|
Pryor on Fire posted:Do you really need to apologize for joking that poland was the actual cause of all the 20th century's problems in the history thread, are people truly that loving dense? Will I get probed for making a joke about the Boeing 737 crashing in the aviation thread because that's next on my agenda this morning It also wasnt a good joke, for which i will accept an apology
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
I was disappointed we didn't smoke out a genuine nazi with that joke. e: which would have compensated for the fact that it wasn't funny
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I was disappointed we didn't smoke out a genuine nazi with that joke. I thought people thought I was a Tankie, what with saying it was Poland's fault for stopping the Bolsheviks and Spartacists from linking up. A Nazi would have said that Poland caused the Holocaust, but also that the Holocaust was actually good and Germany should have done it, only it didn't really happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Just gonna share this snippet of a conversation I was having elsewhere about print to order and dumb internet t-shirts and the like:Cyrano4747 posted:That's where print to order shines. Doesn't matter if only 10 people want it, whatever, print to oder goes brrr.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
White Coke posted:I thought people thought I was a Tankie, what with saying it was Poland's fault for stopping the Bolsheviks and Spartacists from linking up. A Nazi would have said that Poland caused the Holocaust, but also that the Holocaust was actually good and Germany should have done it, only it didn't really happen. dig up or whatever man
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Afaik tanks post-WWII aren't heat treated, and the T-34/85s used by the Angolans weren't either. Like, that may have been their rationale for doing this, but I doubt it had the intended effect. Why not? Different methods for making steel, or different materials entirely?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Why not? Different methods for making steel, or different materials entirely? You know what, I looked a little deeper and RHA *is* heat treated. Was under the impression it wasn't and was wrong. Misconstrued something comparing krupp face hardened armor to RHA
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:You know what, I looked a little deeper and RHA *is* heat treated. Was under the impression it wasn't and was wrong. Misconstrued something comparing krupp face hardened armor to RHA What? Is RHA treated at a lower temperature?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Just gonna share this snippet of a conversation I was having elsewhere about print to order and dumb internet t-shirts and the like: I'm not sure if this meme has been done before, I gave it a stab however (so apologies for my sub-par drawing skills) 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:dig up or whatever man actually, saying a really over the top stupid and wrong thing is a good joke if it is done well, and the greatest comedic character of the last forty years, Homer Simpson, is proof. as a person who laughs, I appreciated the attempt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
White Coke posted:What? Is RHA treated at a lower temperature? Both will be treated at give or take the same temperature, you heat steel to above its recrystalzation temperature in both cases, its how you cool it and what you do while cooling it that creates the difference. The key distinction is that face hardened (Krupp or other types) is subjected to the face (or case) hardening process which is a type of heat treatment but is not produced by the same process that RHA (Rolled homogenous armour) is treated with. The very short version is that Face Hardening only heat treats the "face" or surface of the plate, so you create the plate then you heat the surface intensely in the presence of carbon (A process called carburizing), typically by laying it on coke or in later strategies something like acetylene gas, this enriches the alloy with carbon which forms harder phases and creates a thickness of about 30% of the plate in this new harder selection of phases. The advantage of this is you have a hard face to break a penetrator and a ductile backing plate to prevent the armour shattering by flexing (Hardness and ductility are generally mutually exclusive, something very hard that flexes will shatter, but something that flexes will often have a shell go straight through it as it yields too easily). Face hardened armour works very well at stopping a projectile coming at an angle on the plate but has problems when trying to stop a projectile coming straight in at it. This is because a higher proportion of the energy of the shell is causing the armour to deform because its coliding more solidly, this is more likely to cause the hard face to flex, shatter, and let the shell through. Whereas at an angle, the hard face will cause the shell to skip off and deflect without causing more flexing than the armour can handle. So if you want to create "optimum" armour you have a layer of face hardening just wide enough to damage and disrupt the shell coming in backed with more ductile (or tougher in the metallurgical sense) steel which is still strong but not as hard to catch the fragments and allow flexing. Also if you bugger up the manufacturing process its a lot more