|
Cythereal posted:According to the guy who came up with the Kido Butai formation, though, he was inspired much earlier than that - remember that the Indian Ocean Raid was the first major carrier-lead battle after a few paltry efforts during WW1, and it stunned the world when Kido Butai smashed the British fleet. Yeah the Indian Ocean Raid of 1942 really inspired the Pearl Harbor Raid of 1941
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
...For some reason I could have sworn the Indian Ocean raid was in 1940. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Was trying to think for a moment what, exactly, the Japanese were raiding in the Indian Ocean before they'd declared war on anyone but China.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The Soviet Union isn't threatening either France or Britain in peacetime (assuming no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:...For some reason I could have sworn the Indian Ocean raid was in 1940. Really big enthusiast of WW2 history, I see...
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Archaeologists found the early medieval grave of a man in Italy who had at some point lost one of his hands and replaced it with a loving knife prosthesis. There is no What is it with archeologists and their presumption that the skeleton used to be a man? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Really big enthusiast of WW2 history, I see... no need to be a dick, friend
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:According to Kotkin, France believes they are--meanwhile, compounding the problem, Soviet foreign policy until far far too late believed that Great Britain would ally with the Nazis--and in fact already secretly had done so. France threatened militarily? Like, how, I'd love to hear deets, I'm curious how that would work. Given the British upper classes of the time, something something Mitford something something Edward VIII something something Zinoviev letter, I'm not sure I blame the Soviets for being suspicious. Especially given they themselves allied with Nazi Germany when the Nazis were explicitly anti-Communist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:no need to be a dick, friend I'm sorry, its just my wehraboo tendencies or whatever. By design, my reply was meant to be rude. Have a photo of a Japanese experimental glider, the Kokusai Ku-7  Which used a ramp at the rear to load up to 32 troops, freight, or even a light tank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:What is it with archeologists and their presumption that the skeleton used to be a man? It's pretty easy to tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton. The pelvis is pretty different. It's the kind of thing that anyone with a professional familiarity with human bones would have, and even if they didn't it's as easy as emailing a few pictures to pretty much any doctor in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:France threatened militarily? Like, how, I'd love to hear deets, I'm curious how that would work. "“If defeated,” the French foreign minister would note privately, France “would be Nazified. If victorious, it must, owing to the destruction of German power, submit, with the rest of Europe, to the overwhelming weight of the Slavic world, armed with the Communist flamethrower.”" quote:Given the British upper classes of the time, something something Mitford something something Edward VIII something something Zinoviev letter, I'm not sure I blame the Soviets for being suspicious. Especially given they themselves allied with Nazi Germany when the Nazis were explicitly anti-Communist. "But Stalin took talk of Poland trying to maintain neutrality vis-à-vis both its giant neighbors as disinformation, and behind Poland—indeed, behind every Soviet foe—he saw Britain. Stalin could not or would not grasp that “imperialist” Britain had the same enemies as the USSR: Nazi Germany in Europe and militaristic Japan in Asia. British-Soviet relations were poor. The British embassy official Sir William Strang had reported from Moscow that Pravda was calling the Nazi ideologue Rosenberg “a lackey of British imperialism.” Officials in London were also incredulous at Soviet assertions that the British were “the real force behind German and Japanese fascism,” as the Comintern’s Dmytro Manuilsky had put it at the 17th Party Congress. The son of an Orthodox priest from Ukraine, he had charged, in typical contradictions-of-capitalism fashion, that Britain was instigating these two powers against the Soviet Union to avoid a new intra-imperialist war over colonies. Even the tsarist-era military men Alexander Svechin and Boris Shaposhnikov wrote that Poland, Romania, and other limitrophe states were ultimately subordinated to the will of London and Paris." (this was in 1934)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's pretty easy to tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton. The pelvis is pretty different. It's the kind of thing that anyone with a professional familiarity with human bones would have, and even if they didn't it's as easy as emailing a few pictures to pretty much any doctor in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:Not militarily: France believed that they were about to undergo a Communist revolution at any time, especially once the war in Spain broke out. The French foreign minister saw this war as a Morton's Fork: Yeah, political support for French communists absolutely, 30s France came pretty close as it was to revolution from both sides of the spectrum. I'm not sure that affects a Japanese attack on French colonies though. That sort of thing tends to bring the Left in line if anything, see 1914. A Mitford sister literally meeting and possibly dating Hitler wasn't exactly secret. Nor was the Daily Mail literally headlining 'hurrah for the Blackshirts'. The Soviet Union was almost too good at spying and had good access to the UK in particular (Cambridge Five etc), they absolutely knew this stuff. As for them actually believing Britain was puppet mastering the Nazis though...Maybe don't take Pravda at face value despite the name? