Forgotten Hope Public Forum

Off-Topic => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Cory the Otter on 18-11-2009, 00:11:37

Title: Questions Thread
Post by: Cory the Otter on 18-11-2009, 00:11:37
Many people have questions about WWII, so why not a thread? Post yer questions here!
 I have a question right now. What is this flag called, and what is its history?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Lightning on 18-11-2009, 00:11:03
That's a standard flag for a wehrmacht infantry batallion. It's called a "Bataillonsfahn" (Batallion flag). [1]

Different arms of the wehrmacht had different background colours. The infantry flags were always white.

These flags were use from 1936 to 1945. [2]

[1]: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truppenfahne_%28Wehrmacht%29 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truppenfahne_%28Wehrmacht%29)
[2]: http://www.fotw.net/flags/de%5E933ar.html (http://www.fotw.net/flags/de%5E933ar.html)


Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Cory the Otter on 18-11-2009, 00:11:49
Thanks. That's what this thread is meant to be. That's a perfect answer, just what I was looking for.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Cory the Otter on 18-11-2009, 00:11:03
Got another, What gun is this?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: :| Hi on 18-11-2009, 01:11:07
I would say its some form of AA gun, shells I noticed were a bit small for an AT gun. 
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Eat Uranium on 18-11-2009, 02:11:05
A serious question here:
Were there any combat operational cromwells armed with 6pdrs in Normandy?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Fuchs on 18-11-2009, 11:11:57
A serious question here:
Were there any combat operational cromwells armed with 6pdrs in Normandy?
Maybe.. The only Cromwell (not Centaur) with a 6-pounder was the Cromwell I which had a production number of 357. Compare that to the Cromwell IV with almost 2,000 models produced.

I think (just a guess) they didn't used them in Normandy, they all wanted the multi-purpose 75mm gun.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-11-2009, 11:11:01
Their where more 95MM Cromwells and centaurs then their where 6PDR cromwells in Normandy AFIAK ;)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Fuchs on 18-11-2009, 12:11:10
A Cromwell with a howitzer is a Centaur, not a Cromwell.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-11-2009, 12:11:42
A Cromwell with a howitzer is a Centaur, not a Cromwell.
Their are Cromwells with the 95MM CS gun. These where called Cruiser Mk VIII, A27M, Cromwell VI.

The centaur was used in Normandy. But only their. The Cruiser Mk VIII, A27M, Cromwell VI was used more later on (Operation market garden, liberation of Belgium)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 11-12-2012, 12:12:23
There is one question that I always wanted to ask; which English regiment saw most action during WWII? Was there an English regiment that served in North Africa, Italy and Normandy?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sn00x on 11-12-2012, 13:12:51
Got another, What gun is this?

By the size and looks of the barrel, I do think its an Flak37 of some kind.  :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 11-12-2012, 17:12:39
There is one question that I always wanted to ask; which English regiment saw most action during WWII? Was there an English regiment that served in North Africa, Italy and Normandy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Armoured_Division_%28United_Kingdom%29
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 11-12-2012, 18:12:03
Thanks, VonMudra! I'm sorry that I forgot to specify that I've been looking for an infantry regiment. The cold I contracted over the weekend has really made me dizzy. But anyhow, I managed to find what I was looking for.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 07-01-2013, 20:01:02
Was the army issue .455 Webley cartridge strong enough to kill/disable with one shot?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 07-01-2013, 21:01:22
I have a question, regarding the Augarten G-Flakturm, does anyone (Mudra? :) ) have an aerial photo of it, a blueprint, a 3D model, any technical data about it?

Actually I'll take info about any of the Berlin or Wien Flak-turrets ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hslan.Corvax on 07-01-2013, 22:01:57
What ya wanna know ? I live a few streets away from it :) Augarten is my Fav park to hang out in the summer :)

Edit : Are you looking for historic or present pictures of the G-Turm ? If present, here you go, sadly a small one. Gonna look for a better one. If historic is needed, ill dig a bit :)

(http://imgl.krone.at/Bilder/2011/01/18/Mauer_wird_saniert_-_doch_was_geschieht_mit_Flakturm-Augarten_im_Visier-Story-241280_238x250px_2_tYU71KhxCuKiA.jpg)

Can tell you a bit about armament, how they worked, purpose and stuff if you wanna know, if you live in Vienna you cant miss them :P I even had to be door guard at the Stiftskasernen Flaktower for a few days lol.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 07-01-2013, 22:01:11
Awesome ;D
It does look very nice, the park I mean  :)

Well, if you'd be so kind, when you find a few hours to spare, if it's not a problem, could you, please, snap a few photos of it from different sides (presuming it's assimetrical), and, if it's accessible for the general public (doesn't look like it is but here it goes), the rooftop is what I'm interested in the most, gun emplacements etc.
Still, only if it's not a problem and if you find some time, I'd be really grateful :)


Edit: Whoah you're way ahead of me :D

Both historical and present would do, even though historical would work better, yes.
Oh if you'd like to share the knowledge, yes, I'll gladly learn about all of it :D

Edit2: Well scrap the first bit, sorry, just read a few more lines, pardon my ignorance.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hslan.Corvax on 07-01-2013, 23:01:44
Well, guess you know the basics but ill just start writing and if you want to know anything in particular or i left out anything, just ask :)

In Vienna you got 3 pairs or 2 towers. The G-Turm or Gefechtsturm was the Tower with the guns and the L-Turm or Leitturm with Radar and communications equipment for acquiring targets. They where separated so you would save space on the roof for more guns because of the huge radar dishes and because gun fire and vibration from the guns could lead to bad radar data.

In Vienna we had the V, VII and VIII Towers. Type V and VII where nearly identical in their looks, both the G and L Turm. Type VII was a bit higher than type V.

Type V is the ones we have in the Stiftskaserne (G-Turm) and in the nearby Èsterhazypark (L-Turm). The Stiftskaserne Tower is used an goverment emergency bunker today because its located very close to the parliament and its in the middle of a guards regiment barracks. The L-Tower is was used as platform for an astronomical observatory  after the war but was converted to a hugeass aquarium in the late 50's.

(http://www.azw.at/data/cms_media/big/1093354285.jpg)
Picture from the early 50's. It still looks the same, just with some com-dishes on the top.

(http://bock-cad.de/wsb4892116901/resources/FT+V+Stiftskaserne..jpg)(http://bock-cad.de/wsb4892116901/resources/LT+V+Esterh$C3$A1zypark.jpg)
G-Turm and L-Turm.

As you see the G-Turm was round and had a lot of balconies called swallows-nets for smaller 20mm Flakvierlings facing key locations in the city like parks, palces or important buildings and where supposed to fight low flying aircraft, on top of it you had 4 Zwillings 12,8-Flak 40. for engageing high altitude bombers. Lower stories where storage rooms for ammo, spare gun barrels, there was a hospital in one of the lower floors and some of the floors where used as air-raid shelters too.

(http://www.airpower.at/news03/0813_luftkrieg_ostmark/dual128-2.jpg)

The L-Turm on the other hand was a rather unspectacular big box, with not very thick walls. The first few stories of the tower where also used as air-raid shelters while the upper stories where for the radar equipment, kitchens and soldiers quarters.

(http://www.prachensky.com/michael/bilderlager/projektent_innovation_visionen_studien/augarten-400-leitturm.jpg)

You can see the L-Turm is "rather" thin, only 2,5m concrete walls and 3,5m roof, while the G-Turm had 3,5m walls and nearly 5m roof in case of ammo detonation.

(http://www.airpower.at/news03/0813_luftkrieg_ostmark/fumg_65_wuerzburg_riese.jpg)
One of the 2 radar dishes on the L-turm.


(http://www.airpower.at/news03/0813_luftkrieg_ostmark/PICT0020.jpg) (http://www.airpower.at/news03/0813_luftkrieg_ostmark/IMG_4935.jpg)
Todays pictures of the two towers. You can google "Haus des Meeres" for the Aquarium in the L-Turm, they got some floor plans on the Website and stuff.


The Tower-Pair No. VII in the Augarten was similar to the type 5 towers, only being around 10 meters higher. That had a simple reason too. All the decks of the towers where on the same sea level, so radar data could be synched the best possible, and since the Augarten is a bit lower, they simply made the tower higher.

