|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Have you watched this video? Technically at 26:20 minutes in is when Parshall shows up.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Reading about Cpt. Bobbie Browns medal of Honour citation, fighting Germans in Aachen 1944, and it says he took out several pillboxes using "pole charges". Were pole mines standard issue in the US Army, and if so what were their names? Anyone knows (probably Jobbo_Fett  ), I'd appreciate hearing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
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. afaik Britain, France, Italy, and Japan all had similar production practices as the Germans. I`m not really sure how late-war British stuff like the Cromwell was made, but Matildas and Valentines were definitely produced in locomotive workshops. They had similar issues to the Tiger, which was also produced by a locomotive company in Henschel. Varying parts tolerances, complicated and awkward access for repairs, and small production runs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Tias posted:Reading about Cpt. Bobbie Browns medal of Honour citation, fighting Germans in Aachen 1944, and it says he took out several pillboxes using "pole charges". Were pole mines standard issue in the US Army, and if so what were their names? I'm pretty sure pole charges weren't standardized, but made by the unit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Splode posted: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. The M113 is on the lower end of AFV armour protection. There were a lot of APCs designed and built in the Cold War that wouldn't be torn to pieces by a HMG burst, especially at combat ranges. The AMX-13 VTT, the AIFV, the Zelda, the AIFV, most IFVs like the AMX-10P, the AIFV, the Schützenpanzer 63/89, the Type 89, the CV90, the AIFV, the Pbv 302, the Warrior, the M2 Bradley, help me out Frangible, which am I forgetting? There's also a fair number of vehicles that have protection against HMGs across the forward arc, like the SKOT, the Spartan, the Stormer, the Ratel, the BMP-1/2, the Marder, the LVPT-7A1 with EAAK kits, (which is only protected from the sides, don't ask). Even more after the Cold War because the low-intensity fighting in Yugoslavia made everyone realize that HMG protection is really nice and they should all buy EAAK kits from Israel. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Tias posted:Reading about Cpt. Bobbie Browns medal of Honour citation, fighting Germans in Aachen 1944, and it says he took out several pillboxes using "pole charges". Were pole mines standard issue in the US Army, and if so what were their names? Could it be a Bangalore torpedo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Tias posted:Reading about Cpt. Bobbie Browns medal of Honour citation, fighting Germans in Aachen 1944, and it says he took out several pillboxes using "pole charges". Were pole mines standard issue in the US Army, and if so what were their names? It means you order a company of Free Polish 'volunteers' to frontally assault the pillbox.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Particularly apt given the current technical conversation
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Christ, They Shall Not Grow Old is an incredible achievement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Where have you been then? working nights? is pretty much a sad but oddly fitting sort of ending statement to cap off all of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Christ, They Shall Not Grow Old is an incredible achievement. Is there anywhere for dirty Americans to watch it yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Christ, They Shall Not Grow Old is an incredible achievement. if you're into the history or technology of film it's absolutely a must-see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Technically at 26:20 minutes in is when Parshall shows up. I have watched this and it's great but I would love more details. My job is all about organizational and operational efficiencies so I'd love to be able to read about the weeds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:The M113 is on the lower end of AFV armour protection. There were a lot of APCs designed and built in the Cold War that wouldn't be torn to pieces by a HMG burst, especially at combat ranges. The AMX-13 VTT, the AIFV, the Zelda, the AIFV, most IFVs like the AMX-10P, the AIFV, the Schützenpanzer 63/89, the Type 89, the CV90, the AIFV, the Pbv 302, the Warrior, the M2 Bradley, help me out Frangible, which am I forgetting? Advantageous angles: SIBMAS AFSV, BTR-50, YP-408, Panhard VCR, Panhard M3 VTT, VTT-323 and so forth. An interesting point to note is that very few of these vehicles (basically only the true IFVs and the tank conversions) are proof against the 14.5mm anti tank rifle round used in the KPVT
