|
Regarding the PT boats, it's also worth mention that the US put a lot of effort into making the Japanese operate under their air umbrella. So PT boats let them make hiding during the day a prohibitively risky option for Japanese cargo ships.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
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. Well, it did help that not only was the flathead six a simple and mature design, but the Multibank only needed to generate ~350 horsepower compared to the 2,000 horses that Germany was trying to squeeze out of their franken-engines. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted: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. So you acknowledge that a close range pistol shot will be stopped, yet do not consider this protection from bullets? Also, how much more protection do you think kevlar helmets offer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Why the gently caress are you anglais like this
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:So you acknowledge that a close range pistol shot will be stopped, yet do not consider this protection from bullets? Also, how much more protection do you think kevlar helmets offer? Barely be stopped means hit in head with hammer. https://youtu.be/lvBHq5PW0Ag
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Barely be stopped means hit in head with hammer. Why does shooting a helmet with a handgun take eight loving minutes? no one cares bang bang done I don't want to watch you goatee loser. e: spoiler alert the stalhelm does not prevent your glorious aryan skull from being brainsplattered if someone shoots you in the head with a pistol e2: why is a company making helmets with swastika logos in 2019 Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Why does shooting a helmet with a handgun take eight loving minutes? well it's not actually me sheesh
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Anyway here's an article I found with twenty seconds of googling all about US Army tank helmets. Key takeaways: quote:The 1919 pattern “Helmet, Tank” owes its existence to famous American tanker, George S. Patton, Jr. Prior to taking command of, and opening, the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) Light Tank Center and School in December 1917. Patton was an observer at the French Tank School and later the British Tank Center. Patton made observations at these schools along with recommendations for his own Light Tank School and kept these in a simple spiral note pad. quote:The cavalry style tank helmet provided a modicum of bump protection to the wearer’s head, much more than the 1919 Pattern tank helmet which was still in use; however, as armor technology progressed, the cavalry style helmet began to show its disadvantages. The main complaints included its lack of any real ballistic protective qualities, the cheek or side pieces were not configured to accept radio receivers, and there were only three sizes available—small, medium, and large. So you have the primary reason the helmet exists—to protect crewmen from getting knocked out or concussed inside their tanks. There was an awareness for the need for ballistic protection, but it wasn't a priority and the helmets wouldn't stop too much in the way of spalling or shrapnel. Would still rather have one than a fuckin' beret though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Barely be stopped means hit in head with hammer. Lol come the gently caress on
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
I do like that while Patton was doing the tank helmet thing MacArthur was all about getting that sword out.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:no one cares bang bang done I don't want to watch you goatee loser. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It displaced twenty‐one litres and made less power than the General Motors 6046, which displaced a third the amount and had one‐fifth the number of cylinders. This owns. Does anyone else have any WWII era ads from Chrysler? A certain tank based video game company wants me to write an article on a car manufacturer that transitioned into building tanks and I'm pretty hard pressed for illustrations. Also does anyone have a copy of their 1940 film "The Tanks are Coming"? Looks like it used to be on archive.org but got removed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:So you acknowledge that a close range pistol shot will be stopped, yet do not consider this protection from bullets? Also, how much more protection do you think kevlar helmets offer? Even the 70s-vintage PAGST helmet was light years better than a steel helmet. The new Enhanced Combat Helmet was specified to be 35% more effective against penetration than the ACH that replaced the PAGST, while being lighter, and exceeded the specification. I’ll take any Kevlar or composite helmet over a steel pot, any day. (The ECH is actually plastic.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
The other thing is that British tankers *did* have helmets, they just didn't like to wear them. (Possibly it was hot and uncomfortable?) https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-B...ker-helmets-had https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30100904 https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-British-tankers-wear-helmets-in-WWII Anyway I don't see a single authoritative source for the 'british had significantly more casualties because of not wearing helmets' question so I feel like this story is pretty much debunked at this point. Speculatively I suspect helmets are a bigger deal during peacetime than wartime, since during peacetime accidents are what you worry about, not 88mms. Fangz fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:So you acknowledge that a close range pistol shot will be stopped, yet do not consider this protection from bullets? Also, how much more protection do you think kevlar helmets offer? The greatest threat to a soldier in WW2: being shot at close range in the helmet with a .45.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
Brits did have tanker helmets from the get go, but for some reason tankers preferred not to use them? Lend Lease tanks came with American issue helmets, and in 1944 a new steel helmet based on the British airborne troopers helmet came. But you don't see them in photographs a lot. According to various internet sources steel helmets were mostly used when dismounted or when in open-topped vehicles. US crews would also put the steel shell of an infantry helmet on their tanker rigging when serving in tank destroyers and other open-toppers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:57
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The greatest threat to a soldier in WW2: being shot at close range in the helmet with a .45. 'Hans I just got the greatest idea what we can mount on top of these GOLIATH!'