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:As for them actually believing Britain was puppet mastering the Nazis though...Maybe don't take Pravda at face value despite the name? edit: this is from '36: "Inside the Soviet regime, the British remained the fixation. “Fascism’s strength is not in Berlin, fascism’s strength is not in Rome,” Kalinin, head of the Soviet state, said in May 1936, echoing comments by Molotov. “Fascism’s strength is in London, and not even in London per se but in five London banks.”" Note that this isn't about Germany, what the Mitfords are doing is irrelevant. It's about Fascism as such. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's pretty easy to tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton. The pelvis is pretty different. It's the kind of thing that anyone with a professional familiarity with human bones would have, and even if they didn't it's as easy as emailing a few pictures to pretty much any doctor in the world. Oh, I meant man as in a human, instead of an undead skeleton... because that skeleton with its strap-on knife looks  af and I doubt the living flesh and skin covered version would have been as impressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
The entire Japanese fleet went on histories largest booze cruise in the Indian Ocean in 1940 so perhaps that’s where the confusion lay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The entire Japanese fleet went on histories largest booze cruise in the Indian Ocean in 1940 so perhaps that’s where the confusion lay. If this isn't just a joke I'd like to know more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
I feel like the "war in China didn't go as well as planned" bit is being kind of hand waved away here. Nationalist China kept up the fight against Japan after losing its capital, largest/richest cities and its entire coastline and millions of casualties while also trying to fight a civil war against the Communists. It's kind of hindsight and falling into the Communist downplaying of the KMT's war effort to just say that of course China wouldn't have just capitulated like France did in 1940.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
Oh you crazy Brits...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I feel like the "war in China didn't go as well as planned" bit is being kind of hand waved away here. Nationalist China kept up the fight against Japan after losing its capital, largest/richest cities and its entire coastline and millions of casualties while also trying to fight a civil war against the Communists. It's kind of hindsight and falling into the Communist downplaying of the KMT's war effort to just say that of course China wouldn't have just capitulated like France did in 1940. Yeah, Chiang's role in the war is always downplayed but he did a great job with what little he had to work with. He also predicted how the war would go down before it started and posited that he would have to hold out until the UK or US entered into the war. His prediction was that the war would end when Japanese society collapsed under the weight of the conflict because people were already on the verge of starvation in Japan at the start of 1937.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
SAu 40 and other French SPGs Queue: IS-2 (Object 234) and other Soviet heavy howitzer tanks, T-70B, SU-152, T-26 improved track projects, Object 238 and other improvements on the KV-1S, Lee and Grant tanks in British service, Matilda, T26E4 Super Pershing, GMC M12, PzII Ausf. J, VK 30.01(P)/Typ 100/Leopard, VK 36.01(H), Luchs, Leopard, and other recon tanks, PzIII Ausf. G trials in the USSR, SU-203, 105 mm howitzer M2A1, Mosin, Baranov's pocket mortar, Pz.Sfl.IVc, Jagdpanzer 38(t) "Hetzer", Soviet tank winter camo, Semovente L40 da 47/32, Semovente da 75/18, Semovente da 105/25, 7.92 mm wz. 35 anti-tank rifle, 76.2 mm wz. 1902 and 75 mm wz. 1902/26, IM-1 squeezebore cannon, 45 mm M-6 gun, 25-pounder, 25-pounder "Baby", 37 mm Anti-Tank Gun M3, 36 inch Little David mortar, 105 mm howitzer M3, 15 cm sIG 33, 10.5 cm leFH 18, 7.5 cm LG 40, 10.5 cm LG 42, 17 cm K i. Mrs. Laf., 47 mm wz.25 infantry gun 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 IS-1 (IS-85) IS-2 (object 240) Production of the IS-2 Russian Renault MS-1/T-18 KV-100 and KV-122 Kalashnikov's debut works NEW  Cruiser Tank Mk.I Cruiser Tank Mk.II Valentine III and V Valentine IX Valentine X and XI  Medium Tank M3 use in the USSR GMC M8 Scorpion  Tiger (P) Stahlhelm in WWI Stahlhelm in WWII Nashorn/Hornisse PzIII Ausf. E and F PzIII Ausf. G and H Ferdinand Grosstraktor Trials of the PzIII Ausf. H in the USSR P.1000 and other work by Grotte PzIII Ausf.J-N NEW  7TP and Vickers Mk.E trials in the USSR  SD-100 (Czech SU-100 clone) TACAM R-2 NEW  Hotchkiss H 35 and H 39 Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:...For some reason I could have sworn the Indian Ocean raid was in 1940. Let's also be clear here: the Royal Navy lost two cruisers, two destroyers, and an obsolete, aircraftless light carrier. It got away with both its fleet carriers, all of its battleships, and almost all of its destroyers and cruisers. It was definitely a defeat, but nobody seriously thought Forces A and B were ever going to be a match for the Japanese (except for Somerville, who cheerfully spent the whole raid stalking the Combined Fleet with his two carriers).