(http://bock-cad.de/wsb4892116901/resources/FT+VII+Augarten..jpg)(http://bock-cad.de/wsb4892116901/resources/LT+VII+Augarten.jpg)

The Augarten G-Turm is sadly in a very bad shape. Shortly after the war kids apparently set off around 2000 flak shells which pretty much destroyed the top of the tower (and the kids) completely. Dont ask me what the shells did up there, what the kids did up there, what both together did up there, but apparently it shattered all windows in few streets radius. Its falling apart more and more since then. Also looks very miserable on the inside, i was in it before they locked it down because of falling concrete.

Looks like this today, held together only by a bunch of steel wires in the top.

(http://diepresse.com/images/uploads//6/f/b/538363/u_FLAKTURM_IM_AUGARTEN.jpg)

(http://www.airpower.at/news03/0813_luftkrieg_ostmark/DSCN2013.jpg)

And the L-Turm, similar to the other one.

(http://www.airpower.at/news03/0813_luftkrieg_ostmark/IMG_4926.jpg)

The L-Turm is in good condition, but not used either. Thou they are plaining to use it as a datacenter for servers in the future. There where also plans to build a hotel on top of it but that was canceled since the Augarten is a historic park and the city wouldnt let them build stuff there. Other plan however is to build a huge open air cinema using the tower wall as a theater canvas which i totally approve of :P


Type VIII in the Arenbergpark looked different than the others, the L-Turm was a bit longer and now had 3 dishes and the G-Turms gun emplacements where separated from each other completely to avoid damage to the other guns and casualties if one would take a hit. Also the guns could be lowered and raised on their platforms to conceal them even more from fighter plane fire since the tower lacked 40mm flaks.

(http://bock-cad.de/wsb4892116901/resources/FT+VI+Wilhelmsburg..jpg)(http://bock-cad.de/wsb4892116901/resources/LT+VI+Wilhelmsburg.jpg)

Not round but square for whatever reason, having more space for air raid shelter and more storage room.

(http://www.thirdreichruins.com/flakturm12cmBA.jpg)

Picture is not from the Vienna tower but the similar built tower in Berlin. Top looked pretty much the same, only the vienna one had smaller entrances and sloped edges.

Looks like this now :

(http://images.derstandard.at/20070919/6856.jpg)

Both bunkers locked down and unsused today. Thou you could get up to the swallows nests a few years ago too to get a view over the city, but they closed that for some reason.

Well thats what i know, but i can do some research and find you some more pictures if you are interested :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 08-01-2013, 00:01:11
Holy mother of armored concrete :o

3,5m walls? That's huge! I read the Soviet 203mm couldn't do anything about them and that the British only took one down, after the war, with 35 tonnes of explosives, after 2 unsuccessful tries!

The poles that stick out under the Swallow nests, are they part of ceiling reinforcement or do they serve a different purpose?
And, the windows, are they just windows or close-range weapon slits of some kind?

I see the Stiftkaserne rooftop is now completely flat, they poured some more concrete into the gun emplacements, didn't they?
(Btw, seeing as the G-Turm is now the governmental shelter, was the guard service considered a privilege or a punishment? (Even though punishment is a bit too harsh of a word for it))


Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hslan.Corvax on 08-01-2013, 01:01:50
Well it was built to resist 500kg bombs without much of a damage to the roof, so only guns would've been replaced in case of a hit. Russians bombed vienna to lower moral, but afaik there is no account that the flak towers actually shot down something. There are some stories however of wounded civilians due to falling shrapnel, which the 12,8cm shells had enough ..

And yeh, it was thought about blowing them up in vienna too, but plans where dropped becasue it needed so much explosives that the surrounding buildings wouldn't have survived that, so they just let them stand.

Slits/Windows are just windows as far as i know, they where never ment to be a close combat bunker. The beams you mean where used to build a makeshift platform in case of damages, so workes could work on the underside too and put material and machines somewhere. Was never used thou in war times since the towers where not hit.

Also it might be worth noting that the L-Towers where supposed to have 20mm flaks too, but it was decided not to put any on them because the expected low flying planes never really happened, so they where only kept on the G Towers for logistical reasons (no need to store ammo on the L towers)

Haha oh and, well it was only a few days during as part of an exercise. Everyone had to do everything for a little so you had an idea how it worked. Was probably the most fun time thou we ever had. There is a maaaassive steel door which you can only open from the inside. You have some kind of phone and a camera on the outside and a screen and phone on the inside in case someone wants to get in for some reason. Well, we where completely alone in that whole thing, where one would always have to sit by the door and watch the screen and the other one patrol the ground floor. Right next to the door you had a room with two beds, and well, since the ring from the door phone was super loud we decided to sleep all day, since noone could come in without us opening the door anyway lol. On the first day we got check on every hour or so and we where pretty pissed, but after that noone expect the replacement came, which where two pretty nice dudes too. They had two gameboys and left them there for us to play with as long as we got them new batteries if they ran out lol. So we did nothing except sleeping all day and playing gameboy. As for privilege/punishment .. well na dont think so. We had the best job there, some of the others had to stand outside the bunker, patrol the grounds there, watch for the other buildings where people where running around or do guard duty at the gates. They had it worse since they couldnt slack off without anyone noticing ^^

Oh and yeh the gun emplacements got filled up.

Also, just read the L Tower in the Arenbergpark is used by the Art Academy as a depo. Funny i never heard of that since i study there :O Maybe ill ask if i can get in there in some way.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 08-01-2013, 02:01:32
Ah I forgot to mention I was talking about the Berlin towers  :-X
Allegedly the 128s stopped the Soviets a few times, defended the Reichstag and only capitulated on April 30th (The Tiergarten G-Turm)

I'm surprised even the Brits made the effort considering the costs of blowing it up and then clearing the debris...

Ah, yeah now the beams make sense :)

I found this http://forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic.php?t=2949 , the man says the 20mms were never even installed on the G turm since it was built in January of '45.

lol, I'm glad you had a good time, you slackers ;D

Oooh if you get in the depo you can do the "creepy old bunker" story like Beaver did in the photography thread long time ago :)

Well that would be all from me for today, thank you very much Corvax, I'll drop any further questions here, but for now, really thank you ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hslan.Corvax on 08-01-2013, 03:01:21
Weird, im pretty sure there is a 20mm shell in the showcase at the "Haus des Meeres" in the history section, even showing pictures with 20mm's overlooking the 7th district. Maybe they where removed in late '44-45 and used elsewhere, who knows.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 08-01-2013, 03:01:34
Was the army issue .455 Webley cartridge strong enough to kill/disable with one shot?

All bullets are strong enough to kill/disable with one shot.  The .455 was rather effective though yes.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 09-01-2013, 07:01:41
Question: How many Aircraft Carriers are operational today in the Royal Navy?

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 09-01-2013, 09:01:54
0... all of them are retired last 2010.

There is only one ship that is capable to carry aircraft in their inventory, which is HMS Illustrious (R06). But currently it doesn't carry any Sea Harriers, only helicopters for ASW, SAR, transport, and sea patrol.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Lightning on 09-01-2013, 14:01:20
But if you want to reclaim las Malvinas you'll have to do it quickly, because the super modern HMS Queen Elizabeth will be ready around 2016 (and sister ship the HMS Prince of Wales around 2018).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 09-01-2013, 22:01:55
If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?

And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?

(These questions are to make sure I'm not gonna teach 3rd grade wrong stuff, and since I read all those articles posted by Kelmola on Prokhorovka, I got a bit confused)

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 09-01-2013, 22:01:44
If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?

And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?

(These questions are to make sure I'm not gonna teach 3rd grade wrong stuff, and since I read all those articles posted by Kelmola on Prokhorovka, I got a bit confused)

I think Mudra once said the Kursk battle was the largest single tank battle ever, but the Battle of Brody was bigger but lasted longer...

posted below


That's not a infantry, that's crew members sticking out of the turret hatches.


And if you count the entire Kursk CAMPAIGN, it's still not the largest, as Brody and others still are greater than it.  Kursk was multiple battles and fronts across hundreds of kilometers of ground, it was never some singular battle.  THe syntax issue comes from the pop history version of the word "battle" and the more technical military history correct term battle, which refers to a set of skirmishes or combat that focused on a small area of land for limited objectives.  For instance, the Battle of Arnhem is a single battle, of the Market Garden Campaign.  But the battle of normandy is actually a large assortment of battles that make up the Normandy Campaign.  A more correct terminology for Kursk would be the Kursk campaign, which would include all combat along the salient plus the russian post-Prok/Ponryi Station counter offensives.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 09-01-2013, 23:01:18
But if you want to reclaim las Malvinas you'll have to do it quickly, because the super modern HMS Queen Elizabeth will be ready around 2016 (and sister ship the HMS Prince of Wales around 2018).

