, Finland had up until the eighties an Inspector of the Infantry who was convinced that arming APC's is a really bad idea because they'd take risks with them so all the wheeled APCs were unarmed, up until he retired. The Armored Infantry was under the Inspector of the Armoured Forces, so they rolled with armed transports.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 12:02
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Depending on the era, wouldn't most warships meet bad ends? Unless they're scrapped (something I understand wasn't done to wooden ships), wouldn't they be used until sunk by incompetence/weather/deterioration? They wouldn't be scrapped (taken apart for materials) but they were quite often hulked (masts taken off, left moored for use as accommodation or prisons), or just left to rot. There comes a point a ship isn't safe to sail anymore, they wouldnt just keep using them til they literally sank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:They wouldn't be scrapped (taken apart for materials) but they were quite often hulked (masts taken off, left moored for use as accommodation or prisons), or just left to rot. There comes a point a ship isn't safe to sail anymore, they wouldnt just keep using them til they literally sank. Or were scuttled! https://youtu.be/vObkluMUvWo HMS Implacable, launched 1800, captured by the RN shortly after Trafalgar, used in various capacities until being scuttled in 1949. HMS Wellesley, launched 1815, was sunk by the Luftwaffe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Oh there's never been any reason you couldn't make a bow out of steel, but by the time metallurgy had advanced enough to make steel a practical material for making weapons, the bow was falling into disuse because there were better options. Societies that were still regularly using bows at that time typically lacked the infrastructure and knowledge and/or resources to manufacture steel in useful quantities. Just one of those things where sure you could do it, but why would you? This is the skeleton of the correct answer but the flesh is from a different beast. Steel becomes "practical" for making weapons around the same time iron does. Iron is not really usable for any kind of edged weapon, so whenever we start seeing ferrous metal spearheads and swords (into the multiple centuries BC) is when we start seeing steel in weapons. The vast majority of what you see in weapons even into the Early Modern Period is a core of iron and a steel edge, or in the case of guns mostly iron components with some steel components. You see that with tools too. Even into the 20th century, after wrought iron production had declined tremendously, a lot of chisels and axes would be made of two grades of steel: a mild steel body and a high carbon steel edge. Speaking from a European perspective, steel was significantly more expensive than iron until the late 19th century. The bow was not falling into disuse at that time. I don't know the price for the the 15th century, which seems to be the period you're trying to describe in extremely vague language, but in the late 18th century steel was generally 3-4x more. Where you do see steel self bows (not crossbows, which do not have to flex as far) is India and Persia, where the much purer crucible steels were more readily available, meaning the steel could flex more without snapping. This thread is a good resource: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.18939.html Note, however, that Tod points out that steel is actually less efficient than organic materials for spring return. That is far more likely to be why we see fewer steel bows than composite ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Here's a thing a friend of mine discovered back when he was doing research for Eugen for Wargame: Red Dragon. Tiera? Did it also apply to unarmoured vehicles like the Bv-206?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Tiera? Yeah Tiera, small world. I think it might have done, not sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Yeah Tiera, small world. Heh, the reason I know
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/tehXBDw.gifv Kamikaze hit on a Fletcher-class destroyer
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
There's quite a lot of those. Though I don't think there's anyone that's as insane as the one of the kamikaze taking out that ammunition ship. I'd imagine that most are familiar with that one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMs4IJQVRYM
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:There's quite a lot of those. Though I don't think there's anyone that's as insane as the one of the kamikaze taking out that ammunition ship. I'd imagine that most are familiar with that one.  No. No, we were not
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
That videos is neat but the lovely dubbing detracts a lot
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
They Shall Not Grow Old is only on iPlayer for less than a day now, any last minute types now is your chance.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Tias posted:
Oh. Well, you're welcome, I guess, it's quite something. Crewing an ammunition ship or an oil tanker in the war must really have been something, knowing you are basically sitting on a massive floating pile of explosives (or incendiary in the case of the oil tanker, which probably would be worse as that'd likely be far from instantaneous as far as deaths go). GotLag posted:That videos is neat but the lovely dubbing detracts a lot Just turn off the sound and pretend you are watching a gif.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Oh. Well, you're welcome, I guess, it's quite something. Crewing an ammunition ship or an oil tanker in the war must really have been something, knowing you are basically sitting on a massive floating pile of explosives (or incendiary in the case of the oil tanker, which probably would be worse as that'd likely be far from instantaneous as far as deaths go).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Did the crew of oil tankers and ammunition ships get any special benefits? Personally I'd appreciate some hazard wages and extra life insurance payment for my family or whatever if my assignment meant I basically forfeited the ability to survive attacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Does anyone have good book recs for either the dutch wars of independence or the Greek war for independence?