|
Nenonen posted:It was a revanche war. Romania didn't go to war over Bessarabia in 1940 but for Finnish public opinion the war of 1941-44 was a continuation of the 1939-40 war with slightly better odds (the odds being influenced by factors such as 'having shells for artillery'). Planning for another Winter War? Is that why they axed all of the heavy bunker-buster projects that started specifically as a result of the first one?
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Bacarruda posted:There was unwillingness (and the simple inability) to counterattack amongst British and French commanders in 1940. But the paralysis wasn't universal. Counter-attacks can be an important part of defensive schemes, and some Allied commanders in the Battle of France did launch them. There were several major and minor armored counterattacks made during the Battle, the Battle of Arras being the most notable example. These efforts largely failed because of poor execution or inadequate resources, but they were tried. Tigers were used primarily for infantry support. When you can lob a kilogram of HE at your target, that's a very nice gun. Compare that to the Panther, which got 30 more millimeters of armour penetration at the cost of nearly half of the HE payload. Nenonen posted:No, I don't think you can compare Tiger to Infantry Tanks. Tiger was essentially as fast as and, with its wider tracks, more mobile than Panzer III and IV. Infantry tanks like Matilda and Churchill (16km/h) were far too slow to stay in formation with Cruisers like Crusader or Cromwell (64km/h!). Assault guns filled German infantry's needs for dedicated armour support. Yes, the Tiger is a breakthrough tank, like the KV. I wouldn't say it was as fast or as mobile as the PzIII or PzIV though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Explain. As far as I know British tanks were plenty effective in the later period. The main issue was advancements in German armour outpacing British gunnery, but that was something separate. The Cromwell and Comet were effective, but the early tanks were definitive standards of mediocrity, from the 30 year obsolete designs like the TOG to embarrassing things that they wouldn't let anyone else see, like the Covenanter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
I read about a young lieutenant and her brilliant idea to shoot some Germans with indirect MG fire today. Sadly, the article leaves out how effective this measure was. Is this a thing that someone else has ever tried?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Forget machine guns, why do you think pretty much every infantry rifle from the beginning of the smokeless powder period until at least the 1920s has tangent sights that go waaaaaaay out to 2000+ yards? They weren't planning on engaging point targets at that range, the idea was to have a whole platoon or whatever sight in on some landmark in the vicinity of the area they wanted covered, and then let loose. I'm not saying it would've been effective (way less effective than machine guns, obviously) but it was definitely a thing. Oh, not 2000 yards. The trick in this case was that the Germans were 500 metres away, but in a trench.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
74 years ago, some army dudes begrudgingly agreed that convertible drive might not be the way to go for tanks, and the T-34 was born. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
drat, that's an awesome presentation format.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I know in real life they're ventilation domes, but the printed graphic looks like they're hinged like the engine hatch. Yes, they are supposed to be more dome-like. The designer of this model must not have been looking at the reference material too closely. The road wheel spacing is wrong, the suspension arms are on the wrong side of their wheel, and the turret seems to have horns.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:I'm not sure, but I thiiiiink this is where you'd attach a...shield thing in Stechzeug armor as one more step towards the goal of turning yourself into an immobile box of metal with a human inside And hundreds of years later, they succeeded! 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, those guys are loud.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Thanks Hegel, it's been bugging me what those things on the armor were for, I had to rush through because apparently my sister isn't as impressed with arms and armor as I am and kept saying we should see the other parts of the museum that don't involve killing people. Ask in TFR, someone there would probably know. It looks like all that crap is decorative though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Apparently Yale University Press now holds the rights to the RGASPI Stalin archives outside of Russia and Belarus. Except that their site is not searchable in Russian and inaccessible for those that are not members of an academic institution that pays them, whereas the Russian site used to be free for everyone. drat you, Yale!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Would somebody smart who knows what they're talking about do an effort post on bicycles in war, both in terms of bicycle infantry (who I gather functioned akin to dragoons), scouting use, couriers, and logistical mounts? I guess there could be a huge overlap with motorcycles. Comedy option I just know that the Soviets developed a bicycle that carried an anti-tank rifle. Trials were a little, uh...pessimistic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:
The Kwantung Army spent 6 years building fortifications on the mainland to protect against the Soviets, not that it helped all that much.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 18:58
