|
You can also gently caress then up bad by just taking out all the ties. It’s not as effective but will quickly lead to they track being dangerously unstable. Armies used to have a special car for ripping ties out on a retreat that was basically a plow angled to chop the gently caress out of the ties.
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Can Cyrano just post that excellent post about how media no matter how sincere or authentic will always feel slightly off so it can just be enshrined in the OP forever? that was a good post. The one where I forgot the term ludonarriative dissonance? http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/tampabaytimes/obituary.aspx?pid=150669534
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Relatedly, can we get the last thread goldmined too? There's a lot of posts that it'd suck to lose. Would be nice to have links to them in the OP like last time too: It's in there. You know, you guys can PM Grand Fromage too. He's a cool dude. Reads his PMs. Tends to take suggestions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Reading old newspapers from those months is just great. It’s headline after headline about the axis getting their teeth kicked in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
I mean, it’s pretty great reading it from the other end too. Just a lot more “were bravely counterattacking to the rear!” propaganda BS to filter but hey that’s fun too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
The basic version ca. WW2/Korea is that you have immediate care at the front (so, the medics) who then stabilize the wounded to send to the regimental aid post. The aid post is also pretty much right in the combat zone. There they either treat it if it's relatively minor or further stabilize and send them further down the chain. Next stop is the casualty clearing station, which is far enough back that it shouldn't get artillery fire. They have more complex (although still relatively basic) equipment and the same "treat or send on" rubric is applied again. Next stop is either a field hospital or a military hospital. Field hospitals are just what they sound like, and basically what MASH depicts. You have all the poo poo you need to perform pretty complex surgeries but it's a temporary facility and a lot of the crap is under what could be described as field conditions. A military hospital is a full blown real deal hospital set up on a permanent basis, usually in the home territory or a friendly ally. So, Germany or Walter Reed in the modern context. edit: a lot of this gets collapsed a bit with the advent of rapid medivac by air. If you can take the obviously really badly shot up guy right off the battlefield you can effectively cut out regimental aid and the clearing station and put them right in a surgical facility. This is what they're depicting in MASH when you see the helicopters come in and it's a pretty major component of everything you see from Vietnam to now. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Now, if you want to talk care after the immediate trauma you get into stuff like stateside rehab and, if the person is wounded seriously enough, organizing their discharge paperwork. IIRC there are convalescent units organized around the big military hospitals that people get attached to while waiting for their medical discharge to happen. This is half-remembered and I'm sure someone with personal experience with how exactly that works can clarify it a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
I had to do some writing on the Tanker War recently and the one thing you see the Iowa doing a lot there is refueling destroyers and frigates. The worlds most expensive oiler. Oh they also had the Dallas cowboys cheerleaders perform on the fantail (I want to say Christmas of 86) while a few DDs and FFGs steamed alongside so their crews could watch from their own decks. So also worlds most expensive USO stage
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 11:48
|
|
|
Splode posted:Does anyone have a handy link to Heygal's posts about gender in the 30 years war period? I think it was a perfect example of this sort of thing. "Gender is a spectrum" is a modern concept, but they had it back then! However that doesn't mean the 30 years war was some sort of lost age of progressive thought, and their version is uhhh, less cool than it initially appears. As a great example that I remember from one of their posts: People back then were pretty into the female orgasm. They thought it was super important and basically required for conception to happen. Which makes sense. It's pretty obvious that if the man doesn't cum you're not getting a baby, and clearly there's something going on there for the woman too, so why wouldn't that be necessary. On the surface this looks pretty loving sexually progressive. We're only just now starting to emerge out from the funk of Victorian sensibilities and suspicion of anything like female pleasure after all. Problem: this basically means that if someone gets pregnant from a rape it must not have been a rape because if she's pregnant that means she got off. And now she's a mother out of wedlock so I guess she better marry that guy who she clearly had fulfilling sex with or just accept society's judgment that she's a harlot. So like someone else said, not so much that they weren't just as lovely and awful as we are, just lovely and awful in different ways.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Cessna posted:. SS also wore fancy camouflage smocks and helmet covers over their uniforms that the army didn't get because the SS were such assholes that they patented it so the army couldn't use the SS's patterns. Didn't the USMC do this with MARPAT? One team one fight! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
One tank gets the cannon, the other carries the ammo. When the tank with the cannon is destroyed, the tank with the ammo takes it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
JcDent posted:The way I read the explanation, Allegemaine SS was pre-stealing valor of the Waffen SS and were told to cut it out during the actual war My friend you should look up small arms procurement during the war. Half the reason that concentration camps got turned into factories is that the SS controlled the camps and it was a way to make their own guns because the Wehrmacht didn’t want to let them into their supply network.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 14:08
|
|
How the gently caress is that allowed to happen? "Sorry, Branch B, Branch A patented the camo pattern, so you have to find your own. Now burn all the uniforms or we'll have to get Branch C to enforce the patent right with tanks an artillery."