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Have you watched this video? Related to that lecture- I'm told that the reason the US initially went with the M3 Lee, and its sponson-mounted main gun, was because American factories couldn't make a full turret big enough to mount a 75mm gun. Can somebody expand on that? Is it really that hard to make a big steel circle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Related to that lecture- I'm told that the reason the US initially went with the M3 Lee, and its sponson-mounted main gun, was because American factories couldn't make a full turret big enough to mount a 75mm gun. Can somebody expand on that? Is it really that hard to make a big steel circle? Casting turrets is hard because you're casting an entire turret, not just the steel circle part, and if I remember correctly, the US manufacturers still didn't have the M4 turret available at that time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:technically it's phenomenal, but as a story i found it kind of boring. what did that story tell us that we didn't know before? i already posted about my favorite scene in religionthread. I dunno if it’s for us, or really for anyone who knows the story of the war well. It’s like those Forgotten Voices books, just about putting the voices (and the faces) in front of people and saying “listen”. It’s an IWM exhibit, and makes a lot of sense as a companion piece to their new galleries. It is extremely humanising, at a time when we’ve had four years of Centenary projects in the UK that have only variably managed to put faces and people into this weird nebulous conception of “the war”. And yeah I found the final line to be perfect - sad and funny, and very much of a piece with the story it’s telling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:YPR-495, K200 Yes, the AIFV and the AIFV. (Also, the VCC-2, the Italian knockoff AIFV.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Casting turrets is hard because you're casting an entire turret, not just the steel circle part, and if I remember correctly, the US manufacturers still didn't have the M4 turret available at that time. I'd have to find my copy of Armored Thunderbolt again, but this is pretty much it. Creating cast parts is a very expensive process, and the bigger they are the more technically complex it is. The M3 Lee was designed to be a tank that could be designed and produced as fast as physically possible, and if that meant putting the gun they wanted on a dumb sponson instead of waiting for a suitable turret to be developed, then so fuckin' be it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Casting turrets is hard because you're casting an entire turret, not just the steel circle part, and if I remember correctly, the US manufacturers still didn't have the M4 turret available at that time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
plus there's some benefit to just building any tank to figure out the differences between building tanks and building cars
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I dunno if it’s for us
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I suppose so, especially if you're casting it rather than riveting it like the M3. Of course then that raises the question of how they were able to do a turret for a 37mm cannon, but not a 75mm, but I'm guessing that's just because it's easier to cast a smaller unit than a big one. Fun fact: Take a look at this tank:  That's a later production M4A1 Sherman, with a cast hull and cast turret. In 1943, this tank was beyond the technical capabilities of Germany to build, as only the United States had the industrial technology and experience to make an entire loving tank hull, let alone just the turret, from a single cast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
generally speaking, if your APC is taking direct fire, you done hosed up. APCs exist to protect guys from artillery, not gunfire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Fun fact: Take a look at this tank: Canada was casting tank turrets and hulls before the US 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:plus there's some benefit to just building any tank to figure out the differences between building tanks and building cars Plus the M3 Lee wasn't half bad as a Babby's First Medium Tank. These tanks are the state of the art when the Lee first rolls of the assembly line: Panzer IV ausf. E (short 75mm gun, 30mm of front armor) Panzer III ausf. F (37 or 50mm gun, 30mm of front armor) T-34 model 1941 KV-1 model 1941 Valentine II The Lee outguns all of these, outarmors all but the KV-1, outranges all but the T-34, and is faster than all except the T-34. Hell, the Lee's piddly little 37mm gun could reliably defeat any tank belonging to a hostile nation in 1941. The Lee was probably the most technologically advanced and best made tank of 1941, but it's layout was ridiculous because it was made by a nation that had literally zero experience with armoured warfare at that point in time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:plus there's some benefit to just building any tank to figure out the differences between building tanks and building cars I believe this was a major factor in the reliability of the Sherman, as they had all that experience with the Lee to work out the problems with the drivetrain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:
