|
Splode posted:Is it the panther or the tiger that's gears break before it runs out of fuel. I can never remember. I recall an instance within a German pocket, (possibly demyansk?) they were running low on ammunition but they had captured a bunch of soviet munitions. So instead of flying in ammunition for their German weapons they flew in captured soviet weapons which could use the stockpile of ammunition that they had.
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
simplefish posted:I have a couple of questions about Napoleonics This youtube video is extremely relevant to your query. From military history visualised. Discusses the different muskets different nations used, effective range and accuracy and how that influenced the doctrines used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0sRSgJsWc simplefish posted:How were battles coordinated? It was still the era of pitched battles so a commander could have view of the entire battlefield and issue commands via riders and so forth. The interesting aspect though was that armies were getting too large to march as a single entity even though they would always come together to fight as a single entity as much as possible. An army would be split into 2 or 3 entities, or corps, which would march on different roads, pillage and forage different regions and each have their own artillery and cavalry and could fight pitched battles with the main enemy for some time. Until the other columns came to the rescue as it were. Inspiring the phrase, "march to the sound of the guns", which is generally what a column was expected to do should it hear fighting. simplefish posted:Was it all planned in advance and everyone had to stick to it (like making plans with friends before mobile phones) until they went their own way and took initiative in a situation? Or could things be change in the heat of battle with coordination? Before Austerlitz, Napoleon famously commented to his Generals to "study this ground as a famous battle would be fought here". There was clearly a plan before the battle was joined, but both sides would have vastly different plans. Certainly there was room for initiative from lower level commanders but the overall commander could usually "see" most of what was going on. Cannot think of any major examples of initiative seizing commanders, if people have examples that would be awesome! simplefish posted:I guess runners with messages but were they sent between Duke This and Duke That? Runners were a WWI or WWII thing mostly, in this era they would mostly have used riders, because faster and not very vulnerable at all. Don't really know about the other queries. Although knowing this thread, there are much more knowledgeable people here about to contradict the things I've said! EDIT: There was the famous charge of the light brigade! Lord Cardigan received seemingly suicidal orders which were carried by Captain Nolan, which he queried but was rudely rebuffed by Captain Nolan. Lord Cardigan then proceeded to suicidally charge a battery of guns at the end of the valley. Which were not the guns that the orders or Captain Nolan were referring to. Ambiguous orders are stupid. Once Nolan realised the impending disaster that was about to unfold, galloped in front of Lord Cardigan (Pissing Cardigan off no end) and tried to lead the brigade to not suicidally charge the guns at the end of the valley. But he was very promptly killed by said guns. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Why did the 30 years war go on for so long? Would have just been improper to have finished early!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Why did the US suffer less casualties from Iraq than Vietnam? They were completely different conflicts, hugely driven by terrain. In Iraq, the USA was able to destroy the Iraqi army in a matter of weeks (?). Was a complete walkover, there was the Iraqi army and then it was destroyed. At which point it was effectively an occupation with an insurgency. In Vietnam, the USA was never able to destroy the enemy army in the field. Largely because it was unable to find it. Throughout the Vietnam conflict, the Viet Cong continued to exist as an effective fighting force and maintained the capacity to engage with the USA army proper, in the field. What the USA was able to achieve in Iraq in a matter of weeks, it failed to ever achieve in Vietnam. drat Jungle. Very simplified overview.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
I am going to UK/France soon. Part of my trip I certainly plan on going through the Normandy beaches and maybe spending a night in Caen and so forth. Have people here been through that area before? Can you tell me if there are anything specific I should go to/do? Even if its a little out of the way and worth it, very interested. Will also be in Paris. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
One of the more remarkable things I learned from military history is human organization. For example, in the US army, the smallest unit is a "fire team" , consisting of 3-4 people with a team leader. There would be between 3-4 fire teams in a squad/section and then between 3-4 sections in a platoon and so on and so forth. There is some variation but the general idea is that any person in the military structure will have between 3-5 direct subordinates, the number of people a single person can successfully manage. Something that is just a result of centuries of warfare and a thing that has been found to just work. Has obvious application in business hierarchies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Firstly thanks to everyone's recommendations regarding France/Normandy, particularly interested in checking out some of the red zone.spectralent posted:As a thought that just struck me, is the increased amount of mechanisation, as well as the increasingly lighter weight of body armour, a factor in the increased adoption of it in military use? WW2 practically nobody has body armour, but they're also just expected to be walking wherever they're meant to be, right? I figure if your assumption is that you're going everywhere via carriers, airlifts, and that kind of stuff, then maybe making everyone heavier is less of a problem. Or am I completely wrong? The bigger issue I think (This forum make me doubt everything) is that there are newer materials available today with which to make both lightweight and functional body armour. I don't think they had the materials to make functional body armour back in WWII time. They had flak jackets for air crew but, they weren't exactly expected to walk anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:I'm just finishing my trip to Normandy for that purpose tommorrow, I'll let you know when im sober and back home Friday. Awesome stuff and please do!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