|
|
thanks folks. I imagined Japan had a better idea of jungle warfare but didn't know it was specifically that much of a difference and thought it was more a shortfall on Britain's part. TMYK 
|
Azathoth posted:As someone who knows nothing about firearms, could someone please explain to me in what circumstances such attachments would end up being used? It looks to me like they tried to turn a pistol into a heavier weapon, but I don't understand why someone would carry around all those attachments instead of just carrying a second heavier weapon entirely. If you're an infantryman, you'd be carrying around a proper weapon to begin with, but if you were an artilleryman, or a tank crewman, or doing something like that, odds are that your big and heavy gun (if you were ever issued one) would be leaning against the side of a trench or in your tank that is currently on fire (no one is going to waste time grabbing a full sized SMG when climbing out of a burning tank) when the time came to use it. Therefore, it's better to turn a pistol into something that can act as an SMG for a short period of time until immediate danger passes. However, you're right, the attachments are still pretty bulky, the result is not particularly accurate or reliable, and when you actually have to use one of these things, odds are you won't have time to strap all that extra crap to it before shooting. People in the above category preferred SMGs and carbines with folding stocks to this monstrosity, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
bewbies posted:In a completely unrelated matter, does anyone have a recommendation for a site that sells ready-to-display models of stuff like planes and ships? I used to build models but a) I'm terrible at it and b) I have more money than time these days, so I'd like to just buy stuff that's already been made. Alternatively, if any of you milgoons is interested in building stuff... From what I've seen in stores, all the ready made stuff is complete garbage and pales in quality to what I built as a child. I'm talking zero detailing, bent barrels, horrible built quality, etc. This is stuff that costs 1.5-2 times what a comparable kit of that scale would cost, too. There's a scale model thread in DIY and Hobbies, they might be able to hook you up, or at least recommend a brand that isn't awful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Aren't Russian models unusually good though? I remember hearing that somewhere. Pre-built ones? I have no idea. As for regular plastic stuff, early Zvezda is complete rear end (I mean super early, like Red Army Infantry #1 and #2 kits), but then there's a sharp increase in quality. I don't think any of their kits are as bad as those two, and modern stuff is top notch. Maquette is seen as pretty decent, too, but I haven't seen much of their products. There are a few small-time manufacturers with quality across the board. The Ukraine has some pretty good quality manufacturers ICM and MasterBox, but their products are very expensive compared to other kits, and their plastic is ridiculously brittle.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
This tank museum has a virtual tour set up, including the ability to pop into the driver's or commander's seat and take a look around the inside of the tank. Definitely worth checking out, even if not all the interiors are complete.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
The war wouldn't last forever. Plus you could always sell to a neutral English-speaking party, like the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
The nazi swastika is accurately depicted on the more professional propaganda work, but these trench doodles seem to be a lot more crass (and amusing), at the cost of accuracy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:In a similar vein I'm of the opinion that Goering should be given a medal for doing the most of any one person to bring about the fall of the 3rd Reich. Ferdinand Porsche should get a Hero of Socialist Labour, for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Aren't tanks are only useful against poor opponents that can't afford to get modern anti-tank weapons? I've thought that anti-tank missiles can poo poo any tank. That's when fancy tech comes into play. Active defenses like Drozd/Arena/Trophy against rockets, Shtora against laser designators, reactive armour, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How good are the active defenses? Do you have links (in English) about their efficiency? No idea, modern stuff isn't my area of expertise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Lamadrid posted:Why the gently caress Greece needs so many tanks ? Are they going to start poo poo in the middle east all on their own Alexander the Great Style? I think you mean Alexander the Macedonian.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
I wonder what the ratio of total land occupied by all countries to total land claimed is. It probably changes a lot, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:The people in the article aren't the "black excavators" though, they're cool. Russian black excavators don't loot the ID cylinders, and occasionally even notify the proper channels of the bodies that they find. Taking the medals and guns is pretty lovely, but they're not complete monsters.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Came to post this. Worth noting that even in the abscence of HEAT/flamethrower/other explosive device, just the consequences of being hit by any sort of AP round in WW2 led to a fuel fire in a petrol powered tank. The energy expended results in a lot of heat, on top of system failures in the tank like punctured fuel lines or ammo cooking off. Shermans were called 'tommycookers' weren't they? Now with some numbers! Azipod posted:Supposedly the Brits nicknamed their lend-lease Shermans "Ronsons", which was a brand of cigarette lighter advertised with the phrase "Lights up the first time, every time". I'm pretty sure that that was a post-war slogan.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
