|
I think on that 'anti-partisan' badge the snakes ate supposed to symbolise the multi-headed hydra of partisanship that the soldier was chopping heads off by massacring civilians.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
PeterCat posted:Yeah, Miliuis' Conan drew a lot from Nietzsche, it looks similar enough. I never realized that Thulsa Doom's helmet was snakes as well. Yeah, Milius also took a lot from Nevsky too. Helmet designs especially. https://twitter.com/studiotstella/status/894930187271499776?s=20 It even pops up in Red Dawn. I think you can see clips from it (due to the Soviet stuff having no copyright then) in the drive in prison camp. https://twitter.com/studiotstella/status/894987262886391808?s=20 I mean Nevsky rules (be nice if the sound didn't sound like a colostomy bag) so I don't blame him for going shopping with it occasionally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:Do you know anything about the Germans using uranium as a substitute for tungsten in anti-tank munitions? If the ore came from Shinkolobwe, it was probably on the order of 65-70% uraninite U2O, variably oxidised to U3O8, very rich by today's standards. U3O8 is about 85% U by weight, so (.65*.85)=.5525, .5525*1200=663, 663*.7 (70% extraction efficiency in the mill is the modern standard) is around 465 tons of metal. The U2O is richer, so 465 is a lower bound, but I have no idea how efficient Nazi Germany's uranium extraction processes were. Probably <70% by a wide margin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
what was the general lmg in use by us forces post-Korea until the m60? I found something about a m14 variant, but can't find more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
1919 all the way baby
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
The BAR was also used into the 50's and even a bit in Nam iirc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
Did the Germans in the 40s have the understanding to properly use Uranium? It's density is up there with Tungsten but it doesn't have the same hardness so modern DU penetrators rely on self sharpening due to material abrasion to keep sharp. Would this still happen in a standard jacketed penetrator that was used at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 12:12
|
|
|
(Those) Germans have any hmgs that could be infantry crewed weapons a la the m2?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
They used the MG34/42 on a heavy tripod as a HMG. For larger caliber stuff like the 15mm I think they only used it on some vehicles, such as the Sd. Kfz. 251/21 Taerkar fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Dec 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
34s and 42s on bipods or tripods. Heavier (20mm+) would be like a flakvierling on the ground/structure or mounted on a vehicle. Guns in between like the MG131 or MG151/15 weren't used in the ground role barring extreme circumstances (although I doubt even then).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 14:10
|
|
|
Foxtrot_13 posted:Did the Germans in the 40s have the understanding to properly use Uranium? The Reich Postal Ministry was more interested in making a functioning bomb while delivering the mail on time so they didn't quite get there. All the others didn't really have an idea of what they were doing. Depleted Uranium didn't become an avenue of research until the 70's when the US needed to find something to pierce the armor of newer Warsaw Pact tanks. I don't think there was enough depleted Uranium around in the 40's to consider using it as a shell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
I mean in order to get depleted uranium you have to be able to enrich it first to skim off the good stuff. And I don't think the German bomb program ever got that far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
sullat posted:I mean in order to get depleted uranium you have to be able to enrich it first to skim off the good stuff. And I don't think the German bomb program ever got that far. Yeah, but if you just want penetrators you dont need to use depleted uranium. The depleted uranium existed in large quantities as a byproduct of fuel production, so thats why we wound up using it for penetrators, ballast, counterweights, and such. But if you absolutely wanted a uranium dart to kill tanks you could just use uranium metal. The battlefields would be slightly more toxic is all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Depleted uranium is your leftover after you extract the U235. But if all you want is to use your uranium stockpile as a substitute for tungsten in AP rounds, because you know the war will be over before your eggheads have figured out isotope separation, you don't need to deplete it first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
That's all fine until the Americans roll out new tanks with turrets made out of perfect hemispheres of uranium https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1468252559391473667 This is the one they should've left up! zoux fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:what was the general lmg in use by us forces post-Korea until the m60? I found something about a m14 variant, but can't find more. For the purposes of this question, in the Cold War period, the US Army can be considered to primarily comprise two different lineages: the infantry and the armored infantry. Exiting Korea, the infantry squad is armed with the Browning Automatic Rifle and the infantry company has M1919A6 light machine guns; the armoured infantry squad has both BAR and M1919A6. In 1955 the M1919A6 leaves the armored infantry squad (though it remains inside their vehicle, for issue by the squad leader as needed). The M1919A6 is anything but light, and in starting in 1957 it's replaced by the M60 machine gun in the infantry, where it's is moved down the platoon level. At the platoon level the M60s can be seconded to rifle squads if they need more firepower. In 1960 the armored infantry transition to the new ROAD structure, which replaces the M1919A6 in the vehicle with an M60. Starting in 1959, the