The Lee's issues had nothing to do with the level of experience that the US had or didn't have at the time. It was built with the goal "Get a 75mm gun in a tank as fast as you can, I don't care how." and succeeded at that. All of the main flaws were identified before it went into production, they just didn't have the luxury of waiting for perfection. The Americans knew it was a bad design, the British knew it was a bad design, the Soviets knew it was a bad design, and none of them cared because a bad tank now and a good tank later beats no tank now and a good tank later. The fact that the Germans thought it was a decent tank (at least from a "this is the think shooting at us" perspective) was just a happy outcome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Canada was casting tank turrets and hulls before the US With US technical assistance IIRC
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
bewbies posted:generally speaking, if your APC is taking direct fire, you done hosed up. The APCs built to or modified to be protected against gunfire because they were expecting to be shot at would seem to disprove this assertion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:The APCs built to or modified to be protected against gunfire because they were expecting to be shot at would seem to disprove this assertion. Being protected against small arms doesn't imply that it is anyone's preferred approach to soak up direct fire. SAPI plates protect against it also, but I certainly do not want to be engaged as such even if I'm wearing one. hint: the main reason is, if they can target you with small arms, they can hit you with something worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Being protected against small arms doesn't imply that it is anyone's preferred approach to soak up direct fire. SAPI plates protect against it also, but I certainly do not want to be engaged as such even if I'm wearing one. When I say "protected against gunfire" I mean "merely tickled by Dushkas", not only small arms - like the sudden proliferation of EAAK and heavier APCs after peacekeeping missions in Yugoslavia, or really, a good number of APCs built during the Cold War. Yes, if they can hit you with small arms, they can hit you with worse things. Those worse things are probably going to be heavy machine guns, and it's not like you can't armour an APC against a heavy machine gun. It's been done many, many times to let APCs do more than just carry troops to slightly behind the front.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:When I say "protected against gunfire" I mean "merely tickled by Dushkas", not only small arms - like the sudden proliferation of EAAK and heavier APCs after peacekeeping missions in Yugoslavia, or really, a good number of APCs built during the Cold War. light antiarmor weapons are more widely proliferated and more dangerous than heavy machine guns by many orders of magnitude. that is the threat that these systems and their supporting doctrine are designed to. if you want to make your battle taxi heavier so it can shrug off machine gun rounds that's fine, but that doesn't change the basic fact that you don't want it under direct fire, period. every competent army on the planet uses the same approach when an APC gets hit by bullets: back the hell up and get something between you and the shooter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
This seems to be a pretty pointless semantic argument revolving around what "you done hosed up" means. There seems to be a pretty wide set of scenarios where your APC might be hit by some random burst of automatic fire at ranges or speeds where it's pretty unlikely for a poorly trained militia guy to score a RPG-7 hit. Sitting still and trading fire in that situation is probably unwise of course. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of time APCs have recently been used in combat, it's against folks with basically no artillery to speak of. Maybe those deployments do count as "you done hosed up" though. Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 18th November 1918 posted:A rehearsal and preparations for the review of the Brigade by the Divisional Commander on the next day entirely occupied the attention of the Battalion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:the LVPT-7A1 with EAAK kits, (which is only protected from the sides, don't ask). The P-7s have a relatively low freeboard; step on the gas when they're in the water and the nose submarines pretty badly, pouring water over the driver. Add applique armor and it gets worse. To counteract this they add bow planes which help counter the submarining effect a bit. Adding more armor to the bow would drag the nose under even worse. That said, the bow is - well, I can't say "well protected," but it's as well protected as anything on the AAV. The front foot or so of the hull is a hollow enclosed space (the "pontoon") full of air to counter-balance the weight of the engine. It's got a double thickness of hull there which, again, isn't well protected but all told it's about as good as the hull plus EAAK on the sides. LatwPIAT posted:The APCs built to or modified to be protected against gunfire because they were expecting to be shot at would seem to disprove this assertion. You don't want to charge the enemy or otherwise expose yourself to fire if you can help it because with applique you're well protected; it's intended to give a little more protection, no more. Cessna fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
