|
PittTheElder posted:That assumes that the power with jets left hasn't run out of ordnance for them though, which is far from certain. Hogge Wild posted:Which countries other than USA has enough bombs for that kind of campaign? Even Britain and France ran out of bombs quite fast in Libya. Ensign Expendable posted:Well there is another one, the T-35, that got started up and drove off to a restoration garage after sitting in Kubinka for decades. More knowledgeable people than I bitched about it endlessly though, since apparently no inspection whatsoever was done to make sure they didn't gently caress the thing up by trying to run it. Watch Roadkill on YouTube to see poo poo like this done with cars in just about every episode. Roll up to something that's been sitting in a junkyard for 30 years, bang away on it for a couple days, and drive out. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Apr 22, 2015 |
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Jesus, are those the same sort of exhaust fumes you'd get out of them when they were new? Once you get 10 of them in one area, I suspect that would seriously hinder your ability to remain unseen. Or maybe that just what WWII era tanks were like? Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoQoui1VKkU Edit: Bonus Leopard 2 tractor pull: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXG-6NFPGn8 Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Which significantly contributed to almost sinking an aircraft carrier. Turns out Composition B doesn't store well in tropical climates.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
scissorman posted:E.g. mucking with Wallstreet or Comcast or whatever could be a perfect terror attack and thus also tie up government resources.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:How direct is the link between the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey? Specifically why would the genocide be something that they are ignoring vs a 'It wasn't us, honest!' approach?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Wait, so who were the Ottoman sultans then?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I think the problem isn't really face-to-face contact and really more staring at a blob of men far-off in the powder haze and trying to figure out if you're allowed to shoot them or not. Remember in this period that the effective range of a musket and the effective range of a well-hurled rock are roughly similar.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I'm kinda curious, did Napoleonic armies ever run a uniform recognition program so that your average soldier would know who not to shoot if not part of their own army? Sort of like the WW2 "This man is your FRIEND - he fights for LIBERTY" stuff? Individual marksmanship just isn't a thing for the average soldier until about 50 years later.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Murgos posted:From what I understand they mostly also didn't so much aim as just line their muskets up to be at the same angle/direction as their neighbor. Although I am sure some of the more experienced men knew how to aim it wasn't required. A smoothbore musket can be relatively accurate, but you have to seriously compromise speed and reliability to make it so. Murgos posted:By the time rifles were common in the ACW though, well, I know a guy who can hit a a 20" target at 400 yards with his antique.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Also, how the hell do you get the URL parser to acknowledge time hacks in Youtube URLs? bewbies posted:There also isn't anything I can find open-source that shows what a modern torpedo might do to an armored ship, everything I can find is just empty supply ships and old escorts. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 22:28 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Its probably a dumb question, but during conflicts like the ACW (19th century in general), did cavalry carry any lances with them, or did they rely on the saber when guns weren't an option any more? (ran out of ammo, or jammed or whatever, imagine a really really lovely situation where they can't retreat or something) what was their last resort weapon? It wasn't uncommon for a cavalryman to have several pistols and/or spare cylinders about his person with a few more strapped to his saddle. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 23:28 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:How much do swords weigh? That's a sword taller than your average 16th century man and it still weighs in under 8lbs.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm a big fan of Matt Easton's videos. 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:We may be more sedentary now, but I bet our top athletes are beasts compared to even the most fit warriors of 600 years ago. Your average NFL starter in 2015 would have been a multi-sport Olympic gold medalist in 1980.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:The early modern West knows inbetween weapons kind of like this as "hackbuts," "hook guns," or wall guns." Cav doesn't use them though, that's way too rad for the West. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Its more likely that there is nothing there worth aggregating China over. North Korea exists because it's such a quagmire of human misery that nobody wants to wade in and claim it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Squalid posted:What do naval encounters look like during the Taiping Rebellion? I'm imagining junks with lots of guys lined up on deck shooting matchlocks and rockets, or was it more sophisticated?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is a cool channel that I drop by and watch every now and then, but what does it mean when they say "sporterize"? All of this generally reduces the weapon's value as a collector's item.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Which reminds me: according to Clausewitz, people just stopped doing this during the 18th/19th century. He says it's no other reason than "fashion"--was there a doctrinal reason people didn't fortify their siege lines any more in the 1790s?