|
If they were secret, they aren't now!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
ulmont posted:Gulf War 2, aka "you tried to kill my daddy." As long as you don't believe that controlling Iraq is somehow strategically valuable. And then there's the oil. Not to mention how the war was supposed to do to Iraq what WW2 did to Japan and Germany. As we remember, the end of WW2 ignited a conflict between the Catholics and Protestants, nowadays known as 30 Years War II.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Presumably the problem with making tons and tons of lovely tanks is that a lovely tank still needs a full, trained crew? That will become your limiting factor after a while, especially if your lovely tanks keep blowing up and taking all your experienced crew with them. Just because you have a lot of tanks doesn't make them lovely. You don't throw them all at your enemy's supertank, that's dumb as gently caress, you send them where the enemy has no tanks at all and then win easily. Also even the best tank can get taken out by a mine, a soldier with a grenade or Molotov cocktail, have its track knocked off by a hidden AT gun, etc. That's why you don't send tanks into battle alone. No matter how great they are, if you are fighting well equipped and entrenched infantry, you'll lose them. Slim Jim Pickens posted:It's just a translation thing. The Soviets use "Object" quite a lot. Other filler words include "Mark", or "Pattern". The Soviets used the Object prefix after the war, before it could be aaaaanything. The factory would give it a three digit number, which may be the same as the tank's number (220/ KV-220) or not (111/ T-46-5) or even a T-index before production (T-50), or a factory specific index that is replaced with T by the army and factory (A-34/T-34) or just the factory(A-7/BT-7). For artillery, the code doesn't change (BS-3, F-34, etc) but sometimes the gun will be indexed "izdeliye" (product) during development. Also indexes of failed projects get reused sometimes, so there are like 3 T-44s, 2 KV-3s. etc. Not to mention small arms or planes, named after the creator (except in some cases like the Artillery Academy prototypes).
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:As long as you don't believe that controlling Iraq is somehow strategically valuable. And then there's the oil. If we'd partitioned Iraq into about 5 different occupation zones things would probably have worked out better. For some of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Oh, and also the War of the Bucket. The Football War. A tense and hostile international situation is finally escalated into violence by football riots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No that is pretty much it. The Revolutionary war is still in living memory and the Manifest Destiny dream is nascent. There was a strong belief that if the US just marched an army in to Canada then the locals would get the revolutionary spirit, kick out the British garrison and the US would have hegemony over the entire eastern seaboard. I'm sorry if it appears I am beating a dead horse here but can I get a source? I've been doing a lot of reading on the war of 1812 due to a dumb internet argument about this very thing and of the three papers I read in the last couple of hours, an Academic paper from 1989 that named it as a small contributor that was dwarfed by the sovereignty question, an encyclopedia article which outright dismissed it but posited US ambitions on Florida instead, and a blog post(lol I know) that names it as one of four major reasons. The lack of a clear answer from anywhere but this thread is driving me insane. I actually got two sources supporting the Florida thing now, which makes sense because most of the war hawks were from southern states so of course they would want something from the war to personally benefit them. Man Whore fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
In under the wire! 100 Years Ago The Konigsberg may be out of action, but the game remains very much afoot for her crew, and for her guns. The Italians begin Second Isonzo, and this time they actually go up instead of straight down! Kenneth Best is being evacuated during a quiet period with illness instead of a life-threatening wound and it's still utterly terrible, and Louis Barthas is saved again by rolling a natural 20 on his save vs gigantic howitzer shell explosion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:I'm sorry if it appears I am beating a dead horse here but can I get a source? I've been doing a lot of reading on the war of 1812 due to a dumb internet argument about this very thing and of the three papers I read in the last couple of hours, an Academic paper from 1989 that named it as a small contributor that was dwarfed by the sovereignty question, an encyclopedia article which outright dismissed it but posited US ambitions on Florida instead, and a blog post(lol I know) that names it as one of four major reasons. The lack of a clear answer from anywhere but this thread is driving me insane. No source to hand, but it might help to differentiate between causes and aims. The fallout-of-Napoleonic-Wars economic warfare was absolutely the reason the war happened and happened when it did. Having decided to go to war, the main goal was to annex Canada and via that route remove British influence on the continent. e: so through the application of lazy language all of these things can be true at once. