|
Alkydere posted:Also the Brits seem to have a long history of hating their tank crews so the increased pain of repairing a multibank was likely a non-issue. Reminds me of how the British had a significantly higher casualty rate than the Americans in their Shermans, because British tankers wore soft berets instead of helmets
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Alkydere posted:Also the Brits seem to have a long history of hating their tank crews so the increased pain of repairing a multibank was likely a non-issue. Maybe it might be a bit different with what's basically a car engine? But I find it hard to imagine tank crews as opposed to actual mechanics in the rear did serious repair work on their engines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Reminds me of how the British had a significantly higher casualty rate than the Americans in their Shermans, because British tankers wore soft berets instead of helmets Tanker helmets don't seem like they'd protect you from much more than bumping your head inside the tank? But then again it must have been very confusing for the drivers that their seat was on the wrong side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 13:02
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Tanker helmets don't seem like they'd protect you from much more than bumping your head inside the tank? But then again it must have been very confusing for the drivers that their seat was on the wrong side. Bumping your head is pretty bad, but so is shrapnel. Obviously this can happen when the tank is penetrated. It can also happen when it isn’t. The shock of the shell bouncing can break pieces off the inside face of the tank and send them flying. It’s called “spalling”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 13:09
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:To be fair, if there had been Tsushima 2.0 and Japan had won it, we'd all be posting in here (in German) asking why didn't America use its subs to sink Japanese naval ships rather than futile efforts to interdict Japan's transports. Well some of us wouldn't be here, actually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
Everyone who was conceived after the war wouldn’t be here because the slightest change would scramble half of their genes and result in a different person. It eould snowball from there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Tanker helmets don't seem like they'd protect you from much more than bumping your head inside the tank? But then again it must have been very confusing for the drivers that their seat was on the wrong side. Crewmembers in armed vehicles don't have restraints because all of them (besides maybe the driver) have to move around too much to do their jobs while buckled up. Also tanks drive a lot cross country across dips and bumps and such. Ever ridden in a vehicle driving off-road? Imagine how much you bump around even when restrained by a seatbelt when the vehicle is going somewhat slow. Or when you hit a pothole on the road. Now imagine yourself unrestrained and that vehicle is hauling rear end as fast as it can go across rough terrain because reasons (there are a multitude in the military:"people shooting at us" "people shooting at our friends" "we were ordered to" "it's lunch time at the base canteen" "we were bored" etc.) You're gonna be bouncing around in that armored vehicle like peas in a tin can, and the human body is guaranteed to be the softest, squishiest thing in the vehicle. When your head hits the optics, when your arm hits the breach, when your knee bashes into the hull you're the one that loses that match every time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The US Minnow torpedo boats were able to carry enough fuel for a 3-hour tour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Everyone who was conceived after the war wouldn’t be here because the slightest change would scramble half of their genes and result in a different person. It eould snowball from there. Well yeah but you know what I meant, a not-insubstantial portion of "us" assuming we somehow existed would have been murdered by fascists for the crime of existing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
I feel like if there was a Tsushima style victory for Japan the US would have sighed and put in orders for another ten aircraft carriers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 14:00
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Imagine having more engines than you have tanks to do with All this engine talk is just making me more excited for that sim where you restore WW2 vehicles from the ground up. GotLag posted:Reminds me of how the British had a significantly higher casualty rate than the Americans in their Shermans, because British tankers wore soft berets instead of helmets Surviving crew members crowded outside in a ditch while their Firefly burns, somebody mutters 'This would never have happened if we wore our tin hats.'
