|
goatsestretchgoals posted:Obvious followup question: what was Omaha Beach like? You're right that SPR is my mental image of it, teach me otherwise. Well, as you may know, few crafts hit their mark, leading to the carefully planned waves of tanks and engineers to clear the way failing. While the huge pillboxes weren't there, there were plenty of MG crews cutting people down. Infantry landings were often really unlucky: Most advancing sections were subject to small arms, mortars, artillery and interlocking fields of HMG fire, often at the same time. Landing craft were stuck on sand banks up to 100 metres from the beach, and sometimes people allegedly had to brave neck-deep water with current and lovely weather thrown in. Things were worst for those groups landing at either end of the beach. At best they were disorganized from 70-100% officer loss and heavy casualties in general, at worst units had ceased to exist as a fighting force, and none could carry out their initial objectives.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 12:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
 Someone on Reddit asked about this sign and received a comprehensive answer explaining the background of the Cologne situation and that sign in particular. There are quite a few more great signs on this page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 12:40
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i'm just sick and tired of hearing about the well known tanks. It's like how it's a little difficult to read Hamlet because it's been done so many times. Give me ahead-of-their-time French stuff from the end of WW1 or whatever weird armored cars the Czechs were coming up with What about italian airplanes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:What about italian airplanes? Indeed, the Italians made drat good aircraft that were competitive up till the end of the war... Macchi C.205 Reggiane Re.2005 for example...
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Indeed, the Italians made drat good aircraft that were competitive up till the end of the war...
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Yeah all three of them were really impressive. There were over 250 C.205's built. There were almost 50 Re.2005's built. Not quite sure what you are trying to say. Heck, we can talk about the Macchi C.202, which again was another fine aircraft and there were over 1100 of them built.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
250 is somewhat short of the 20 thousand Spitfires the British built.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:There were over 250 C.205's built. Fangz posted:250 is somewhat short of the 20 thousand Spitfires the British built.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:My guess is that the three are the MC.205, the Re.2005 and the G.55, the three late war Italian fighters with the DB605 engine. For some reason the G.55 seems to get forgotten more than the other two in spite of arguably being the best of them. Yeah and the brits only fought on one side of the war too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Not quite sure what you are trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
Italy made the finest bespoke, artisanal, hand‐crafted æroplanes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Leonardo Da vinci carving a plane from marble over 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Leonardo Da vinci carving a plane from marble over 15 years. Michelangelo painstakingly countershading the fuselage by hand
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:It's called a joke. You may be familiar with the concept from your posting. Jokes are amusing. Your post wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Jokes are amusing. Your post wasn't. Did you skip your morning coffee? Because you're being a total rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:Did you skip your morning coffee? Don't drink coffee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Italy made the finest bespoke, artisanal, hand‐crafted æroplanes. this is kind of a joke but even using the most optimistic full-rate production estimations G.55 took about twice as many man-hours to produce as the concurrent Bf-109 EvilMerlin posted:Don't drink coffee. just try being less of a dick maybe
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:this is kind of a joke but even using the most optimistic full-rate production estimations G.55 took about twice as many man-hours to produce as the concurrent Bf-109 I don't think the Italians ever made anything for WW2 efficiently or smoothly. I mean just look at their tank production... Nah. If the bad place here has taught me anything, its that is perfectly OK to be a dick. EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Feb 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:If the bad place here has taught me anything, its that is perfectly OK to be a dick. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:I don't think the Italians ever made anything for WW2 efficiently or smoothly. I mean just look at their tank production... You are a bit strange
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:I don't think the Italians ever made anything for WW2 efficiently or smoothly. I mean just look at their tank production... There’s a difference between poo poo posting in GBS or wherever and a high info thread in A/T. Different subs, different in-thread expectations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
How did the accuracy of big naval guns compare to rifles? Purely mechanical accuracy I mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Italy made the finest bespoke, artisanal, hand‐crafted æroplanes. Just like with tanks, only Americans and Soviets didn't have the fine, bespoke, artisanal planes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Sleng Teng posted:You are a bit strange Yes, yes I am.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Don't drink coffee. I think what people are trying to say is that the original comment was a tongue in cheek way of pointing out that quantity has a quality of ownit's own, and that, regardless of the actual quality of Italian aircraft, their inability to produce large amounts of them doomed the Italian air force to irrelevance. Your post contradicting that, saying that, of the three planes mentioned, there were about 1400 built. That's not really a large number, especially when compared to the other countries usually considered "major powers" in WWII. The Romanians, who are generally not held in high esteem as a WWII combatant, managed to produce about 700 planes over the course of the war, and the Italian air force struggled against the Greek air force during their invasion, even though Greek planes, barring some modern planes given to them by the British, old and outdated. Poor industrial production was a problem the Italians faced throughout the war, in all sectors. It required most raw materials to be imported, which hurt it when the British were able to close off the Mediterranean, and it had a smaller percentage of its economy dedicated to industry than Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Sweden. Declaring war on France was pretty much Italy's biggest mistake in the war. They didnt have the resources to become a great power, but they thought they did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
bewbies posted:How did the accuracy of big naval guns compare to rifles? Purely mechanical accuracy I mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I'm not sure how to make the comparison meaningfully to be honest. Even adjusting for the differences in distance from target and size of projectile doesn't really capture all the important factors. Yep, was going to say much the same thing. The 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns on the Iowa class ships had a range of over 20 miles... and a shell that, depending on type, was between 1900 and 2700 lbs. No clue how you can compare that to a rifle. EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Feb 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I'm not sure how to make the comparison meaningfully to be honest. Even adjusting for the differences in distance from target and size of projectile doesn't really capture all the important factors. I would imagine that even though the projectiles are big the ranges involved and the travel times would make them susceptible to inaccuracy issues. But they're also shooting at rather big targets...
