|
Did much change in terms of materials/alloys and machining tolerances? Those seem like candidates where progress might have been made. Plus manufacturing techniques, like the difference between those crazy one-off early modern revolvers Hegel posted and everyone in the US Cav having two by the mid 19th century is being able to crank them out by the bushel rather than having some dude labor over one for a year. I think. e: I should just get a sig that says "uninformed guesspost above".
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
aphid_licker posted:e: I should just get a sig that says "uninformed guesspost above". Honestly it'd probably be easier to just have a couple of people get sigs that say "not an uninformed guesspost above"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/selina_cheng/status/1091916621751304192?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
Cue mad scramble by competitors to find German grenades to sneakily slip into their inferior local potatoes
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
Hey, so, I know that there are, like, historical organizations that take down oral histories of wars and such. I'm kinda interested in finding one for iraq, since it's been a few years and memories and getting hazy and it would be good to get them down for posterity, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
GotLag posted:There's the huge increases in engine power and (just as important) reliability, but there's also the development of the entire automotive industry which didn't appear on a serious scale until the 1920s. If you could somehow get your hands on the necessary engine I think you could probably build a tank to the quality of the Sherman in WW1, but there's no way you'd get it done in a timeframe or at a cost that would be at all feasible. There's pretty enormous leaps of engine power during WW2 as well. Tank Mk1: 106 hp. Matilda 2: 2x94 hp. Panzer IV: 296 hp Cromwell: 600 hp Sherman: 350-450hp depending on model. That's something to consider, the difference in hp between first and final sherman varients is about the same as the total power the first ever tank had.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Honestly it'd probably be easier to just have a couple of people get sigs that say "not an uninformed guesspost above" I stay away from spouting out uninformed poo poo about 'big-clanky-gun carry-things', 'floaty-fly-ey-thing nests', and geopolitics. I just jumped out of planes and shot things. Small unit operations and small arms? Sure. The rest I leave to the experts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
GotLag posted:There's the huge increases in engine power and (just as important) reliability, but there's also the development of the entire automotive industry which didn't appear on a serious scale until the 1920s. If you could somehow get your hands on the necessary engine I think you could probably build a tank to the quality of the Sherman in WW1, but there's no way you'd get it done in a timeframe or at a cost that would be at all feasible. Welding/casting the Sherman would have been impossible, certainly on any usable scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
One of the huge improvements was in the suspension and running gear. All the horsepower in the world won't help you if you can't drive for longer than 50-100 km before your tank falls apart. Track links were a big part of this, which is why you see so many convertible drive designs pop up. Otherwise you would have no choice but to deliver your tank to the battlefield on a truck, which severely limited the weight.aphid_licker posted:Did much change in terms of materials/alloys and machining tolerances? Those seem like candidates where progress might have been made. Plus manufacturing techniques, like the difference between those crazy one-off early modern revolvers Hegel posted and everyone in the US Cav having two by the mid 19th century is being able to crank them out by the bushel rather than having some dude labor over one for a year. I think. Lots. Huge leaps in metallurgy that allowed either welding or casting thick armour, so you didn't have to use flimsy bolts anymore (cough Italy cough), and now production lines that let you crank out tanks like cars, since time consuming riveting was out of the picture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Did much change in terms of materials/alloys and machining tolerances? Those seem like candidates where progress might have been made. Plus manufacturing techniques, like the difference between those crazy one-off early modern revolvers Hegel posted and everyone in the US Cav having two by the mid 19th century is being able to crank them out by the bushel rather than having some dude labor over one for a year. I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:I stay away from spouting out uninformed poo poo about 'big-clanky-gun carry-things', 'floaty-fly-ey-thing nests', and geopolitics. I just jumped out of planes and shot things. Small unit operations and small arms? Sure. The rest I leave to the experts. I've been meaning to ask you by the way, why is the bipod on the M47 Dragon so tall? Other ATGM systems get on fine with bipods or tripods you use from a prone position but Dragon necessitates sitting weirdly. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:I've been meaning to ask you by the way, why is the bipod on the M47 Dragon so tall? Other ATGM systems get on fine with bipods or tripods you use from a prone position but Dragon necessitates sitting weirdly. I don't know the actual reason, but from experience, two things. The blast suppression shroud on the back is completly obliterated. If you were lying prone, your legs would be shredded. Also, it felt like the boost charge was complete poo poo and the missile always seemed like it was going to smack into the ground before the main reaction jets ignited, so the more height you had on launch, the better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i think it's also the metal quality, but that's a question for Rodrigo Diaz, i don't know very much about that end of things. And he got a job years ago and disappeared from the Internet. Didn't he close the last thread or am I confused?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:One of the huge improvements was in the suspension and running gear. All the horsepower in the world won't help you if you can't drive for longer than 50-100 km before your tank falls apart. Track links were a big part of this, which is why you see so many convertible drive designs pop up. Otherwise you would have no choice but to deliver your tank to the battlefield on a truck, which severely limited the weight. This is absolutely true, but there's not a lot of advanced metallurgy in track. Even now a tank's track is just steel and rubber, and most suspension components are similar. The UK uses that hydropneumatic suspension as an example of something a bit more advanced, but regular torsion tubes are relatively simplistic. The big thing they needed was practical engineering experience designing AFV suspensions. You can sort of see this with various approaches taken in WWII. A Sherman's bogies, for example, are pretty clearly descended from railroad cars, a place where engineers had experience designing vehicle systems that were intended to carry heavy loads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:The blast suppression shroud on the back is completly obliterated. If you were lying prone, your legs would be shredded. No training to fire it like the LAW/AT4? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:No training to fire it like the LAW/AT4? You can fire it from the prone like that, it just completely sucks because it is so poorly balanced and bulky. Holding the target in sight is a bitch as the wire is spooling out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-9_EhxfFvY&t=520s edit: On the plus side, it is lighter than a MILAN, and it does look cool as gently caress when night fired with the rockets popping on the sides. Humbug Scoolbus fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Feb 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Didn't he close the last thread or am I confused? one of the reasons i took over the milhist threads is i have more time than he does these days
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Did much change in terms of materials/alloys and machining tolerances? Those seem like candidates where progress might have been made. Plus manufacturing techniques, like the difference between those crazy one-off early modern revolvers Hegel posted and everyone in the US Cav having two by the mid 19th century is being able to crank them out by the bushel rather than having some dude labor over one for a year. I think. Absolutely. Tungsten carbide and high speed steel weren't widely used for cutting tools until after WWI, meaning that lathe/mill cutting speeds were a order of magnitude slower. Machine tools themselves and measuring devices were less accurate, GD&T wasn't invented until after the start of WWII by a guy at the Royal Torpedo Works. (GD&T is somewhat hard to explain but basically it's a way to measure parts that allows for greater accuracy and less waste) Factories were more primitive as Ford and Kahn and so on were just starting to create modern ones. Guns like the Luger and M1911 still had parts getting hand fitted by gunsmiths during assembly, versus the later "a semi-skilled laborer replaces parts and then pulls a lever, preforming step X of Y in the process of making 50,000 identical widgets for a machine gun."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Cessna posted:This is absolutely true, but there's not a lot of advanced metallurgy in track. Even now a tank's track is just steel and rubber, and most suspension components are similar. The UK uses that hydropneumatic suspension as an example of something a bit more advanced, but regular torsion tubes are relatively simplistic. Tracks are just steel in the same way that armour is just steel. Finding the right alloys to make a track that is both easy to make and lasts thousands of kilometers is not an easy feat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
Oh hey someone subbed and uploaded that new chinese anime about Marx. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0a_jXHiDo 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Oh hey someone subbed and uploaded that new chinese anime about Marx. goddamn this is boring. Who do they expect to watch this crap? Wish the Chinese propagandists would learn from their Russian counterparts and start putting out entertaining propaganda https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/1052486597445324800
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:goddamn this is boring. Who do they expect to watch this crap? Wish the Chinese propagandists would learn from their Russian counterparts and start putting out entertaining propaganda if this is supposed to be the early 19th century the facial hair situation is WAY off