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:I have to say I am extremely critical of the claim that a US conquest of Canada was anywhere near the primary cause of the war. It just seems to be the odd one out of all the US reasons for going to war which boiled down to Britain not respecting US sovereignty . Thats not to say that I don't think the United States wouldn't have claimed Canada if given the chance but it seems there is a part of the story I am not hearing here. The British orders in council (1807-1809) were legitimate causes of war. They did violate US sovereignty. However they cannot by themselves explain the course of of US policy, there must have been other (I would say greater) factors at work. They were rescinded (2days) before the start of the war and were themselves a response to Napoleons Berlin and Milan degrees and the establishment of the continental system which also violated treaties and the sovereignty of the United States states. Given that; 1. Why continue the war. 2. Why prosecute the war in a manner favourable to France (Essentially a combined war on British trade, However the victories exploits of the 1812 US expeditionary force in Russia is surly an alternative history best seller waiting to written ). 3. Why attend a peace conference where discussion of Britain's rights to wage maritime war was forbidden as a condition of dialogue. 4. Why sign a peace treaty that made no mention of any supposed grievance arising from 3. 5. Why having fought a war on such universal principles spend the next 100 so years slowly abandoning that position ending with the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. And the latter Cuban Blockade going beyond any right Britain reserved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Just because you have a lot of tanks doesn't make them lovely. You don't throw them all at your enemy's supertank, that's dumb as gently caress, you send them where the enemy has no tanks at all and then win easily. Also even the best tank can get taken out by a mine, a soldier with a grenade or Molotov cocktail, have its track knocked off by a hidden AT gun, etc. That's why you don't send tanks into battle alone. No matter how great they are, if you are fighting well equipped and entrenched infantry, you'll lose them. On this note, having a shitload more tanks than tank crews can also make you immune to minor mobility and mission kills. If a hit knocks out your tracks or guns, will get out and hitch a ride back to base. If you don't have a spare tank, the tankers are left twiddling their thumbs or sent to die in the ditches. If you have spare tanks, your tankers can grab a new one and It also gives you strategic flexibility. The tanker is the most valuable part of the tank, and it's easier to transport 4 dudes than 26 tons of steel. For instance, when the Soviets invaded Japanese-controlled Manchuria, they didn't truck the entire drat tank and crew east across the Siberian Railway. No, they had skeleton logistics crews pre-concentrate tanks near Manchuria, and as soon as Berlin was taken, all those veteran tankers were packed into railway cars and sent east. You could only get away with something like that if your tanks aren't special snowflakes that need to be babied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 02:05
|
|
Phobophilia posted:For instance, when the Soviets invaded Japanese-controlled Manchuria, they didn't truck the entire drat tank and crew east across the Siberian Railway. No, they had skeleton logistics crews pre-concentrate tanks near Manchuria, and as soon as Berlin was taken, all those veteran tankers were packed into railway cars and sent east. You could only get away with something like that if your tanks aren't special snowflakes that need to be babied. This doesn't make any sense. What does the 'quality' of ones tank have to do with pre-staging equipment?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:This doesn't make any sense. What does the 'quality' of ones tank have to do with pre-staging equipment? The idea is that you can make a bunch more so you can pre-stage them I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