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:There were a few efforts to make pinfire cartridges (which incorporate the firing pin into the rim), but these aren't a very good cartridge because they're basically rimfires that have to be inserted one way into the chamber. You had the successful but short-lived needle guns like the Chassepot and Dreyse. About a hundred different attempts to build cartridge-firing pistols without infringing on Rollin White's patent, of which the cupfire system is only one. And the end of the century brought us truly revolutionary machines like the Maxim Gun and glorious insanity like the Mars Automatic Pistol.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:In most normal cartridges, the primer is positioned at the back of the powder. This causes it to burn back to front, expelling some unburnt powder down the barrel. If the barrel isn't long enough, some of that unburnt or still burning powder goes flying out the barrel instead of contributing energy to the bullet (this is why shortening the barrel of a gun gives you bigger muzzle flash and blast while also decreasing velocity). By burning the powder front to back, they would minimize the loss of gunpowder out the barrel. They also wanted to use it to let them put less powder in the cartridge (since better efficiency means less powder is needed for the same velocity) and position the percussion cap deep within the cartridge and away from accidental detonation. Edit: Admittedly I'm no expert so I may be very wrong Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Most interesting to me is that the initial target was the Japanese fleet. I'm really curious how this targeting decision evolved from clear military target in 1943 to discussion of which cities would blow up best by early 1945.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I have to ask, what sort of (legitimate, non-Russian-mafia) dealer sells armour piercing bullets? feedmegin posted:Do deer wear Kevlar now?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Logistics wins wars, not doubling or tripling the range at which you can produce accurate fire.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Can someone with actual knowledge correct me here but how did they counter light infantry tactics? But if you are paralyzed by indecision, confusion, bureaucracy, stupidity, drunkenness, senility, rigid doctrine or some combination of the above your dudes are going to get shot up just standing around in the open being sniped at.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Also the American riflemen probably weren't all spread out in a field but stuck to forests probably.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Your average civilian person just sees a generic tank. For many of them you should be happy if they can see the difference between a MBT and an IFV.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
A question for HEY GAL: What was the road system like in your period? Are Mansfield and the boys traipsing all over the Europe through field and forest or are there some actual roads to follow, and how are they not constantly lost?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Isn't it that ores in Japan are kind of lovely, that's why you needed to fold katanas five thousand times?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:When my daughter asked me about the Pacific Theater in WWII, I told her it was easiest to understand if you assumed that Japan never had a war plan in the sense we mean it. They had a conviction that Heaven would ensure their victory, and a rough scheme for putting Heaven in an excellent position to intervene in their favor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Japan kind of put the quality over quantity model in place with just about everything including their aircraft. As has been said, they knew they weren't going to win a war of attrition, so it made some sense to have fewer, higher quality things than lots and lots of lower quality things. It certainly did make upgrading equipment along the way more difficult, but again, that was something of a conscious tradeoff...if they were in a war long enough to require significantly new things, they were going to lose, and old planes are just as effective as new ones at flying into ships on purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Pretty sure those Last Ditch Arisakas were 1945 built examples. I don't know if I'd go so far as saying a lot of stuff was obsolete. Certainly the tankettes were, but I've always seen it more as their equipment had issues or quirks, not completely obsolete.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So here's a bit of Gay Black Hapsburg to break up the WW2 chat: If by some miracle the Spanish Armada had kept its poo poo together long enough to transport the Spanish Army from Flanders to England (from what I understand that would require a few Gay Black Hapsburgs in and of itself), was there any realistic chance of keeping that Army supplied or reinforced while it tromped around England? Would they have been able to keep themselves going and battle-worthy through forage and plunder alone, or would they have required supplies from Flanders/Spain? And if they required the supplies, did Spain have the infrastructure needed to maintain those supply lines and keep the English from privateering them to hell at the same time?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Marxism posted:Also to continue the tanktalk: Based on what I've read (almost entirely from this thread). It seems like there is no tank that would ever be worth 2 of its enemy counterpart indicating that having more tanks of slightly lower quality would almost always be better than less tanks of higher quality.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The guys hanging out in it are not free.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Just wait until Gajin adds ships to War Thunder sometime in the early 22nd century.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Nope. Submarine pressure hulls are thick and difficult to penetrate, which shouldn't be surprising considering what their job is. You need a decent-sized shell (4" and larger) to stand a chance of punching through a vital point on a surfaced submarine. The 3"/50s on the destroyer escorts we gave to the Royal Navy fired shells that often bounced off surfaced U-boats. You don't necessarily have to hole a sub's pressure hull to sink it either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
To continue bad poetry posting with a tank destroyer verse: Tiger, Tiger, burning bright In the forests of the night, What seven-six or one-five-two Was it that liquefied your crew? Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 17:39
|
|