BAR is replaced with an M14 rifle with a bipod. This turns out to be a terrible idea because the M14 is kinda terrible and it doesn't get much better with a bipod. It in turn is quickly replaced by the M14A1, which is only marginally better. Starting in 1965 US troops in Vietnam replace their M14s with M16s; accordingly the M14A1 is replaced by an M16 with a bipod. By 1969 this becomes the US standard, with the M16A1-with-a-bipod as the light machine gun of both infantry and armored infantry, with M60s at the platoon level or in the squad's armored personnel carrier. Except that that's on paper, and not everyone actually ever got their bipods... In 1984 the US Army start to replace the M16A1-with-a-bipod with the new M249 SAW. However, this rollout is extremely slow and many units will still not have their M249 by Desert Storm. In 1986 it starts issue of the M16A2 rifle; accordingly the M16A1-with-a-bipod is replaced with an M16A2-with-a-bipod. The M16A2 does not have a fully automatic fire mode: it can only fire single shots and three rounds bursts. The same year the US Army transitions to the "Army of Excellence" concept, which includes a new structure for the armored/mechanized infantry. Instead of having an M60 in the APC for issue as needed, it would be carried by the squad. At the same time, starting in 1986, the M60 would be replaced by the M60E3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
what would a hypothetical special forces group be using? I found something about the FAL being limited issue in '55
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:what would a hypothetical special forces group be using? I found something about the FAL being limited issue in '55 How special is special? If we're talking something that's supposed to be kinda normal military like Rangers then I'd be surprised if they had anything that the normal army doesn't have, but the specific loadout is anyone's guess (so, more support weapons etc). If we're talking secret squirrel type poo poo where they're operating independently and/or behind enemy lines or doing covert insertion to blow up poo poo kind of things (think Green Berets, SEALs, etc) then the sky is the limit - we're talking everything from non-standard issue domestic or foreign guns that people just prefer on through stuff like issuing them with whatever the locals are using for deniability purposes. A good example of this that is very well documented is SOG running around SE Asia with Swedish K SMGs (the Carl Gustaf m/45):  There are also perpetually rumors of assorted black ops types using AKs and SKS in Vietnam and Cambodia. But once you're into rumor territory you can find just about anything suggested and all of it is at least semi-plausible on the logic of a country not wanting their own crap found where it shouldn't be. There are perpetually rumors floating around the Nazi gun collector circles of the CIA using G/K43 rifles in the 50s, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:what would a hypothetical special forces group be using? I found something about the FAL being limited issue in '55 Assuming this hypothetical unit is going to be going through a portal to alternate universes, Stargate style, there's not an issue of the team needing plausible deniability. That being the case, then standard US small arms of the day would be expected. Special forces types would probably tend towards more automatic weapons, so M3 Grease Guns and M2 Carbines might be more common than M1 Garands. there is a neat silenced Grease Gun variant out there, that might fit the bill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There are perpetually rumors floating around the Nazi gun collector circles of the CIA using G/K43 rifles in the 50s, for example. Why? Why would they bother with these unless they were dicking around in Indochina or the GDR?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:what would a hypothetical special forces group be using? I found something about the FAL being limited issue in '55 For LMG? Gonna need a bit tighter focus of time and purpose. SoF generally avoids GPMGs and is more of an automatic rifle audience. The SAW/Minimi was and is very popular. The Scud hunting british patrols of Desert Storm were like 50/50 M16 and Minimi, which is a ludicrous amount of automatic fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:For the purposes of this question, in the Cold War period, the US Army can be considered to primarily comprise two different lineages: the infantry and the armored infantry. Exiting Korea, the infantry squad is armed with the Browning Automatic Rifle and the infantry company has M1919A6 light machine guns; the armoured infantry squad has both BAR and M1919A6. In 1955 the M1919A6 leaves the armored infantry squad (though it remains inside their vehicle, for issue by the squad leader as needed). The M1919A6 is anything but light, and in starting in 1957 it's replaced by the M60 machine gun in the infantry, where it's is moved down the platoon level. At the platoon level the M60s can be seconded to rifle squads if they need more firepower. In 1960 the armored infantry transition to the new ROAD structure, which replaces the M1919A6 in the vehicle with an M60. This all sounds like the US army went out of their way to *avoid* having a light squad level machine gun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 03:38
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Why? Why would they bother with these unless they were dicking around in Indochina or the GDR? You kinda answered the question right there. Also Czechoslovakia. The Czech military used them through the mid 50s iirc. For the record I don't quit believe that they were ever used at all, but it's one of those great unknowables because if they were then it was doing the kind of poo poo that we'll never find out about in a million years. I'm still INCREDIBLY skeptical, because frankly any place that you would use a G43 in the late 40s - early 50s pretty much any other gun would be a better pick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You kinda answered the question right there. Yeah, but if you're a CIA dude dicking around in those places why would you be lugging around a full-sized, very conspicuous rifle? Maybe in Vietnam--just maybe--if you get it second hand from someone who has abandoned French surplus, but again, why not pick a rifle that's easier to get ammo for? I doubt Mauser bullets grew on trees in either half of '50s Vietnam. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Dec 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