And having three crew and an autoloader instead of four means you just increased the effective size of your tank force by 25%! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:And having three crew and an autoloader instead of four means you just increased the effective size of your tank force by 25%! Wrong way to put it. Rather it is a 25% crewing reduction for a given number of tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No source to hand, but it might help to differentiate between causes and aims. The fallout-of-Napoleonic-Wars economic warfare was absolutely the reason the war happened and happened when it did. Having decided to go to war, the main goal was to annex Canada and via that route remove British influence on the continent. Okay thats a lot more digestible to me. I have no doubt that if everything went the US way, they would have annexed Canada, its just the claim the the war can be traced purely to conquest which I have trouble with. It makes the war a lot more black and white and that just makes me perhaps too critical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
sullat posted:Look at a map; the Trojans controlled access to the Black Sea, the Greeks just needed an excuse. Paris was an inside job. Agamemnon lied, Greeks died. Look at the smoke patterns. There were never any Greeks inside the horse. It was a
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
A few pages back there was some Nazi procurement chat, which inspired me to write this thing about the Swedish stridsvagn m/42 - our local equivalent (well, sorta) to the Pz IV or the Sherman. A tale of Swedish military procurement, or how we ended up with the Stridsvagn m/42 In 1930's Sweden, there was an engineering and machinery firm named Landsverk. Founded in 1864, it was originally a manufacturer of steam engines, agricultural equipment and railroad cars. The company was bought up by new German owners in the mid-1920's after a period of economic troubles, and suddenly around 1930 it sprouted a new armored vehicles division under a Dr. Ing. Otto Merker (he left the company in 1936, went back to Germany and had a quite successful career in the Nazi Reichsministerium für Bewaffnung und Munition where he later worked on the type XXI submarines, but that's an entirely different story). Either way, around 1936-1938 Landsverk developed a new light tank design called L-60. It was a cute little thing of about nine metric tons with a three-man crew, armed with a 37mm Bofors AT gun or a 20mm autocannon. Very modern for its time, it featured torsion bar suspension, a fully welded hull and elegantly sloped armor. The Swedish army, originally interested buying upwards of a hundred, ended up with having enough money to buy 16 (sixteen), designated stridsvagn m/38 (tank, model 1938), and then another 20 in 1939 with some improvements (the improved model appropriately designated stridsvagn m/39.  The first Swedish L-60, stridsvagn m/38. Then war breaks out, Norway and Denmark gets invaded by Nazis, Finland is hanging on for dear life against the Russians, the situation is about as awful as it can get without outright war, and suddenly there's money to order another 100 or so, this time with three times as much front armor. In fact, there's money for a lot more than that, but there's a production capacity bottleneck. Still, about at this time people start to realize that regardless of how modern the L-60 design is, literally everyone else is building tanks that weigh at least three times as much and are armed with guns of at least twice the caliber. Steps have to be taken, and after much hemming and hawing, in 1941 an "armor committee" is appointed and tasked with developing a new "heavy" tank. Only, not that heavy, because the design goal is 20 tonnes and there's a strict weight limit of 21 tonnes (then later grudgingly raised to 22 tonnes). Sweden in the early 1940's is not a very car-reliant society and a heavier tank would have far too many problems with strategic mobility since - among other things - it wouldn't be able to cross most bridges.  The second L-60 version, stridsvagn m/39. When the armor committe finally gets the ball rolling in spring-summer 1941 there's no time to develop a new design from scratch and there are no foreign designs that are both good enough and possible to license, so Landsverk dusts off a 16-ton design called Lago, developed around 1938-1940 and originally intended for export to Hungary (which also built the L-60 on license - locally called the Toldi). The chassis is stretched (too much, as it turns out - the tank ended up hard to steer because it was too long in relation to its width) and the armor improved. The army really wants at least 60 mm of frontal armor, but can't get it within the given weight limits and has to settle for 55 mm. A new turret is developed and gun choices are debated. The army primarily considers three alternatives; a relatively long 57mm gun (good against armored targets), a very short 10,5 cm howitzer (good for lobbing big blobs of HE) and a medium-short 7,5 cm gun that's somewhere in between. In the end the army goes with the 7,5 cm, and - in order to avoid re-tooling factories and retain ammo commonality with the light field artillery - chooses an existing shell casing with a rather limited space for gun powder. As a result of that and the short barrel the muzzle velocity is rather low and the gun ends up being quite similar to the one on the 75mm Sherman. The design goal is to be able to penetrate the most modern foreign medium tanks in the side at distances up to about 800 meters - penetrating them frontally would require a much longer and heavier gun (similar to the 7,5 cm AA guns available at the time) that would go far over the weight limit, so that role is left to a future dedicated TD design.  