bewbies posted:generally speaking, if your APC is taking direct fire, you done hosed up. Yeah, but you also don't want to be taken out by rifle fire if you can help it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Generally, you see those used when there's nothing armored available so my guess is "far better than nothing mobile." There was one of those memes that I actually liked and it was an upgrade tree for technicals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
One of the definitions here on ”APC that is armored”- chat that needs to be remembered is the very fluid but very important distinction of APC and IFV. BTRs are APCs, m113 is an APC, Fuchs is an APC. Before 1960s ended APCs were the ”here goes infantry that support tanks”-mobile. Direct continuation from WW2 half tracks, a vehicle to carry the grunts to fight and do so whilst in the worst case getting shot at a bit and hopefully protecting them. Then BMP-1 happened. BMP is literally translated as ”infantry fighting vehicle”. It was there not only to get grunts to battle, but once that happened to give them a direct fire support. With 73mm gun and the at3 sagger missile it was a scary as balls concept- an AT3 could, If you managed to hit, kill any tank then in existence and 73mm could kill everything else. It was APC, light tank and direct fire support all rolled in one- and it could swim across rivers. In hindsight it has a ton of flaws, but before they all came out it looked like it would If not revolutionize war as it was then at least totally obsolete both light tanks and APCs overnight. Neither of these things happened, but the shock was real. There had been a few vehicles like it before Im pretty sure but BMP was Russian- not a niche expensive sidenote but a vehicle that would be given to a poo poo ton of WP formations. After BMP1 came out (and before people realized that aside from the mindboggling front slope angle it had armor that wouldnt hold out an angry man with a hatchet) everyone else scrambled to make sure they got something like that- hence CV90, Brads, Warrior and every other IFV out there. Why this gets very confusing is that as cold war revved down the idea of ”taking casualties” became very reluctant to everyone and everyone started uparmoring everything- you werent anymore planning for a world war where handwaving hundreds of casualties was an option. This meant that APCs such as m113 and FV432 got ”IFV-ified” with extra armor and firepower upgrades and that Stryker proudly claims itself as an IFV which, going by the cold war definition, is absolutely horseshit since Stryker is about as stereotypical APC as you can get: one .50 HMG? Check. 8 wheels? Check. Armored in basic configuratiom to take .50 from front and anything less all-around? Check. TL;DR: So If it has one HMG, transports troops, either on wheels or tracks, it is likely an APC. If it transports troops, has a turret that shoots with an autocannon/cannon and coax MG, Its most likely an IFV. Unless Its Israeli in which case its a Merkava or an ”ambulance” And the definition of HMG/autocannon is the bore. Autocannon is anything past 20mm (14.5 KPV Im BTR-70 is heavy machinegun, 20mm Vulcan in F-16 is a cannon)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Cessna posted:The P-7s have a relatively low freeboard; step on the gas when they're in the water and the nose submarines pretty badly, pouring water over the driver. Add applique armor and it gets worse. To counteract this they add bow planes which help counter the submarining effect a bit. Adding more armor to the bow would drag the nose under even worse. Huh. I read one of the assessments of the LVTP-7A1 that was part of the lead up to the new weapons station, and it mentioned that the vehicle was only armoured against .30 cal from any angle. Cessna posted:You don't want to charge the enemy or otherwise expose yourself to fire if you can help it because with applique you're well protected; it's intended to give a little more protection, no more. Sure. That's not the same as being shot at being a gently caress-up, though. Additionally, a lot of IFVs and better-protected APCs shared the design principle of "can ride into combat and unload troops while under fire or fight with troops inside". It seems pretty clear to me that receiving direct fire was expected for these vehicles, not something that happens because someone hosed up somewhere. The Schützenpanzer HS.30 was built with this in mind, and that design philosophy eventually ends up in APCs like the AIFV-B-.50.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:24
|
|