|
It should probably be the AMX-30 in your last paragraph, the -13 is the light tank platform with the oscillating turret.
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
The old MilHist thread is in the Goldmine now so if you want to link up old discussions, or point out particularly excellent posts, please proceed!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
Yeah count me in as well, the actual targeting mechanics haven't been that well documented AFAIK.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:It's 50 Foot Ant and his stories are likely bullshit. Bullshit flavored yes, but the guy was probably there going by the amount of stuff he couldn't make up otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That's my understanding of why the autoloader/human loader design split happens. The human can move faster in a pitched battle but obviously gets tired. The autoloader just keeps on going. Yeah that's one of the factors that probably made them go for autoloaders. Other important ones are:
In general the Soviets ultimately had to make a trade-off in having the autoloader draw from an ammunition 'carousel' directly below the turret ring (where it connects with the chassis), which turned out to be a vulnerability. Newer designs like the Leclerc and Japanese Type-90/-10 circumvent this by storing ammunition in the turret bustle (the elongated part at the back like the M1 Abrams has), something which the Soviets probably weren't able to do back when they nailed down their layout back in the sixties because of the mechanical reliability of their components. This is all a bit conjectural though, there's no supercool The Soviet decision to go for an autoloading gun system, by: Dude, Awesome (20XX) AFAIK.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:T-72 gets ~450 kilometers of operational range with 1200 liters of fuel @ 41.5 tons. Leopard 1 gets similar or better range with 955 liter tank @ 42 tons. Is that with or without the disposable tanks in case of the T-72? VVV Yeah didn't they add some tanks above the track guards or something, I think this also happened with one of the T-64 updates. Koesj fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Incidentally West Germany was about 450 kilometers wide from East German to Netherlands border. Unopposed it's less than 10 hours drive for a T-72. More like 250 as the crow flies, I was at the Panzermuseum in Munster in 3 hours driving from Groningen, and that's about 50kms to the former Iron Curtain through Uelzen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:This one is about the siege of Berg Op Zoom, which the people singing (who work for the Emperor of Spain) are about to lose, even though they don't know it. That'd be Bergen op Zoom. Two types of soil accumulate and it's mountainous by Dutch standards 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Dude, when you guys make it up to sea level it's mountainous. Well we only crawled out of it some 1000-odd years ago so it's best to stick with what you're used to. Flooding polders and other reclamations are a great way to quickly establish a permanent defensive line though, so there's something to be said for being part-merman. Until they decided to drop Fallschirmjäger on your capital of course, and I'm glad the world didn't get to see Soviet engineering efforts take on the IJsellinie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
The black/yellow patches with the red stars are indeed branch insignia, top one is a pipeline units one, bottom center looks like construction units, and the bottom right one is of course a tank forces one. e: I know gently caress all about nazi heraldry so I wouldn't be able to tell you about the center left thingy, but the top left artillery (?) patch looks A. western, B. upside down, and C. decidedly cold war (like everything else for that matter). I also think the 60th birthday of the revolution medal should be turned 90 degrees counterclockwise 
Koesj fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So, I was wondering about nuclear strategy. Specifically targets. Who was targeting what and where? Do we even know? We some of the early nuclear targeting options leading up to SIOP-62 (the definitive 'grand tour' US warplan, IE nuke everything), and a lot was written during the Cold War itself within the US policy domain, but the nitty gritty of megatonnages and megadeaths are still largely out of the public's view. On the Soviet or Chinese side it's a total wash AFAIK. quote:What about non-aligned countries though? Nuclear war is often portrayed as a civilization-busting catastrophe but I'm curious as to who outside the main belligerents would be affected (directly by the war itself. Obviously the resulting nuclear winter and radiation would gently caress everyone the world over but I'm limiting this to people actually having their territory directly targeted by nuclear weapons.) Well if you accept the possibility of limited nuclear war taking place, indirect effects might not that large. A naval exchange, like with what almost happened with the Soviet sub that got harassed all to hell during the Cuban Missile Crisis, would not have had a global ecological impact had the power that be been able to cut it short. The same goes for systems like air defense, whose use would present a clear nuclear escalation, but would have had no direct impact on civilians in themselves. I think territory is a bit of a nebulous concept if you consider all the different ways and means of using these weapons. quote:China is a wildcard who probably had nukes pointing at both the US and the Soviet Union depending on what time period we're talking about. Would they or the Soviets also target Japan? Southeast Asia? Australia? India had nukes starting in 74, who were