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:All this engine talk is just making me more excited for that sim where you restore WW2 vehicles from the ground up. http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2/t-34-35 goon project?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I also want to do this too!! How many hulls do you have? I'd love to print the Yamato. At the moment I just have the Iowa, Deutschland, and a Clemson-class (old WW1) destroyer. But I only haven't been making more because I've been focusing on other parts of the game, little things like "the AI doesn't steer directly into obstacles" and "guns shoot where you aim them". I will at minimum have all of the iconic WW2 ships from US/UK/JP/DE, and yes, I'll be doing my best to make some ridiculous pagoda bridges, though I'm kind of dreading having to model all of those little bits. To be clear, I'm not modeling in enough detail to be able to satisfy someone who knows what the ships are supposed to look like. My goal is modularity, basically letting you kitbash your own Frankenstein ship out of a library of hulls and parts. (I have a project.log thread where I post more regular updates, since I don't want to be spamming a bunch of different threads about the project)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Surviving crew members crowded outside in a ditch while their Firefly burns, somebody mutters 'This would never have happened if we wore our tin hats.' US and Soviet tanker helmets protected the wearer's head from the tank, not from bullets or shrapnel. GotLag fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:If you think about it, welding five small engines together to make one big engine sounds like something you hear as an explanation of why some Heinkel Uberbomber didn't fly until 1944 despite being ordered in 1938, or why an experimental British tank caught fire the first time they turned it on. It seems to happen reasonably often. That big ritzy 6-liter V-12 rich guys could order in their Aston Martin until last year? It was prototyped as two Ford V-6s with a common crank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Germany used local pine resin for industrial purposes during WW1, WW2, and in the GDR. They used basically the same technique as in cutting trees for latex - cut the bark, collect the resin (pics at link). The resin was used to make rosin and turpentine. The GDR produced a respectable 12k tons of resin per year. Kinda neat. https://www.nordkurier.de/ganz-schoen-klebrig-das-harzen-2728670805.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Did ze Germans give tankers helmets?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:People said last thread that the harbour defence motor launches were originally destined to sail (quite literally) to the Caribbean. Given their armament and intended destination (according to the wiki ,they eventually ended up in the Mediterranean) I guess they were meant for anti-sub patrol boats mainly. Other than general interdiction what goods were the germans hoping to stop from being trafficked? Sugar seems most obvious, right? What goods were the Caribbean holdings contributing to the war effort The HDMLs weren't built to sail to the Caribbean, they were built to be carried as deck cargo on merchant ships, and to be simple enough that they could be built in local shipyards. A few vessels were given sailing rig for extended range, yes, but this was just eight boats from the 486 built. HDMLs were anti-submarine patrol boats. As their name suggests, they were meant to protect harbours from submarines trying to infiltrate them and sink ships inside. While no HDMLs made it to the Caribbean, a number of the older Fairmile B motor launches were operated by the Trinidad Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (which drew men from all the British-held Caribbean islands), some of which were built on Jamaica, as well as two minesweepers built on the Cayman Islands. The Trinidad RNVR had been established primarily to protect the oil fields and refineries on Trinidad, which provided just under 40% of the oil used by the British Empire during the 1930s. Trinidad also had the largest asphalt lake in the world. Guiana, meanwhile, was a key producer of bauxite ore for aluminium. Trinidad was a useful base for protecting the shipping carrying this, as well as ships heading to the Panama Canal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Did ze Germans give tankers helmets? It's nazis. Who among nazis considers practicality before they consider making the master race look sexy?  Wehrmacht panzer crews get to wear proper fascist blackshirts instead of the less famous but very nazi brownshirts. E: and in honour of my grandfather who'd probably be disgusted at the idea of a gay jewish grandson and the fact that Alsace is in Grand-Est now, a special shout-out to the non-functional uniform of the air force panzer division 
Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Reminds me of how the British had a significantly higher casualty rate than the Americans in their Shermans, because British tankers wore soft berets instead of helmets This sounds apocryphal. Any difference would surely be swamped by the differences in the fighting they faced on their sectors of the front. EDIT: My googling doesn't show up anything, anyway. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 16:40
|
|
GotLag posted:US and Soviet tanker helmets protected the wearer's head from the tank, not from bullets or shrapnel. I know what the head gear is for. Most tank crew get the gently caress out fast when things go south so I feel while it does protect you from spalling or debris at certain angles a beret or soft cap isn't going to get caught on a lever or gear stick and cost you those few precious seconds from understanding why your tank burns quick fast. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:This sounds apocryphal. Any difference would surely be swamped by the differences in the fighting they faced on their sectors of the front. It's late and I need to go to bed but I remember the number being somewhere just under 1 KIA per Sherman knocked out in US service, and higher for the British Army. I think Chieftain mentioned it in one of his videos, or it might have been one of the tankfest lectures. I can't remember if they had a figure for Soviet Shermans. Regardless, not having a helmet is going to mean you are more likely to suffer injuries (be they major or minor) from hitting your head during violent manoeuvres, such as losing a track to a mine, or rolling into a ditch, or any of the other exciting things that can happen to a tracked vehicle. SeanBeansShako posted:Most tank crew get the gently caress out fast when things go south so I feel while it does protect you from spalling or debris at certain angles a beret or soft cap isn't going to get caught on a lever or gear stick and cost you those few precious seconds from understanding why your tank is nicknamed a Ronson lighter. "Ronson" is a post-war invention GotLag fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I know what the head gear is for. I don't think a soft helmet is going to be any different from a hat in that aspect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:This sounds apocryphal. Any difference would surely be swamped by the differences in the fighting they faced on their sectors of the front. Yep, for instance in Normandy the British sector was ideal tank country but also ideal country for big honking AT guns and Panzerjägers with 88mm guns to take out tanks from distance. The US sector OTOH was full of bocage and advancing required meticulous combined arms teamwork where tank
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:16
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I don't think a soft helmet is going to be any different from a hat in that aspect. A beret doesn't have chin straps, liners or weight. I might be wrong about the lighter thing but it certainly isn't going to catch on stuff or weight somebody getting out of a hatch fast. While a hard helmet might have some advantage a beret is a reasonable alternative with some function.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
http://www.big-red-one.org/M1938%20TANK%20HELMET%20INFO%20PAGE.htm <2 lb for the helmet (including headphones and goggles), lighter than I expected
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Eagerly waiting for the thread conclusion on tankhelmetgate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
The only comparison of British and US crew casualties I can find is page 63 of http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16635coll14/id/56035 which supposes that differences in casualty rates are driven by the ranges involved. A thing to note is that the report points out that actually about half of crew casualties are incurred *outside* the tank. EDIT: There's a big old archive of transcribed casualties reports from British tanks (warning, can be grisly) at http://ww2talk.com/index.php?tags/wo-2051165/ From my read of a random sampling I don't see many examples of injuries that could be prevented by a helmet. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:44
|
|
JcDent posted:Eagerly waiting for the thread conclusion on tankhelmetgate. I mean I am hat biased and not going to get in a fight, to take this further we must pour over the data and see.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
How about the whole thing of UK Shermans being overloaded with ammo or having ammo in hull instead of racks that's usually attributed for being the partial reason of Ronson myth?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
GotLag posted:US and Soviet tanker helmets protected the wearer's head from the tank, not from bullets or shrapnel. For that matter, no helmets protected from bullets until Kevlar. A steel pot helmet might deflect a glancing blow from a rifle or MG, but even a pistol at close range will barely be stopped. Helmets protected from bumps, raining debris from artillery strikes, and minor fragments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
JcDent posted:How about the whole thing of UK Shermans being overloaded with ammo or having ammo in hull instead of racks that's usually attributed for being the partial reason of Ronson myth? Proper ammo storage and handling are anathema to the soul of the British military
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Wouldn't not wearing any kind of hat get in the way even less?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Proper ammo storage and handling are anathema to the soul of the British military I thought that was "a working engine"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:17
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Proper ammo storage and handling are anathema to the soul of the British military MORE DAKKA old boy SlothfulCobra posted:Wouldn't not wearing any kind of hat get in the way even less? Half the time they'd be wearing just their shorts if they are fighting hot climates but I will loving argue about military hats don't test me.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Wouldn't not wearing any kind of hat get in the way even less? Did Warsaw Pact introduce a real tanker helmet at any point? I think they only have that black padded thing, which makes sense: head protected from shunts and bumps, there's a frame for comms equipment, yet it's not bulky or heavy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Come to think about if they needed a firm hat alternate they have the motorcycle helmets made of cork.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Did Warsaw Pact introduce a real tanker helmet at any point? I think they only have that black padded thing, which makes sense: head protected from shunts and bumps, there's a frame for comms equipment, yet it's not bulky or heavy. It also looks swag af? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Reminds me of how the British had a significantly higher casualty rate than the Americans in their Shermans, because British tankers wore soft berets instead of helmets Was there truth to the story about how Japanese tank armor was so thin that enemy anti-tank guns had to use explosive shells instead of AP? Also, did any Italian tankers really drown in the desert when their water cooled engines got shot? (Also, thanks for responses regarding Japanese convoys and PT boats, those were informative)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:Was there truth to the story about how Japanese tank armor was so thin that enemy anti-tank guns had to use explosive shells instead of AP? If you happen to live in the Bay Area CA there’s a Sea Scout group that works with a ship named the Liberty. Still goes out. I’ve been on it before. Pretty cool. It’s kept in Rio Vista. Crab Dad fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:34
|
|
