|
Mycroft Holmes posted:So, someone on another site is having a big argument. He believes that bayonets are crap, and soldiers should have just been issued mass produced swords instead. He says a musket with a bayonet is "an inferior pike" and "too heavy to be practical". Does anyone have some sources to disprove him? https://youtu.be/WK9UdMumCw8 Once you have socket bayonets you also have a much faster switchover from musket to bayonet than to a sword. And in a mass melee situation the greater reach of the bayonet (especially if there's an opportunity to reload) lets your comrades help you out much more effectively. Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Aug 11, 2020 |
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:So, someone on another site is having a big argument. He believes that bayonets are crap, and soldiers should have just been issued mass produced swords instead. He says a musket with a bayonet is "an inferior pike" and "too heavy to be practical". Does anyone have some sources to disprove him? I mean he's right in the sense that it's not as good at being a sword as a sword, and not as good as being a pike as a pike is. But the musket is still the primary weapon of these guys, and "turn your gun into a big spear if cavalry appear" is much easier to teach than sword techniques (and much cheaper), and you don't have to carry a whole pike around with you. Source wise I think you'd probably want to look at India in the late 18th century. I think the indigenous forces were big on swords, and they quickly change their minds about that when confronted with how effective musket drill is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:36
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I mean, yeah I guess a dedicated melee weapon would be better than a bayonet on a gun in a lot of circumstances. But you have to carry the drat thing and your gun and everything else. Plus then you'd have to train your soldiers in sword-fighting (or axe-fighting or whatever), when one of the big points of guns is always being at range. Cause it's a gun. I'm a big ol' sword dude and love fencing and stuff, but having every random soldier carrying a sword (or whatever) is just silly. Meanwhile, everyone carrying a knife makes perfect sense ; I don't fight people for a living and I still carry a knife around cause it's a really useful tool. And if we're assuming that, then giving everyone a knife that happens to be able to to be added to gun to make an ersatz spear makes total sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
The idea of a sword being a great melee weapon is kinda a fictional thing. The main asset of a sword is that it's relatively easy to carry. Without a shield (for example the Highland charge relies on having a shield) a sword is much worse than a spear, and even if a bayonet is a poor spear it is still competitive and arguably better as a battle weapon than a sword.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:So, someone on another site is having a big argument. He believes that bayonets are crap, and soldiers should have just been issued mass produced swords instead. He says a musket with a bayonet is "an inferior pike" and "too heavy to be practical". Does anyone have some sources to disprove him? If you give an enlisted man two weapons, he will lose one almost immediately. Only gentlemen officers have the ability of keeping track of two things at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
Yeah poor phrasing on my part. I started with "dedicated melee weapon" and then shifted to using sword as a synonym when it's definitely not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:So, someone on another site is having a big argument. He believes that bayonets are crap, and soldiers should have just been issued mass produced swords instead. He says a musket with a bayonet is "an inferior pike" and "too heavy to be practical". Does anyone have some sources to disprove him? Know what else isn't practical weight? carrying a full length sword along with the rest of your kit. Bayonets get smaller as time goes on anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
we got on the subject while talking about why it took so long to go from plug bayonet to socket bayonet. we didn't have an answer to that. seems obvious in hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
A long time ago in this thread it was mentioned that pre-WWII US had a lot of economic slack that resulted in the lurch to a comical industrial capacity they were swinging in no time at all. Is this comparable to today (or last year, anyway)? How much output could The States at full burn be churning out compared to the rest of the world in a year or so?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:we got on the subject while talking about why it took so long to go from plug bayonet to socket bayonet. we didn't have an answer to that. seems obvious in hindsight. Machining something to fit as a socket vs wrapping a knife handle with cloth and shoving it in the barrel would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
Arbite posted:A long time ago in this thread it was mentioned that pre-WWII US had a lot of economic slack that resulted in the lurch to a comical industrial capacity they were swinging in no time at all. That depends heavily on whether you mean making anything, or making something useful. Military equipment today is far more sophisticated than it was increasingly near a hundred years ago, and requires specialized tooling and facilities. You can't take a factory that makes tractors and quickly convert it into making tanks in the 21st century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
