|
spectralent posted:It's also a great series because "How well does this tank do in a white room" and "How well does this tank do as an operational asset" are all pretty heavily covered, but "How much would I like to be sat in this given seat" is, I think, pretty unique to that show.
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
So that British tank effortpost eh? It's on a pc which decided to kill the gently caress out of itself. Annoyingly I wad past the "make list" and "find vool pictures" stages and onto actual writing  Fingers crossed the machine shall live again within the week. Which neatly seagues in: to have a person understand a machine you teach them to take it apart and rebuild it. Teach them to be mechanics first, soldiers after. ArchangeI posted:So Clausewitz and Jomeni are irrelevant because neither predicted COIN warfare?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I don't care about the posts before this but want to chime in and say tea is a drink for troglodytes and the english, but I repeat myself
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:You need 3 licenses to be in the same room as a pen knife. you don't scare me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Did they run the whole party on Croatian Dirlevangers? Because we know that gas chambers et al were made because even hardcore nazis couldn't bear killing so much people directly (by shooting), so how come these guys got even closer and dirtier, and didn't have any issues?  no matter how much you've seen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
This is much delayed due to PC woes and I caution you all now that I'm in no way qualified to talk about this stuff, farming details from all kinds of questionable sources like Wikipedia and wargaming forums as well as various memoirs and unit histories that I've read over the years. If anything is obviously wrong let me know and I'll edit to correct the posts. This is very much "babby's first tank primer" level stuff. Unless noted pictures are yoinked from the internet. The logical place to start talking about WWII British tank design is obviously the end of WWI. So let's do that and follow on into the interbellum to Dunkirk in the next post, and then on into the war itself in successive posts. I may go on as far as the Challenger II but TBH once the Chieftain is up for discussion my knowledge drops off sharply so this might end at the Comet. Heavy Mk <whatever>  Mk IV Female, "Baby", Ashford, Kent. The primary British tanks of WWI were the Heavy Mks I to V, rhomboidal boxes based on the Holt Manufacturing Company's design for a caterpillar tracked tractor. These tractors were in use as prime movers for heavy artillery pieces and handled the terrain well enough to get gears spinning. The Mk I was designed by the team of industrialist William Tritton and Lieutenant Walter Gordon Wilson The differences between the various marks of Heavy are mostly internal shuffling of components or thickening of the armour, with "male" versions having two naval 6-pounder cannon to back up their Hotchkiss machine guns while the "female" versions were armed purely with machine guns. All but one of these guns were mounted in the sponsons, with the single exception being a machinegun mounted in the forward superstructure (irritatingly referred to as "the turret" at the time) on most marks.  Mk V Hermaphrodite, name unknown, Luhansk, Ukraine. The Mk V tank actually lengthened the body by six feet but this threw off the track width to length ratios and caused problems with turning, leading to an updated version with slightly different hull geometry to reduce ground contact and avoid throwing tracks. This change in shape is subtle, but you can see it by comparing the two pictured. The Mk V was also the version in which the "hermaphrodite" concept arose, whereby a single 6-pounder gun was included in one sponson to ensure that female tanks were not entirely outgunned either by the A7V or captured Mk I and IVs (the Mk II was intended only for training but some made it to combat and got shot to hell leading to rumours about unhardened steel construction, while the Mk III never left Britain). Ergonomics across the series were bad, and as you can see from this picture it wasn't exactly a big tank in any dimension except length, making it very unpleasant for the eight man crews. On the plus side, it did start the tradition of  names for each vehicle. Mk V Male, "Devil", IWM London. Author's blurry collection. Humans for scale. Medium Mk A "Whippet"  Tank in Aberdeen Proving Grounds. In 1917 however the Medium Mk A "Whippet" tank came into service. The work of Tritton alone, the armour was thicker than that of the earlier Heavy marks, and while it only carried four Hotchkiss guns the speed was four times that of the Heavies allowing it to be used to actually exploit breakthroughs made by the infantry and tanks working together. Riding on the success of the Mk I, Tritton proposed a double-engined lighter model tank to fulfil the exploitation role and to do it less expensively than the Heavies. The Whippet was the result of that idea, using a single engine per track to allow for steering via throttle control. In practice it didn't work well and the tank was difficult to accurately steer but the idea was interesting and individual track control was a feature of later tanks. Interestingly, the prototype versions had a rotating turret based on the design used