|
I've never handled a muzzle loader before but I imagine you would never load it except immediately before firing since once you've packed everything down the barrel you wouldn't have any way of retrieving it except discharging your musket.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:I've never handled a muzzle loader before but I imagine you would never load it except immediately before firing since once you've packed everything down the barrel you wouldn't have any way of retrieving it except discharging your musket. It depends a lot on the soldier carrying it. I've heard conflicting accounts from all over the place as to whether you'd keep it loaded or not, but a general theme suggests that you'd keep it loaded if you were guarding something or on picket duty, but otherwise not. I would imagine the longer you keep a musket loaded the greater the chance of a misfire once you finally decide to use it. As an interesting historical tidbit, flintlocks were popular among the guards of powder stores in the English Civil War rather than the more common and cheaper matchlock. I wonder why? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
I can say with certainty that Von Steuben's drill, at any rate, assumed soldiers were falling in with loaded muskets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
Endman posted:It depends a lot on the soldier carrying it. I've heard conflicting accounts from all over the place as to whether you'd keep it loaded or not, but a general theme suggests that you'd keep it loaded if you were guarding something or on picket duty, but otherwise not. I am pretty certain this is the case. Another consideration is that long term exposure to black powder is bad for metal, so unless you had reason to think you may need to shoot at a moments notice you would keep it unloaded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
I remember reading that you wouldn't even have the flint fitted while marching.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 10:51
|
|
|
zokie posted:I remember reading that you wouldn't even have the flint fitted while marching. I'd be worried about losing the flint, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:If they're inert props, it's probably someone zealously teaching modern firearms safety out of a belief that this must be drilled into people just in case they ever handle real firearms. I feel this might vary by location. The chances of ever handling real firearms in the UK for example are going to be...low for most people (granted a musket is less of an ask than a modern pistol for example).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Correct Green question: Is the engine deck of a tank a dumb place to model stowage on a WW2 tank? Would the engine deck get hot enough that it would be a fire hazard? I've read in multiple accounts that infantry riding tanks would stay off the engine deck because of the heat, but is it "uncomfortable to sit on" hot or "will set a cloth tarp on fire" hot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I'd be worried about losing the flint, yeah. Or it continually getting caught on things, tearing clothes and skin. Class Warcraft posted:I've never handled a muzzle loader before but I imagine you would never load it except immediately before firing since once you've packed everything down the barrel you wouldn't have any way of retrieving it except discharging your musket. Black powder and its fouling is hygroscopic, meaning it tends to absorb moisture from the air. This translates to increasing unreliability in high humidity and rust as well. This can be cleared by discharging the firearm (if the powder and priming charge are still dry enough to do so) but it can also be dealt with by using a bullet puller on a ramrod (essentially, a screw that digs into a musket ball and extracts it) to remove the bullet or ball from the barrel and then dump out the powder and proceed with cleaning out any powder residue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:but is it "uncomfortable to sit on" hot or "will set a cloth tarp on fire" hot? I think it's just "uncomfortable to sit on" hot  Also my Shermans have all kinds of gear on the back, so if it's wrong we can look stupid together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
That Sherman also has the M2 mounted so that the commander's hatch can't open, but also Shermans have taught us that just because sticking <thing> to <place> is a terrible idea doesn't mean the troops won't do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:but also Shermans have taught us that just because sticking <thing> to <place> is a terrible idea doesn't mean the troops won't do it. Like massive slabs of concrete 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
I've become obsessed with checking hobby sites for sales so I'm gonna post everything I've found here so you can all share in my madness. 4ground has a 25% off Black Friday coupon atm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
PinheadSlim posted:Like massive slabs of concrete It's not a terrible idea. Engines and transmissions are a dime a dozen for America at the time. So were Shermans and manpower too for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:It's not a terrible idea. Engines and transmissions are a dime a dozen for America at the time. I thought the Allies were all feeling a manpower shortage by the end of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I thought the Allies were all feeling a manpower shortage by the end of it. Wouldnt that be why it's at the end of it in this case? Spending so much blood and treasure got results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
PinheadSlim posted:I think it's just "uncomfortable to sit on" hot As I've discovered by building 17 of the drat things, there are actually very few angles you can stick the .50 cal where you can open the hatch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I thought the Allies were all feeling a manpower shortage by the end of it. The British definitely were. The Americans were facing an artificial manpower shortage because Marshall had planned for a 90 division army and had chosen to keep more skilled workers at home compared to other countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Correct Green question: Is the engine deck of a tank a dumb place to model stowage on a WW2 tank? Would the engine deck get hot enough that it would be a fire hazard? I've read in multiple accounts that infantry riding tanks would stay off the engine deck because of the heat, but is it "uncomfortable to sit on" hot or "will set a cloth tarp on fire" hot? For a WWII tank, yes, the engine deck gets hot. Not "catch fire" hot, but picture the hood of your car on a summer day. (The metal is thicker so it is slower to heat up and cool down, but you get the idea.) You wouldn't want to put stuff over the intakes or the exhaust for the same reason why you wouldn't do that on your car - that engine needs air to breathe and stay cool. Think of your car's radiator; it's not a good idea to stow a lot of gear over it before you drive. This isn't really something we do with a car as it's up front, closer to the engine, but tanks need to be armored up front, so the radiator goes back behind the turret and the intake goes to the deck so the sides of the tank can still be armored. You also wouldn't want to block the exhaust. It's bad for the tank, and everything would get soaked with fumes. Cessna fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Nov 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