I seem to remember somewhere that one of the proposals for what a conventional WW3 would look like is a core of modern tech with a large amount of older tech wrapped around it. So, you can only make x modern tanks, but you can make y older tanks and y>x.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:we got on the subject while talking about why it took so long to go from plug bayonet to socket bayonet. we didn't have an answer to that. seems obvious in hindsight. Yeah this is always something I always wonder. Maybe the barrels were insufficiently uniform in their manufacture to be able to make a reliable socket system? There probably is wiggle room in the bore diameter though too so maybe it's not that at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I seem to remember somewhere that one of the proposals for what a conventional WW3 would look like is a core of modern tech with a large amount of older tech wrapped around it. So, you can only make x modern tanks, but you can make y older tanks and y>x. So some sort of neo-Sherman built by Ford etc, then elite Abrams units that get sent in when you make contact with the enemy's actual tanks? This almost feels like something out of Gundam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
I seem to recall reading something about why all these crappy tanks were used in WW2 -- basically, any tank was better than no tank, and tank vs. tank combat was relatively rare so it didn't really matter that in a one-on-one fight their tank was better than our tank. My impression is that anti-tank weapons are vastly more common nowadays than they were in WW2, so I don't know how much that'd still hold true today. I feel like a subpar tank would just get mission killed by a comparatively cheap missile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:So some sort of neo-Sherman built by Ford etc, then elite Abrams units that get sent in when you make contact with the enemy's actual tanks? Mass production suits in Universal Century were generally never that far behind the one off uber-suits though. Post one year war armor was basically abandoned as a priority for mobile suit design because of the prevalence of particle beam weaponry. The Mk ii. gundam was kind of an underwhelming mess that was only somewhat competive with the next generation of mass productions suits. The only reason one off uber suits remained a thing was because of the existence of newtypes whose pre-cog/telepathy BS made them un-killable by normie pilots. Basically mobile suits went from being designed like tanks to being designed like fighter jets during the UC 80s. OTOH in Gundam Wing, gundams basically could take on 40 times their numbers when squaring off against the Leo's & Ares.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
Air force aside where tech makes all the difference in the world, a modern weapon system has huge amount of relatively simple components. Lets take a modern (ish) tank for example, the newest and hottest on m1 line currently fielded: m1a2SEPV3.(renamed m1a3 or m1a2C by some publications) The frame itself- Hull and turret as armored compartments housing everything- are made of secretsauce-reinforced armor plate. Can this production be increased fast? Yes. Secretsauce production might be limited But a non-DU version with alternate, cheaper composition armor replacing the current secretsauce should be able to be cranked out easily. Can be upscaled fast, and a lot. Powertrain- tracks, transmission, turbine, suspension. Turbine production capability might be. A small hiccup, But comparative-power tank diesels have existed since 1980s so fitting a twinturbo diesel as ersatz measure should be possible after initial redesign. Everything else can be produced by industrial means without requiring superspecialization. Armament and optics/electronics. Aside from the main gun all secondary armaments on m1 are very basic and could be built by a ton of different commercial producers. Main gun barrel itself requires specialized production, But even then could propably be upscaled in production. Most of the electronics, ballistic computers and calculators are definitely commercially producable. Biggest high-tech would propably be the sight system, the tank having a total of four high-end thermal viewer systems (main sight, commanders periscope, remote commanders machinegun and the drivers night drive aid) and one low-end thermal camera (drivers backup camera). Even of those up to three could be replaced by a NVG system without seriously gampering the tanks performance. All in all the ”commercial off the shelf” austere abrams would have somewhat lessened optics on secondary armaments, slight reduction on armor in the spots where specialsauce is used, and a diesel instead of a turbine. Not really a huge difference in performance. would it take time to design? Yes. Would it be able to be mass-produced by amalgam of typewriter factories, camera companies and commercial truck makers a’la ww2? Mostly Yes. How many actual abramses could the only tank plant currently operated in US push out whilst this was being implemented before first austere abrams came out If the line? A shitton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 03:58
|
|
|
One thing people forget is that the Joint Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio...has probably never actually done full "3 shifts, balls to the wall" production. I actually think that the biggest bottleneck would be the lack of skilled tradespeople and machinists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
I seriously doubt that anyone is going to build new tanks for a WWIII, even if it somehow doesn't go nuclear. Modern militaries are orders of magnitude better at focused destruction than those of those of WWII. They're capable of destroying much more or what they want to destroy with much less than their WWII equivalents. They'd wreck everything they could wreck in far less time than it would take to plan and start building those neo-Shermans. As far back as the 80's this was recognized, and planners referred to this factor as "come as you are war." That is, you fight with what you've already built. Is it possible that a war could drag out past the initial overwhelming opening? Perhaps, but if it does designing new poor tanks is going to be a very low priority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