Hehe, that is why i asked.


Now reading Cameron's response to our claim and his "fear" of Argentine Forces invading the Islands (Might be the dumbest idea, ever) he started to militarize the area even more, now that he lacks the Carriers to "Protect" ""his land"" from a """""possible""""" invasion he sent some jets, soldiers and ships.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 09-01-2013, 23:01:35
If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?

And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?

(These questions are to make sure I'm not gonna teach 3rd grade wrong stuff, and since I read all those articles posted by Kelmola on Prokhorovka, I got a bit confused)
OK, so Kursk campaign wasn't even the biggest. I'll change it to "very big". But was Kursk the decisive defeat for Germany in the east or not? I mean, after that the Germans never gained much terrain in the USSR anymore, right?

I think Mudra once said the Kursk battle was the largest single tank battle ever, but the Battle of Brody was bigger but lasted longer...

posted below


That's not a infantry, that's crew members sticking out of the turret hatches.


And if you count the entire Kursk CAMPAIGN, it's still not the largest, as Brody and others still are greater than it.  Kursk was multiple battles and fronts across hundreds of kilometers of ground, it was never some singular battle.  THe syntax issue comes from the pop history version of the word "battle" and the more technical military history correct term battle, which refers to a set of skirmishes or combat that focused on a small area of land for limited objectives.  For instance, the Battle of Arnhem is a single battle, of the Market Garden Campaign.  But the battle of normandy is actually a large assortment of battles that make up the Normandy Campaign.  A more correct terminology for Kursk would be the Kursk campaign, which would include all combat along the salient plus the russian post-Prok/Ponryi Station counter offensives.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 09-01-2013, 23:01:05
After that, only local victories with no effect on the constant Soviet advance, AFAIK
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-01-2013, 23:01:48
Yep and also more and more battles were the germans had greater casualties then the Russians.  Not all tough.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 09-01-2013, 23:01:43
Bullshit!

Korsun-Shevchenkovsky offensive (24.1. - 16. 2. '44)
Germans : Soviets
30 000 : 80 188

Second Battle of Smolensk (7.8. - 2.10. '43)
250 000 : 451 466

Lower Dnieper Offensive (24.8. - 23.12. '43)
1 200 000 : 3 968 000

Battle of Narva (2.2. - 10.8. '44)
68 000 : 480 000

Crimean Offensive (8.4. - 12.5. '44)
84 819 : 96 700

Operation Bagration
399 102 : 770 888

Lvov-Sandomiercz (3.7. - 29.8. '44)
136 860 : 289 296

Battle of Tannenberg Line (25.7. - 10.8. '44)
10 000 : 170 000

Debrecen Offensive (6. - 29.10. '44)
35 000 : 117 360

Vienna Offensive (2. - 13.4. '45)
86 000 : 18 000

Battle of Berlin (16.4. - 2.5. '45)
320 000 : 361 367

Battle of Halbe
35 000 : 20 000

Prague Offensive (6. - 11.5. '45)
850 000 : 52 498
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Lightning on 10-01-2013, 00:01:57
If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?
Prokhorovka is generally considered to be the largest tank battle of World War 2. The problem is what encompasses a battle. Since the term has no clear definition, the 'biggest battle' is also a bit of a vague term.

And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?
On the southern front of the Kursk salient, the Germans broke through the main Soviet lines and advanced north. To stop them, the Soviet armoured reserves were called in and the two tank armies clashed at the village of Prokhorovka. While the Soviets lost many more tanks and men they did succeed in stopping the Germans and therefore the battle is technically a Soviet victory. So no, the Germans did not win Prokhorovka.


But was Kursk the decisive defeat for Germany in the east or not? I mean, after that the Germans never gained much terrain in the USSR anymore, right?
That is certainly a strongly debated topic among historians. If you go by ground gained, I would go as far as to say Stalingrad was the turning point in the east. The only ground gained after Stalingrad was the area around Kharkov and then the tiny amount taken during Operation Zitadelle, which was then immediately lost when the Soviets took to the offensive. Of course, you can also look in terms of offensive potential. Germany certainly managed to gather quite a lot of forces for Zitadelle. If the Soviets didn't already knew the Germans were going to attack at Kursk, this force may have done some serious damage. After Kursk, no large scale offensives were undertaken in the east. And finally, you can look at industrial potential. The Soviet Union certainly had more industrial potential than Germany, so really Germany's only shot at victory was a quicky blitzkrieg victory during Barbarossa. When Barbarossa failed, they pretty much lost the eastern front. Pick one you like. I always fancy Stalingrad the turning point, because it's closer to the other turning points of World War 2 (which I consider Midway and El Alamein), but of course those are subject to your own interpretations as well.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 10-01-2013, 01:01:44
Yup Stalin or his Generals wanted Berlin so bad that they just threw away some thousands more of their men to get it faster.

Battle of Berlin (16.4. - 2.5. '45)
320 000 : 361 367
Afaik Berlin saw the Soviets lose about 360.000 men (dead) and Germans lose 92.000 (dead) - not counting wounded. The high loss numbers Theta0123 is propably referring to are the German soldiers captured, because by 1945 there were encirclements everywhere.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 10-01-2013, 06:01:23
If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?

And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?

(These questions are to make sure I'm not gonna teach 3rd grade wrong stuff, and since I read all those articles posted by Kelmola on Prokhorovka, I got a bit confused)

I think Mudra once said the Kursk battle was the largest single tank battle ever, but the Battle of Brody was bigger but lasted longer...

posted below


That's not a infantry, that's crew members sticking out of the turret hatches.


And if you count the entire Kursk CAMPAIGN, it's still not the largest, as Brody and others still are greater than it.  Kursk was multiple battles and fronts across hundreds of kilometers of ground, it was never some singular battle.  THe syntax issue comes from the pop history version of the word "battle" and the more technical military history correct term battle, which refers to a set of skirmishes or combat that focused on a small area of land for limited objectives.  For instance, the Battle of Arnhem is a single battle, of the Market Garden Campaign.  But the battle of normandy is actually a large assortment of battles that make up the Normandy Campaign.  A more correct terminology for Kursk would be the Kursk campaign, which would include all combat along the salient plus the russian post-Prok/Ponryi Station counter offensives.

Quite.  To add in response to your question, Slayer, technically the Russians won Prok but only because the Germans stopped advancing in response to Soviet counter attacks north of Kharkov.  Otherwise, the advance would have continued with ease, the soviet tank reserves had been obliterated.  Also of note, Lightning, is that there were far fewer tanks at Prok than in Brody or some battles in the French 1940 campaign.

As for turning point, I'd say that was honestly the battle of britian.  Once that was lost, there was simply no way of threatening England, and the Soviet Union was going to be going to war with Germany one way or another, was just a matter of time.  The moment the Germans couldn't invade and knock England out (from Europe anyways, I highly doubt they would ever have left the war), they lost the war.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 10-01-2013, 06:01:59
But if you want to reclaim las Malvinas you'll have to do it quickly, because the super modern HMS Queen Elizabeth will be ready around 2016 (and sister ship the HMS Prince of Wales around 2018).

Hehe, that is why i asked.


Now reading Cameron's response to our claim and his "fear" of Argentine Forces invading the Islands (Might be the dumbest idea, ever) he started to militarize the area even more, now that he lacks the Carriers to "Protect" ""his land"" from a """""possible""""" invasion he sent some jets, soldiers and ships.

 Argentina invaded once, so what is to stop the Argie government from trying again? It obviousl won't happen because the country is dead broke and has zero support for the possible reclamation of a territory that never belonged to them in the first place.

 
@ Torenico,  you really need to read up on some un-biased material to get a grasp of what truly exists on the Falklands to deter any possible aggression from the Argentine's. In the event of any hostilities, the military garrison available is more than sufficient to deter enemy forces for long enough to bring in reinforcement's.

 The Brit's don't have any ships stationed in the Falklands, instead their defensive strategy relies upon superior air defence, well trained infantry and a detachment of eurofighter's that can easily shoot down anything the Argentine's can even get flying or sailing. In concert with these assets, the UK government has also built up logistic support on the island with the main focus upon the deterrent value of their strategic airlift resources, the Falklands militia and the possible deployment of nuclear submarines that could single-handedly eliminate any Argentine naval forces that were put into action.