Stridsvagn m/42. The tank is to have two engines - Scania-Vabis' tried and trusted L603 design, also used on the L-60. The gearbox is an issue, though - there's no existing gearbox design available in the country that is both compatible with a twin engine arrangement and is suited for a vehicle this heavy. The Atlas-Diesel company (today better known as Atlas Copco) is contracted to develop a new hydraulic gearbox, but it'll take too long to get ready and it's rather heavy and bulky, too, in a tank where every kilogram is precious. In desperation the army and Landsverk reaches out to the German company Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshafen, which happily offers what they call the gearbox of the future, an electromagnetic design (originally designed for railbuses) that promises to be both efficient, very light and small and easy to use. The sales engineers make all kinds of exciting claims - this gearbox will be used on all new tanks in 3-4 years from now, a bigger version is used on the famous Tiger tank and the magnetic plates that control which gear is used are said to last basically forever. They can't leave any guarantees that specify that the gearbox will work for a fixed number of kilometers, but they're absolutely convinced the army will be satisifed. The army is still somewhat suspicious of this new and untried technology and as a precaution orders two sets of gearboxes for every tank; one electromagnetic from ZF and one hydraulic from Atlas-Diesel, but a hundred tanks are built with the electromagnetic gearbox.  When it comes to manufacturing these tanks, Landsverk alone does not have the production capacity to do it (and it would be very unwise to concentrate all tank manufacturing to a single place, especially one as close to the continent as Landskrona). A hundred are ordered at Landsverk, and additionally the army contacts Volvo in order to negotiate a contract for license production of another sixty. Instead of accepting this lucrative business in troubled times, Volvo makes a huge fuss about its civilian market share. The tank has an engine made by their greatest competitor on the civilian market; building a tank and fitting it with the competitor's engines is simply unacceptable. "How", cries Volvo's CEO, "could we look our retailers in the eye if they ask us why - when it really mattered - the army chose our competitor?" Volvo doesn't have any suitable engine ready though, and would rather not take the contract at all, not even at an inflated price. Since there aren't exactly a lot of manufacturers available, the army basically threatens to place the company under direct government control for the duration of the war. Volvo makes a counter-offer and says they'll build 55 tanks with the Scania engines, but for the last five they'll develop a new engine of their own. The army grudgingly accepts this and in the end, after many teething problems and even more gearbox problems, a total of 57 tanks out of 282 built were fitted with a single Volvo engine instead of two Scania ones. The Volvo engine was more powerful but also considerably less reliable. Thus, for no real good reason, the tank now exists in three different versions with completely different drivetrains: strv m/42 TM, TH and EH. TM means two engines and electromagnetic gearbox, TH stands for two engines and hydraulic gearbox, and EH stands for one engine and hydraulic gearbox.  When the first version - the TM - get out into the field, it's a disaster. The electromagnetic gearbox is more efficient and provides more power at the drive wheel than the hydraulic one does in most situations, but it is catastrophically unreliable. In October 1944, the 3rd Armored Regiment at Strängnäs reports that 51 out of 89 strv m/42's with the ZF gearbox are unserviceable, largely because of problems with the gearbox. The magnetic plates (said to be "eternal") break all the time, sometimes after only tens of kilometers, and when sent for analysis at a lab at Svenska Kullagerfabriken (SKF) it turns out ZF has cut some rather important corners and the steel is of very poor quality, full of dross. The entire thing frequently overheats. In the end it takes several years to sort out these problems (plates redesigned several times and new ones