So eh, FA-35. Surely its been discussed to death the previous thread, somewhere. Is there an effort post or cliff notes sitting somewhere? It has always came across as a pretty decent platform to me, despite what the media likes to say.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:I'm going to watch the film regardless based on his recommendation, but I find it difficult to believe a single tank with no supporting infantry of its own could hold its own against large numbers of infantry then, now, or ever. They cannot even see well enough out of the tank, to defend themselves. Am I correct, naive, or maybe just ignorant? The movie is better if you just stop watching it after the tank goes over that land mine. Up till that point I thought the movie was actually pretty good. More than a few problems with the Tiger scene but I felt the emotions and attitudes regarding how Tigers were viewed and fought by American tankers to be, okay(ish). Same story though, a Tiger should have supporting infantry and should not be operating by itself. It should also not be charging Shermans. The final part of the movie with a disabled sherman mauling hundreds of SS soldiers, was just absurd and stupid. It took about 15 minutes of movie time before they got out the panzerfausts to use against an enemy tank... >.< The little speech by americans driving a tank into a foreign country and then make a little speech about how that sherman was their home and how important it was for them to defend their home, while invading another country... >.< Go back to your own lines, get a new tank and prosecute the war. Experienced tank crew are valuable, don't throw your lives away in a stupid heroic act of defending a broken machine. EDIT: It actually felt like two completely different movies, before and after the landmine. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:It's not impossible, though. There's the famous story of the KV tank at Raisenai that held up a battalion (I think) for a whole day, inflicting a few dozen casualties and knocking out a few guns and trucks. There were isolated stories around the war of similar deeds, usually involving armor facing an unprepared and/or unexpecting enemy. Nothing on the level of what was depicted at the end of Fury, though. Yeah there are a number of stories of lone tanks holding up a ridiculously disproportionate force. Its only possible if the opposing force happens to not have any weapons capable of penetrating the armour of the tank, but its only a matter of time till they bring something up or are able to call in artillery or something else. Panzerfausts I think could penetrate just about anything?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Why hasn't someone made THAT into a movie. 6 poor guys holding off an entire Panzer Division, and 3 of them are buried without names. Russians cannot be heroes. :/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
So I have been away for a while and its taken about a month to catch up on this thread. You guys write far too much interesting and read worthy stuff! (And by far too much I mean too little) But I missed the whole, WWII battleships are obsolete discussion. I have played the hell out of, War in the Pacific. Its a super detailed game (*much greater detail and complexity* than HOI for those of you that are familiar with that series of games) that plays out well, the war in the pacific with the main focus on naval and air combat. And as far as realism goes I think it does a pretty drat good job generally in representing how the war was or how it could have been fought. My views on WWII naval combat are influenced by my play throughs of this game, versus other humans and of course on what actually happened. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral's.Edition Air power is paramount. But we already all knew that. No matter where your Battleships go, they need air cover. Either provided by CVs or land based airfields. In a purely maritime engagement the value of a BS is extremely limited and it would almost always be better if that BS were a CV. The only value that a BS provides in such an engagement is as an escort and its impressive AAA and is an extremely expensive asset for what it brings to the table. A dedicated light cruiser provides a nearly equivalent AAA at a fraction of the cost such as the Atlanta class of light cruisers. The other benefit of having a BS in the task force is that enemy pilots stupidly attack it instead of the CVs, which is nice. Its main battery in this context is utterly irrelevant. The potential of a SAG engaging with a CV task force in deep water is almost zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta-class_cruiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Diego_(CL-53) But you have battleships and you might as well use them to escort the carriers. But in deep water engagements you would always prefer them to be CVs instead. Covering and Interdicting Amphibious Invasions This is the only context where you absolutely want to have at least a few Battleships. In order to effect an amphibious invasion it