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Engels is mid-late
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:Engels is mid-late
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
That is what optimum bishie looks like
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1092062157900939265?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Tracks are just steel in the same way that armour is just steel. Finding the right alloys to make a track that is both easy to make and lasts thousands of kilometers is not an easy feat. I seriously doubt this. Even modern track is not made out of some mysterious alloy; it's plain old common steel. It is AISI 4340/4140 steel alloy (slightly different nickel content) or a close variant thereof, the same heat-treated mild steel used for things like common nuts and bolts since at least the 1920s (and before, I am not familiar with earlier grading systems but I'd bet that the steel was the same), and this was used for steel track near-universally since pre-WWII. And if you're talking about "western" (US, UK, any track with track pads) it's not the steel of the track that wears out. Not once in my entire career as an armor crewman did we replace track because the actual steel had worn out. I suppose this might be different if we're talking Russian/Soviet track where you put bare metal on the ground, thus causing faster contact wear, but I'm not familiar with that first hand enough to comment. I DO know that Russian/Soviet track is also a heat-treated mild steel, not noticeably different from Western track. (For "western" track, a track is replaced when the bushings - the rubber between the metal components - wears out. These parts are quite important - they serve to keep the metal components from rusting together, they make the track "live" (that is, it wants to curl up and wrap inward more than "dead" track, making it harder to throw track. They wear relatively quickly and are, for practical purposes, impossible to replace at a crew level. When they start to go the track is sent back and these parts are burned out and replaced. (And if you don't believe me, here is a paper on this.)) Cessna fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Feb 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
Track confirms my sense (as someone who never served) that every MOS comes with its own flavor of suck, and the best you can hope for is one that matches your own little foibles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:and the best you can hope for is one that matches your own little foibles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Track confirms my sense (as someone who never served) that every MOS comes with its own flavor of suck, and the best you can hope for is one that matches your own little foibles. Yes. Suspension work is miserable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
 which one's this
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Luigi Cadorna.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
That's the Italy that invaded Ethiopia in the 1890s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
I was rewatching SPR the other night on a whim and while the fighting scenes really were  , some of the other parts haven't aged nearly as well. Anyway, when did the German's cotton on to the fact that poo poo was going down, like now? Was it when the higgin's boats were in visual range? Or maybe the allies started shelling, bombing and strafing their positions and they figured something was amiss?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
Someone confused EVA's scene with Revolver Ocelot's scenes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 08:48
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:I was rewatching SPR the other night on a whim and while the fighting scenes really were This has nothing to do with your question but I learned recently that the big pillboxes in SPR did not exist irl and it fucks me up because that has become universal shorthand for "Omaha beach"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:This has nothing to do with your question but I learned recently that the big pillboxes in SPR did not exist irl and it fucks me up because that has become universal shorthand for "Omaha beach" Obvious followup question: what was Omaha Beach like? You're right that SPR is my mental image of it, teach me otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 09:55
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:This has nothing to do with your question but I learned recently that the big pillboxes in SPR did not exist irl and it fucks me up because that has become universal shorthand for "Omaha beach" I mean they may not have existed at omaha but some of those fortifications were pretty imposing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 10:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:I was rewatching SPR the other night on a whim and while the fighting scenes really were As I understand it from reading accounts from the time, it's when they looked out of their pillboxes after the shelling and the sea was literally full of hundreds of ships all the way to the horizon - not so much the landing boats themselves but the battleships, destroyers, landing ships etc. Quite a lot of accounts describe this with a sense of 'and then we knew we were hosed'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 12:12
|
|