they aimed at? What about Africa and the Middle East? As I said there's no publicly available stuff on Chinese strategy that I'm aware of, but yes they probably had the Soviets in their sight from the day they had a deliverable weapon, and the US after their long-range capability came to be. Japan and Korea hosted a substantial number of US military facilities, as did the Philippines and of course Guam, and there were plenty US forces around in South Vietnam and Thailand during the sixties and early seventies. I guess it all depends on what level and scale of conflict we're talking about here. Total war? Localized conflict? Comparatively low levels of escalation? I'm sure Australia was slated to get hit in some kind of apocalyptic plan the Soviets cooked up, but I don't think we'll ever see that kind of stuff released from their archives. India was their trading partner and part-time ally though, so maybe who knows what the thinking was before Smiling Buddha? They might as well have been part of a US set of targets. As for the Indian program, I was under the impression that they kept it on the back burner post-1974, with development only escalating after Pakistan got in the game throughout the nineties. I'm sure they could look at a map and decide they wanted to bomb Islamabad and Karachi, but if you don't have an immediately deliverable weapons it's all a bit academic. Since you've mentioned Africa and the Middle East, let's consider the other two 'non-aligned' Cold War nukehavers: South Africa had something like a 'declare nuclear weapons capability, do a full-on weapons test if necessary' policy for times of acute national crisis. This in order to get the United States involved if they were sufficiently threatened by outside, notionally communist forces. They wanted to be taken seriously and be able to break out of their international isolation, nuclear weapons as a diplomatic trump card if you will. Israel probably deployed them as a demonstratory, warfighting, and retaliatory capability from the get-go. One can only imagine what their usage parameters would have looked like. quote:Had a nuclear war broken out would it just be people literally lobbing nukes at everyone outside their bloc who might potentially not be totally on your side? On paper? Not from a Western perspective post-massive retaliation. What kind of nuclear war are we talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Please repost in the GiP contractor megathread, tia.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:
There's not much intellectual work to be done against delay fuzes and such. A decentish modern analogue to old-time fortresses might be stuff like the hardened command facilities and missile silos of the nuclear age.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 21:31
|
|
Anyone who's educated in military matters who can think about fortresses without being awed by the intellectual work that went into them has mind problems. Is the 20th century so different from all earlier periods, or is he just wrong?
|
Alchenar posted:Worth bearing in mind that those precision weapons are relatively recent things. In widespread application, adoption, and use, yes. Laser guided bombs have been used for more than 40 years now though, and the big Anti Tank Guided Missile scare was in 1973. However, from a superpower perspective, I'd say that nuclear weapons put an end to any thought of fortification efforts at the front well before that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:As far as I'm concerned, it's been the future since 1494. Yet here you are, posting things on the ~internet~
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
It really depends on the who, when, where, how. 'Nuclear Armageddon' would have been very hard to achieve with the number and yield of weapons during the late 40s and early 50s. Sure, 100 atom bombs will wreck any country, but it's not like they'll fundamentally alter the life of a subsistence farming-community half a world away. That metric changes considerably with thermonuclear weapons mated to long range missiles. Now everyone's in range of attack, and the weapons themselves have the potential to kick up radioactive debris into the stratosphere, depending on how and where they're targeted. It's mostly the global effects that get talked about when discussing nuclear Armageddon, but limited technological means, and the possibility of limited warfare even, kinda narrow that scenario down to a specific time and space. The continental US for example was relatively safe from nuclear attack until somewhere in the early 60s. A few bombers, nuclear torpedoes, or crude submarine-launched missiles might leak through, but probably not enough to ensure the end of a functioning nation-state. This situation persisted even through the years where the USSR started fielding their early intercontinental missiles. Those were liable to be destroyed before they could be used, and the US was pretty gung-ho about preventively 'winning' nuclear war. Britain however was totally (instead of partially) hosed from the moment the Soviets mated a large warhead to a smallish rocket, which is during the late 50s. Small country, high population density, and a highly intricate structure of economic distribution does not a resilient target make. The same goes for parts of Western Europe that were bullseyed from early on. China was supposedly a difficult target to take out as a country because for a long time they were very underdeveloped. They had a very low urbanization rate but a very large population already back then. Unless you deliberately salt the earth by groundbursting large nukes, blanketing them in radioactive dust, largish parts of the PRC's population was relatively safe throughout the Cold War. What's the definition of Armageddon anyway