necessarily involves having a large fleet of super vulnerable ships sitting off of a land mass for usually at least a day. If this force was scouted before it arrives that gives the enemy even more time to bring up the SAG necessary to interdict and disrupt the invasion. SAG heading full speed to an invasion site can engage with the naval forces there, on occasion without being interdicted by aircraft. They might have air cover from a relatively nearby land based air field or have land based air cover on the way there or are able to close the range using cover of night, either engaging at night or dawn. Think Leyte Gulf. In every circumstance you want several strong SAG covering the invasion fleet and that means BS. If you don't have Battleships and the enemy has Battleships versus your CA that always ends badly. Miracles like Taffy 3 don't happen in simulations. Typically in the game at least, you spend one day unloading as many troops and supplies as you possibly can, under heavy SAG escort and CV air cover and then leg it as fast as you possibly can. The enemy knows pretty much exactly what you have and can then choose whether it is to his advantage to engage or not. That is never an option you want to give your enemy. Its typically always cost effective to send in SAG into an invasion fleet, even if its just an flotilla of destroyers, if they somehow get through they can cause such havoc. Think Guadalcanal, land the troops and let them get on with it and move the ships out. Risking naval assets isn't worth it. The focus should be on interdicting the enemy naval assets. Sitting still unloading for another day is a recipe for disaster. Bait/Shore Bombardment As has already been elucidated, Battleships are extremely durable! A strategy that I like to employ was using a very strong SAG consisting of Battleships and destroyer escort under heavy land based air cover. There are few locations where this can be employed but I found it to be very effective. Doesn't have any direct historical examples. A force like this cannot be ignored and usually prompts an aggressive response from the enemy which can escalate the situation and hopefully reveal the enemies Carrier Task Force. I don't think it was ever tried in real life to launch an air attack on a task force of Battleships with heavy air cover but in the game at least, the attacking air force suffers heavy losses and while hits are scored, usually all the Battleships are still floating at the end of the day. With the enemies air force spent in this manner it opens up a lot of good options for the next few days. Shore Bombardment Sadly this is what BS in the war were largely reduced to. Unfortunately they just aren't that good at it, when considering the cost of the asset, their limited ammunition and the lengths that have to go to replenish the ammunition of their main battery. And their barrels get worn. Carriers Vs Battleships In the Pacific at least you absolutely had to have carriers. In any carrier vs carrier battle the utility of a BS was reduced to that of its AAA battery which is a function that could just as well be performed by an appropriately designed light cruiser. They had huge utility in covering and interdicting amphibious invasions but you don't need that many and its fairly niche. But when the sun rises, its the carriers that are going to determine who controls the sea. You use battleships because you have them and they do have utility but in nearly all instances you would prefer to have a CV. With strong land based air cover, battleships are fantastic. But if you have strong land based air cover, then the air can usually perform the function that the Battleship could do anyways, which begs the question, why do you need the battleship? Fake Edit: Battleships are one of my favourite things. EDIT: I posted in D&D, mistakes were made. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
my dad posted:This is clearly a realistic depiction of WW2 naval combat, and thereby I claim that the US naval doctrine was flawed, carriers are clearly best suited for naval CQC. War in the Pacific actually doesn't a very good job of simulating the type of war that was fought. It's not, ZOMG, if it works in the game then life was like that. But the results in the game match well with what historically did happen when similar conditions were the same.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Kanine posted:are there any actual cases of ships ramming eachother in modern naval warfare? Destroyers had a tendency of ramming surfaced submarines and PT boats, that's about it. HMS-Bulldog made to ram u-110, the crew abandoned ship and Bulldog stopped her ram, captured the uboat and a complete enigma machine. JFK's pt-boat, pt 109 was rammed by a Japanese destroyer the Amagiri. There's even a song about it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:Trenches! Trenches are awesome. And offer almost complete protection to shrapnel shells, which is why they are super narrow. The shell has to land in the trench to hurt people. Same reason the trenches zig/zag, so if a shell does land in a trench it can only hurt people in that particular zig, or zag. When the armies started digging, everyone pretty much exclusively had shrapnel shells so trenches were super effective. When everyone realised that trenches were a thing, everyone started building as much heavy artillery as they could and the high explosive shells required. With enough arty and shells, any wwi trench could be destroyed. Building the arty and the shells was the issue and took them years to gear up. Water table is an issue. And areas with high water tables, earthworks were built "up" so they didnt have to dig as far down. Also arty bombardment wrecks the drainage of any area, badly. Germans had much better trenches largely a result of different doctrine. Their assault on france failed and then chose to direct their full fury against the russians. They were there to stay, for years, and they built their trenches accordingly. Deep bunkers too and some officers quarters were even carpeted. The french on the other hand refused to tolerate the germans occupying large sections of the country and viewed trenches as very temporary constructs, until the germans could be evicted. And were built accordingly. British trenches was something that existed between these two extremes. Trenches were pretty poo poo to be in , particularly french trenches. The brits recognized this and very quickly rotated men in and out, continously. Such that any one man would only generally be in the front line, 2/3 days each week. The french were very slow to develop this type of rotation. Many factors but their poo poo trenches and poor rotation contributed to their mutinies. More on hygiene later , and poetry!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