likely that face hardened armour will fail catastrophically as you are introducing a lot of potential inbuilt stresses and flaws that weaken it, this is particularly notable in end war German tanks. RHA as homogenous implies is a consistent structure all the way through and is made by hot rolling, so you roll (or otherwise shape using forging) an ingot at high temperature so it cools at the same rate (ish) throughout so you have a consistent piece of armour with the same grain structure, not two distinct layers as you get in Face Hardened. After its formed its hardened through heat treatments to improve its toughness but wont involve carburizing, its heat treated to do grain refinement to improve the toughness strength and hardness. RHA will not be as hard as face hardened armour but will be significantly less brittle, hardness is a single component of armour toughness and doesnt neccesarily mean that the armour as a whole is tougher. Its not as easy as saying one is better than the other, its probably fair to say though that RHA is a lot easier to produce than face hardened armour is however and is a lot more reliable and consistent. It will be better against some forms of attack and worse against others. Its a lot lot more complex than this because shell design is a huge factor in this, as is like a million other things. How shells interact with amrour is not as simple as this is making it sound but this should give something of an idea of the engineering concepts involved. I havent gotten into things like alloying or additive elements either. Footnote in that modern tanks do not solely use case hardened steel because they have moved on to composite armour, they get their hardness from ceramics (which are pretty much the hardest and brittlest class of materials on the planet). Polyakov fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Feb 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:actually, saying a really over the top stupid and wrong thing is a good joke if it is done well, and the greatest comedic character of the last forty years, Homer Simpson, is proof. While it is possible to say horrible things and be funny, it also provides cover to the actual horrible people, who can then claim that they were just being ironic, and thereby work on normalizing the horrible poo poo they say. It's a well-established tactic, and the only way I know of to not play into their hands is to not make jokes that involve pretending to be a horrible person. Sorry! Blame the horrible people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
post/username combo 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:actually, saying a really over the top stupid and wrong thing is a good joke if it is done well, and the greatest comedic character of the last forty years, Homer Simpson, is proof. and the spartans replied (laconically) "if"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:actually, saying a really over the top stupid and wrong thing is a good joke if it is done well, and the greatest comedic character of the last forty years, Homer Simpson, is proof.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Armor stuff. Neat. Were either of these techniques used to make pre-industrial armors, like plate armor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
peak milhist for me recently was watching one of those expert breaks down movie scenes things about ancient warfare and he's complaining about the way the scots are dressed in braveheart "they weren't savages they had proper pike squares"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
If they haven't invented the wheel, how do you expect them to invent the square.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Neat. Were either of these techniques used to make pre-industrial armors, like plate armor? Heat treating and carburization was a major component of plate armor production (usually in a combined operation, since you need to heat the armor for it to absorb carbon) and were skills which took a ton of experience to perform correctly with the technology of the time. Most of the European armor industry was concentrated in Italy, and high quality Italian breastplates were famous for being able to stop an armor-piercing arrow - a plate that was not properly heat-treated and carburized could not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 06:03
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Heat treating and carburization was a major component of plate armor production (usually in a combined operation, since you need to heat the armor for it to absorb carbon) and were skills which took a ton of experience to perform correctly with the technology of the time. Most of the European armor industry was concentrated in Italy, and high quality Italian breastplates were famous for being able to stop an armor-piercing arrow - a plate that was not properly heat-treated and carburized could not. Was there a point where they could do it well enough to have the armor be equally treated like RHA, or to deliberately create layers of differing hardness like face hardening? Or were they never that skilled before the Industrial Revolution? The books I've read haven't gone into much detail about the science behind armor making, they usually just talk rather vaguely of who was better at making it and might mention that some kind of advance was made, but not go into detail about what the metallurgical advance entailed beyond making armor better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 06:17