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
I do all kinds of super advanced math in my field! Moving averages for instance, or graphs with two (!) Y-axes. I think I even got to do a regression analysis in excel once, now that's paper. If only I had taken that GIS class instead of quitting the spatial sciences minor a bit too soon, I'd have put the whole of Cold War Europe in some kind of useless database. a travelling HEGEL posted:Hey now. Watch yourself. I have no idea what the metric system means, and despite my current place of residence, don't intend to start now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkn-5WA0LU0&t=12s
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
By try out you mean just holding it right? Because I think I had that same AK 5 against my shoulder for a bit in 2006 IIRC. I imagine the AK 4 was heavier still although I've never held a G3 or FAL. The Haus der Geschichte in Bonn used to have demil-ed MPi-Ks/KMs/KMwhatevers (East German AKs) literally lying around somewhere in a corner during the early 2000s. Me and my friends did a perfect little VoPo Grenzer reenactment, with added Schiessbefehl against classmates. Ahh, highschool.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
This thread. You can't even go on vacation without people posting behind your back.AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Who wins in a fight, a single M1 or 16 Shermans? quote:a whole lot of replies I don't really care for the silly what-if, but you guys missed a couple of salient points with regard to human, technical, and interface factors in modern tanks when they have to tackle a substantially uneven matchup:
The post-WWII one sided tank slaughters (Sinai passes in '73 or Desert Storm for example) that I know of were not only influenced by a number of important technical edges, but also by giant disparities in crew training, lack of combined arms support on the receiving side, almost total situational awareness on the other side, etc. Conversely, an unsupported M1 platoon coming up against, say, even a reservist NVA T-54 MRR battalion (4 vs 40) in daylight close terrain circa ~1980-1987 might not come out on top.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
What's 'a missing boomer'?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
Englishman alone posted:I believe its referencing the loss of one of their submarines. It normally in regards to nuke capable(a fun topic in itself in regards to Israel) Okay I guess I could have made the connection to INS Dakar but that's in no way a 'missing boomer', which led me to believe you guys were talking about something else entirely. Please grant me some pedantry and severe elaboration:
The current Israeli subs allegedly able to carry nuclear tipped cruise missiles (Dolphin class) fall into the last category. They are neither nuclear powered, nor do they carry ballistic missiles (the kind that shoot way way up like a space rocket). Furthermore, they aren't designed to poo poo out a large load of cruise missiles within a very short time in order to attack a carrier group (like the Soviets might have wanted), or kick in the door somewhere like the Americans do (Florida shot off 93 Tomahawks against Libya in 2011). Sure, the Dolphins are advanced boats, the Germans still build quality subs, and they're fitted with extra large 650mm tubes (nominally a Soviet 'carrier killer' wake-homing torpedo size) which they've fitted their home-built cruise missiles to. But they're in no way boomers. And the INS Dakar was an ex-Royal Navy clanker, commissioned in 1945, which sank in 1968. Before its delivery to the Israeli Navy, before it would realistically have been mated with a nuclear weapon by its end user, before even the Soviets had an undersea launched cruise missile (and the Dakar sure as hell didn't have the provisions to do a surface launch of... wait there were no such missiles in the West), and before the Israelis had come to reach both the miniaturisation and serviceability needed for a weapon that wasn't one of the <10 crude aircraft delivered nukes they had - probably sitting in climate controlled facilities constantly being prodded by people in white suits. Or maybe they had the Americans develop a tube-launched SLBMs exclusively, which were handed to them with American warheads attached, half a year before the landmark F-4 sale with which the US partially hoped to spur the Israelis into signing the Non Proliferation Treaty.[ If you ask the Arab on the streets that's probably what happened! Koesj fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
That's a really contentious issue, which has been debated about for decades now, and will probably never be resolved without a major conflict no-one in the world wants to see happening (to say nothing of revisiting the ahistorical matchups of the past). I went over the model when you first posted it and it looked really simplistic to me and my wargaming-induced thousand yard stare. I think you were asking for more elaborate simulations in your earlier post? Command: Modern Air Naval Operations came out a couple of months ago, but 'unfortunately' for you Baloogan isn't around for another 13 days to implore you to immediately throw your money at it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