 The best chance Argentina ever had to take those islands happened over 30 years ago and it will never happen again. The British are better prepared, better armed and have the upper hand in terms of morale and community support.


 your country is better off regaining the economic importance that it once held, Argentina is dying a slow death from inept governance and no amount of propaganda will save themselves from the hard choices they need to make. You might want to make war but your country cannot afford to stay alive, let alone spend billions on a lost cause.

uk briefing paper: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06201.pdf (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06201.pdf)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 10-01-2013, 07:01:18
Actually it is a political idea to garner public support.

When you fail in economy, play nationalism. It is a popular ploy in South America. High inflation rate, poor output/productivity, failed economic policy, then blame the US and its decadent capitalism cronies. Everyone will just instantly accept it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 10-01-2013, 07:01:05
But if you want to reclaim las Malvinas you'll have to do it quickly, because the super modern HMS Queen Elizabeth will be ready around 2016 (and sister ship the HMS Prince of Wales around 2018).

Hehe, that is why i asked.


Now reading Cameron's response to our claim and his "fear" of Argentine Forces invading the Islands (Might be the dumbest idea, ever) he started to militarize the area even more, now that he lacks the Carriers to "Protect" ""his land"" from a """""possible""""" invasion he sent some jets, soldiers and ships.

 Argentina invaded once, so what is to stop the Argie government from trying again? It obviousl won't happen because the country is dead broke and has zero support for the possible reclamation of a territory that never belonged to them in the first place.

 
@ Torenico,  you really need to read up on some un-biased material to get a grasp of what truly exists on the Falklands to deter any possible aggression from the Argentine's. In the event of any hostilities, the military garrison available is more than sufficient to deter enemy forces for long enough to bring in reinforcement's.

 The Brit's don't have any ships stationed in the Falklands, instead their defensive strategy relies upon superior air defence, well trained infantry and a detachment of eurofighter's that can easily shoot down anything the Argentine's can even get flying or sailing. In concert with these assets, the UK government has also built up logistic support on the island with the main focus upon the deterrent value of their strategic airlift resources, the Falklands militia and the possible deployment of nuclear submarines that could single-handedly eliminate any Argentine naval forces that were put into action.

 The best chance Argentina ever had to take those islands happened over 30 years ago and it will never happen again. The British are better prepared, better armed and have the upper hand in terms of morale and community support.


 your country is better off regaining the economic importance that it once held, Argentina is dying a slow death from inept governance and no amount of propaganda will save themselves from the hard choices they need to make. You might want to make war but your country cannot afford to stay alive, let alone spend billions on a lost cause.

uk briefing paper: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06201.pdf (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06201.pdf)
First of all, i do not support a new invasion of the Malvinas, mainly because it consider them, ours. They have NO right to have Islands that are WAY too far from the mainland, from London.., that's absurd, that's pure colonialism, British people have NOT learned ANYTHING at all.

Now, my country is coming out of a massive economic collapse in 2001, you have to like trough a collapse to know what I'm talking about. Thanks to US interventions, our economy was fucked up. Privatizations, may ring a bell. Now, some media don't like what we are doing, perhaps you think that our government is inept and might be ready to start a new war with England. lol to that. Perhaps, you don't like our government because it hangs out with people like Chavez and is friendly to people like Castro, hm?, don't you like the "Socialist" politics we're having?. Since the end of the military dictatorships and return of democracy in 1983, we never had such a great Government, like it or not, i don't care.

And don't come the British have always cared about the Malvinas, before 1982, NOBODY up there knew about these two islands and could not even locate them in a map, you knew that?.

About the defense forces, i simply don't give a shit, because we do not aim to take the islands by military means, diplomacy and peace is our way. You may have the wrong image of us amigo.

British are better prepared? well in the 82 war, AT LEAST, they had Aircraft Carriers....

There has been talks between Argentina and Brasil about a possible cooperation in building Nuclear Submarine.


And once again, we have no interests in taking the Malvinas with our armed forces. So go tell Cameron he has nothing to be afraid of  8)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 10-01-2013, 09:01:49
Then let's start by calling it Las Malvinas instead of Falklands. My government and the people officially recognizes the territory as Argentinian's. And I do too.

I normally don't put the word Chavez and Castro in one sentence. You can't just trust fat guy "self-proclaiming socialist," because their belly is usually full of shit, and then they contracted old-age sickness which are usually caused by over-feeding or wrong diet. Why would somebody with that complexion be coming from a poor country and preaching about equality. Castro is a man of his own words. His family might own a lot of business and shits like American media reported, but we can't confirm on that yet.

Yeah, that is what makes people like Fidel Castro, Ernesto Guevara, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad different from Evo Morales or Hugo Chavez. While they all fear so much about dissenting opinion and heavily censure their competitors, they are fundamentally different.

And please, don't use "socialist" while referring to shitty government management and lazy bums. When "socialism" comes up, my first association is with Scandinavian countries, not some anti-western Latin American countries.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 10-01-2013, 09:01:18
 
@Tore,
Seeing that Argentina is itself a product of "colonialism", your argument falls upon deaf ears.

 What is the difference between the Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, Guantanamo bay, Martinique, Gibraltar or the Falklands?

 Argentina's colonial claim to the islands is no more sound than the self-determination expressed by the current resident's to remain part of the British Commonwealth. Britain honours national referendums on such issues and will continue to do so, therefore if the Falkland Islander's voted to leave, her majesty's government would be more than willing.

 I feel i must clarify one of your accusations, ""I do not harbour any animousity to the Argentine people but I do have a moral position against any nation that espouses conflict in order to distract its' own population from the true problems it faces""

 (in fact, if you really cared, some of my best friends are all refugee's from the dirty war in Argentina and the stories they tell of their country are becoming harder to hear with each passing visit that they make back to their homeland)


 Argentina has been in constant economic decline since the 1980's, not since 2001, and the Arg. government confuses the people by posing Nationalist arguments which distract the people from basic concerns like employment, currency devaluation and international ostracism.

 Recent events such as the seizure of the Libertad or the annexation of Repsol assets point to a deeper issue than the dog and pony show that Fernandez and her control over the state media exercise in order to distract the populace.

 A once proud and prosperous nation is now being ground into the dirt by nobody else other than the so-called democratic leadership that was elected to lead the people out of the abject poverty they currently live in.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 10-01-2013, 09:01:08
Let's take it to the proper place:

http://fhpubforum.warumdarum.de/index.php?topic=16957.2220
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 10-01-2013, 15:01:30
I have a question:
I once read that during the Falkland war, british subs just followed Argentinian ships without ever being noticed and that they sunk the Belgrano only because it made suspicious movements.
But doesn't war mean you sink/kill every enemy you see that isn't surrendering? I quess it will have something to do with keeping the international organizations on their side or were there other reasons?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 10-01-2013, 16:01:35
When you sign Geneva convention, you have to adhere to the policies. That simple. Otherwise you are a cheeky country and no one will weigh your words.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 10-01-2013, 16:01:56
I don't know a lot about the Geneva conventions, i know it handles about how surrendering soldiers and subsequently POW's should be treated, but dunno much more about it. It states you can't attack enemies as long as they aren't a threat or something similar?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hslan.Corvax on 10-01-2013, 17:01:15
Well basically it says this :

Persons taking no active part in hostilities, including military persons who have ceased to be active as a result of sickness, injury, or detention, should be treated humanely and that the following acts are prohibited:
violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; and
the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

Basically if you lay down your weapon and stop fighting you surrender, and if you are out of an active fighting roll becasue of any other matter you fall under article 3.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 10-01-2013, 17:01:46
That still doesn't prevent one from shooting at troops who aren't attacking you, but are still hostile, armed forces (like bombarding a supply column or such).  Not sure on the story of the british waiting for that Argentinian ship to make an odd move, maybe they thought it was a civilian ship?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 10-01-2013, 17:01:15
I have a question:
I once read that during the Falkland war, british subs just followed Argentinian ships without ever being noticed and that they sunk the Belgrano only because it made suspicious movements.
But doesn't war mean you sink/kill every enemy you see that isn't surrendering? I quess it will have something to do with keeping the international organizations on their side or were there other reasons?
It´d be nice to have an actual source for this, instead of just "I heard". Would make it alot more easier to have a clearer picture of the whole situation.
Besides, I could imagine that there would be some reasons why you´d follow an enemy as long as you stay undected: Surveillance and gathering of intelligence. The infamous "fog of war" isn´t something out of video games, but it actually exists, so if you have spotted an enemy who hasn´t detected you, you could take the risk of staying on the target and relaying as much information to your superiors as possible.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Lightning on 10-01-2013, 17:01:51
Neither the UK, nor Argentina actually declared war over the Falklands. Both sides wanted to keep the conflict restricted to the islands and the 200 nautical mile exclusion zone around the islands.