manufactured in Sweden under extremely strict quality control at Sandvik AB, lubrication adjusted several times etc). The army gets sick of this and when developing the new pvkv m/43 tank destroyer on the same chassis also orders yet another gearbox design, this time from Volvo. Studying captured T-34's in Finland has proven that an entirely mechanical gearbox for a tank in the 25-30 ton class with very powerful engine is definitely possible, and the Russians seem to know what they're doing, so the new gearbox is entirely mechanical. After the war, all strv m/42 TM's are refitted with new gearboxes: 30 get Atlas-Diesel's hydraulic one (becoming m/42 TM) and 70 get Volvo's new mechanical one and a new designation, strv m/42 TV (two engines, Volvo gearbox).  Stridsvagn m/42 with an experimental turret intended to house a longer 7,5 cm gun. Meanwhile, already in 1943 it's becoming apparent that perhaps that short 7,5 cm gun wasn't sufficiently powerful after all, and the army starts looking at alternatives. Like in many other countries the obvious choice is an anti-aircraft gun, more specfically a Bofors pre-war 7,5 cm design that heavily inspired the German 88. It is tested on the tank in a new turret in 1945 but technical problems and the end of the war make the entire thing come to nothing. Instead, the tank soldiers on into the late 50's, when it finally gets a new turret and the old AA gun for real, becoming the strv 74. The Volvo-engined tanks are not upgraded and are instead kicked out of the tank brigades and into an infantry support role. The strv 74 serves in tank brigades until the late 60's, by then thoroughly obsolete as a frontline tank, and is then kicked into the infantry support role and replaced by the strv 103. The last strv 74's then serve in reserve infantry formations until the early 80's, ending a very long career for a quick wartime improvisation of a tank.  Stridsvagn 74 - new turret, mostly the same old chassis.  It's really tall and narrow and awkward with the new turret TheFluff fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:Polish chat is awesome, as I'm going to be spending a week visiting my sister and brother-in-law in Warsaw in the middle of September. What do I have to see from a mil-hist perspective in and around Warsaw? The Warsaw Uprising Museum is probably your best bet, it's awesome. There's the Polish Army Museum, too, but it's nothing groundbreaking as far as I'm aware. The new Polin Museum of History of Polish Jews is great if you wish to learn more about the Holocaust (amongst other things). Try the Warsaw Citadel, too. However, Poznan has a tank museum with what is (at least if Wikipedia is to be believed) the only complete and functional StuG IV. It's on military grounds, however, so foreigners need to arrange to visit a month in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Thanks for writing about the Polish-Soviet War, Tevery Best. All I've read about it comes from Adam Zamoyski's Warsaw 1920 and I'm interested in learning more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
AbleArcher posted:The British orders in council (1807-1809) were legitimate causes of war. They did violate US sovereignty. However they cannot by themselves explain the course of of US policy, there must have been other (I would say greater) factors at work. They were rescinded (2days) before the start of the war and were themselves a response to Napoleons Berlin and Milan degrees and the establishment of the continental system which also violated treaties and the sovereignty of the United States states. Given that; American policy on naval blockade shifts naturally as the US shifted from being not-a-naval-power to being a naval power. A crucial point was at the Civil War, where the Trent Affair and the US interpretation of blockade meaning that they could seize goods at sea based on whether their 'final destination' represented a significant departure from previous policy. The Bermuda - Note that the British reaction to this case was not to protest, but to read the legal position very carefully, file it away, then pull it out fifty years later to justify preventing US merchant ships from travelling to the continent without being inspected. We stopped a lot of food cargoes to Denmark and Holland on the basis that they'd immediately be resold to Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Interesting post, TheFluff. TheFluff posted:
