|
How do you capture a B-17? Did they belly land somewhere and were in a repairable state?
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:I want to troll some wehraboos: buy one of those fancy model kits for some obscure nazi tank and paint it up as captured by the Soviets. How is Panther or Tiger obscure? Those are like the two most common German tanks to kit build. If you really wanna gently caress with em, you should make this in Soviet colors - 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
The B-52s still in use are the ones from the end of the production line though. The ones from the 50s are long since retired.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:It's more like the SS troops in Fury aren't supposed to represent real people. Neither is the Tiger supposed to represent a real tank. Bovington has a working Tiger 2 right? I wonder why they weren't able to use it for the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Soviets had a greater degree of mechanization in their armed forces than the Reich or its allies, but tell that to a certain kind of person who wants to talk to you about "human wave" attacks. I don't see how anyone gets into that mindset, when if you look at Bagration or August Storm, they just such brilliantly planned and executed operations.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Dibs on Sherman.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
The Battle of El Alamein though, its amazing Rommel managed to hold on for as long as he did and to actually extract the majority of the army out and back to Tunisia. The Allies had such a material, numbers...everything advantage, that on paper, the entire Afrika Korps should have been destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Hey you two, Question - I got to handle a replica Zweihander the other day. The guy who was talking about its use said it would be used against pike formations in sweeping strikes. However, the zweihander was a little over 5 foot long. Pikes are a lot longer... so how does that work ?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
No I was not buying replica weapons. But they had quite a large variety of medieval weapons, and apparently there was a reenactment group showing them off. Got to play around with a halberd, variety of maces, and some swords.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:Officially "deeper than 800 feet". You probably won't get more accurate number than that. USS Thresher's crush depth was ~1,300 feet. So factor in decades of technological progress, and you can work out how far down...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:No artillery would have been produced domestically in the Colonies until after independence, and likely after 1795. Artillery is really difficult to make and require a poo poo ton of infrastructure. Gunners are highly trained specialists, literate and with advanced formal school education, because artillery is math. There are three types of guns: cannon, mortars, and howitzers. The gun or cannon is a direct-fire weapon using primarily solid cast shot (with a short-range backup of canister, essentially a giant shotgun cartridge). The mortar is an indirect-fire weapon using fused hollow explosive shells firing a shell at a very steep angle. The howitzer is an unnatural hybrid between the two, which generally fires shell in direct fire. It has a shorter barrel and larger bore than a gun, and is less accurate in direct fire than a gun. It is useful because it fires shell. The colonies were definitely making lighter field pieces during the war. They weren't making the high quality siege/heavy pieces that the British and French were using, but they could make smaller pieces. Its not that hard to make a crappy cast iron piece. Westham Foundry in Virginia turned out a few pieces. https://books.google.com/books?id=V...Foundry&f=false
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
How accurate is this summary about Zweihanders? http://imgur.com/gallery/172aI Every article I see has something about them being used to break up pike formations.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
More like where would you even build such a monstrosity? The yards necessary to construct that thing would be a project in itself, and then, it would take a significant fraction of your country's military budget to make it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Just like to point out that in the realm of battleship designs, the US designed a hypothetical 'maximum battleship'. The Tillman IV design had (24) 16" guns in four turrets.  http://www.wolfsshipyard.com/Misc/NeverWeres/united.htm
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Straight from the wikipedia page for the Montana battleship design: Why yes. There were nuclear torpedos, nuclear land mines, nuclear demolition charges, nuclear recoilless rifles, and nuclear ramjet engines (this is actually pretty destructive as a weapon, and propulsion!) Basically anything you could think of that could hold a nuclear warhead had plans to be nuclear-ized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_demolition_munition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Wow. That was a tremendously insightful post into a little known part of Russian history. Thanks for writing that!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
 How do you covertly salvage something that large from that deep?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
West Germany should've bought back Goeben 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Didn't someone make a really detailed post about how mechanical fire computers on battleships worked? I'm trying to find it...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
^^ Do you remember where said post? \/ Thanks! Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
I thought it was Typhus. \/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Lazowski Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Kanine posted:is siege of jadotville on netflix any good? it seems interesting since it involves un peacekeepers in a relatively obscure conflict Its entertaining and worth a watch. There's one scene where the sniper is ordered to take a shot at long range, so he puts down his scoped, zero'ed enfield, and picks up a bren with open sights. I imagine that the producers read a story about Vietnam where Carlos Hathcock used a M2 to snipe, but uh... the enfield and bren use the same round.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Thats from the casting process. Germans used rolled plates and welded them together, Soviets used a sand mold to cast with and the rough surface is from the uneveness of the mold.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Strategic bombing campaigns seldom if ever manage to do that. Britain wasn't the only country that got bombed during WW2, most European nations got their fair share of the fun, Germany in particular. I think Japan was the only one that surrendered as a direct result and even then it happened in tandem with the supply of the home islands getting impossible due to subs and mines, Soviets attacking Manchuria and that way also crushing the dream of Soviet-brokered peace, etc. and even then they almost decided to keep zen and carry on. The two atomic bombs also factored into this I imagine...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I'm guessing if you get a lot of men on hot, sweaty ships and confine them them to port for 2 years, you're going to end up with a few dicks getting sucked I cant stop laughing at your title.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Koramei posted:relevant to unexploded bomb chat a bit ago: Considering how many bombs were dropped over Europe, yes, I'd say so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Theres a Tillman class design that sports 24(!) 16 inch guns. 4 Six-gun turrets.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