For Argentina, it's mostly a question of hoping the UK would not commit to the cost of trying to liberate the islands, as it would not be possible for them to win a war against them. For the UK, the war is not certainly not widely approved of by the population, so limiting casualties on both sides appeases them. Further more, internationally, war is never seen as something positive, so keeping the conflict restricted to the islands lessens the international impact.

That said, the stalking of enemy vessels is probably done mostly outside the exclusion zone. The Belgrano, in fact, was detected by the British submarine Conqueror outside the exclusion zone and was stalked by it until it was deemed to be a threat. Only then (with orders from the prime minister) was it taken out.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 10-01-2013, 18:01:20

@Tore,
Seeing that Argentina is itself a product of "colonialism", your argument falls upon deaf ears.

 What is the difference between the Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, Guantanamo bay, Martinique, Gibraltar or the Falklands?

 Argentina's colonial claim to the islands is no more sound than the self-determination expressed by the current resident's to remain part of the British Commonwealth. Britain honours national referendums on such issues and will continue to do so, therefore if the Falkland Islander's voted to leave, her majesty's government would be more than willing.

 I feel i must clarify one of your accusations, ""I do not harbour any animousity to the Argentine people but I do have a moral position against any nation that espouses conflict in order to distract its' own population from the true problems it faces""

 (in fact, if you really cared, some of my best friends are all refugee's from the dirty war in Argentina and the stories they tell of their country are becoming harder to hear with each passing visit that they make back to their homeland)


 Argentina has been in constant economic decline since the 1980's, not since 2001, and the Arg. government confuses the people by posing Nationalist arguments which distract the people from basic concerns like employment, currency devaluation and international ostracism.

 Recent events such as the seizure of the Libertad or the annexation of Repsol assets point to a deeper issue than the dog and pony show that Fernandez and her control over the state media exercise in order to distract the populace.

 A once proud and prosperous nation is now being ground into the dirt by nobody else other than the so-called democratic leadership that was elected to lead the people out of the abject poverty they currently live in.

Now, because some of your best friends told you that the Argentine Government is bad and blah blah blah, you believe it? I do too have friends, victims of the dirty war, and they believe this Government is the best since the return of democracy....

Pfft, we never had such a great Nationalist Government, and I'm proud that i voted for it in our last elections. Before Kirchner Government in 2003, ALL governments were liberal, got their pants down before the US and UK traitors. I'm so proud we got the Libertad frigate back, I'm so proud our glory, YPF, is back to Argentina, not those idiots from Repsol who were crying to the EU because of this....

You're like these idiots in my country who compare Cristina's government with the military dictatorships....



And about the Belgrano sinking. Well the Belgrano Captain said that the Conqueror's attack was legit. Belgrano was being escorted by two smaller ships, and they were to meet Argentina's Aircraft Carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. When the Belgrano was sunk, Argentina withdrew all naval assets from the conflict.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 10-01-2013, 19:01:06
Thanks for the answers, it's totally cleared out now for me
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 10-01-2013, 19:01:22
If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?
Prokhorovka is generally considered to be the largest tank battle of World War 2. The problem is what encompasses a battle. Since the term has no clear definition, the 'biggest battle' is also a bit of a vague term.
Yes, "generally considered", but when I read the research of the Univeristy of Wisconsin (?) of which Kelomola posted some links earlier, then that's a myth.

And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?
On the southern front of the Kursk salient, the Germans broke through the main Soviet lines and advanced north. To stop them, the Soviet armoured reserves were called in and the two tank armies clashed at the village of Prokhorovka. While the Soviets lost many more tanks and men they did succeed in stopping the Germans and therefore the battle is technically a Soviet victory. So no, the Germans did not win Prokhorovka.
I recall now that the article was about the large Soviet losses indeed, to debunk the myth of the "huge Soviet victory which was created by Soviet propaganda.

But was Kursk the decisive defeat for Germany in the east or not? I mean, after that the Germans never gained much terrain in the USSR anymore, right?
That is certainly a strongly debated topic among historians. If you go by ground gained, I would go as far as to say Stalingrad was the turning point in the east. The only ground gained after Stalingrad was the area around Kharkov and then the tiny amount taken during Operation Zitadelle, which was then immediately lost when the Soviets took to the offensive. Of course, you can also look in terms of offensive potential. Germany certainly managed to gather quite a lot of forces for Zitadelle. If the Soviets didn't already knew the Germans were going to attack at Kursk, this force may have done some serious damage. After Kursk, no large scale offensives were undertaken in the east. And finally, you can look at industrial potential. The Soviet Union certainly had more industrial potential than Germany, so really Germany's only shot at victory was a quicky blitzkrieg victory during Barbarossa. When Barbarossa failed, they pretty much lost the eastern front. Pick one you like. I always fancy Stalingrad the turning point, because it's closer to the other turning points of World War 2 (which I consider Midway and El Alamein), but of course those are subject to your own interpretations as well.
After Stalingrad the Germans didn't gain much ground anymore, but the book the kids use to learn history says "after the defeat at Stalingrad, the retreat began on the entire Russian front". And that's where I disagree, as that retreat didn't start until after Kursk, right? I mean, the Kursk campaign was a German offensive so "retreat on entire front" isn't true. After Kursk there were no (such) offensives anymore.

As for turning point, I'd say that was honestly the battle of britian.  Once that was lost, there was simply no way of threatening England, and the Soviet Union was going to be going to war with Germany one way or another, was just a matter of time.  The moment the Germans couldn't invade and knock England out (from Europe anyways, I highly doubt they would ever have left the war), they lost the war.
I'm not looking for the turning point, as the kids learn there is a series of turning points (Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbor, El Al, Midway, Barbarossa, Stalingrad and D-Day). I was merely checking the Eastern Front for the moment where the Germans started to retreat definitively.

Thanks for all your answers!  :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Lightning on 10-01-2013, 20:01:55
I'm so proud we got the Libertad frigate back
Yeah, when your warships get captured by Ghana you really get to know your standing among nations.  :P
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 10-01-2013, 20:01:14
I'm so proud we got the Libertad frigate back
Yeah, when your warships get captured by Ghana you really get to know your standing among nations.  :P

Hehe, but well, it was Ghana, it could anyone else tho. Ghana just said "Okay!" to someone's request.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Chadoi on 10-01-2013, 20:01:56
I'm from the UK but I feel ashamed by the sinking of the Belgrano.

She was being shadowed to determine whether or not she could become a threat but at the time of her sinking was heading away from the area of conflict. If HMS Conqueror could shadow her so effectively then it could have done so long enough to actually see if the ship was going to alter course and head back to the islands. Then the sinking would have at least had a legitimate reason.

The decision was made by Margaret Thatcher who jumped at the chance to gain some political capital with the knuckle draggers back home as her popularity was rock bottom. There is no difference between the Junta using the war as an external diversion and Thatcher using it to save her political career. The small matter of the Argentine sailors was of no concern to her.

Yes, it may have been a legitimate act of war but I always believed after the savagery of WW2 that our armed forces could try to avoid unnecessary slaughter, even if it could be deemed part of the rules. Killing 323 men for the sake of personal gain is nothing but shameful.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 10-01-2013, 20:01:02
Anyone know of some older history? I got a question about pikemen in the 17th century: when in the frontline, your chances were much bigger to die than in a rearline, so how was it determined which guys had to go in front and which ones in the rear?

As in this picture:

(http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/056/b/6/am_pikemen_by_ryanryzzo-d3acj31.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 10-01-2013, 21:01:12
Pretty much luck, since the formation moved around so much, you could start in the back and end up turning and moving around, and suddenly be in front.  The most I could see would be putting vets to the front areas, because those are the parts that must hold, with new guys in the middle since they will have far less effect on unit cohesion, and don't have to hold off the cav.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 10-01-2013, 22:01:07
Are poison gas and flamethrowers banned on todays battlefields?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 10-01-2013, 22:01:37
Pretty much luck, since the formation moved around so much, you could start in the back and end up turning and moving around, and suddenly be in front.  The most I could see would be putting vets to the front areas, because those are the parts that must hold, with new guys in the middle since they will have far less effect on unit cohesion, and don't have to hold off the cav.
Mmm, OK. Didn't expect that answer to be honest :)

Maurits of Orange did a great job at drilling and exercising with the army in the war against Spain, he even invented a way of movement so the pikemen wouldn't have to break line, and another drill where the musketeers would change rows in order to reload (so they could keep firing volleys continuously). He was also very careful with the lives of his sodlers, always afraid to loose to many. Therefore I assumed he didn't leave it to luck where which pikeman came to stand in the formation.