There was also an experiment to put gas tanks in the road wheels, but those turned out to be a terrible idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Ah yes, horses, critical for a height advantage over the enemy in battle! Also, don't forget donkey. While meek in its default configuration, it could be upgraded with a radio and anti-tank capabilities. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Airborne tanks are not, in any way, prepared for air combat. I'm pretty sure he meant heavily armoured aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
It would be pretty hard for a KGB officer to get sentenced for a crime in 1941. Or, you know, exist. But yeah, a ton of solid intelligence, including from Soviet sympathizers among the highest German ranks ended up sitting in a box because Stalin made it abundantly clear that he did believe that Germany would attack, and anyone with information to the contrary would have a bad time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Libluini posted:NKGB? Now that's cute. Does that stand for Neo-KGB? Narodniy Kommisssariat Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (People's Commissariat of State Security). It predates the KGB.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The more I read about Russian intelligence agencies, the more I get confused. And that's just the way we like it. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
The only way a purge would have helped is if it cut out old farts like Budyonniy and Voroshilov and let progressive thinking commanders like Tukhachevskiy rise to power. But Tukhachevskiy was already powerful, so it wouldn't have helped all that much. The young officers that rose up to replace the purged ones were lacking experience, and lacking the initiative for improvisation, choosing to stick to manuals (which obviously couldn't cover everything). What really killed the Red Army's ability to be prepared for a modern war is treating anyone that was conducting a training exercise that led to an accident as a saboteur, meaning no combined arms training, no winter training, no diver training (although most of that was done by civilian organizations anyway), and a drastic reduction in all other kinds of training. After the fiasco in the Winter War, the army was allowed more leeway, but Barbarossa came too soon for it to fully recover. Raenir Salazar posted:
Odd how the guy behind the Marshals doesn't have any medals. I mean, from his shoulderboards, you can see that he's at least a Major (maybe even a Colonel, I don't see his stars). An officer of that rank would have at least something to show off, even a tedious "For Courage", and most likely one of the lower Orders. Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Is he wearing a less formal uniform? It's duller in tone. A field uniform would have khaki coloured shoulderboards, and you'd still wear your medals on it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Is it possible he forgot them on the ride over to that photo op? They should already be on his uniform. These are the kinds of things you have on you literally all the time, especially if you're an officer of that rank and aren't going to be hanging around any real combat any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Was it Soviet doctrine that caused a lack of improvisation, or inexperience and fear of failure? Pop culture has this picture of Soviets as rigidly following doctrine while the Americans cherished innovation. The Soviets raised a shitload of divisions in 1941, both before June 22nd and after. If you were an RKKA commander, you were either fresh blood, or promoted way beyond your experience, with very little training to bring you up to speed. At that point, you're afraid of loving up, so you stick to the manual. Those that survived their first few months got better, but a lot did not. Senior commanders got a lot better by 1942, since they had a higher average lifetime than junior commanders.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Was there any such thing as "reverse lend-lease"? Did the other Allies send anything to the Americans in return for their material aid, or was killing Germans payment enough? I understand lend-lease was basically supposed to be free poo poo for other countries in support of the war effort, but surely there'd be some things the Americans might be interested in getting their hands on other Allies could provide too. The USSR sent the UK and USA a KV-1 and T-34 tank each for trials.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
The biggest advantage of an anti-tank gun is not penetration or anything like that. The Germans kept making bigger and bigger anti-tank guns that managed to be hilariously ineffective. The mark of a good anti-tank gun is its small size. Take the Soviet 45 mm model 1932, for instance. A crew of two or three guys can lug that thing around, set up a few camouflages positions in some bushes, and then spend the entire day pounding enemy armour in the side without being seen. That's one of the reasons the Soviets never ordered the 17 pounder AT gun from the British. Yeah, the penetration was good, but the thing was heavy as gently caress and impossible to push around a battlefield. Of course there were heavier guns (A-19, ML-20), but those weren't being wheeled out into direct firing distance unless something was very wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 04:09
|
|