That's one goofy looking tank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Interesting post, TheFluff. Yeah but that turret looks modern as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Given the importance of armored breakthroughs in both the westfront and notably ostfront of ww2 and how much the factor of running riot on the opposing side's c&c, support, et al, could long range artillery be pressed into direct fire against enemy armor? I know the 88 had great velocity since it was an aa platform and poo poo and that sure didn't hurt it against thumping armor (no idea if it was used as ground support though), but if a bunch of :insert long list of german afv variants here: started rolling over saplings while your big guns were dialed in against targets 10 miles away, could they depress them and light them up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Interesting post, TheFluff. It's so top heavy you could kick it over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Given the importance of armored breakthroughs in both the westfront and notably ostfront of ww2 and how much the factor of running riot on the opposing side's c&c, support, et al, could long range artillery be pressed into direct fire against enemy armor? I know the 88 had great velocity since it was an aa platform and poo poo and that sure didn't hurt it against thumping armor (no idea if it was used as ground support though), but if a bunch of :insert long list of german afv variants here: started rolling over saplings while your big guns were dialed in against targets 10 miles away, could they depress them and light them up? I think that was relatively common.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Given the importance of armored breakthroughs in both the westfront and notably ostfront of ww2 and how much the factor of running riot on the opposing side's c&c, support, et al, could long range artillery be pressed into direct fire against enemy armor? I know the 88 had great velocity since it was an aa platform and poo poo and that sure didn't hurt it against thumping armor (no idea if it was used as ground support though), but if a bunch of :insert long list of german afv variants here: started rolling over saplings while your big guns were dialed in against targets 10 miles away, could they depress them and light them up? Most howitzers were capable of doing damage to enemy tanks throughout the war, but especially early on. The problem is, basically, howitzers are kind of unwieldy and they're usually placed in positions that don't make them good for defending against AT guns. Dedicated anti-tank guns kinda took off early on because they could be made a lot lighter than howitzers so they could be better manhandled, hidden, and towed by lighter vehicles. Their tactical usefulness diminished more and more as they had to get heavier to deal with enemy tanks to the point where the German army officers were asking for a self-propelled carriage for their 75mm gun, and the US was finding their "towed tank destroyers" were tactically worthless and relegated to shooting indirectly as artillery. That being said, the mid to late war eras were not ones of sweeping tank breakthroughs. In the early years, the Germans quite literally got away with rolling tanks in unsupported columns right down roads because their enemies did not understand that anti-tank guns had to be concentrated to be effective- deploying them like machine guns was a waste. But, yes, most howitzers were capable of firing over open sights and had dangerous HEAT rounds, but tactically they would have had a lot of issues if tanks rolled up on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Indirect artillery of sufficiently heavy calibre (>105mm) could also break an armoured attack, especially if you could hit the staging area. Forcing the armour to disperse and separating them from infantry support could stall an attack even if you didn't land direct hits. Especially if the terrain had obvious bottlenecks which you could close with heavy concentrations of fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Marxism posted:Look at the smoke patterns. There were never any Greeks inside the horse. It was a Wooden horses can't melt stone walls. As to the question about flak guns being used in the AT role, the classic example is the 88mm Flak 18/36/37, on the cruciform Flak 36 mount. It could be trained below the horizontal, which was uncommon for medium/heavy AA amounts of the time, and was attached directly to Heer units, instead of being reserved for static point defense, which was again uncommon. The gun itself was later adopted to a specialized AT role with the PaK 43, a traditional AT-style mount, and also to vehicles as the KwK 43. The Flak 36 mount was really the key, though, and not the gun itself, as it allowed the gun to be used effectively in multiple roles. By comparison, the British 3.7" AA gun was a heavy fucker, and they didn't build very many of them, and the U.S. didn't have a comparable mount for the 90mm M1 AA gun until 1943.