in the Austin Armoured Car, but this was dropped for the production model. Why "Medium Mk A" specifically? More on that later! Renault FT  Polish Army Museum, Warsaw Something truly revolutionary happened in France while all this was going on. Renault has been trucking away on a light tank design since mid-1916 and the result was the FT-17. This thing was totally world-beating in 1918 when it hit the battlefield. The most obvious feature was the rotating turret which could mount not only a Hotchkiss machine gun but could instead be configured to take a 37mm gun. While the SA 1918 had a short barrel the HE it could fire made it a valuable support weapon and the speed was almost twice that of the Heavies while having a two man crew that was almost as well protected. Once the dust of the war had settled this tank basically set the bar for performance and pretty much defined the concept of "tank" for the next century (thread favourite Stridsvagn 103 excepted, obviously) but for the purposes of the rest of this post at least it was largely ignored. It's a French tank, but it's relevant because of what comes after this period so I'm including it for completeness. Medium Tank Mk B  I dunno, some field? It's probably not still there... So that "Medium Mk A" thing eh? What was all that about? Well when Tritton went off to make the Whippet he left Wilson out of the whole project. Wilson, feeling a bit slighted by this and now a Major decided that he could fix the flaws of the Whippet all by himself and designed the Medium Tank Mk B. The design was visually similar to a small heavy with a larger superstructure, but actually included some revolutionary features such as "a separate engine compartment" and "an exhaust that didn't poison the crew" as well as some nifty but not quite as obviously useful details like sloped armour and a smoke-dispensing system to provide concealment for the vehicle. Apparently "a clever, non-confusing name" was not a design priority, as Wilson intended to name this tank the "Whippet" too. The armour was somewhat lighter than that of the Mk A in places, and armament was an average of four machine guns intended to move between seven ball mounts as needed. An order was put in for 450 units, but this was cancelled after a quarter were made due to objections raised about accessing the engine compartment for repair in-battle. It saw battle in Russia and Ireland. However, this was not the primary reason for the overlooking of the design. Medium Tank Mark C, Hornet  Some other field? In a masterstroke of "no, gently caress YOU", Tritton decided to develop his own successor to the Whippet, the "Medium Tank Mark C, Hornet" as soon as he got wind of Wilson's idea. Helped in part by the Mark B prototypes being built in one of the factories owned by Tritton the Mk C was not only better than the Mk B, but also finished before it. Longer for better trench clearance, better armoured, faster, and with five fixed machine guns the main advancements were in crew ergonomics. There were lots of vision slits to look out of and the commander had a special revolving turret on top of the superstructure which included a little map table to aid in navigation. Speaking tubes between crew positions helped communication and the driver even had a mileometer to tell him how far he had driven. A "male" version was planned with a single 6-pounder gun fixed in the forward superstructure, learning absolutely nothing from the French Saint-Chamond and Schneider tanks, but happily this never saw even prototype production. As it was the newest hottest poo poo the Mk C was carefully not sent to Russia or Ireland and thus never saw combat. Apparently nobody ever called it "Hornet" either which is a bit sad because it's a cool name. Medium Tank Mark D  This might even be a wooden model... There was also a Medium Mark D, but it seems to be noteworthy only because the name was re-used for a later Vickers designed medium tank and because it was an attempt at making an amphibious tank that failed amusingly, becoming known as "the tank that sank" after a British Pathe film of it being hauled out of the water after a failed test. Yes, you can watch that film. It seems literally nothing about the tank's design was fully nailed down, so it's hard to say much about it other than "it existed". At this point we can already see British thought splitting into the Infantry Tank and Cruiser Tank roles, with two roughly parallel design lines and some fun slapfighting and shenanigans. Next time we dip into the post-war
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The Renault FT actually owned so hard that Renault didn't want to make anything else for another 20 years. Fangz posted:When do the Russians start taking notice of this stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