ZarathustraFollower posted:My mom sent me a box today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 05:10
|
|
|
In the 1845 French navy, médecin-major would mean medic or doctor of what rank exactly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 09:59
|
|
|
Arbite posted:In the 1845 French navy, médecin-major would mean medic or doctor of what rank exactly? Literally translated it means "Medical Major" or "Major of Medicine". Not sure what the exact Royal Navy rank would be (possibly Surgeon-Lieutenant since there was no lieutenant-commander rank until 1913) but in the British Army it would be Surgeon-Major. The equivalent 1845 USN rank would be Surgeon, specifically a Surgeon with less than 12 years experience. USN officer ranks were... eccentric until about the 1910s and the Medical Corps was no exception. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Dec 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 12:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dave_brown24/status/1468396443442552838?s=20 Tucker understand military history
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 12:59
|
|
|
Comstar posted:This all sounds like the US army went out of their way to *avoid* having a light squad level machine gun. Some of it is supposedly an outgrowth of the WWII/Korea experience where the US Army was typically maneuvering at the platoon level and machine guns were often pooled in the platoon (if they weren't already a platoon tool) to create a firebase for platoon-level maneuver. This is not that unusual: many nations operated their GPMGs at the platoon level, and had LMGs like the FALO at squad level. Where it gets weird is when the BAR's replacements (M14-with-bipod and M14A1) are taken out of service by the M16 and the US Army basically decides to just not issue a replacement except in the form of bipod that wasn't even consistently issued. There's fifteen years between the M16 becoming standard issue and the M249 entering service, and mechanized squads would only get the organic M60 in the latter half of the 1980s. I struggle to think of any other modern army that did so little to give its squads sustained automatic firepower--a feature that is almost universally considered the centerpiece of squad-level combat. And it's not like the US didn't know: in the early 60s the Army ran trials and found that what worked the best on a tactical level was squads comprising two fireteams with an M60 each. This was decided against because the ammo weighed a lot, but they knew that what they wanted and needed was two machine guns per squad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Literally translated it means "Medical Major" or "Major of Medicine". Not sure what the exact Royal Navy rank would be (possibly Surgeon-Lieutenant since there was no lieutenant-commander rank until 1913) but in the British Army it would be Surgeon-Major. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 13:20
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Literally translated it means "Medical Major" or "Major of Medicine". Not sure what the exact Royal Navy rank would be (possibly Surgeon-Lieutenant since there was no lieutenant-commander rank until 1913) but in the British Army it would be Surgeon-Major. "Médecin" literally means just doctor in this case. Medicine as in the practice is feminine "médecine," the stuff you take to get better is "médicaments." (and "médical" is an adjective only but that one actually is obvious.) It's literally just Doctor-Major or Major-Doctor. This isn't helpful for rank comparing but there are a lot of false friends in translating french and english on the topic. Archaically in the french military, so possibly still in 1845, "major" was not a rank proper but just meant "dude in charge of thing," usually with an administrative bent, so not necessarily the combat commander. Very well that just means ship's doctor or chief doctor of a group of ships, rather than referring to the person's codified rank. e: looked at british ranks and the french don't have an equivalent to a warrant officer surgeon-type. They have a naval rank, and are also a chief doctor. This continues into the present: frex, the top two ranks of the french navy are positions, not ranks. Darlan was the last person named Amiral de la Flotte, the theoretical highest rank. Here's modern french navy, two are ranked Captain, one is a naval commander while one is a doctor.   It's literally just two captains but docs get the twin red stripes. When someone's bleeding out, you defer to redstripes, when nostripes orders you into action, you ignore redstripes and listen to the commander. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Dec 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
Beardless posted:there is a neat silenced Grease Gun variant out there, that might fit the bill. Wasn't there some silence sten that had leather as some part of it? I think it was prone to breaking because it was leather lol but it was to be fair pretty silent. It got mentioned in a previous thread I think