|
To give you an idea of how much back biting went on in that system the luftwaffe had a tank division because Goering wanted a army off his own like Himmler had. Roll that around in your head a bit. Luftwaffe Panzer Division.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 14:12
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:You can design damage control into a ship. Things to make it easier to segrate the ship for firefighting. Having redundant systems for things like firefighting so if one system gets hit you don't lose all pressure to your hoses. Putting damage control lockers in spots that make it easy to get materials where they need to be. Yeah, one of the legit edges that the Kriegsmarine had going into WW1 over the Royal Navy had to do with redundancy in design with their dreadnaughts. It's been a while since I read up on it, but poo poo like how compartmentalized they were. KM ships would be broken up into many more sub-compartments than the RN ships, which in turn meant that it was easier to isolate flooding and fires. They also had some superior ammo handling procedures that led to a lower risk of catastrophic magazine explosions, although I'm hazy on the details of what that involved. Maybe one of the actual naval historians will be around to expand/correct me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Late to gear chat but another good example of keeping older designs around because replacing them is a pain in the rear end is the enfield. At the outbreak of ww1 it was in many ways an aging weapon showing its age. The origins of the action date back to the 1888 Lee metford which was originally designed around black powder pressures. By 1910 they were actively looking for a new rifle and main rifle cartridge and in early 1914 had settled on a replacement - the P13 in .276 Enfield. Of course a World War is a terrible time to replace your main rifle and an even worse time to change cartridges. They produced a few of the guns in .303 (the redesignated P14) via contracts with American arms producers but ended up sticking with the SMLE for the most part. Those American factories, incidentally, changed over to making the same guns in .30-06 when the US entered the war, creating the American m1917 which ended up being the most-issued American rifle in that war because, again, retooling is hard and inadvisable in wartime. Then the interwar period happens and everyone is broke as gently caress so most of Britain’s small arms budget goes into working on simplifying the process to make enfields, which has a lot of time consuming and expensive steps in their manufacture. There was also some movement towards looking at a semi auto but by the time that was a realistic possibility Hitler was doing his thing and they were in a familiar bind. This ultimately leads to the No IV enfield in 1941. So this is how you end up with a rifle that England wanted to replace in 1913 serving with modifications until 1957 and the gun that should have replaced it being the US’s most issues WW1 rifle but not being produced after that war because it was a foreign design adopted as a supplement to the m1903. Really the loving miracle in all this is that the US invested in development the Garand during a period when most other countries were making revisions to the designs of the previous war.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Kuznetsov is fine, the dry dock it was in sank while Kuznetsov was sailing out of it. Note that losing that dry dock is a bigger problem for the Russian navy than if the carrier went down.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:America had a smaller stock of M1917s relative to population since the AEF was small relative to population, plus more people interested in buying them as army surplus postwar. Thus no glut of old service rifles, thus more scope for a new one. They surplussed some, but they kept a bunch in storage as a second line weapon. They were frequently refurbished in the early days of the US's involvement in WW2 for issue to artillery and other rear-area troops. In a delicious bit of irony we also shipped some of those refurbished rifles off to the UK as lend-lease, presumably still chambered in .30-06. That wouldn't be completely crazy as they were also getting some Garands and other US weapons in the caliber, but I still find it hilarious given its design history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And the Garand was originally chambered in .276 Pedersen, but this was rejected by McArthur because of all the leftover .30-06 ammo from WWI. Which basically forced a full-length high-power round down everyone's throats until the M16 was developed. One of my fantasies is to some day take a clapped-out Garand and have it re-barreled in .276 Pedersen. I have to imagine it would be just a joy to shoot. Now, if you really want to dive down that rabbit hole our obession with .30-06 is also part of why we were so insistent on 7.62 NATO. The Brits wanted the post-war NATO standard to be on .280 British. There's a possible alternate history where the Garand was in .276 and the M14 and FAL in .280 NATO. A FAL in .280 is also one of my pipe dream projects.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
Don't be. There's nothing wrong with it. I've written and edited more than my fair share of written stuff and your prose is clear, concise, and direct. These are all good things.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
bewbies posted:how did they all arrive simultaneously at 30 caliber being optimal for that first generation of rifles anyway? It seems like someone would've realized it's grossly overpowered for most infantry tasks .30 was actually considered "small bore" when it came about. It was a step towards faster, smaller projectiles. Note that "faster" and "smaller" in this context are in comparison to late blackpowder cartridges. poo poo like .45-70