^^^ Depends on your definition of "decisive" - Blackwater during Gulf War 2 had some "decisive" incidents. One of which led to them getting banned from operating in iraq. SoggyBobcat posted:Didn't a bunch of mercenaries take over an island nation in the Eastern Indian Ocean, the Seychelles or something? The Comoros Islands. This guy -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Denard tried to overthrow the government like 4 times. And he was off doing other merc-y stuff when he wasn't trying to overthrow the Comoros.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Woah the Lebensborn program was real? I'm kind of embarrassed I never knew about it, I thought it was invented for The Man in the High Castle as a way to illustrate ~creepy Nazi reproduction~ weirdness. Oh yes. Very much so. In fact, if theres a crazy Nazi scheme you heard about in a book or show, its probably grounded in reality.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Realistically, is there anything stopping the president from ordering the use of nuclear weapons? I don't mean like in a cuban missile crisis scenario, where world tensions are on the brink and oh god early warning systems just detected a billion Russkie nukes inbound. But if the president decided to use a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield or something, That just ...happens right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
What is the fascination with 2nd rate militaries and the ZSU-23? Photos out of the middle east and other low intensity conflicts seem to have this gun jury-rigged to everything imaginable. Is it just a quick, cheap, easy way to get mobile firepower? Also, are these guns just laying around everywhere?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Finally, even if you build a time machine and hand deliver an assembled Mark 3 bomb to Hitler in December '44 or something, they don't have the capability to bomb anyone other than themselves with it. London is still in range in late '44 ?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
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)? No.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
What would happen if you accidentally shot a rifle grenade with a live round? Would it blow up in your face?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:It's kind of funny, but in one of the openings to a Bond movie they're all worried about a Nuclear Torpedo exploding, and at the time I watched that I was convinced that was just a thing that Hollywood made up. But nope, it's a real thing. It almost happened too. Cuban Missile Crisis would have gone nuclear if a Russian sub fired its nuclear torpedo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Has the average distance of tank engagements increased since World War II or remained static? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Is there data for that, like what was the average engagement range during Six days war compared to Georgian war? There is. I can't speak to the Georgian war, but you can't really draw a good conclusion from it because it depends so heavily on other factors, such as, who your enemy is ( infantry? tanks?), night fighting? and what the terrain is like, and what tank you are in. Looking at say, Yom Kippur in 73', you have engagements happening from literally point blank range to 3000 meters. Both sides COULD engage at that far of range, but engagements in the Sinai happened at shorter ranges at the start, then they all died to Saggers and RPGs, so the Israelis pulled back to longer ranges. Then in the attacks across the Suez, Israeli tanks charged Egyptian positions in the night and engagement ranges fell to point blank range. (Literally in one case, the Israeli tank had to reverse so its turret could swing around to hit the Egyptian T-55). Then once the Israeli forces broke out, the ranges opened up again since they were in the open desert and not confined attacking entrenched forces. Now, lets look at the Golan front. The terrain up there is more uneven and the defensive works built by the Israelis funneled the Syrian forces through chokepoints while Israeli tanks held higher ground hull down positions that looked into the valley. Engagement ranges were routinely under 1000 meters. Add in the chaos of nightfighting, and you have tank on tank actions happening under 500m. After the Israeli breakout past the Golan Heights, engagement ranges opened up again. If I recall, and Its been a while since I read that book, the Israeli tanks savaged an Iraqi division at long ranges while the Iraqis had no idea what was happening. So while you can probably average out the ranges for each little engagement, and then add them up to get a average for the war, it doesn't tell you anything useful. Look at Desert Storm. You have M1s engaging homebuilt T-72s, and engagements there were routinely over 2km+, but also engagements that happened at very close range ( < 500m), because the Iraqi's dug their tanks in on a reverse slope. Its way more dependent on other factors within a battle rather than TANK A can hit out to X distance. ENEMY TANK B can hit out to Y distance. Therefore engagements happened at Z distance during this conflict. Edit: There haven't been many straight up tank vs tank fights bigger than misc. forces after World war 2. I can think of the Six day war, Yom Kippur, India-Pakistan in 65', Iran-Iraq, and Desert Storm. Im sure random T55s and stuff have been engaging each other for the past 50 years all across Africa. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
The west was well aware of Soviet capabilities even before WW2 ended. Churchill had a contingency plan drawn up of what would happen if the Allies and the USSR went to war. It ended with the allies being overrun. That, and combined with August Storm, the west started off the cold war with a pretty good understanding of how powerful Soviet mechanized formations were.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Hm, I see. I was operating under the impression that ex-Wehrmacht officers cooperating with the West had a tendency to downplay Soviet strengths to make themselves look better post hoc, though it's entirely possible I confused things. Thank you! Theres a difference between ex-Wehrmacht officers saying one thing in a book and what was actually happening. The west was pretty well aware of what was going to happen if war broke out in Europe. They didn't have anywhere close to the forces needed to stop the Soviets conventionally and had to rely on the threat of nuclear escalation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Plus as was said you have the falklands war, the last gasp of the Royal Navy but still a demonstration of it's ability to fight a war. Funny thing is, if the Argentines waited like a year, the Royal Navy would have probably scrapped its carriers and then there wouldn't have been any way to take back the Falklands.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 01:20
|
|