I've seen people argue it'd be feasible to mass produce block 30-something f-16s
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:38
|
|
|
The big issue (one that pretty much makes "non nuclear WWIII" incredibly unlikely) is that the only weapons that can really threaten the US are ballistic missiles. Neither Russia or China has any way to attack the US on the ground, and both lack any means of getting conventional strike assets in position for that kind of hyperwar. Meanwhile either of them would be fighting a hyper-speed version the Battle Of Britain, because there are basing options for attacking them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:Powertrain- tracks, transmission, turbine, suspension. Turbine production capability might be. A small hiccup, But comparative-power tank diesels have existed since 1980s so fitting a twinturbo diesel as ersatz measure should be possible after initial redesign. Everything else can be produced by industrial means without requiring superspecialization. If there's something the Americans are good at, it's taking an existing tank and scaling up production by putting different kinds of engines into it. Staple 5 bus engines together and shove them in a lengthened Abrams hull, why not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
PGMs are still essentially hand made, right? God knows how many of those we could crank out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:If the Germans don't violate Belgian neutrality, then the entire war is what they can fit through the Ardennes plus what they can push past the Maginot line. The push through the Ardennes would still catch the French by surprise, but absent any pressure on the entire northern border, they'd have a much easier time redeploying and getting a grip on the situation. Trying to assault through the Maginot line would suck so much that any remotely sane regime would violate Belgian neutrality instead. It didn’t help matters that the French put about 50 divisions along the maginot line and had no strategic reserve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
I feel like I've made at least one and possibly multiple excessively wordy posts on this subject of modern military industry in a total war scenario so sorry if any of this seems repetitive. in the US at least, all of the major end items that are deemed most important have scaling functions built into their manufacturing. in fact, their manufacturers are paid quite a bit of money to ensure that the scaling is in place. you can probably guess that the kinds of things that are included in these programs: amraams and Patriots and Apaches and whatever the current fighter on the line is, as examples. for the munitions in particular if you remove the road block of money the rate of production goes through the roof and the cost per unit goes away, way down. far more than one might expect as it happens. that being said, futures people have read all of the same histories you all have, and recognize that, in general, major conflict makes existing equipment obsolete very quickly. thus, a lot of the modern thinking and a whole lot of resources are devoted more to process, rather than product. in other words, we recognize that we are not going to know what new widgets we will need in year three of our mega war with China, so instead we've doubled down on the processes to streamline mass production of these widgets once we know exactly what they are. maybe that gets us widgets six months before the Chinese do! it is a pretty interesting problem, one that the US and Russia and China are all grappling with simultaneously. you can maintain huge fleets of lovely crap, but doing so costs you a lot of money, and maybe that prevents you from being able to develop less lovely crap, which will necessarily not be fielded in the same numbers, but if you need to, can you feel the less lovely crap with sufficient rapidity... etc etc. The bottom line is no one knows, and ironically enough I think it was the French who had the closest thing to the right idea of "tank" in 1939 and look how far it got those guys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
WW2 Data No introduction for German mines so we're diving right in! Which mine is named primarily for the material it uses for the body? What is the difference between a Panzerschnell Type A and Type B? How much pressure was required to set off a Pappmine? Which mine used magnets to attach to a target, and how was it supposed to be used? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
I think this is also why various nations, Russia in particular but also maybe the US and China? Have such large stockpiles of Cold War era equipment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 05:26
|
|
|
As far as current gen hardware getting obsoleted rapidly goes -- I don't know if there's ever a point when having the best radars and the look/shoot/kill first capability that comes with them goes out of style. And a US with air supremacy is a US that can maintain 24/7 jdam and sdb service.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 06:30
|
|
|
Cessna posted:As far back as the 80's this was recognized, and planners referred to this factor as "come as you are war." That is, you fight with what you've already built. It's just part of life as a modern military - when a war breaks out, you have some equipment that's up-to-date, some that's ten year old, some that's twenty, and some that's forty, and your job is to figure out efficient ways to make use of all those resources. Finding useful things to do with all your equipment, even if it's obsolescent or never lived up to expectations (like the F-111) is a hallmark of a well-run military organization. Germany in WWII is a partial exception - their military was basically wiped out in 1919 and they rebuilt it from scratch in the 1930s, which meant that for the few years of the war all their equipment was built and designed for the war they were fighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 06:59