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 17th November 1918 posted:The syllabus of the Education Scheme was received and the day was spent in the classification of men in their educational categories. Lieut D GWYTHER-MOORE was appointed Battn. Education Officer. An arrangement was made with the 13th R.Bde by which we changed all our webbing equipment with them for leather.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Here's a thing a friend of mine discovered back when he was doing research for Eugen for Wargame: Red Dragon. How effective are technicals in this respect then. And no, I will not just ask the Chadians. In the APC example it seems like you'd probably outrange most infantry portable weapons that aren't crew operated so could you really just park like 900m away and provide a little fire support I guess. I always assumed the guns were mostly some sort of defense against things small and squishy ambushing you from concealment but it did occur to me in passing you could use them to plink away at range.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Did the crew of oil tankers and ammunition ships get any special benefits? Personally I'd appreciate some hazard wages and extra life insurance payment for my family or whatever if my assignment meant I basically forfeited the ability to survive attacks. WW2 explosives workers typically got extra pay, but I'm not sure about sailors getting that. This was one thing that made merchant marine sailors salty, because they were getting killed at a far higher rate than explosive accidents were killing munitions workers, but their pay was notably shittier than most factory workers, let alone munitions workers. If ammo/oil sailors were paid extra might also vary by nation - I can see America doing it, but Canada and Britain being too stingy. Questions ITT: 1. What the heck were A4 missiles made of? Military History visualized makes mention that was using about 5% of the aluminum used by the German aircraft industry. But, aircraft aluminum I thought gives up the ghost above mach 2.5. Is this a "it lasts just fine for one use" thing? Or are ballistic missiles still made of steel and I never realized? 2. Listening to the Revolutions podcast on the Haitian Revolution, and it mentioned attempts to put down the slave revolt were made more complected by the fact that many slaves had fought in wars in Africa before being enslaved, and African tactics were very effective in Haiti. I know literally zero about African-born tactics in the 1700s, if anybody knows about them and/or why they worked very well in context, Id love to listen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:there aren't a lot of places wheeled IFVs can go that tracked IFVs cannot I presume that given a road they can do it faster though. Is 'mobility' the wrong term?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:1. What the heck were A4 missiles made of? Military History visualized makes mention that was using about 5% of the aluminum used by the German aircraft industry. But, aircraft aluminum I thought gives up the ghost above mach 2.5. Is this a "it lasts just fine for one use" thing? Or are ballistic missiles still made of steel and I never realized? A whole bunch of them fell apart in mid air because of that, according to my aerostructures lecturer. The A4 was a janky piece of poo poo at the best of times, as you'd expect from a crash-developed early ballistic missile built by slave labour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:1. What the heck were A4 missiles made of? Military History visualized makes mention that was using about 5% of the aluminum used by the German aircraft industry. But, aircraft aluminum I thought gives up the ghost above mach 2.5. Is this a "it lasts just fine for one use" thing? Or are ballistic missiles still made of steel and I never realized? Probably just plain old mild steel, maybe stainless/high carbon steels in areas where more strength was needed. I'd bet the aluminum was used more for internal components or alloys (Aluminum-Magnesium) in such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Cessna posted:It doesn't take THAT much effort to keep an AFV in running condition depending on how you store it. Keep fuel in the tanks, start the engine and get it hot once in a while, chase down leaks and fix them, bust rust with a wire brush where you need to, etc. now I'm imagining a really great heist movie
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:2. Listening to the Revolutions podcast on the Haitian Revolution, and it mentioned attempts to put down the slave revolt were made more complected by the fact that many slaves had fought in wars in Africa before being enslaved, and African tactics were very effective in Haiti. I know literally zero about African-born tactics in the 1700s, if anybody knows about them and/or why they worked very well in context, Id love to listen. Depends where and when, of course. The Fulani jihad states made pretty big use of light cavalry and horse archers, for instance, and the Oyo were fond of cavalry charges Most of the bigger African states used tactics that probably wouldn't be too unfamiliar to Europeans....lines of spearmen and swordsmen supported by archers and musketeers. But Duncan is talking about the tactics by people in the heavy forest states, who relied a lot on ambush and skirmishers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