The Germans also tended to give up a little territory in order to build their trenches on better terrain, on hills and so forth. Giving them better drainage and allowing them to look into their enemies trenches. Defecation was very serious business, particularly in trenches. If I recall correctly, the British (Most of my reading just happened to be form the British perspective) built two types of latrines or "long drops". A shallower one, which would fill up and then closed. And apparently you can dig a deeper one, such that the exreta would seep into the ground at a rate greater than it would fill up and would last. Again apparently, these things could be exploded by artillery. Churchill actually had a not awful idea, identifying that there were more sailors than they needed and they were desperately short on infantrymen. So they decided to form an infantry division from sailors, the 63rd Royal Naval Division. Apparently the type of discipline between the navy and the army were not quiet the same, especially regarding defecation. When a particular Major-General Cameron Shute took command of the division, was apparently appalled at the "hygiene practices of the division" and tried to fix it and in doing so became extremely unpopular. Resulting in my opinion, one of the best works of literature, ever. "The General inspecting the trenches Exclaimed with a horrified shout "I refuse to command a division Which leaves its excreta about". But nobody took any notice No one was prepared to refute, That the presence of poo poo was congenial Compared to the presence of Shute. And certain responsible critics Made haste to reply to his words Observing that his staff advisors Consisted entirely of turds. For poo poo may be shot at odd corners And paper supplied there to suit, But a poo poo would be shot without mourners If somebody shot that poo poo Shute." Written by Sub-Lieutenant A. P. Herbert. No idea how that effected their relationship.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
quote:You wouldn't; cooking draws attention, and if you're lucky it only draws the attention of a sniper and not an artillery observer. On the Western Front you have food cooked for you (for a given value of "food" and "cooked")when they're at the sharp end and then brought up by carrying parties; the cooks live either in a cookhouse dugout or an intact house in the reserve positions, or a field kitchen somewhere further to the rear. If you hear a story about some light-fingered chaps confiscating edibles and cooking them, it's almost certain that they did it during the ~50% of the time they spent at rest, out of the trenches WWI also spawned the golden age for canning food. I think you would be pretty lucky to get a cooked meal in the front lines. Expecting to eat something out of a can was probably close to the norm. Cooked meals becoming much more common the further you are from the front line.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
I was under the impression that one of the more valuable and underrated contributions of WWI tanks was that they were super good at clearing the forests of barbed wire. Especially if you throw an anchor behind. Also that after 2 days of battle, 95% of the tanks had broken down. And in a 90+ day campaign, it really makes me question what kind of contribution they had overall, except in the very initial assaults. Pappenheim: Luchs or T70. Luchs for german reasons though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Wire-clearing is actually not as important as you might think as an attribute for a tank, although it was very helpful; 1916 shows that wire-clearing could be done as long as the attackers had enough artillery firepower and munitions that actually deigned to explode. Oh yeah, its certainly an effective means of clearing wire. But not having to focus your artillery on wire clearing duties frees them up to fire on other targets and potentially reducing how long a bombardment is necessary. Reducing the time the enemy has to bring up reserves and so forth. Not having to use artillery for wire clearing or not as much, has to be an advantage. Also fewer craters and such. I also see the success (relative) of the 1918 offensive as indicative that with the correct amount of artillery and infantry doctrines, trench systems could be overcome. Of course tanks would help, on the first few days. Trin Tragula posted:If I've got a thousand tanks, I throw 250 against a line, they break the line and get ten miles through and then they all break down or run out of petrol and ammo, gently caress it, they've done their job, the enemy's on the run and making GBS threads himself, I've got 250 more to throw in and now we're in mobile warfare and we're not in a crater-ridden hellscape, so this next 250 are going to find it much easier going. Sure, no one individual tank is going to take me to Berlin by tea-time, but it is going to get me the next bit of the way down the road much more effectively than a horse would. Not sure how you intend to get the second wave of tanks through the crater filled hellscape of the trench systems, without directly driving them and with them subsequently breaking down. Getting through the hell scape of the trench system isn't sufficient, you also have to figure out how to get all your logistics and heavy artillery through it too. And that takes time. Enough time for your enemy to dig in, just 10 miles back?