echopapa posted:Soviets: "And if that doesn't work, just retreat and wait for the winter!" Look at the current weather forecast for Syria: fog, rain, fog, snow, below freezing at night. It's not General Winter, but it sure as hell is different from the "Jesus Christ there's a nice breeze, I had forgotten about winter!" (dixit: my mom 5 mins ago) along the Gulf coast.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thanks for the responses re. German industry in WWII. I didn't even think of synthetic rubber. I added Wages of Destruction to my book wishlist I still haven't gotten any further than page 80 or so, and that's at least 15 books ago  The Gavin is one man's (Mike Sparks') crusade against wheeled deathtraps!!! (Strykers), the Marines, and the fluoridation of our precious bodily fluids. All this started something like 10 years ago on tank-net.org Combat Reform!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
The reasons why the USN and countries like the Netherlands did away with fixed-wing ASW was pretty a post-Cold War drawdown thing though. The potential threat had almost entirely ceased to exist, and maintaining good ASW capabilities is a tough effort, requiring a ridiculously intensive peacetime posture. Cue a number of commentators lamenting the loss of Cold War capabilities ever since. Especially since the Chinese are coming, although their submarine fleet has gone down in numbers and they seem to be running a natural longterm upgrade cycle.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:'Occupation' isn't still going on but Yokosuka is I'm pretty sure the largest American naval base overseas with a carrier permanently deployed and there's something like 20 thousand marines on Okinawa as well as a huge air force base. By the aforementioned metric Germany and Italy have been under continuous occupation to this day as well, the former on a way larger scale than even Japan for a long time. Of course the military presence got rubberstamped as being on an invitational basis as soon as their civilian governments got in, but that still introduced domestic agency in those matters, and over time kinda narrows critique of it towards talking about internationalist elites. e: sullat posted:And yet the Dutch invaded Indonesia twice in the late 40's. They hadn't got the memo, apparently. Though preposterously stupid by all accounts, IMO it's not very accurate to describe the military campaign as two invasions. Yes there were two 'politionele acties' but those have mostly been used as horrible euphemisms for the whole drawn-out conflict itself. Koesj fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Was naval nuclear propulsion developed independently by the Soviets, or by espionage? Both? Polmar's Cold War Submarines says nothing about espionage efforts concerning reactor technology. It's more of a general history of sub rather than reactor development though. The Soviets did at least design the hull form of their first nuclear submarine (and subsequent production run) part-based on intelligence gathered from USS Albacore. e: Polmar, Cold War Submarines, p324 posted:The USS Nautilus (SSN 571), the world's first nuclear-propelled vehicle, went to sea in january 1955. Three and a half years later the Soviet K-3 was underway on nuclear power. The interval had been less than four years between detonation of the first U.S. atomic bomb and the first Soviet atomic explosion. These intervals are significant because the Soviets received extensive information from spies on the U.S. atomic bomb project, while there is no evidence that significant classified information on U.S. nuclear submarine development was obtained by the Soviets. Well, well, well. Koesj fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Dec 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
But is in fact, like I said in the Cold War thread, a Bundeswehr 10. Panzerdivision shoulder insignia, so whats there to be confused about? Did you think someone sewed a postwar patch on a Nazi coat? Don't fret though, I looked it up some more for you. Bottom left: Deutsches Heer (although it seems the Bundesluftwaffe had these as well), Großer Dienstanzug, heavy winter coat. Here's the size key. The stylized Eagle on the buttons is kinda hard to make out but it looks like a West-German one? And maybe the 25 is... I dunno, the BW silver jubilee? The very simplified history to it is that AFAIK the newly founded Bundeswehr tried to do away with its Nazi Wehrmacht legacy partly by clothing themselves in 'American' styles, while the NVA (East German Army) kept going with traditional Prussian cuts (and an update to the M45 Stahlhelm of course).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
Yeah I was about to say, that doesn't really strike me as being a very loaded term in the English language. e: VVV I'd rather have the Sheriff's deep house and glitch TYVM Koesj fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Castles are intended to control an entire region by their presence   Anyway, semantics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
I thought it was decent enough to warrant a full listen. Can't even remember him mentioning Ferguson, but isn't his Pity of War an important enough title to cite anyway? He only went off the deep end afterwards, and AFAIK Ferguson's early work on financial history is good stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Pity of War can kiss my rear end. Germany should have beaten France and dominated Europe economically for a generation? The only people who hated First World War combat were poets? (implication: Hey I only read the reviews, but I gather at least his econ stuff should work  Maybe you feel about it the same way I went through Gaddis' Cold War: a new History? "Oh hey this might be neat and- no wait, cowboy actor with Alzheimer's saves the day, someone please shoot me in the face!" e: VVV quote:"The House of Rothschild remains Ferguson's only major work to have received prizes and wide acclaim from other historians. Research restrains sweeping, absolute claims: Rothschild is the last book Ferguson wrote for which he did original archival work, and his detailed knowledge of his subject meant that his arguments for it couldn't be too grand."