PzIII Ausf.G-H Queue: PzIII Ausf.J-N, Russian Renault, Nashorn/Hornisse, Medium Tank M4A2E8, P.1000 and other work by Grotte, KV-100 and KV-122, Cruiser Tank Mk.I, Cruiser Tank Mk.II, Valentine III and V, Valentine IX, Valentine X and XI, 7TP and Vickers Mk.E trials in the USSR, Modern Polish tank projects, SD-100 (Czech SU-100 clone), TACAM R-2, kpúv vz. 34, kpúv vz. 37, kpúv vz. 38, IS-1 (IS-85), IS-2 (object 240), Production of the IS-2, IS-2 modernization projects, GMC M8, First Soviet assault rifles, Stahlhelm in WWI, Stahlhelm in WWII, SU-76 with big guns, Panther trials in the USSR, Western spherical tanks, S35 in German service, SU-152 combat debut, 57 mm gun M1, T-34 applique armour projects Available for request:  Schmeisser's work in the USSR Object 237 (IS-1 prototype) SU-85 T-29-5 KV-85 Tank sleds T-80 (the light tank) Proposed Soviet heavy tank destroyers DS-39 tank machinegun MS-1/T-18 Kalashnikov's debut works MS-1 production Kalashnikov-Petrov self-loading carbine SU-76M (SU-15M) production S-51 SU-76I T-26 with mine detection equipment IS-2 mod. 1944  Archer Challenger I  Medium Tank M3 use in the USSR HMC T82 Medium Tank M4A4 Hellcat  Jagdpanzer IV Grosstraktor Gebirgskanone M 15 Maus development in 1943-44 German anti-tank rifles Panzer IV/70 Czech anti-tank rifles in German service Hotchkiss H 39/Pz.Kpfw.38H(f) in German service  Hotchkiss H 35 and H 39  FIAT 3000 FIAT L6-40 M13/40, M14/41, M15/42 Carro Armato P40 and prospective Italian heavy tanks  Experimental Polish tanks of the 1930s  Trials of the LT vz. 35 in the USSR
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Here's a thing a friend of mine discovered back when he was doing research for Eugen for Wargame: Red Dragon. That's funny, I was going to defend wheeled APCs based purely off my experiences playing that exact game. It's nice to have almost tanks sometimes (like a BMP) but most of the time "get those men down the road to the next town as fast as you can and dig in" is way more useful, so I roll with motorised decks using mostly BTRs. Obviously videogames are not real life but there's a real blend between tactical and strategic mobility, and it's also nice to have a cheaper APC that still has some armour and a gun, rather than just straight up using a truck. Milo and POTUS posted:How effective are technicals in this respect then. And no, I will not just ask the Chadians. In the APC example it seems like you'd probably outrange most infantry portable weapons that aren't crew operated so could you really just park like 900m away and provide a little fire support I guess. I always assumed the guns were mostly some sort of defense against things small and squishy ambushing you from concealment but it did occur to me in passing you could use them to plink away at range. I think even a tiny amount of armour makes a big difference because it'll at least stop small arms, which is the major edge real APCs have over technicals. That said, if you don't have APCs technicals are great and have a long history of beating better equipped opponents. Bolting a heavy machine gun to anything heavy that moves is great, as it massively increases the utility of the heavy machinegun. You can reposition the machinegun really quickly, you can bring a lot of ammo with you without compromising your mobility, and you always have a stable firing platform. There's also the (limited) utility of being able to move and shoot simultaneously, which while probably not very accurate, is still going to be handy if you're just trying to suppress an enemy while repositioning, or support a convoy. Heavy machineguns are amazing, because they can overwhelm basically anything short of a tank. People were posting earlier ITT that the armour piercing rounds of the M2 could do, what was it, 35mm of armour penetration at 100m? That's enough to penetrate a light APC like an M113. They're accurate and deadly, so yeah, you can absolutely suppress and/or kill infantry out to 900m. If you're infantry 1km away, the enemy having technicals is pretty much exactly as bad as the enemy having an APC, unless that APC is an IFV or has some sort of scary optics package. There's also the quasi war crimes ability where a technical looks like a civilian vehicle in a carpark right up until it opens fire on your very expensive attack helicopter, which is handy if you're an insurgent. Sorry that none of this is backed up with concrete examples. Splode fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:How effective are technicals in this respect then. And no, I will not just ask the Chadians. In the APC example it seems like you'd probably outrange most infantry portable weapons that aren't crew operated so could you really just park like 900m away and provide a little fire support I guess. I always assumed the guns were mostly some sort of defense against things small and squishy ambushing you from concealment but it did occur to me in passing you could use them to plink away at range. Generally, you see those used when there's nothing armored available so my guess is "far better than nothing mobile."
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 11:19
|
|
|
Technicals florish in arid plain environments where terrain leaves too many options for movement to block them and scarce options for cover to ambush them. It's not quite the same in temperate forest covered areas, or mountainous areas where you have to stick to roads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 11:52
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Cerakote a submarine in Kryptek Typhon for better deep sea camouflage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
Vaginal Vagrant posted:I presume that given a road they can do it faster though. Is 'mobility' the wrong term? given a known, clear, paved road yes they are faster - this is more operational mobility than tactical though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
This seems like the place to ask this question. I know that WWII German AFV production was terribly inefficient compared to the allies, ie almost workshops vs assembly lines. However where can I read up on the details of what the actual techniques and process were so I can see what exactly was so inefficient? I've only seen very high level comments and would love to know more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Zhanism posted:This seems like the place to ask this question. I know that WWII German AFV production was terribly inefficient compared to the allies, ie almost workshops vs assembly lines. However where can I read up on the details of what the actual techniques and process were so I can see what exactly was so inefficient? I've only seen very high level comments and would love to know more. Have you watched this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 17:00
|
|