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:You build a road. Well yes. The issue I flagged is that, that takes time. Occupying the enemy trench system, particularly the front part, was something that could generally be done even in 1916 without too much difficulty. Advancing further typically means advancing beyond range of supporting artillery and supplying those troops with food and ammunition was particularly difficult. As well as getting communications back and forth. Invariably this gives the enemy ample time to bring up forces to contain whatever advance was made. By the time a road is built and the artillery has been able to be brought forward, the enemy has fortified himself again. Rinse and repeat. Bite and hold tactics was something that worked. The idea of achieving mobile warfare and being able to supply it through the hellscape before the enemy fortified himself again, was not something that was achieved in WWI. I would argue it wasn't achievable given the technology of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
One of the previous posters suggested that mobile warfare could be achieved using tanks in waves(?).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:So what if you have group A tanks bite, group 1 infantry holds. Group A, of tanks is fine. I have very serious doubts that Group B will exist in any meaningful numbers, its literally the drive of 10 miles to cover the ground gained by Group A that will knock them out. Some numbers: quote:Of the forty-nine tanks shipped to the Somme, only thirty-two were able to begin the first attack in which they were used and only nine made it across "no man's land" to the German lines. @Cambrai They committed 437 tanks to the assault. After the first day 71 had suffered mechanical failure and 43 had ditched. Not counting the 65 that were actually destroyed by the Germans. And sure, if you have enough tanks and you could keep enough in reserve to have a Group B in position for the assault on Day Two. I don't think there is any capacity for Group C to even exist for Day Three. And you can of course recover tanks but not to be ready for action for Day Two or Three. Doing it this way, in waves, means you will lose so much offensive potential, just in driving tanks into position. Much better to get as many tanks in position as possible on Day One, and get them fighting the Germans as much as possible, attacking on a broad front, and let them go for as long as possible. This is what they did, very bitey and holdy. No potential for any kind of mobile warfare. EDIT: All numbers from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cambrai_(1917)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How did early anti-tank warfare work? Did you see a big lumbering metal box and go "Fritz I bet you 10 marks I can hit that thing with our gun"? Wwi tank armour was very thin by wwii standards. When they first arrived they were a rude shock. Machine guns could make things unpleasant for the tank crews, causing small pieces of metal inside the tank to fly about and, hurt (?) the crew. Artillery was effective though and so were ant aircraft guns if available. The germans quickly developed the k bullet, basically an armour piercing bullet that could be fired by the standard issue rifle, mauser. This could sometimes penetrate the armour of the earlier tanks. But armour/arms race and the mark iv had thicker armour and could resist it. By 1918 the germans developed the first specialized antitank rifle, t-gewhr. Operated by a 2 man crew and very unpleasant to fire. On my phone atm but I think this thing fairly regularly broke collar bones and burst ear drums. Recoil. There is an awesome modern video of it being fired, will post later. But due to the slow moving and predictable path of the tanks and that artillery was everywhere, it did a lot of the heavy work in knocking out and disabling tanks. Also anti tank ditches.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Those are exactly the guys. Skip to 18:10 for fun times. There is a nice discussion at the end with regard to firing it standing and firing it prone. Speaking of which, what do people think about this channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=user?TheGreatWar Its got a tonne of good detail but there is a lot about them that seriously grate me the wrong way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
How do anti-tank hand grenades work? With panzerfausts and bazooks and other recoil less rifles, penetration is based on a shaped charge and for that to work, orientation of the missile is critical. How do you maintain correct orientation in a hand held antitank hand grenade or don't they use shaped charges? This has bothered me for a lot longer than is reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Neat, thanks guys! Follow on question. Was it difficult to throw the ones with parachutes or other orientating devices, so that it would work?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Q-ships largely came to be a thing because, especially in WWI, the technology really didn't exist to effectively hunt submerged submarines, so you had to get them on the surface. They appeared to be more of a measure out of desperation and they weren't particularly effective. There was also something at the time, called, Prize Rules or Cruiser Rules, international rules of war and such things. It basically went along the lines of, if you want to sink a merchant man, you have to give the crew a place of safety, take them aboard or at least let them get into their lifeboats. These were written for a time before uboat. And for a time, German submarines abided by these (I think?), surfacing next to a submarine, allowing them to enter their lifeboats before sinking her. When presumably someone thought, if only we had a deck gun! Not sure how often or for how long that was a thing, but it stopped pretty drat quickly when they realised Q-ships were a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