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:That depends heavily on whether you mean making anything, or making something useful. Military equipment today is far more sophisticated than it was increasingly near a hundred years ago, and requires specialized tooling and facilities. You also couldn't do this at any point in the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 07:31
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:That depends heavily on whether you mean making anything, or making something useful. Military equipment today is far more sophisticated than it was increasingly near a hundred years ago, and requires specialized tooling and facilities. Fair point. I'm guessing the Pentagon analyses putting the US economy on war footing and what that would look like fairly often, are there any non-classified figures they've reached?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 07:39
|
|
|
Which eastern country was it that took the T-55 and made some pretty substantial upgrades to it in the modern age (outside of Poland and Russia)? I want to say Romania, but I can't find it on wikipedia, and someone posted here about it at one point, I rememeber. E: Czechoslovakia maybe? I'm looking for whoever started giving it proper armour and electronics.. Tias fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 10:51
|
|
|
Lots of places have done so because the T-55 is an abundant and fairly solid base platform. Argentina had one, the Soviets made one, there is an updated Czech version, updated Egyptian version, Finnish version, Iraqi, Iranian, British. Most have improved laser sights, ballistic computers, better running gear, powertrain improvements, appliqué armor. Some also have new guns, turrets, stabilizers, etc. Hell as late as 2004 Chrysler Defense would build you a Ramses II which is technically a long T-54 (with an extra road wheel), a modern digital fire control package, new Diesel engine, extra fuel, modern NBC protection, a 105mm gun, side skirts, new running gear, IR vision package etc. it’s hardly a T-54 at this point but I guess the hull is mostly the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 12:18
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Meanwhile either of them would be fighting a hyper-speed version the Battle Of Britain, because there are basing options for attacking them. With the caveat that Operation Sealion across the Atlantic or Pacific is pretty impracticable, of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Germany in WWII is a partial exception - their military was basically wiped out in 1919 and they rebuilt it from scratch in the 1930s, which meant that for the few years of the war all their equipment was built and designed for the war they were fighting. Ehhh I dont know if this tracks. It's not like everyone else was still operating Mark IVs, St Chamonds and Sopwith Camels. The Italians rearmed early and it cost them bigtime, mind you, but that's because they built all their stuff in about 1930 not 1917.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Tias posted:Which eastern country was it that took the T-55 and made some pretty substantial upgrades to it in the modern age (outside of Poland and Russia)? I want to say Romania, but I can't find it on wikipedia, and someone posted here about it at one point, I rememeber. drat near everyone who fielded it, as Kyoon said. The Russians themselves were still putting out upgrade packages into the mid 90s, see the T-55M6. It’s the same thing for nearly all tanks, planes, etc; if the platform allows it, you can modernize for quite a long time and maintain some degree of capability in an otherwise outdated platform. At some point it makes more sense to just start over with those capabilities in mind instead of having to find ways to fit everything in. The F-15 and 16 are also very good examples; it’s easy to forget those planes entered production 60+ years ago. The F-16V and F-15EX are like the 4th or 5th generation of those platforms, and comically more capable than the originals because of available avionics, radar, weapons, etc, even if the airframes are relatively unchanged. But in the end, the F-35 and F-22 were designed/built because there’s only so much you can do with a 60 year old airframe (ignoring cost and internet bullshit of course). Mazz fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Thanks all! I believe I looked for the Czech one, but it really is incredible what the T-55 has seen and done (and been done to) in its time. E: One of the podcasters (I think) said that if you wanted a symbol of eternal warfare, cross a spade and AK-47 in front of a T-55 silhouette 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 12:38
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Ehhh I dont know if this tracks. It's not like everyone else was still operating Mark IVs, St Chamonds and Sopwith Camels. The Italians rearmed early and it cost them bigtime, mind you, but that's because they built all their stuff in about 1930 not 1917. It's interesting, there's probably an optimal funding ramp. If you fund too many projects too early before the war begins, you end up with a bunch of equipment and tooling which then requires maintenance funding and is extremely expensive and difficult to replace. If you fund stuff just a bit too late in the lead up to war, you end up like France where the equipment is certainly good enough, but you just haven't produced it in sufficient quantities. (This of course ignores France's specific procurement and production problems,)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 13:51
|
|
|
By the way, is there any contries that still use the T-55 in active units?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Arban posted:By the way, is there any contries that still use the T-55 in active units? NK and China still have T-55 deriatives in active service in some form, and they still show up all over the Middle East and Africa. Probably some others too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 14:00
|
|