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Was there a point where they could do it well enough to have the armor be equally treated like RHA, or to deliberately create layers of differing hardness like face hardening? Or were they never that skilled before the Industrial Revolution? The books I've read haven't gone into much detail about the science behind armor making, they usually just talk rather vaguely of who was better at making it and might mention that some kind of advance was made, but not go into detail about what the metallurgical advance entailed beyond making armor better. It was an industry built on apprenticeships, incremental progress, and working by eye. To tell what temperature a piece of armor was, you looked at the color. You can roughly control the carbon content by timing how long you leave it in your carbon-rich bed (usually scrap leather, hooves, etc., cooked in a sealed container) but precise temperature and time control was simply not yet within reach. Today, you just grind your mild steel toolbit as desired and put it into a sealed container of carbon dust for 23 minutes in your electric oven. That said, these were lifelong professionals and they produced a consistent product that everyone in Europe wanted. If you wanted to live through a soldiering career, you dug into your pockets and bought yourself (and your men, if you could afford it) Italian harness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 06:31
|
|
|
It's probably worth noting that while setting a tank on fire is a good way to make it irrecoverable due to wrecking the armor and internal components, the primary value of setting an enemy tank on fire is that it's the one sure-fire way to ensure it's knocked out. Even if you see the crew bail out, they can always get back in—but a tank that's on fire is guaranteed to be out of the fight. IIRC this lead to many crews in World War II being trained specifically to keep hitting an enemy tank until they could see flames, at which point they'd move to the next target.
Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Feb 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:It's probably worth noting that while setting a tank on fire is a good way to make it irrecoverable due to wrecking the armor and internal components, the primary value of setting an enemy tank on fire is that it's the one sure-fire way to ensure it's knocked out. Even if you see the crew bail out, they can always get back in—but a tank that's on fire is guaranteed to be out of the fight. IIRC this lead to many crews in World War II being trained specifically to keep hitting an enemy tank until they could see flames, at which point they'd move to the next target. So, looks to me like you could counter this by adding a fire-suppressant system and some kind of theater fake flame system with (harmlessly) exploding capsules. Would make your tank look like it's on fire after a hit, but the anti-fire system makes sure real fire isn't a problem. Tank crews trained like this would be absolutely blindsided if the "killed" tanks move on and keep firing back!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 08:07
|
|
|
the paradigm shift posted:peak milhist for me recently was watching one of those expert breaks down movie scenes things about ancient warfare and he's complaining about the way the scots are dressed in braveheart I mean they were kind of famous for the schiltron even, which is kind of necessary when you're on the Even Worse Cav part of Bad Cav Island. Also in that movie Braveheart technically bangs a preschooler iirc. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Feb 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 12:04
|
|
|
Libluini posted:So, looks to me like you could counter this by adding a fire-suppressant system and some kind of theater fake flame system with (harmlessly) exploding capsules. Would make your tank look like it's on fire after a hit, but the anti-fire system makes sure real fire isn't a problem. Tank crews trained like this would be absolutely blindsided if the "killed" tanks move on and keep firing back! You want to replace smoke launchers with a fireworks launcher?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 12:42
|
|
|
Comstar posted:You want to replace smoke launchers with a fireworks launcher? Why not combine both? Smoke to hide, and it starts with fake fire to make the enemy think your tank is already dead, so they won't even try to shoot you anymore. Win-win!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 12:47
|
|
|
Just coat your tank in a flammable substance and ignite it just before entering combat. That way, it will also scare off enemy elephants!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 12:59
|
|
|
Once the enemy gets wise to this, your system will turn into a "make my tank into a highly visible target while forcing the crew to button up and lose all visibility" button
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 12:59
|
|
|
By the time the tank is on fire you have way bigger problems than fire suppression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 13:07
|
|
|