This will be covered in the next post. Gimme 24 hours and I'll hopefully get up to 1940 in one giant mess.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:This is a firefighter's rank now. Eela6 posted:I'd like to repeat my request for information on late 18th - early 19th century warfare, especially organization, logistics, and tactics. I feel like my question got lost in tankchat.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Having just finished some college work that turned out to be way more of a task than I expected and it being nearly 2AM I've only managed to gather the photos for part two of my tanks post. There was a fuckton of stuff developed between 1919 and 1939 so I might split this into two sub-posts along the lines of "got shot by nazis" and "did not got shot by nazis". It's like 20+ tanks of varying degress of sanity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Don't go there! It's a trap! The random HP multifunction my parents bought about five years back works fine any time I've tried scanning stuff with it. You get fairly huge images out of them so you can always scale down if you need to. VVVV Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Previous Posts: Part I In the last post I discussed the state of British tank development at the end of WWI heading into the interbellum. In this post we look at the development of British tanks conducted by the Vickers Limited, and later, Vickers-Armstrong Limited company in the period immediately after the war. This is a time when companies just made tanks in the hope that someone, somewhere, would buy them. Usually, someone did. Vickers Medium Mk I  I'm assuming at this point that all these black and white pictures are in the same field... It was obvious fairly quickly that the British Army's supply of Heavy Mark V and Medium Mark C tanks was wholly inadequate for the type of tank combat that was envisioned for the future. Due to the disaster that was the Medium Mark D the Tank Design Department was shuttered and the government turned to the Vickers company to produce the required design, "a light infantry tank". What came from this, in 1921, was the" Vickers Medium Tank Mark I", a design heavily influenced by the previous medium line and roughly the same shape but with a rotating turret. This turned out to be terrible, and the government decided to go with a competing Vickers design, the "Vickers Light Mark I". In 1924, just to be confusing dicks, they renamed this design the Vickers Medium Mark I. This 12 ton tank had only 6.25mm of armour but could reach speeds of 15KPH and was armed with four .303 Hotchkiss s or two .303 Vickers machine guns in various fixed points in the turret, bow and sides as well as an Ordnance Quick Firing 3 pounder cannon in a rotating turret. Unfortunately in a step backwards for crew ergonomics, the engine and transmission were in the crew compartment. The real points of note on this design are twofold. First, the suspension had springs resulting in a much smoother ride for the crew. It seems nobody hat thought this was of much import until now, but Vickers decided it was and ran with it. The second, and most important in some ways, was that the main gun was mounted in a turret that had room for three men - commander, gunner and loader. This was the first tank that tried this arrangement. It was also the first tank since the French Char 2C to see mass production since the end of the war, even though it wasn't particularly successful and never saw combat. It was, however, invaluable in letting the British army test their theories on mechanised warfare. It remained in service until 1938, at which point it was amongst the first of the out-dated designs to be phased out. Some variants existed, notably including such innovations as a co-axial machine gun mount, a rotating commander's cupola and a "close-support" version armed with a 15-pound mortar system. There was also a silly one with giant wheels for better road mobility, but sadly I can't find a picture of this monstrosity. Vickers A1E1 Independent  Sole tank built, Bovington. In 1924 the General Staff asked Vickers for a heavy tank design, and our old friend Gordon Walter Wilson stepped up to deliver this monster. Weighing in at 34 tons and 25 feet long with between 13 and 28mm of armour, it had a crew of eight to man the four individual machine gun turrets around a central turret mounting the same OQF 3-pdr as the Medium Mk I. It actually had a decent amount of horsepower in the engine and could reach speeds of 32 KPH, and the coiled spring bogies were a definite step forward in suspension terms. The weight of the tank also required a new hydraulic braking system to be devised, and one successfully was. It was finished in 1926 and was met with no particular interest from the British military. On the other hand, it WAS seen as hugely interesting to various foreign powers, and in a case of industrial espionage one Norman Baillie-Stewart, a Subaltern in the Seaforth Highlanders, stole the plans and delivered them to a Major Mueller in the German military.[1] Designs influenced by the Independent include the German Neubaufahrzeug heavy tanks, and the Soviet T-35 heavy tank. Some claim the Soviet T-28 was also influenced by it, but more on that later. The single prototype was run ragged in testing until 1935, when it was sent to Bovington where it now remains. Vickers Medium Mk II  Bovington is the best place ever for picture... borrowing. In 1925 the Vickers Medium Mk I design was slightly modernised. The superstructure was changed in a few minor ways and the turret back was modified so that the mounted machine gun could be used to engage aircraft. It was slightly heavier than the Mk I so was also slightly slower at 13KPH, but the tradeoff was considered worth it. It was sent to Egypt by Major-General Percy Hobart (SO much more on him later!) in 1939 for experiments in desert operations, but reports about them seeing combat in 1940 are conflicted. Some reports claim that a single tank was dug in as a pillbox, but others claim that they saw combat against the