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Both sides in Ukraine have been using SPGs as direct fire anti-armor pretty extensively. Lots and lots of SPGs, lots of tanks, and not enough modern anti armor weapons. They've done pretty well against older armor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:The Warsaw Uprising Museum is probably your best bet, it's awesome. There's the Polish Army Museum, too, but it's nothing groundbreaking as far as I'm aware. The new Polin Museum of History of Polish Jews is great if you wish to learn more about the Holocaust (amongst other things). Try the Warsaw Citadel, too. Fantastic, thanks for the advice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Both sides in Ukraine have been using SPGs as direct fire anti-armor pretty extensively. Lots and lots of SPGs, lots of tanks, and not enough modern anti armor weapons. They've done pretty well against older armor. I really want to see an analysis of the tactics used in the current Ukranian Civil War, as well as the equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Indirect artillery of sufficiently heavy calibre (>105mm) could also break an armoured attack, especially if you could hit the staging area. Forcing the armour to disperse and separating them from infantry support could stall an attack even if you didn't land direct hits. Especially if the terrain had obvious bottlenecks which you could close with heavy concentrations of fire. Is this what the soviets were trying to do in the hours before Kursk truly started? The lovely war documentaries/Podcasts by he who shall not be named painted it as the soviets attempting to demoralize the nazis which to me seemed kind of stupid. "Ivan I have good plan to stop Evil Kruats!" "Vhat is good plan comrade?" "We will show them that we expect an attack by shooting at them! They will see we are willing to kill them and will run away like coward dogs!" "...Is good plan we will do it." But I guess massive amounts of high explosives falling from the sky on you when you are not expecting it is always pretty scary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I really want to see an analysis of the tactics used in the current Ukranian Civil War, as well as the equipment. Considering that members of both sides of that conflict are posting on the forums, you may just get your wish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I really want to see an analysis of the tactics used in the current Ukranian Civil War, as well as the equipment. Not to belittle your interest, but I'd say the more relevant parts of that conflict are the politico-strategic dimension of hybrid warfare, and the sustainment efforts on either side. I don't think there are that many lessons to be learned wrt small unit tactics or somesuch, at least compared to getting to know how an internet propaganda campaign is planned & run, or what incorporating 'volunteer' forces inside a national defence effort does to regular army morale 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Marxism posted:Is this what the soviets were trying to do in the hours before Kursk truly started? The lovely war documentaries/Podcasts by he who shall not be named painted it as the soviets attempting to demoralize the nazis which to me seemed kind of stupid. Not just massive amounts of explosives, but the idea that the enemy knows of your surprise attack is pretty drat scary. As for large caliber indirect fire guns used in direct fire roles, the Soviets did it all the time. 85 mm AA guns were used as AT guns even in the early days of the war before any Tigers showed up, 122 mm and 152 mm guns were used at Kursk, and allegedly at Worker's Village #6 where the Soviets captured their first Tiger (although depending on who tells the story it was a 76 mm gun). And then of course there's Berlin where guns up to 203 mm were wheeled up to point blank range in order to blast through barricades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
my dad posted:Considering that members of both sides of that conflict are posting on the forums, you may just get your wish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i hope they know more about their war than my subjects do about theirs then Hahahahahaha no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I really want to see an analysis of the tactics used in the current Ukranian Civil War, as well as the equipment. I just got my hands on a draft of an unclassified analysis last week, I'll post a summary of it this week sometime. It was an interesting read but the author may be a bit...suspect in his credentials.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Hahahahahaha no. I'm pretty sure that your average grunt that's sitting in the trenches knows nearly nothing about the war he's fighting. That's how every tank becomes a Tiger and every gun becomes an 88. I even saw memoirs by a German tanker that insisted he fought IS-3s and their guns could only put dents in his tank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Hahahahahaha no. 40 guys from the mansfeld regiment deserted in one night after a rumor came through that they were about to be sent to spain and all their officers would be replaced with spanish ones
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:32
|
|