And a special shout out to AMC Jervis Bay!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Some more historical photos from Imgur: http://imgur.com/gallery/IAQNB It was not common nor particularly effective. It could stop small calibre bullets, from submachine guns and pistols and generally other shrapnel. It wont stop a standard issue rifle bullet, except at very long ranges. Given its limitations it was largely only used in urban combat were submachine guns were prevalent. The allies used flak jackets for their bomber aircrews, was effective but makes you very not mobile. But also keeps you nice and warm at 20000ft.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Has the rifle round become significantly more powerful since, say, WW1? Back in WWI times the prevailing wisdom at the time was that, effective range, was a very important characteristic of a rifle. So they were designed with that in mind. Similarly, thinking was that a bigger bullet would do more damage and so forth. The Americans at least moved from a 7.62mm round (Garand) to a 5.56mm around, or standard nato round for their M16. It turns out that the maximum range that fire fights tend to occur is about 300m, so having a weapon that has a longer effective range that that is somewhat unnecessary. Also, a 5.56mm round is pretty effective at incapacitating or killing an enemy. And there are a lot of logistical advantages of having a smaller standard round, not least of all that the standard infantryman can just carry more of them. On googling the garand and m16, the m16 has a longer effective range than the garand despite the smaller round, is this just down to better engineering and such? BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Lindybeige has a bit on pike squares fighting each other :P
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Pretty much. I was just thinking of a downside to drones is that they can be hacked, but if it's not wireless? The wire could be cut super easily by any artillery fire.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
 That fake wooden bomb. Photo taken at St Mere Eglise earlier this year. The snopes article rated the story as undetermined and doesn't mention a wooden bomb actual existing. Not that a wooden bomb is hard to make... BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Its not particularly uncommon for soldiers to "waste resources" ot put their lives at risk for gimmicks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
 I cannot find a good description of the story and running on memory from sources I cannot remember but it basically goes along the lines of: Marines being all, macho alpha male, we are the first on the beaches, first wave, bringing the fight to the enemy and such. The engineers or more specifically, Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT), didn't take this too well. As they were on the beaches "first". Hence the sign that they erected, so that the marines could see it as they were landing in the first waves. They officially got chewed out for erecting signs instead of removing beach obstacles, mines, traps et cetera, but their higher ups not so secretly loved it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
quote:To be quite honest I'm not sure how much I'd want kids to be interested in war, especially in this current political environment. The more people know about war, the less jingoistic they seem to be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Leftover bunkers in Normandy, often too difficult and expensive to remove so often they weren't. Besides, the cows quiet like them for sleeping in and such. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Heated shot, I found this.quote:On December 18, Navy Agent Amos Binney paid $294.34 to George Darracott of Boston. The bill enumerates the items purchased: “1 Furnace for heating Shot 467lbs,” “Grates and Frame,” “1 p[ai]r Shot Tongs,” “1 Shot Ladle,” and “30 lbs Sheet Iron.” [3] https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2014/03/21/hot-sho/ [4]Henry Hotham to Admiral Cochrane, 14 Nov. 1814, F. I. Cochrane Papers, National Library of Scotland, MS2337, fol. 125 And the use of heated shot (ship to ship) was against regulations in the royal navy. I think the idea is to only use heated shot only on a "few" of the ships actual guns, close to the furnace and with "extreme supervision". And also to only use it in particularly dangerous battles. If one is being pursued by a superior enemy that is gaining on you and when it catches you, you just lose, that sounds like the correct time to break out the heated shot. And it will probably only take a few rounds before the pursuer realises that they are being shot at with heated shot at which point they may very well break of the pursuit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
Eej posted:Did Poland have a chance of surviving WW2? I know just asking that is delving really hard into alt-history but let's say that the military didn't do a coup that squandered lives nor installed an incompetent military dictatorship, did Poland have the manpower and resources to field a military that could've either changed the possibility of Molotov-Ribbentrop happening or duking it out until England arrived (lol)? A great deal of ifs required. Ribbentrop can't happen, Poland only tries to defend the defensive parts of the country and France attacks very aggressively at the outbreak of the war. Poland still probably gets totally occupied but France gets to occupy large parts of Germany and would totally change the course of the war.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 05:27
|
|