Italians. They remained in service until 1940, but had started to be phased out in 1938 along with the MkIs. However during the summer of 1940 with the threat of Operation Sealion and the loss of vehicles in France several units were re-equipped with the Mk II just to have any tanks at all available to meet the invasion. The invasion never came, and all they were used for was initial driver training. Digression: Tankettes! and the Experimental Mechanised Force! Also in 1925 the epically named Lieutenant-General Sir Giffard Le Quesne Martel decided that what the British army really really needed was one- or two-man tanks armed with a buttload of machine guns and a 3-pdr gun. So he built one in his shed, because that was the kind of thing people did in those days. The result was this:  Yup. LOTS of people thought this was a good idea for a while. While hilariously silly looking to the modern eye, this caused quite a lot of debate and the Carden-Lloyd Tractors, run by John Carden and Vivian Loyd, decided to make their own version, the famous Carden-Loyd Tankette. This was a two-man machine that was much shorter and mounted only a single machine gun. This is what it looked like:  Much better. The two designs were put into competition by the War Office and the Carden-Loyd design won out, although the idea never really went anywhere. It was, however, enough to attract the attention of Vickers-Armstrong who bought out Carden-Loyd Tractors and became the basis for the Universal Carrier and, more relevantly to our topic, the Vickers Light Tank series. It was also marketed somewhat successfully abroad and the Belgians in particular experimented with mounting both a 47mm anti-tank and 76mm low-velocity gun on the chassis. Although the recoil of the guns was far too much for it to handle they decided that the idea had promise, leading to the T-13 Tank Destroyer, built for the Belgian army by Vickers-Armstrong. In the desperate defence of Belgium in June the prototypes did in fact see combat, but were not particularly effective. The T-13 went on to be used by the nazis as the "Panzerjaeger VA 802(b)" In 1927 the War Office formed the Experimental Mechanised Force to investigate the use of tanks and other armoured equipment in war. The three points of view were that of Colonel J.F.C. Fuller, who advocated a purely tank-based force, that of Captain B.H. Liddell Hart, who said that a combined mechanised all-arms force was best, and that of Giffard Le Quesne Martel again, who was off the opinion that penny-packeting tanks out to the infantry had worked fine last war, let's do it again (with the benefit of hindsight, we all know that Basil was right and the various cavalry officers who were sure that horses would work fine next war were full of poo poo). The Carden-Loyd tankette was intended to support the infantry, while the Tank Corps was to be armed with the following "Light" tanks for a cavalry/recon role. The exercises of the unit led to the conclusion that the best solution would be some mix of light and medium tanks with half-tracked armoured transports for the infantry but that was declared to be too expensive so instead the British army went with independent tank brigades and motorised infantry brigades that operated with bugger all combined training or even much thought given to operational doctrine, resulting in the poor performance in France. Because of course. Vickers Light Tanks Mk I to V These tanks were derived from the above in the years between 1931 and 1936, and were a quick series of incremental design changes. The Mk I was essentially a Carden-Loyd tankette with a sealed hull and a turreted machine gun. The chances between marks are not particularly obvious and to be honest if you showed me any of them I'd not really be able to tell you anything other than "it's not a Mk VI or higher", so the simplest thing to do here is to show you a picture of each: Mark I  Mark II  Mark III  Mark IV  Mark V  As you can see, not much difference between them, with the obvious exception of the suspension change between Mk III and Mk IV. The maximum armour thickness was 12mm and they were cracking fast little things able to get over 50kph out of their engines. The three-man crew usually had a .50 Vickers machine gun and a .303 Vickers machine gun mounted co-axially in the turret, but some variants of some marks had four AA-mounted MGs in an open turret. The design was moderately successful, with the Mk III being deveoped into the Vickers T-15 Light Tank for the Belgian army. Vickers Medium Mk III  Around 1926 the War Office decided they wanted to look at replacing the Medium Mk I and II tanks they had and approached Vickers-Armstrong with a specification for a tank not exceeding 15.5 tons in weight, becoming known as "the 16 tonner". They responded with the A6 design, a totally new design with no relationship to the previous marks, and it was all kinds of bad. Turret layout, suspension, gun mounting, stability, everything just wrong. So they scrapped it, and in 1928 the Medium Mk III was designed. Interesting improvements in this design were the inclusion of a turret bustle to store the radio and while the suspension was not good the tank could achieve a respectable 48KPH, although during cross-country travel the bogies would often break under strain. With a crew of seven it had between 9 and 14mm of armour and mounted the now-familiar 3pdr gun and three .3.3 Vickers MGs, two of which were in separate