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:.30 was actually considered "small bore" when it came about. It was a step towards faster, smaller projectiles. As for why .30 specifically, I don't know exactly why that was settled on as the bore diameter of choice, but I suspect it's a case of convergent design. Everyone wanted smaller, but you couldn't go too small less you end up with an anemic round. Remember, it can be fat and slow or small and fast. It's important to remember that smokeless powder was adopted in a kind of step by step process. People really had no idea how to load for it originally, so the first cartridges were just trying to replicate black powder performance, which I suspect is why they went with a larger bullet. This is the era where you see some hilariously unsafe BP to smokeless conversions. Smokeless produces a lot more pressure than BP, so the guns had to be fundamentally redesigned around them. The first generation of rifles were had that smaller, faster round (think stuff like the Enfield, Krag, Gew88) but it would take another generation of rifles to engineer them to be able to take the pressures that more modern loadings can produce, leading to early versions of such venerable cartridges as 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54r, and .30-06 (well, .30-03 at the time). Even then it took the development of the spizter bullet to really get these cartridges up to their true potential. The transition from .30-03 to .30-06 is a good example of that. Once you start getting some truly zippy rounds being produced people start looking at whether they can shrink the size of the projectile some more, which is where you get all that experimentation with stuff in the 6mm ballpark.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Black powder is very inefficient compared to smokeless powder. Along with leaving a ton of soot in the bore, it doesn’t accelerate a bullet nearly as well. To make up for the relatively low muzzle velocity in any reasonably sized musket or pistol, they fire very large and heavy bullets that maintain a lot of momentum. It’s like a freight train vs. a sports car. There were small bore guns like .25 caliber Kentucky rifles, but for the most part everything was .40 to .75 caliber. I'm not an expert on the exact science of what's going on inside the gun, but IIRC a lot of it also has to do with the burn rate of black powder and smokeless and the peak pressures that are developed by each. Basically that faster burn rate in smokeless means that you get a higher peak pressure before the bullet starts to move, which means it gets going faster. BP, on the other hand, is still undergoing combustion while the ball is headed out, which means that the pressure vessel is constantly elongating, which in turn means lower peak pressure. That peak pressure, by the way, is a big part of why BP to smokeless conversions are so ill-advised. A gun designed to handle BP peak pressures is going to tendencies towards becoming a pipe bomb if you put smokeless in it. Maybe not on the first shot, maybe not on the fifth, but it's certainly not going to be putting thousands of rounds through it and probably not even hundreds. Plenty of countries tried to find ways to do it, but it never quite worked out. The Italian Verletti conversions are a good example of this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:
Jesus Christ. I showed that to my wife and her take was basically 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
bewbies posted:...how?? That is an absolutely ridiculous distance. Did they have a different definition of "fighting" or something? Ever notice the insane range settings on old rifles? Your average Mosin or Mauser has rear sights that go out to 2000 meters. That’s not just optimism, it’s there for long range volley fire. You’re right that point targets aren’t happening but of you have a company start lobbing rounds at “that blob of guys on the hill a kilometer over there” then you start getting somewhere. It was used a lot to suppress formations and generally try to make open fields a place you don’t want to be, basically the same way very long range MG fire is used today. It’s very much a tactic developed in the window between rifles that could kill at those distances and the development of LMGs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
They made stocks for those. Not issued commonly by the time you get into ww1, but by then the sights were just part of the design.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
JcDent posted:By the way, a friend recently noted that the mulched cotton filling was terrible for when you got wounded, since it was by that time dirty and very much willing to foul up the wound. Confirm/deny? I don’t know about mulched cotton being better or worse but clothing fragments being carried into the would in general have been a huge problem ever since penetrating wounds were a thing. My understanding is that GSW is especially bad about it compared to stabbings. Your average uniform in the field isn’t exactly clean either, which makes the issue worse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Because crappy sad-eyed puppy figurines speak to the very essence of what it means to be German - they are a part of the culture our soldiers are bringing to the savage asiatic hordes! It was a Big loving Deal when some Saxons figures out how to make it and set up for Meissen porcelain. Before that most of it was imported from China and making it in Europe was a game changer. The German stuff was especially prized for being resistant to cracking in temperature extremes, which is handy if you’re boiling and drinking tea. South and central Germans got big into that poo poo. Hummel figurines were basically a way for porcelain makers to show off, then that became its own thing. My mom has a porcelain nativity scene that her grandparents brought over in the late 19th century, pretty much the only stuff besides clothes that they brought with them. So yeah, dumb porcelain figurines is German as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Exactly. Still doesn’t matter. Remember this isn’t shooting at an individual target. You’re literally shooting at a hillside. It’s good enough to get most of the bullets from a company into the same 100 yard by 100 yard box. Your guns and ammo could be grouping 50 MOA and it’s still good enough for volley fire.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:MOA GSW? Gun Shot Wound Minute Of Angle - a measurement for accuracy. The rule of thumb is that 1 MOA puts the shots in a 1 inch circle at 100 yards. This is considered very good mechanical accuracy. It is affected by both the rifle and the ammo. Your typical WW2 era rifle was 3-6 MOA depending on the acceptance standard of the army getting them, to give an idea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:this, cranach, augustus the strong, ottoman fan club, the transylvanian katana, and being not very good at war are all saxony ever did in life As I typed the word Saxon I thought to myself “5 minutes, max, before Hey Guns notices the Saxon Signal and comes running”