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Let's also be clear here: the Royal Navy lost two cruisers, two destroyers, and an obsolete, aircraftless light carrier. It got away with both its fleet carriers, all of its battleships, and almost all of its destroyers and cruisers. It was definitely a defeat, but nobody seriously thought Forces A and B were ever going to be a match for the Japanese (except for Somerville, who cheerfully spent the whole raid stalking the Combined Fleet with his two carriers). It was not as decisive a success as it could have been, but what you named plus a bunch of merchant ships and some number of aircraft in return for a somewhat smaller number of IJN aircraft is still a drat good trade. Of course, Japan needed absolutely decisive, lopsided successes in every single battle to allow them to maintain even a remote chance of some kind of victory in the war so you could probably spin that it was a strategic defeat in that it was a waste of resources. In terms of "We don't really have a strategy past our initial phase lines so let's throw some ops at a wall and see what sticks" Operation C was a lot better idea and a lot more successful than Operation MI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 10:28
|
|
Cythereal posted:Oh you crazy Brits... Look man everyone was doing this we just wanted to be popular.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
So I know there's reports of WW2 tanks getting torn in half after getting hit by a russian 152mm shell. What would happen to a modern MBT that got hit by one? Have advances in engineering been enough to withstand the ridiculous amounts of kinetic/chemical energy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
IAmThatIs posted:So I know there's reports of WW2 tanks getting torn in half after getting hit by a russian 152mm shell. What would happen to a modern MBT that got hit by one? Have advances in engineering been enough to withstand the ridiculous amounts of kinetic/chemical energy? A ~6" HE shell hitting a tank directly is going to grossly overmatch any kind of protection. Like, blow off the turret kind of overmatch. That said the effect of said round goes down a lot with distance - if it hits the ground a few meters away from the tank it won't do much of anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
How much HE is in a 152mm shell? Looks like 40ish kilograms, which is pretty near a Mk81. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA329188 quote:Sewel used this model and computed the probabilities of kill for a number of military systems due to the blast from large HE bombs. Computations were made for a parked aircraft, a gun laying radar target, a missile control radar, a truck, an APC, and a tank. The bombs used in the calculation were the 250-lb MK-81, the 500-lb MK-82, and the 1000-lb MK-83, and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) 750-lb T-54 bomb. Experimental values of parameters were used in the calculations when available. Values for the remaining parameters were obtained from tables or theory. Pk for a Mk81 against a tank goes up to 1 at somewhere between 5 and 9 feet. Blast falls off as the cube of the distance, so a direct hit's gonna kill the tank dead, missing by more than a couple of meters is just going to bounce it around a bit. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
What would those behemoth 152mm WWII guns do against modern state of the art tanks? I would imagine that the crew of an Abrams would still have a pretty bad time if they got hit by one of those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:SAu 40 and other French SPGs Can I request all the anti-tank guns, towed artillery, and infantry anti-tank weapons on the current list?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Also, could the Great Bombard take out an Abrams? It's definitely not for my fanfic it totally is
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What would those behemoth 152mm WWII guns do against modern state of the art tanks? I would imagine that the crew of an Abrams would still have a pretty bad time if they got hit by one of those. Modern tanks are armored against being physically penetrated, but there's not a lot you can do to protect against that much raw concussive force.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
So once you hose out the gooey remains of the crew the tank will be good to go? Nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So once you hose out the gooey remains of the crew the tank will be good to go? Nice. There's probably poo poo on the exterior that will have been damaged/destroyed such as the barrel depending on how/where the bigass shell hits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:There's probably poo poo on the exterior that will have been damaged/destroyed such as the barrel depending on how/where the bigass shell hits. This is the question Bewbies and I both just answered: a shell with that much HE in it scoring a direct hit on even a modern MBT is going to hard-kill it. More than a couple meters away, it's not going to do much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So once you hose out the gooey remains of the crew the tank will be good to go? Nice. I was in an armor crewman, but I was never in a tank that was hit by a heavy round like a tank shell or an ATGM. I don't know if it's "hose out" as much as mess up by concussion. I picture bleeding ears/deafness, being knocked unconscious if not killed, that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is the question Bewbies and I both just answered: a shell with that much HE in it scoring a direct hit on even a modern MBT is going to hard-kill it. More than a couple meters away, it's not going to do much. Then why bother with fancy APFSDS rounds from a 120mm-ish gun, if a 152mm tank gun from 70 years ago can kill anything? Or is it because the HE shell is much less likely to hit because of it's lower velocity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Clarence posted:Then why bother with fancy APFSDS rounds from a 120mm-ish gun, if a 152mm tank gun from 70 years ago can kill anything? Or is it because the HE shell is much less likely to hit because of it's lower velocity? Yes, and also the 152 mm shell weighs 40kg, about four times modern tank ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Clarence posted:Then why bother with fancy APFSDS rounds from a 120mm-ish gun, if a 152mm tank gun from 70 years ago can kill anything? Or is it because the HE shell is much less likely to hit because of it's lower velocity? A 152/155mm round weighs almost 100 pounds by itself, and has to be loaded separate from its powder charge. An 829 sabot round weighs about half that including powder and casing. I think some Russian WWII enormo-tank used separate round and charge but it was a big pain in the rear end. No doubt someone in this thread knows more on this subject. ...anyway the point of this post is that howitzer rounds are huge and loading one inside of a tiny smelly tank turret isn't really feasible. Also arrow rounds are way more accurate and cooler.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:26
|
|