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Some of it is supposedly an outgrowth of the WWII/Korea experience where the US Army was typically maneuvering at the platoon level and machine guns were often pooled in the platoon (if they weren't already a platoon tool) to create a firebase for platoon-level maneuver. This is not that unusual: many nations operated their GPMGs at the platoon level, and had LMGs like the FALO at squad level. I don't know this is the underlying reason for certain, so don't quote me on this, but keep in mind that a bunch of people in the US Army had a major hard on for the idea of a single "do anything" weapons platform all through the 50s and 60s. Both the M14 and M16 were chasing this ideal of a gun that could - with minor configuration changes like a bipod or a bigger mag - serve as an LMG, a rifle, or an SMG. So you've got one logistics train and you're issuing one gun and it's the one that people can use to snap precision shots at point targets, lay down a beaten zone to fix the enemy while the maneuver element flanks them, or kick in a door and clear a house with. Unfortunately that's a really, really hard set of capabilities to get to overlap. You end up making compromises on all of them and then end up tweaking them enough that they're essentially different platforms anyways. Here's an example, an early iteration of the AR-10 that was tested as a belt fed LMG:  I guess if you're in a world where you've widely adopted the AR-10 as a rifle as well you've got some similar manual of arms etc, but from everything I've read it just wasn't a very good LMG. So - again, conjecture - I think part of this is the "do anything wonder weapon" poo poo not panning out and it taking a few years to spool up a proper replacement. In this case you get the M16 as a pretty good rifle (with teething problems initially) that could eventually be built into a pretty decent carbine that fills that SMG role well enough,* but you need a solid LMG so that requires a whole program. *it's worth noting that vehicle crews were still using M3 Grease Guns right up until GW1, iirc. The 80s at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Comstar posted:This all sounds like the US army went out of their way to *avoid* having a light squad level machine gun. A German rifle squad had the MG 34/42, directed by the squad leader, but everyone else had crappy bolt action rifles. Their main job was to carry ammo for the machinegun and keep it from being overrun. All support the leader and his weapon - you know, fascism. In contrast, a US Army rifle squad gave everyone good M1 Garands. Instead of concentrating the firepower into one single individual/weapon, the US democratized firepower and gave everyone excellent weapons. Sure, there was also a BAR, but it wasn't the primary focus like an MG 34/42 was. The next logical development for the US was to give everyone good automatic weapons. Why concentrate all of your firepower into a single weapon? Give everyone automatic weapons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:*it's worth noting that vehicle crews were still using M3 Grease Guns right up until GW1, iirc. The 80s at the very least. Well, no. The M60 tank had a rack for an M3 and we got to fam-fire one a single time in tank school, but they were never issued or in unit armories. (And this was the USMC, which held onto weapons much longer than the army.) Maybe some National Guard armories had some stocked in a corner somewhere, but they were not in the FMF in that time period. Edit: Sorry to be contradictory, but this is personal experience here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Wasn't there some silence sten that had leather as some part of it? I think it was prone to breaking because it was leather lol but it was to be fair pretty silent. It got mentioned in a previous thread I think There might have been a leather cover over the silencer so your hand doesn't burn when you use it a lot but no leather in the actions of the Sten Plenty of silencers use rubber "wipes" that are discs that are used as a gas seal to help lower the sound signature. Problem is once you shoot through them they stop working nearly as well. These are more for your secret squirrel guns like the welrod and not your lower the sound a bit so people a few hundred metres away have trouble locating the shots guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Cessna posted:A German rifle squad had the MG 34/42, directed by the squad leader, but everyone else had crappy bolt action rifles. Their main job was to carry ammo for the machinegun and keep it from being overrun. All support the leader and his weapon - you know, fascism. Eh, I don't know that this comes down to fascism. IIRC that's the basic squad layout that was landed on in the 20s based on the lessons of WW1, and in turn was heavily influenced by what worked in WW1. The late war strorm trooper squads in particular used a lot of MG08/15s in a manner that looks a lot like what the Wehrmacht was doing later on with MG34s. The main difference with the US was that they focused their base of fire in weapons platoons, even when they were still using bolt action rifles. The TO&E for a 1941-1942 USMC company, for example, is roughly (minus the command elements): code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
No worries, just repeating what I've gathered from other sources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Wasn't there some silence sten that had leather as some part of it? I think it was prone to breaking because it was leather lol but it was to be fair pretty silent. It got mentioned in a previous thread I think Some silenced guns of the era did have leather or rubber as part of the suppressor, yes. And you're remembering correctly, leather or rubber wipers (they're kind of like a washer) do make for a quieter, but less long-lived, suppressor than one with baffles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Beardless posted:Some silenced guns of the era did have leather or rubber as part of the suppressor, yes. And you're remembering correctly, leather or rubber wipers (they're kind of like a washer) do make for a quieter, but less long-lived, suppressor than one with baffles. IIRC there's a Forgotten Weapons video on the suppressed sten gun and people using them were discouraged from firing full-auto with them as the suppressor wouldn't work as well in full-auto and would degrade quicker. It was specifically meant for resistance fighters or commandos operating with resistance fighters, for shooting sentries and guard dogs and such.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 16:50
|
|
