|
 Finnish late war blinding smoke grenades demonstration in April 1944  Here is the splash of a self-igniting smoke bottle without the acid ingredient that makes it ignite when in contact with oxygen. Notice how well the liquid is stuck to the glacis of the T-34.  Now with live bottles. It looks like three bottles have been thrown here. Tank crew is using the on board extinguishers.  And here on a KV.  Another blinding weapon used was two stick smoke grenades tied together with a piece of rope, thrown at the gun barrel like bolas. Quick quiz, what is the target tank?? Answer -> T-50, Finland captured one and it's on display in Parola. Only 69 were built. Such a cute, albeit expensive, little tank!  And here you have two pairs of the smoke grenades with string on T-34. One pair has been caught on the barrel, the other has fallen on the fender.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:
Huh, didn't know that the smoke came out of the handle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:Do modern National Guard units have any direct lineage/connection to the various state regiments that fought the civil war? Has there been a 20th Maine or w/e in existed since 186x or did those regiments all get disbanded before the idea of the National Guard came around? This has made me realize I have no idea when the National Guard was even created. Yep. 20th Maine is now, if you follow the paperwork, part of the 133rd Engineer Battalion, which is part of the Maine National Guard, and it has campaign honors stretching back to the Revolution. Getting back THAT far is being a little generous with organizational history - there's not much to really tie some of those militias together other than "they were raised in the same place by the orders of the same government at two different times" - but honestly it's close enough that you can argue for it, so why not? If you want to find an unbroken link it's a lot easier to do so with regular army units, and in particular cav regiments, just due to them actually being standing units in peacetime and generally better record keeping when they were disbanded and reconstituted for later conflicts. 7th Cav is pretty famous for Indian Wars stuff, but 1st Cav has battle honors that go back to the Mexican-American War. If you get down to lower levels, especially with stuff like artillery, you can also find other ones. 1st Battalion of the 5th Field Artillery Regiment, for example, traces back to an artillery regiment raised by Alexander Hamilton and is the only regular US Army unit with battle honors for the Revolution[/url]. Here's a list of the currently active units that trace back to the Revolution. They're almost all National Guard due to militias.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:I take it modern MBTs are better protected, or can you immobilize an Abrams if you hit it with a Molotov in just the right spot? I could be wrong but IIRC for the Abrams specifically it uses a gas turbine engine that runs at a hotter temperature than a molotov does, so probably not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I could be wrong but IIRC for the Abrams specifically it uses a gas turbine engine that runs at a hotter temperature than a molotov does, so probably not. It does, but that doesn't mean that introducing burning liquid to other areas of the tank is okey-dokey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
And that hot turbine might rely on pulling in cool-ish air, and without it would start to overheat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 20:24
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
If you fart over the exhaust of an Abrams does it make a fireball?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:And that hot turbine might rely on pulling in cool-ish air, and without it would start to overheat. The turbine can gulp down a gallon of fuel per minute when in go mode, so to do anything to an idling Abrams you need to be burning at least a significant fraction of that rate. Eventually you can stop the tank with enough Molotovs, of course, but any single one isn't going to harm or stall the engine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Fangz posted:They don't want people to overfly their bases I assume. For example there's stuff like second-strike ICBMs that they could be paranoid about people spotting. The video implied that there was much more restricted space than just directly above the bases. I can't really find much corroborating data because searching for information about chinese airspace winds up being a lot of stuff about over the ocean and Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The video implied that there was much more restricted space than just directly above the bases. The ICBMs are mobile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
do you ever watch a thing, and afterwards, wonder what the gently caress was that i just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7F5tef1ACE is one of those things
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
Whoops wrong forum
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The video implied that there was much more restricted space than just directly above the bases. The PRC is extremely paranoid about geographic data, to the extent that official maps of the PRC are straightforwardly wrong, and possessing maps or other geographic data without the right approvals carries hefty fines (that are actually pursued). Restricting civilian flight lanes feels like a reasonable extension/enforcement of that law (regardless of how you feel about the law itself). This isn't something particularly secretive, there's even a nice little wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
bewbies posted:do you ever watch a thing, and afterwards, wonder what the gently caress was that i just watched I've seen that several times, and aside for how God damned sympathetic it makes me feel for the people inside burning tanks, that second or third tank shot really bothers me. My brain is convinced that the gun blast should disrupt the haystack the tank is concealed under.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
bewbies posted:do you ever watch a thing, and afterwards, wonder what the gently caress was that i just watched Art
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
i like the doriftu on the bridge at the end
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
Cessna posted:You could, in theory, because again, tanks have engines that require air. Put enough burning liquid in there and things will go badly for the tank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
Tankception