Koesj fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 00:58
|
|
"Liberals Liberals LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS"
|
EvanSchenck posted:Niall Ferguson's deal is that he is very talented, educated at the very best institutions, and wrote very good work early in his career, but rather than continuing to do serious history he chose to work his way into a position as court historian and pet intellectual for British and American conservatism. Pankaj Mishra's fierce takedown of Ferguson in the Guardian is a great read and a good explanation of why Carlin's citation of The Pity of War turned me right off. He's basically a Tory piece of poo poo who writes books about how we'd all be better off if stuffed shirt Brit aristocrats had ruled the world forever. Doesn't Mishra reserve far tougher words for Ferguson's later work though? I think most people ITT would agree that Ferguson's total body of work points to him being an insufferable shitheel, but the article you linked to goes into how he developed these views over the years, which has implications in the way you might look at his earlier stuff. Plus, after reading Ferguson's replies, I'm not sure I'm very comfortable with Mishra's diatribe either. Anyway, maybe I should read The Pity of War since I'm kinda burned out on the early Cold War right now anyway. For one I could see where Dan Carlin comes from with leaning on a work like this, he always seems to be reaching for the hyperbolic (not that I mind, in a podcast).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:This is exactly the issue. Considered in isolation you might have a different and better impression of The Pity of War than the one you get when you look at it as part of his declining body of work. Fair enough, I couldn't tell without having read the book itself. quote:I'm not sure we're reading the same exchange. Ferguson comes off very very poorly there. I'm pretty sure we're reading the same exchange. I don't think you'll have to believe Ferguson comes off anything other than poor for believing Misha's arguments favor the polemical over the factual in the comments. Considered in isolation, I would have had a different and better impression of his 'fierce takedown', which comes off as a bit parochial in the end.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Oh hey Nienburg, I always drop Soviet air assault regiments there in games 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, it was and still is a garrison city with a battalion attached to it, so it has a certain military value. (Today it is the EloKa Btl. 912, an electronic warfare battalion, in the past it was rocket artillery and tanks.) Panzergrenadiere as well! All of PzBrig 3 except for PzBtl 33 & PzJgKp 30 actually (and Luttmersen isn't that far away in any case), so nowadays you could full up invade a country with what used to be in Nienburg. But after they'd have cleared out to join up with the rest of 1. Panzerdivision, probably before H-hour since that's a hair-trigger formation, and hopefully before a Territorialheer formation is ready to take over, it's great fun to cut I Korps' area of operations in half!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The whole idea of issuing subguns sort of fell out of favor with the introduction of assault rifles and their carbine variants. Ensign Expendable posted:People in the above category preferred SMGs and carbines with folding stocks to this monstrosity, anyway. Well they can do lots of stuff with tiny rifle calibers in machine pistols these days! 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:gently caress Truman I had this exact same feeling creep up on me after reading Racing the Enemy, but then remembered that the guy got pretty much thrust into a position for which he wasn't at all prepared
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Let me again recommend The Third Battle (pdf), a Naval War College paper which primarily traces the development of US anti-submarine efforts during the Cold War, but serves as a great primer on post-WWII sub development as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:I drew lots of pictures of planes bombing the poo poo out of buildings and dogs ripping off people's arms and stuff. I did not see such things, I used my 'imagination'. Well you and I probably saw that poo poo on TV.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 16:21
|
|