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
shoot the German in the face, not the helmet, got it
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
What's with this helmets stopping bullets nitpicking? Yes, helmets were designed primarily to stop shrapnel until quite a lot later. But yes, helmets can also in limited cases provide protection from bullets. And yes, protection from pistol calibres is still some protection, given the proliferation of SMGs during WWII. Here's a test by Soviets during WWII focusing on shooting various guns at helmets. http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2017/08/whose-helmet-was-better.html This shows (a) that helmets can be protection, at least sometimes. (b) the degree of protection they offered is something the Soviets cared about. EDIT: I mean I don't know why we're finding the idea of firing a .45 ACP at a Stahlhelm ridiculous given that I suspect a pretty big proportion of bullets fired at Germans in WWII was from the PPSh. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
you know what's way more interesting than world war II helmet slap fighting is how amazing modern plastic helmets are
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Brits did have tanker helmets from the get go, but for some reason tankers preferred not to use them? The same dudes who thought bright red berets were more tactical than green helmets: a good source
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The greatest threat to a soldier in WW2: being shot at close range in the helmet with a .45. Ah, the SS experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:For that matter, no helmets protected from bullets until Kevlar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:For that matter, no helmets protected from good bullets until Kevlar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What's with this helmets stopping bullets nitpicking? Because most of those bullets, statistically, aren’t going for the portion of the head covered by a helmet. Protecting from SMGs and handguns was a happy accident, not the main reason for their existence or the main threat to be protected against.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 23:59
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The same dudes who thought bright red berets were more tactical than green helmets: a good source Paratroopers had helmets though. Like several variants.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Is there a canon reason for why nobody found them? You'd figure they'd check every island in a 3 hour's sail. Do boats not file flight plans
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Is there a canon reason for why nobody found them? You'd figure they'd check every island in a 3 hour's sail. Do boats not file flight plans Ocean big
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
Skipper disliked
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:So you acknowledge that a close range pistol shot will be stopped, yet do not consider this protection from bullets? Also, how much more protection do you think kevlar helmets offer? There's heavier helmet setups that can stop 7.62x39. And I'm not talking barely being stopped (which in helmets means irrevocable brain damage, backface deformation is a huge deal in a successful stop). As an example, the slaap plate for ops-core helmets defeats 7.62x39 mild steel core at 2,400 fps with less than an inch of backface deformation. You know, in case you want to be able to take an AKM shot from as close as you can get without it being a contact shot. Generally you'd rather not put that much weight on, but I believe that you can actually have enough protection on a helmet that the backface deformation or penetration doesn't kill, it's the energy transferred into the head breaking the neck. Compared to 9mm barely stopped by a steel helmet at somewhere near 400 ft lbf, I know someone who's taken a .460 Rowland (which carries a whopping 1100 ft lbf of energy, twice that) upside the head and survived with a concussion. bewbies posted:you know what's way more interesting than world war II helmet slap fighting is how amazing modern plastic helmets are Yeah, holy crap modern polyethylene/aramid fabric laminates are really impressive things. A particularly nice high cut helmet can stop a 9mm round at an overall weight of 2.5 pounds or less for the whole system on a large helmet. That includes much better padding for impacts and a bunch of attachment points. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Aug 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Compared to 9mm barely stopped by a steel helmet at somewhere near 400 ft lbf, I know someone who's taken a .460 Rowland (which carries a whopping 1100 ft lbf of energy, twice that) upside the head and survived with a concussion. Whats the story with your friend getting shot in the head? Because it sure does sound like a good one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Skipper disliked going around smacking people with a goofy hat will do that
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
CoffeeBooze posted:Whats the story with your friend getting shot in the head? Because it sure does sound like a good one. My gut tells me 'negligent discharge'
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 05:43
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
CoffeeBooze posted:Whats the story with your friend getting shot in the head? Because it sure does sound like a good one. Truth is... game was rigged from the start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:My gut tells me 'negligent discharge' Given the chambering, almost certainly. I'm guessing the guy was nowhere near ready for the recoil and ND'd one off his helmet trying not to drop the gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
That seems the sort of thing you'd never live down
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The same dudes who thought bright red berets were more tactical than green helmets: a good source Yeah, looking ally is always more important than personal safety, why is this controversial
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
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? I have a theory that the idea the Sherman was called the 'Ronson' comes not from any reputation of them lighting up all the time, but simply conflating the regular Sherman with 'Ronson' flamethrower tank, a Sherman fitted with the Canadian 'Ronson' flamethrower, so named because of the lighter. Once you have a specific version of the Sherman - one that's not even easily identifiable as special unless you know what you're looking for - named 'Ronson', it's easy to think that nickname applies to all Shermans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:EDIT It depends on what it’s fired from and what cartridge is being fired. A pistol calibre cartridge fired out of a SMG will be going faster than it would out of a pistol, much longer barrel for it to accelerate through. A .45 out of an M3 is about a hundred feet per second faster than one out of a 1911. Beyond that, .45 ACP is a big bore projectile travelling relatively slowly, I’d wager that a smaller projectile like 7.62 Tokarev that travels much faster would do a much better job of defeating steel helmets than .45 ACP
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 09:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted: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. But what will alcohol solve in this instance?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 12:49
|
|