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Sounds like we need nuclear tanks. May I suggest the Chrysler TV-8? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Tulip posted:The PRC is extremely paranoid about geographic data, to the extent that official maps of the PRC are straightforwardly wrong, and possessing maps or other geographic data without the right approvals carries hefty fines (that are actually pursued). Restricting civilian flight lanes feels like a reasonable extension/enforcement of that law (regardless of how you feel about the law itself). I didn't know about this until I started mapping the path of the 6th Guards Tank Army through Manchuria for my book. Pretty much as soon as you get to the Greater Khingan the old maps and new ones cease to have anything in common.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:Do modern National Guard units have any direct lineage/connection to the various state regiments that fought the civil war? Has there been a 20th Maine or w/e in existed since 186x or did those regiments all get disbanded before the idea of the National Guard came around? This has made me realize I have no idea when the National Guard was even created. The Guard likes to advertise that they date back to 1636, though that's being extremely generous. The modern NG really dates back to the Dick Act of 1903 which formally made the National Guard a reserve component of the regular army. I read a reference once that Civil War veterans protested and stopped the units that served in the Spanish American war from using the names and designations of units that served in the Civil War, though I have been unable to find out more about this. I do know that the Alabama Army National Guard specifically linked itself units of the Confederate Army. The 167th Infantry links itself to the 4th Alabama that fought for the Confederacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/167th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
Cessna posted:May I suggest the Chrysler TV-8? I think I saw these attacking Godzilla in a movie once
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:I think I saw these attacking Godzilla in a movie once Man I think even the Maser cannons and Super X designs were less goofy then that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Cessna posted:May I suggest the Chrysler TV-8? quote:Other methods of powering the tank that were later considered include a gas turbine engine drive, a vapour-cycle power plant fueled by hydrocarbons, and a nuclear fission-powered vapour-cycle power plant. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
Unreal_One posted:The turbine can gulp down a gallon of fuel per minute when in go mode, so to do anything to an idling Abrams you need to be burning at least a significant fraction of that rate. Eventually you can stop the tank with enough Molotovs, of course, but any single one isn't going to harm or stall the engine. Using some general data on gas turbines that's something like 1.7 - 2.4 gallons of air a second. Using the stoichiometric ratio of diesel or petrol, for a 1 liter molotov that burns for a minute, your looking at .065 gallons a second of air used up. So I wonder if this Cessna posted:You could, in theory, because again, tanks have engines that require air. Put enough burning liquid in there and things will go badly for the tank. Is just a presumption or is it something on record? Like has anyone actually molotoved an abrahms?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Weka posted:Like has anyone actually molotoved an abrahms? Finally, a research grant I’d like to get my name on!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
Weka posted:Is just a presumption or is it something on record? Like has anyone actually molotoved an abrahms? Of course! It's what they call the tool they use to change those bricks that make up the treads!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
Weka posted:Like has anyone actually molotoved an abrahms? So here's how I see it. I think the chances of a single molotov taking out an M-1A1 are pretty low. As has been covered, they aren't some old inter-war tank with a leaky gasoline engine that would burst into flame if hit with a stray spark. They're also NBC sealed, so the flames from a single bottle of flammables probably won't torch the crew compartment. That said, even M-1A1s aren't invulnerable. While the odds favor the tank, you never know what might go wrong. Maybe something flammable gets through a gap. A lucky shot from a crappy old RPG-7 took out an Abrams in Iraq - nothing is 100% invulnerable. But, that said, and even more importantly - you don't have to completely burn down that tank in order to "take it out" or deal with it. If I was back in my old job as an armor crewman and my vehicle got hit with a molotov I would get the gently caress out of that situation immediately. This is because combat is not a video game where you have extra lives, where you can stay in place and keep fighting because you always get other chances. No, I would get the hell out because the fact that I got hit by a molotov tells me that: (a) I am facing a determined enemy who is willing to risk their own life to kill me. (b) They are close enough to throw stuff at me. (I'd much rather shoot them from further away.) (c) I don't know if this is part of a larger trap or ambush or not. (d) The other tanks in my platoon that are supposed to be covering my back have failed to do so. (e) I don't know what other weapons they have. I don't like any of these things, so I'll just cut loose with some fire to cover my move and get out. Maybe they just got some idiot to throw a molotov at me so that I'd be busy shooting him and not notice the teams with RPG-32s getting ready to shoot me from behind, who knows - I am not going to sit around and find out. Sure, once I get out of there I'll probably turn the area where I got hit into paste with Main Gun, or call in something else to deal with the situation, like infantry/mortars/air/whatever else I can get ahold of. But in the short term, that molotov would get me to back off fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
Yeah I'm sure you can do some damage with a molotov to an abrahms, even if it's only to fairly superficial poo poo it still can make the difference, the thing I took umbrage too was even 10 molotovs having much effect on the air intake of that huge gas turbine, although I don't know really anything about the filtration system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 08:40
|
|
|
 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55707499
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 11:45
|
|
|
Cessna posted:May I suggest the Chrysler TV-8? It's like someone built a tank to maximize the shot trap potential.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I do know that the Alabama Army National Guard specifically linked itself units of the Confederate Army. The 167th Infantry links itself to the 4th Alabama that fought for the Confederacy. I note their wikipedia entry very studiously fails to mention the Civil War...