... my grandfather might get an account here to talk about Korea. Gotta do an effort post about my great uncles time in the 485th bomber group. He bombed Hitler on that poo poo’s birthday. Ugly In The Morning fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Feb 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Once the enemy gets wise to this, your system will turn into a "make my tank into a highly visible target while forcing the crew to button up and lose all visibility" button That's why you have the back up crew run out of the tank after you set off the fireworks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
What if we hide all tanks inside of bigger inflatable tanks as decoys?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
quote:
He’s up for questions about Korea and being a Pogue
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Libluini posted:So, looks to me like you could counter this by adding a fire-suppressant system and some kind of theater fake flame system with (harmlessly) exploding capsules. Would make your tank look like it's on fire after a hit, but the anti-fire system makes sure real fire isn't a problem. Tank crews trained like this would be absolutely blindsided if the "killed" tanks move on and keep firing back! You can just pop smoke and play dead. I've read the Germans complaining that Soviet tanks that aren't penetrated on the first shot pull this trick, also plenty of award orders for tankers who stuck around behind enemy lines and either radioed in observations or fired unexpectedly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
I'm unsure how they used to do it exactly, but I was curious. All the machine shops running during WW2 had to have the parts plans obviously, but how granular was it? Just dimensional blueprints or did they get planned out tool moves/changes as guides for the machinists? Is there online government archives of that sort of stuff, or did it stay with the companies doing production in whatever records they keep? I was reading about a specific lathe and a mill that apparently was over engineered for extreme tolerances to produce highly precise parts (nuclear weapons components, cores, etc) and I'm just super curious how that stuff all happens after the boffins sort out what's needed, back in the day. I expect it's all CNC now but manual stuff is far more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:He’s up for questions about Korea and being a Pogue If I've asked too much just chop it down to whichever few you think would be most interesting to hear. What were some of your thoughts on the Koreans you interacted with and their culture? Were there any WWII veterans serving with you? Did their experience help or assist you in Korea? In the original post you mentioned meeting some Brits at a farewell party. What were your thoughts on interacting with them? What is your opinion on MacArthur? edit: my grandpa did supply work in the 24th and 25th ID in Korea FastestGunAlive fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Feb 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:He’s up for questions about Korea and being a Pogue How did the people back in the states treat you when you were being shipped out? (I'm thinking both about friends and family, but also about complete strangers passing you in the street) How did they treat you in letters? How did they treat you when you got back home? How long did it take to adjust to the difference in time zones while having to do manual labor? Were you allowed an acclimatization period before beginning your regular duties? Could you describe your regular duties and were there any deviations from what your rank and official posting meant your duties were supposed to be? Did you eat mostly local food or was it imported military rations? Was the food good? Was there enough food and clean drinking water? How much time of any given day were you expected to spend on cleaning and maintaining your personal equipment and uniform? Did you encounter any extreme weather? How did your command structure handle weather problems such as severe winds, heavy snow/rain, heatwaves. Please feel free to ignore or focus on any or all of these questions as they suit your interests. Thank you for taking the time to talk about this with us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 13:16
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:He’s up for questions about Korea and being a Pogue What was his view of the Vietnam war at the time, and has it changed since?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
What were his Pogue-ly duties, exactly? What kind of equipment did he have, what were the expectations, and how did he get his job done?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
Synnr posted:I'm unsure how they used to do it exactly, but I was curious. All the machine shops running during WW2 had to have the parts plans obviously, but how granular was it? Just dimensional blueprints or did they get planned out tool moves/changes as guides for the machinists? Is there online government archives of that sort of stuff, or did it stay with the companies doing production in whatever records they keep? My father is a machinist by trade, worked on a bunch of Vietnam-era military contracts before the war (and after he got back after serving,) and my grandfather was a machinist by trade as well, mostly after WWII. Dad mostly ran manual machinery, but did work an NC mill in the wheel shop at Philadelphia naval shipyard in the mid-late seventies. I’ll ask him some questions next time I sit down, but feel free to message me anything specific you want me to ask.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 14:38
|
|