Any other thoughts on this? I might be mailing this question to my former university to see whether they know anything about it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 10-01-2013, 22:01:02
Anyone know of some older history? I got a question about pikemen in the 17th century: when in the frontline, your chances were much bigger to die than in a rearline, so how was it determined which guys had to go in front and which ones in the rear?

Atleast in late-medieval German Landsknecht and Swiss Reisläufer formations experienced soldiers were paid twice their usual pay for fighting in the front ranks. Their name was Doppelsöldner, which literally means "double-paid soldier".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppels%C3%B6ldner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppels%C3%B6ldner)

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 10-01-2013, 22:01:09
Are poison gas and flamethrowers banned on todays battlefields?

Poison gas are banned, but that won't stop an Army from using it.


I'm not sure about Flamethrowers tho.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 11-01-2013, 01:01:40
When it comes to lines of infantry, those that die are replaced by the ones in the rear. If someone falls over, the individual soldier behind him steps up and takes his place, even if he has to stand on the other soldiers corpse.

And I've never heard of poison gas (prefer the term lethal) and flamethrowers being banned, but its been decades since I've seen gas being used.

Honestly, in warfare no one really gives a damn about any bans on whatever. There is this covention and human rights thing, and when I finally bothered to read its silly rules I had already broken several of them. I know that didn't stop us from plucking the eyes from the muj or something else. The taliban adopted and still use such methods, heh.
I can safely bet that right now that there is a US or UN soldier who was recently tied down with strips of his flesh slowly cut and peeled off infront of another prisoner.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Surfbird on 11-01-2013, 01:01:59
Are poison gas and flamethrowers banned on todays battlefields?

Poison gas are banned, but that won't stop an Army from using it.


I'm not sure about Flamethrowers tho.

Flamethrowers are not banned, but not used because of the brutal way of killing people. Within the last century the importance of morality grew. An industrial country can not afford to risk the support from its own country. Furthermore, technology improved and direct close combat confrontations where a flame thrower can be really useful are rare these days and there are different alternatives. Especially when you think about wars being guerilla type wars very often these days with lots of civilians around. Imagine you are a civilian and some defense force from the US in your country (like Afghanistan) burns houses and kills people brutally, not good. As far as I know, the US military removed flamethrowers not too long after Vietnam war from their arsenal already.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 11-01-2013, 01:01:55
Yes, researching for a bit and the Flamethrower isn't banned at all. The fact is that nearly no countries have Flamethrowers in their arsenals (US stopped using them in late 70's) because of their effectiveness in modern combat scenarios.

Back in the days of WW2, a Flamethrower was much needed because, for example, taking out a bunker with bombs or artillery might take a you a while, so the Flamethrower could get the job done. Today with all the laser guided bombs stuff.. well..


Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 11-01-2013, 03:01:02
Are poison gas and flamethrowers banned on todays battlefields?

Poison gas was banned in 1975, and most signatory nations started destroying their stockpiles after that.  The US is actually still in the process of destruction, and currently is at over 90% destroyed, and is continuing until all but small test samples are left.

Flamethrowers are not banned, but most nations don't use them anymore.  IIRC they became obsolete with long range incendiary rockets like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202A1_FLASH

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 11-01-2013, 04:01:45
Morality is just an excuse. Or at least it was, until to so much as even use such means would have adverse effects, now that we've discontinued use of such weapons and methods. But if the backlash is negligible, then such weapons would see use. After all, in the battlefield there is no balance and fair fights, its all about having the advantage and winning.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 12-01-2013, 18:01:00
I wonder why the USA loves waterboarding, why don't they just use a bucket off water and pull the persons under for some time? And secondly, is this even legal or do they do waterboarding since just putting someone under in a bucket is illegal?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-01-2013, 18:01:04
China still has flamethrowers equipped to its troops
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 12-01-2013, 18:01:24
I wonder why the USA loves waterboarding, why don't they just use a bucket off water and pull the persons under for some time? And secondly, is this even legal or do they do waterboarding since just putting someone under in a bucket is illegal?

Bucket would be illegal.  Waterboarding is mostly pyschological torture, as it tricks the body into thinking it's drowning when actually it's not, though it can cause physical harm through the person's struggling and such.  Either way, torture is bad, mkay.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 12-01-2013, 19:01:29
I wonder why the USA loves waterboarding, why don't they just use a bucket off water and pull the persons under for some time? And secondly, is this even legal or do they do waterboarding since just putting someone under in a bucket is illegal?

As I understand, it is just the CIA that loves waterboarding. Military intel doesn't like to resort to that kind of thing because they believe it is not effective. Indeed, there have been extremely few operations that were successfully conducted based on information attained through waterboarding. It is actually a pretty horrible thing to do to someone, torture in a very clear form.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zeno on 13-01-2013, 00:01:17
have anyone in this forum served in the army? what was your role? Infantry, armor, artillery, support?

i want to learn more about how their training and service is compared the conscription that we are using.

(im currently in artillery, loader in a M109 A3GNM Self propelled Howitzer)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 13-01-2013, 00:01:48
I joined the Soviet army in 1975. In those days training was longer because there was no war. I imagine that when the Afghan war started everyone elses training was a lot shorter, no time for extra teaching. There was physical endurance conditioning every day, with breaks every now and then (during the war I doubt anyone else training was given as much free time as I had been given) and there was also mental conditioning. That came first or rather at the same time as basic training, then came advanced courses (marksmanship, airborne ops, etc). After the war there was more time on our hands for more training, those with qualifications could ask about learning the basics of flying helicopters and such. But by the time that was offered to me it wasn't the Soviet army anymore. Now in the modern Russian army, I'm not too familiar with their basic training but I doubt its changed much.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-01-2013, 01:01:26
I joined the Soviet army in 1975. In those days training was longer because there was no war. I imagine that when the Afghan war started everyone elses training was a lot shorter, no time for extra teaching. There was physical endurance conditioning every day, with breaks every now and then (during the war I doubt anyone else training was given as much free time as I had been given) and there was also mental conditioning. That came first or rather at the same time as basic training, then came advanced courses (marksmanship, airborne ops, etc). After the war there was more time on our hands for more training, those with qualifications could ask about learning the basics of flying helicopters and such. But by the time that was offered to me it wasn't the Soviet army anymore. Now in the modern Russian army, I'm not too familiar with their basic training but I doubt its changed much.
Please! tell us more!    Where did you served?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 13-01-2013, 01:01:49
345th Guards airborne regiment, 1979-1989. First in, last out. After the Afghan war I found myself in Abkhazia for a few years until we were fighting the Georgians in 92-93 for a whole year. That was a whole new experience, us veterens were so used to fighting guerillas. That was real ugly, as in you'd find someones finger or guts in the street but nothing else of them. Theres a sound you instantly recognize when someone falls down, it becomes familiar and distinct after awhile.
Its strange because they were like us then, but in 2008 they seemed so different, and everyone who was there back then wanted to get back at them. We were killing each other because we were killing each other, if that makes any sense.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Thorondor123 on 13-01-2013, 02:01:10
Bit boring answer after Korsakov829, but...

Guard's Jäger Regiment, 1st Jäger Company. That's basically jägers who are specialised in fighting in urban environment. The unit is based on the island of Santahamina in Helsinki.

My rank was/is guard's jäger, which is equal to the rank of jäger (which same as private in most armies).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zeno on 13-01-2013, 02:01:32
Bit boring answer after Korsakov829, but...

Guard's Jäger Regiment, 1st Jäger Company. That's basically jägers who are specialised in fighting in urban environment. The unit is based on the island of Santahamina in Helsinki.

My rank was/is guard's jäger, which is equal to the rank of jäger (which same as private in most armies).

here in Norway the Jaegers are more elite units (if you can call it that) with much harder training and more experience + mostly grenadiers (non-conscript). is it like that in Finland too?

its equal to a Ranger or Marine i guess..

what kind of equipment do you get issued for winter warfare? any special clothing that you like?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Thorondor123 on 13-01-2013, 02:01:47
Bit boring answer after Korsakov829, but...

Guard's Jäger Regiment, 1st Jäger Company. That's basically jägers who are specialised in fighting in urban environment. The unit is based on the island of Santahamina in Helsinki.