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I note their wikipedia entry very studiously fails to mention the Civil War... ? quote:They fought in the Civil War at Seven Pines, Second Manassas, Antietam, Gettysburg and The Wilderness as the 4th Alabama (symbolized in the 13 blue stars on the coat of arms). Link.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Check today's edit history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
This just popped up in my subs and is pretty neat. It’s a differently focus analysis on The Little Rock Nine and Operation Arkansas. I wonder what the chemical makeup of their “vomit gas” was? Because they distinguish it from tear gas, which they also had. https://youtu.be/n-dfD5em5QE
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:Tankception tanktrix
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:tanktrix Tanket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Check today's edit history. Huh. Wikipedia strikes again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
MazelTovCocktail posted:This just popped up in my subs and is pretty neat. It’s a differently focus analysis on The Little Rock Nine and Operation Arkansas. I wonder what the chemical makeup of their “vomit gas” was? Because they distinguish it from tear gas, which they also had. Looking at the sources they cite, the two gases listed are CN and CN-DM. CN is standard tear gas, CN-DM would be tear gas mixed with adamsite (diphenylaminechlorarsine), which causes vomiting. It's also potentially lethal, particularly for small children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
MazelTovCocktail posted:This just popped up in my subs and is pretty neat. It’s a differently focus analysis on The Little Rock Nine and Operation Arkansas. I wonder what the chemical makeup of their “vomit gas” was? Because they distinguish it from tear gas, which they also had. So i covered the chemical action of tear gas in the previous thread incarnation. Here is the original. But to summarise briefly, tear gas as we know it today is CS gas which has the formula C10H5ClN2. I dont know about the specific changeover point but at some point this took over from CN gas, its predecessor, id suspect that at little rock they would be using CN because of when it took place, which has the formula C8H7ClO. The distinction between the two is that CN is more likely to kill you, its still not terribly likely either way. Both have the same mode of operation, the gas will be absorbed into porous membranes, the chlorine group will detach, producing hydrochloric acid which irritates them and causes the crying effect as well as difficulty breathing (Mucous membranes being concentrated in the eyes, nose, throat and lungs). It can also cause chemical burns on exposed skin in high concentrations. I will refer to CS and CN as Cx just for simplicity.  CS structure.  CN structure.  DM (vomit) structure I will point out at this stage that none of these are gases in their own state, they are usually dissolved in a solvent which is then used to disperse it as a gas, but its solid particles which are suspended in this gas. Or sometimes vapourised by extreme heat in a grenade (which is why tear gas grenades can set things on fire). At the time i believe that it would have been likely the first type of deployment. Now by vomit gas i suspect but i am not completely certain that it refers to Adamsite, or DM (Diphenylaminechlorarsine, or C12H9AsClN) I believe its that because i think it was the only one of the compounds im going to mention that the US army adopted. DM has a different structure, but a somewhat similar mode of action to the Cx gases. It was developed by a lot of different countries at the same time that we were also developing things like CN. The problem that DM and all other vomit agents have (DA, DC and PS) which lead to their discontinuation is that they are significantly more dangerous than the Cx type of gasses were while simultaneously being less immediately incapacitating. DM was very likely used against the bonus army in 1932, probably because use of the Cx type gasses had not been fully perfected but it remained in US army inventory for many decades afterwards. DM's incapacitating effect occurs in the same way, chlorine is released inside mucous membranes forming hydrochloric acid, irritating the membranes and causing pain. But the reason it is more lethal is suspected to be becaose of the arsenic group. As the compound is metabolised by the body the arsenic is released into the body and long story short destroys the mucus membrane at the area its in and chokes you to death by causing massive swelling that shuts down your body in those critical areas. (Typically neck, lungs and surroundings of both.) I say its more lethal, but there has only been a handful of cases that have definitely been linked to DM. Its believed but not proven that children died at the bonus army march because of its use, which is plausible, but it is not itself largely a lethal agent, it likely causes significantly more long term exposure problems but i cant speak to the exact extent. Cx gas can kill you in a similar way but its swelling/irritanteffect is less pronounced and severe so its less likely do because it doesnt have the arsenic group in. Polyakov fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jan 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 18:28
|
|