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This makes some sense, but that is still an absurd distance to be shooting with the naked eye and relatively primitive guns. Like, that's a "call the mortars or helicopter" target for a modern army...even your machine guns would be wasting ammo shooting at something that far away. The late 19th century was really influential in developing tactics to match the new weapons being fielded, and it happened to coincide with a moment in time when the average infantryman carried a weapon potentially lethal out to multiple kilometers but heavier ordinance wasn’t portable enough to be rapidly deployed yet. As to whether it was a good use of ammo, it’s basically suppressing fire. Would you rather assault the position held by the dudes who are free to shoot you up in peace as you advance or one where they’re being harassed by that company to your rear throwing rifle rounds all around them? It’s an odd time in military history that happens to coincide with the major development of the rifles that served most countries for the next 50 years and put the cartridges in the supply system that some are still dependent on to this day.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
I can not emphasize enough how loving much WW1 cost and how broke as gently caress everyone was in the intervening years. Like, it’s not the only reason the Depression happened, but it’s a big part of why it was so bad. You just fought an apocalyptic war. You have no money. Your public is extremely anti war right now because you just killed most of a generation of young men. Oh and you’re trying to not be quite as autocratic anymore as a hedge against this international communism thing. Military budgets are getting slashed. No one expects another war of any consequence for a long time right up until it happens. Look at it through that lens and it’s a loving miracle that the development that happened went down. Even then decisions were made on the basis of cost, like changing the Garand to .30-06 at the end because goddamn we have a literal mountain of ammo in that caliber and goddamn we do not have a lot of money for this right now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What's IDF apart from Israeli Defence Forces? Indirect Fire. Squad portable mortars and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:with mosins? would that do anything It’s a thing they trained. Same basic principle as volley fire just aiming at a patch of sky rather than a patch of ground. Now is it super effective? Not really, but you get lucky sometimes and shoot down an airplane and at the very least it keeps them from just loitering and loving you up at their leisure. Edit: the Japanese went so far as to put AA sights on their rifles to help calculate lead.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Were any planes ever actually shot down with just rifles? Sure. You read about it now and again. Some aircraft were more vulnerable than others of course. P51s pretty notoriously were not getting home if you put a hole in the radiator and a rifle will do that just fine. Pilots are also less than bulletproof and barring a few dedicated ground attack aircraft usually weren’t surrounded by rifle-fire proof materials. There was a WW2 KIA recovery a few years ago that I remember from the pacific where a USN pilot was found in his wreckage with a bullet through the head from what was probably ground based rifle fire. Unlucky but that poo poo happens.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:things that aren't dragoons Maybe . . . but chances are they don't walk literally everywhere. quote:tankers this is legit - the tank is basically the horse, they fight from the tank, thus cav quote:artillery quote:
Still dragoons - the boat is just a big horse edit: possible other explanation, they're the dragoon contingent that stays behind to mind and guard the "horses"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Sometimes I can scarcely believe that there is so much history, and it is so full of wonders. Man I’ve been studying this poo poo ever since I learned to read, including professionally for the past decade, and I learn some new hilarious, tragic, or just mind blowing historical fact daily. Here’s a recent one: Did you know there is a ship in the USCG that had motherfucking Hitler present at its commissioning? USCG Eagle (WIX-37), née KMS Horst Wessel, a steel hulled sailing vessel used as a training cutter for officer candidates. The coast guard is still pimpin’ around in a sailing ship we stole from Nazis. Edit: Hess gave the commissioning speech and Horst Wessel’s mom broke the champagne bottle. Edit 2: oh she was also the keel laid at Blohm and Voss right before they laid Bismarck’s. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
A few years back Eagle got a new engine (they have backup diesels) and we gave the old one to Portugal for spares for Sagres
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
All joking aside, if you want a chuckle go read up on the Cod Wars. It's basically Iceland's coast guard loving with British fishermen. Does this sound like a thing that happened in the 16th century? Well I used the term "coast guard" so maybe in the early 20th? No, think the 70s. Iceland shot at people a few times.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Some random pages from the A4 user manual; Those drawings of the ladies are spot on for the drawings of the ladies you see in user manuals for tigers from WW2
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2018 19:04
|
|