forward turrets beside the driver's position. The E3 model included improved suspension, but the price was sadly too expensive and the design was not accepted for use. There is speculation that this may have influenced the Soviet T-28 with the dual forward MG turrets, but that could equally have been derived from the Independent. Vickers Mark "E"  Type A Designed in 1928 and also known as the Vicker's 6-ton, this is the last of our tanks for today and is probably the most interesting in many ways. Again, this tank was designed by the team of Carden and Loyd and again this tank was not picked up by the British army, but did receive a large amount of international attention. The suspension was an interesting new design, with two axles each of which had a two-wheel bogie on it. Each bogie was connected via a leaf spring to another, and was regarded as giving good cross-country performance although the contemporary Christie suspension was better. The tracks were made of steel and the combination of these gave the tank good reliability for the day. The tank had two versions known as Type A and Type B. The Type A had two separate turrets each of which mounted the now familiar .303 Vickers MG, while the Type B had a two-man turret mounting a OQF 3-pdr co-axially with a MG. This feature was copied by basically every tank that came afterwards, right up to the present day. The armour was 25mm thick at the front, with 19mm at the rear and no part thinner than 13mm. This was quite a heavily armoured little beast compared to the tanks of just ten years earlier. The international attention is probably most famous for the licensing of the design to the Soviet Union, who re-armed with their 45mm gun and designated it the T-26. Several of these were sold to Spainish forces during their civil war, fighting against the Panzer I in use by the Nationalist forces there and is regarded as having given a very good account of itself. It did so well there that the Italians procured some from the Soviets too, and partially based their Fiat-Ansaldo M11/39 and M11/40 tanks on the design . The Polish army also bought several and licensed the design, but modified it somewhat into their 7-TP. The Finnish also purchased several, re-armed them with various guns and got plenty shot up, captured some more from the Soviets during the winter war and finally retired them in 1959. Several other powers as far away as Not bad going for a "failed" design eh?  Type B or, "the good poo poo". That's our lot for tonight, and I stayed up far too late working on this for you all  Next time we get into the Cruiser and Infantry tank split, and try to make sense of why everything has a 2-pdr with no HE. Expect the post probably Monday, but maybe earlier if my weekend is less busy than expected.[1] His shenanigans were rumbled, and he ended up being convicted and held in the Tower of London, becoming the last British subject to be held there. He went on to get German citizenship and be involved in the Lord Haw-Haw propaganda effort while living in Germany, eventually dying here in Dublin in 1966 while living under an assumed name. It's a great story of consistent dickery  Edited to fix BBcode. Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
The early M3 mediums also had the fixed dual bow MGs, but they realised that there are plenty on the tank as it stood and that everyone was too busy to bother with them.OwlFancier posted:Apparently we really liked this naming scheme and so used it for the Bishop, Sexton, Priest, and Deacon SPGs. Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Wasn't you mean, it's the AS-90 now, though I guess the Indians are still using them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago: An Announcement
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I have learnt far more about the events of WW1 than I ever knew- particularly about the non-western front, thank you. At this cliff hanger on The Somme, the audience would be calling for Haig to be shot IMHO. With the series ending, he never gets redeemed, but never faces justice either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:That was me. I still have the picture on my phone as a trophy of the time I kinda sorta participated in bombing Russians invading Ukraine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
lenoon posted:That's the very final word I've come across from the man. Oh how perfectly George.  to finish on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:There's a lot of implausible parts of the bible, but knocking a guy down by hitting him in the face with a rock isn't one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Those giants all got nobbed because their naval budget wasn't large enough, if only IJN planners had been around at the time for some good super-ark on super-ark combat.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