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Yep, was going to say much the same thing. What was the CEP at that range? Based on that you could do some math and calculate the MOA which would allow you to compare it to a rifle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
I found some blurb about the Iowas that may be totally unreliable...quote:For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range. 250 yards is like .7 MOA at 34,000 yards. Pretty good!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
You measure small arms accuracy in MOA (minute of arc), which is just 1/60th of a degree. As you get to farther ranges, obviously this 1/60th of a degree becomes a bigger circle. A quality, accurate rifle nowadays would be about 1/2 MOA accuracy, so at 100 yards that works out to about a half inch circle. The same 1/2 MOA accuracy at 2,000 yards would be about a 20" circle. Naval guns are just big artillery calibers, so if you want to measure the same accuracy circle of things landing and compare it to a rifle you can. I think modern artillery accuracy works out to about 3-4 MOA, so if you're shooting at something 20 miles away you get a 30 foot circle. I'd imagine they get slightly more accurate as you move up in caliber just because wind affects heavier projectiles less, but other factors probably come into play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What was the CEP at that range? Based on that you could do some math and calculate the MOA which would allow you to compare it to a rifle. There is a read on it here. I'll admit its a bit above my head. http://ww2f.com/threads/bb-main-gun-accuracy.43034/ They could put their shells in pattern or group that was 1.9% of the range in WWII. So range is 41,622 yards. So the maths say, CEP seems to be about 790 yards. Lets take a standard M4. Which at 100 yards is 4MOA. 1MOA = 1.047 inches at 100 yards. So some more maths says that to shoot like that at 41622 yards, the rifle would actually be more accurate (435y CEP???) EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Feb 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
I’ll just note that half a MOA is beyond “quality accurate”. That’s a high end rifle. 1 MOA is pretty much the gold standard for “good” To put it into perspective the acceptance requirement for M1 Garands was in the 3-4 MOA ballpark. Roughly similar for the K98k.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:There is a read on it here. I'll admit its a bit above my head. At what range? Need that to calculate the MOA
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:At what range? Need that to calculate the MOA Yeah I updated, my initial numbers were hosed based off of modern-ish rangefinder computers... Hey but thats all a moot point. The Mk7's could fire the W32 shell. A nuclear fucker. 15-20kt. Say its 20kt... Over NY. The fireball itselff is 200m. and the kill blast radius is .76km with much death out to 2.21km... EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Feb 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
I kind of feel like the last few posts are supporting my contention that this is much more of an apples and oranges comparison than it first appears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I want to hear about Can I just repost my truck posts from way back when?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:You measure small arms accuracy in MOA (minute of arc), which is just 1/60th of a degree. As you get to farther ranges, obviously this 1/60th of a degree becomes a bigger circle. You can't compare two angular dispersion figures (like Minute-of-Arc) made at different ranges to each other, because the angular dispersion increases with range. There's also a very important distinction between accuracy (how close your shots land to what you're trying to hit) and precision (how close your shots land to each other) that often isn't made when reporting dispersion (the Iowas in Greece mentioned above have impressive precision, but little is said about the accuracy). Additionally, MOA is often calculated from the "group size", which is a very inaccurate way to measure dispersion, and worse yet, usually made with very small groups of just a handful of shots (at worst, just 3!) which introduces a significant sampling bias into the process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:You can't compare two angular dispersion figures (like Minute-of-Arc) made at different ranges to each other, because the angular dispersion increases with range. There's also a very important distinction between accuracy (how close your shots land to what you're trying to hit) and precision (how close your shots land to each other) that often isn't made when reporting dispersion (the Iowas in Greece mentioned above have impressive precision, but little is said about the accuracy). We can use the older system used by big guns called sheafs (I think that is the proper term) for group and group dispersion for this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Indeed, the Italians made drat good aircraft that were competitive up till the end of the war... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 19:04
|
|