My rank was/is guard's jäger, which is equal to the rank of jäger (which same as private in most armies).

here in Norway the Jaegers are more elite units (if you can call it that) with much harder training and more experience + mostly grenadiers (non-conscript). is it like that in Finland too?

its equal to a Ranger or Marine i guess..

what kind of equipment do you get issued for winter warfare? any special clothing that you like?
Here in Finland 'jäger' is the basic rank for infantry. Then there's some units with specialised training, like the guard's jägers (urban), coastal jägers (marines) and armoured jägers ("panzergrenadiers"). Sodankylä Jäger Brigade trains jägers for Arctic conditions.

The "elite special forces" are Para/special jägers, special border jägers and combat divers.


Winter stuff... well, warm clothes, boots and snow camo I guess. :D More than enough for normal -10C winter weather. No idea about -30C :P

The new winter camo (1st from left) is really nice, and the new snow camo (2nd from left) wrks much better than the old full white camos.
(http://www.hs.fi/kuvat/iso_webkuva/1135224673816.jpeg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 13-01-2013, 09:01:36
My basic training started in January 2011, two months in 1. Jääkärikomppania, KaiPr (1st Jäger Company, Kainuu Brigade) then I went to 2.Tuliasemapatteri (2nd Artillery Battery, Battery=Company in size) for my artillery forward observer training, and graduated in June 2011 as Artillery Forward Observer NCO in the rank of Alikersantti, or Corporal.

The next six months I spent back at 1st Jäger Company, and officially acted as an NCO for the companys Artillery Forward Observer Commander, a 2nd lieutenant. Unofficially, my training continued, because the guys who went to Hamina, where the Officer Training School is, happened to get sick a lot, and one broke his foot, so I decided that I'd cover for them.

In the end, I had done so much more work as Forward Observer Officers, job for 1st lieutenants, than the NCO job I was officially trained, that my discharge papers said that my wartime position would be Artillery Forward Observer, at the rank of corporal, while they usually are 1st Lieutenants.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 13-01-2013, 09:01:52
Im still waiting for the day to come where Im called to serve my country.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-01-2013, 10:01:19
man thats intense...

I hope you make a good living today.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 13-01-2013, 11:01:01
Marine Military Police, NCO, Cont. I/10. Specialized in urban combat, combined with amphibious assault/search & destroy missions. In wartime I lead a group á 6 soldiers.

Quote
The military police includes both career and conscript personnel, and is primarily used to guard military installations and supervise military traffic. All military police personnel are trained with basic police techniques and usually receive training for fighting in urban areas. In wartime, the tasks are more extensive and include protection of key personnel and targets, especially against enemy special forces, and surveillance, control, pursuit, arrest and destruction missions.

Best thing was getting to train with almost every firearm available in the FDF arsenal.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zeno on 13-01-2013, 12:01:39
My basic training started in January 2011, two months in 1. Jääkärikomppania, KaiPr (1st Jäger Company, Kainuu Brigade) then I went to 2.Tuliasemapatteri (2nd Artillery Battery, Battery=Company in size) for my artillery forward observer training, and graduated in June 2011 as Artillery Forward Observer NCO in the rank of Alikersantti, or Corporal.

The next six months I spent back at 1st Jäger Company, and officially acted as an NCO for the companys Artillery Forward Observer Commander, a 2nd lieutenant. Unofficially, my training continued, because the guys who went to Hamina, where the Officer Training School is, happened to get sick a lot, and one broke his foot, so I decided that I'd cover for them.

In the end, I had done so much more work as Forward Observer Officers, job for 1st lieutenants, than the NCO job I was officially trained, that my discharge papers said that my wartime position would be Artillery Forward Observer, at the rank of corporal, while they usually are 1st Lieutenants.

Were you Mechanized? i know several guys that are "Artillery Jaegers" that are mostly droped of by boat or helicopter, then walk behind enemy lines for weeks. While the OP-platoon (Observation Post) are mounted on M113 wagons with high-tec lasers that can pinpoint the coordinates that they send to us in the guns.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 13-01-2013, 13:01:27
Nope, not mechanized. Just regular infantry.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 13-01-2013, 14:01:32
... and there was also mental conditioning.
This makes me curious. What are you doing during "mental conditioning"?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 13-01-2013, 17:01:39
... and there was also mental conditioning.
This makes me curious. What are you doing during "mental conditioning"?

Keeping calm, dealing with stress and such.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 13-01-2013, 21:01:05
... and there was also mental conditioning.
This makes me curious. What are you doing during "mental conditioning"?

Keeping calm, dealing with stress and such.
And how's that done? They show you shocking stuff on film? Or do you need to go through an obstacle course with people firing over your head like you see in movies?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Lightning on 13-01-2013, 22:01:40
And how's that done? They show you shocking stuff on film? Or do you need to go through an obstacle course with people firing over your head like you see in movies?
Nothing so romantic, I expect.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1998445,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1998445,00.html)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 13-01-2013, 22:01:01
Do you really believe that he killed himself? Or that others were missing or killed in action, or that there was a training accident? Not that it doesn't happen, but those are popular excuses. Our soldiers are savages that need to be sent to a quiet war, kept away from civilians at the same time.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 14-01-2013, 21:01:48
Do you really believe that he killed himself? Or that others were missing or killed in action, or that there was a training accident? Not that it doesn't happen, but those are popular excuses. Our soldiers are savages that need to be sent to a quiet war, kept away from civilians at the same time.
Not sure if sarcastic... Do you mean that Russian soldiers regularly kill each other in training?

... and there was also mental conditioning.
This makes me curious. What are you doing during "mental conditioning"?

Keeping calm, dealing with stress and such.
And how's that done? They show you shocking stuff on film? Or do you need to go through an obstacle course with people firing over your head like you see in movies?
Could you pls tell me about this, Korsakov?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Sgt.KAR98 on 14-01-2013, 21:01:14
Like in Jarhead?

Was dismissed from the army because there was already enough people on it.

You were from the VDV,Korsakov?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 14-01-2013, 22:01:11
I was looking into some weaponry the US used in WW2 and came up with a few questions that I couldn't find a straight answer:
1. Is it true that neither of the Airborne divisions used BARs, but M1919s instead? Or that if the only portion of Airborne that used BAR's were glider infantry?
2. Did the Army use M1917 .30cal watercooled LMGs or M1919 air-cooled ones?

Then a couple for the British North Africa campaign:
1. Why did they use Thompsons instead of Stens? Or was it a bit of both? Could the reason be the longer engagement ranges where the .45 carried more stopping power than the 9mm?
2. When did the Sten guns take over, and when specifically the Sten mk.V?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 14-01-2013, 22:01:19
Belgium is finnaly investing again its land forces! And we ordered nothing but german quality.

66 Spike-MR missile systems ordered. To replace the Milan ATGM

Aswel as 111 Panzerfaust 3.

Any Germans here who have experience with these weapons?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 14-01-2013, 23:01:59
I was looking into some weaponry the US used in WW2 and came up with a few questions that I couldn't find a straight answer:
1. Is it true that neither of the Airborne divisions used BARs, but M1919s instead? Or that if the only portion of Airborne that used BAR's were glider infantry?
2. Did the Army use M1917 .30cal watercooled LMGs or M1919 air-cooled ones?

Then a couple for the British North Africa campaign:
1. Why did they use Thompsons instead of Stens? Or was it a bit of both? Could the reason be the longer engagement ranges where the .45 carried more stopping power than the 9mm?
2. When did the Sten guns take over, and when specifically the Sten mk.V?

BARs were fully used by the airbourne.

The army did use the watercooled 30cals as our heavy machine gun platoon weapon, in the same role as the MG42 lafette or british vickers.

Brits used thompsons in north africa because it is what they had.  As Thompson wore out or were lost in combat, stens slowly replaced them.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Sgt.KAR98 on 14-01-2013, 23:01:58
Why the americans used Spitfires at the North African campaign?I thought after WWI they never used foreign aircraft again.

And what does some tail stripes on axis planes standed for?I saw that a yellow one indicated the aircraft acted on the eastern front,but I saw white strpes on italian planes and a red one on a Zero.Was that custom for all axis planes,like the invasion stripes of the allied planes?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 15-01-2013, 00:01:20
Colour bands on the fuselage tail generally indicated theater of operation.  It was also used as a unit marking.