This needs to be written.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Oh come on, that's almost exactly an Ork vehicle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I just noticed that thing has 6 wing turrets below the main deck. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yeah, that's the distinction I'm making. If you don't think that exists, then okay.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The interesting thing to me about submarine warfare especially in the World War II Pacific, is that if it had been taken all the way to 11, millions (well, millions more) of people in Japan and elsewhere would have starved to death as a pretty direct result. that then to me is a kind of interesting moral question.... clearly when you bomb a city you are directly responsible for blowing up the people with the bomb you drop, but if you are a part of a starvation blockade we seem to treat it differently in our heads for whatever reason.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:To be fair, I'm pretty sure the actual reason nobody views drone strikes in Pakistan as an invasion is that there is no invading and occupying presence, it's not an invasion of Pakistan any more than the Blitz was an invasion of Britain. Of course that still leaves the question of why attacking Pakistani weddings with drone strikes is different from attacking Pakistani weddings with infantry.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Fairly... good reasons I would personally suggest. Elyv posted:I don't disagree with your other points, but to me invasion implies an attempt at occupation. I wouldn't consider the smaller scale Viking raids or small mounted nomadic raids historically as invasions either. ETA: even more silly, the requirement for occupation means that the invasion of Normandy wasn't an invasion, because the forces landing did not intend to occupy Normandy and were framing it as a liberation, so despite having all the factors of an invasion except the specific goal of holding the territory indefinitely it doesn't count using that criteria. Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Elyv posted:In my head they don't need to be trying to hold the territory indefinitely, but they do need to attempt to - at least temporarily - intend to expel enemy forces from the location being invaded and be replaced by their own or allied forces. If we're being extremely pedantic I'd argue that the Germans didn't invade Europe and instead they invaded France, Poland, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Nine riflemen is three times three 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:EE has caught a live one on his blog. Stay tuned!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Remote ball turret outside the hull? With, like, infinity billion bullets out there being extra armour?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:A good contrast is the MRAP, a vehicle specifically invented to deal with asymmetrical warfare and occupations. It's a military popemobile and it's very good at it, but it would be interesting to see what its role in a more symmetrical war might be, perhaps we would see it being stripped down of some of its ambush protection, or fitted with a better electronics package and pressed into service as a scout or observation vehicle, or perhaps as a weapons carrier similarly to the hummvee.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Moral clarity and singleminded purpose in vietnam? Could you elaborate on that or am I missing
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:the opposite in fact; the person i'm seeing used the word "bantz" the other day Waroduce posted:I'm also looking to read something on T.E. Lawrence. I've looked at some biographies but quite a few have poor reviews on amazon. He's usually romanticized and viewed as a folk hero (which I understand), and I'd like a definitive starting point on where to start reading on him. Someone has to have written something of quality by now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:No, have them walk through our own angry gauntlet where we twat them with a Dictionary. Tekopo posted:EDIT: it's always funny hearing english people butchering the pronunciation of gnocchi aphid_licker posted:Now I'm imagining a guy trying to look nonchalant at a court waiting for the king while a thin wisp of smoke rises from underneath his cloak.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
xiansi posted:Hey, it's not like we're taught this stuff! Cythereal posted:As for Irish names, I have a cousin-in-law named Aoibhin with an accent on the second i.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Tias posted:Anyone know anything about Operation Barras? I just came across it, and it sounds incredible that one squadron of the SAS could kill or capture a majority of militia members! For something truly mad look at things like the Siege of Jadotville(now showing on Netflix!) or Zero Six Bravo and you'll see "holy poo poo" levels of force disparity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
lenoon posted:After Operation Michael though, then you start to get tanks involved in mobile warfare again. Luckily by then the tanks involved had been specifically designed with mobile warfare in mind, which were both more reliable and a hell of a lot quicker. There's even stuff like the Amiens whippet, probably the first time a single roaming tank caused havoc after punching too far through German lines. Theres even a legend that it carried on after the capture of the crew, a story that crops up in the most surprising places...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:How does an insurgency fight another insurgency? It's like a game of hide and seek with no seekers. You know the IRA literally did that for most of the troubles, right? By the time the Good Friday Agreement was signed there were even multiple feuding factions nominally on the same side.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 02:24
|
|