I assume for later turbine tanks, the engine deck gets "stuff here will melt" hot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I assume for later turbine tanks, the engine deck gets "stuff here will melt" hot? Think "barbecue grill" hot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:It's not a terrible idea. Engines and transmissions are a dime a dozen for America at the time. From my understanding concrete actually didn't do anything to stop AP cannon rounds, and that the only real use concrete tank armor ever had in WW2 was eliminating shot traps in Stugs by filling them in. And besides destroyed transmissions/engines it would make the tank unbearably slow, and that's why the Soviets abandoned the idea after testing it on a T34. I could be entirely wrong though lol, after all I've never been shot at while in a tank covered in concrete  Cessna posted:Think "barbecue grill" hot. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
It was for shaped charge rounds like panzerfaust and such not AP. http://worldwar2headquarters.com/HTML/weapons/american/shapedCharge.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:That Sherman also has the M2 mounted so that the commander's hatch can't open, but also Shermans have taught us that just because sticking <thing> to <place> is a terrible idea doesn't mean the troops won't do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:It was for shaped charge rounds like panzerfaust and such not AP. This is actually really interesting because not only am I seeing conflicting reports, but now I'm learning about plastic as armor in WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_armour wiki posted:the Admiralty recommended that ship owners fit concrete paving stones in layers up to six inches thick to protect the vulnerable crew. The Admiralty had done no testing with armour-piercing bullets and, when the fighting started in earnest, it became evident that concrete armour was almost useless against German machine-gun fire. As the fighting in the English Channel intensified in August 1940, casualties rose and the prospect of a collapse in morale threatened. (Up to) Six inches of concrete couldn't even stand up to machinegun fire, but there could be other factors such as the angle and number of successful hits, but falling apart to machinegun fire seems like kind of a big negative. Punkinhead fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Nov 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Ilor posted:With the barrel mounted exactly along the center-line of the two halves of the hatch like that, the edges will clear the barrel when you open them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
I wouldn't want to eat that. It's a cute trick, but exhaust gas can't be good for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Somewhere on SA before someone posted a pretty great photo of Patton glaring at a Sherman decked out in dumb ad-hoc armour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Somewhere on SA before someone posted a pretty great photo of Patton glaring at a Sherman decked out in dumb ad-hoc armour. It’s not dumb. Shaped charges were very common and the junk piled on was completely capable of causing an early venting of the charge and preventing a “kill”. Won’t do much or anything for AP. The added weight wasn’t that big of deal most of the time. Maybe the concrete was a little overkill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
The MilHist thread goes into detail. A lot of the improvised "stand off" armour actually just caused stuff to detonate at a better distance and after normalising itself to the plane of the armour, so it actually made tanks more vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The MilHist thread goes into detail. A lot of the improvised "stand off" armour actually just caused stuff to detonate at a better distance and after normalising itself to the plane of the armour, so it actually made tanks more vulnerable. Ok I’ll go learn something new. Report back. Not much about improvised trash just tied down all over but the German stuff was designed for AP hand held weapons in mind instead of shaped charges. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slat_armor However, schürzen was designed to stop Soviet PTRD-41 anti-tank rifles, so proved worse than useless against Bazooka and Panzerschreck anti-tank rockets in US and German tests[4].
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Ok I’ll go learn something new. Again, Germans proofing tanks against something that's a negligible threat at great expense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Again, Germans proofing tanks against something that's a negligible threat at great expense. From what I understand, just about the only thing that PTRDs could affect on later German tanks was the tracks, so the schürzen makes a certain amoutn of sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 08:31
|
|
|
By late war a lot of the AT rifles were getting used as sniper rifles. The Soviets had no shortage of AT guns by then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 09:16
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Again, Germans proofing tanks against something that's a negligible threat at great expense. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 13:36
|
|
|
Thundercloud posted:By late war a lot of the AT rifles were getting used as sniper rifles. The Soviets had no shortage of AT guns by then. Good lord. Scoring a direct hit against a person with a 14.5×114mm round is essentially direct conversion to dog food.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Good lord. Scoring a direct hit against a person with a 14.5×114mm round is essentially direct conversion to dog food. Not a person, a Nazi.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Even if the person is a Nazi they're still a person. It's important to remember that they are 100% normal humans with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else to prevent blindspots developing when assessing in-group behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Even if the person is a Nazi they're still a person. True, but I'm okay with shooting them. Obviously it would be better if they recant their ways and go on to lead a good life, but if it's 1944 and they're in a Panzer and I've got a PTRD I don't know if circumstances make it possible to have an exchange of ideas that leads to them reconsidering their life choices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure that was just a play on the Lyudmila Pavlichenko quote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:00
|
|