Americans used Spitfires because we needed modern fighter planes, and the British had far superior ones to us. :P
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Sgt.KAR98 on 15-01-2013, 02:01:23
Strange,US had planes for all kind of tastes on early war...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 15-01-2013, 02:01:08
Yet but none of them was better than the mighty Spitfire.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 16-01-2013, 08:01:13
The Warhawk should be good enough in North Africa. But it can't do better than Spitfire in higher altitudes.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hslan.Corvax on 17-01-2013, 09:01:23
If i remember correctly the Spitfire also was a lot less prone to sand and dust. It simply needed less maintenance. I think i've read somewhere that 20 minutes of flight time needed 2 hours of cleaning on the P-40.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 19-01-2013, 20:01:58
Alright, guys. I got a pretty good question.
So, for the first year or so of the war, German tank crews wore crash helmets with black berets over them. These were disliked because they looked stupid and were eventually not used at all in favor of soft caps. This raises the question: did this action result in more timid off-road driving among panzer crews for fear of head injury?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 21-01-2013, 05:01:18
What rifles were used by Canada in WW2? I heard they didn't get many No4s but used a lot of SMLEs but I have no idea.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 21-01-2013, 05:01:25
SMLE and No4.  That's about it.  In WW1 they had a homegrown rifle, the Ross, but it was very very finicky and prone to damage, and so became hated by all but snipers.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 23-01-2013, 14:01:15
SMLE and No4.  That's about it.  In WW1 they had a homegrown rifle, the Ross, but it was very very finicky and prone to damage, and so became hated by all but snipers.

 The whole Ross rifle myth has become almost legend nowadays.

 The rifle was not hated but due to its' intricacy, the men in the trenches came to prefer weapons that were more resilient to being dirty. Snipers, who had more time to clean on their hands, did almost exclusively deploy the rifle as it has crazy good accuracy. (anecdotal: a friend wrote a memoir of his time in the forces and as a young cadet, (ca. 1930) he could reliably put groupings the size of a silver dollar on a target at 250 yards)

 The Ross rifle was also issued in WW2 to some of the first Canadian units to deploy to Britain but it was soon replaced as the supply built up of standard pattern rifles.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 23-01-2013, 17:01:22
IIRC, wasn't the problem that the bolt could be assembled the wrong way and fail catastrophically?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 23-01-2013, 18:01:57
Was the Lee Enfield No.4 Mk I used before WW2? Prototypes?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-01-2013, 18:01:34
No. The SMLE was the standard Enfield during the interwar period.


The british did however developed an SMLE with simular sights like the No 4 MKI

this was the No 1 MKV

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/uploads/zzzsmle22/zzzsmle22-038113_12.jpg

The first No 4 MKI's were produced in 1939 and it was officially adopted in 1941. By 1943 it was the standard enfield for British troops.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 23-01-2013, 18:01:34
No4 was first issued in 1939, but it didn't start getting common place until 1943, and never fully supplanted the SMLE in Italy, the Pacific, and many commonwealth/government in exile armies.  The Australians literally refused to use it, believing that the british government was trying to stick them with a worse quality rifle.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 23-01-2013, 18:01:22
Yeah, I know that, but I'm talking about precisely the No4 Mk1. Or anything similiar of its muzzle?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-01-2013, 19:01:49
No4 was first issued in 1939, but it didn't start getting common place until 1943, and never fully supplanted the SMLE in Italy, the Pacific, and many commonwealth/government in exile armies.  The Australians literally refused to use it, believing that the british government was trying to stick them with a worse quality rifle.
Actually the aussies believed that the time and effort it took to retool the Lithgow plant was to much for what you got. british india made the same decision. They felt that it was "unneeded" aswel and with japan on there doorstep i can kinda understand that decision

Yeah, I know that, but I'm talking about precisely the No4 Mk1. Or anything similiar of its muzzle?
As me and mudra said. 1939
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 23-01-2013, 19:01:00
IIRC, wasn't the problem that the bolt could be assembled the wrong way and fail catastrophically?

Yes, I heard the same. The shooter could get seriously injured for making even a slight mistake reassembling it. Had something to do with the locking lugs not locking correctly when chambering a round resulting in a bit of a mess IIRC.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-01-2013, 19:01:08
This was with the very first variants only tough.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 23-01-2013, 19:01:31
No4 was first issued in 1939, but it didn't start getting common place until 1943, and never fully supplanted the SMLE in Italy, the Pacific, and many commonwealth/government in exile armies.  The Australians literally refused to use it, believing that the british government was trying to stick them with a worse quality rifle.
Actually the aussies believed that the time and effort it took to retool the Lithgow plant was to much for what you got. british india made the same decision. They felt that it was "unneeded" aswel and with japan on there doorstep i can kinda understand that decision

Not the stories I've heard of it.  The aussies basically believed they were getting a raw deal, and that the english were trying to offload poor quality guns on them :P
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-01-2013, 19:01:42
...But the No 4 was gonna be manufactured in Lithgow so the aussies decide the quality right?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 23-01-2013, 20:01:29
No4 was first issued in 1939, but it didn't start getting common place until 1943, and never fully supplanted the SMLE in Italy, the Pacific, and many commonwealth/government in exile armies.  The Australians literally refused to use it, believing that the british government was trying to stick them with a worse quality rifle.
Actually the aussies believed that the time and effort it took to retool the Lithgow plant was to much for what you got. british india made the same decision. They felt that it was "unneeded" aswel and with japan on there doorstep i can kinda understand that decision

Not the stories I've heard of it.  The aussies basically believed they were getting a raw deal, and that the english were trying to offload poor quality guns on them :P

You're both right. Australian gets told by English guy: "hey! new rifle, pretty much the same as the old one but is fancier and you have to retool your factories to produce it. Did I mention it isn't a significant improvement on the old design other than the sights?"
Naturally, the Australians declined. And if you ask me, the pig sticker bayonet didn't help the case.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 23-01-2013, 20:01:27
...But the No 4 was gonna be manufactured in Lithgow so the aussies decide the quality right?

They thought the rifle design itself was bad.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 23-01-2013, 20:01:26
...But the No 4 was gonna be manufactured in Lithgow so the aussies decide the quality right?

They thought the rifle design itself was bad.

They were definately right. The older enfield is better in all ways.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-01-2013, 20:01:54
...But the No 4 was gonna be manufactured in Lithgow so the aussies decide the quality right?

They thought the rifle design itself was bad.

They were definately right. The older enfield is better in all ways.
euhm

No?

No 4 has a heavier more accurate barrel
No 4 has flip up, rear reciever mounted sights. These are vastly superior to tangent sights like the SMLE/Mauser
No 4 has a shorter action wich is also simpler and faster then the SMLE

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 23-01-2013, 21:01:08
But if I was a soldier of the British empire of the era I'd definately choose the old one. I wouldnt mind a few extra pounds.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-01-2013, 21:01:16
Actually The no 4 is heavier. The bolt is lighter. But the new heavy barrel adds extra weight
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 23-01-2013, 21:01:42
of course.  :) But I personally think I wouldnt do well with the no4 sights.  :-\
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 23-01-2013, 21:01:03



No 4 has a heavier more accurate barrel
No 4 has flip up, rear reciever mounted sights. These are vastly superior to tangent sights like the SMLE/Mauser
No 4 has a shorter action wich is also simpler and faster then the SMLE

True, but you are over-stating a bit. The No. 4 was slightly more accurate, but the SMLE can still hit group targets at 1200 yards. You have to remember that your range is limited by your line of sight.
I have seen the No-4 sights, and those of the SMLE. The No.4 again shows itself to be a superior target rifle, however open sights are still plenty accurate and often preferred by many soldiers (ref. Alvin York).
I have fired both, they cycle about the same speed. Any advantage in favor of the No.4 can be made up for in the SMLE with good maintenance and a well-practiced shooter.

In the end, the Australians didn't think the claimed advantages were worth spending millions of dollars to retool factories for a rifle that had not yet been proven in combat like the SMLE had been. They also did not trust the British to tell them what was good equipment.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 24-01-2013, 01:01:52
IIRC, wasn't the problem that the bolt could be assembled the wrong way and fail catastrophically?

 The original pre-war version of 1905-1909 had some retarded issues but they were ironed out well before 1914.
Wikipedia says the weapon was phased out by 1916 but Pierre Berton writes in Vimy, that some regiments allowed individual soldiers to keep the rifle as long as they maintained it well. Many Canadian volunteers of the war were very proficient at hunting and marksmanship, so there was use of the weapon until the declaration of Armistice. (the men who could shoot well were never reprimanded but British High Command had forbidden the weapons use very early on for other nations)

 Essentially, the Ross rifle was hindered by its' extreme reluctance to fire under normal trench conditions with all the resultant dirt and gunk that built up in the breech. Two other issues strained the weapons performance as well, the weapon would mis-fire when improperly assembled (driving the bolt straight back into the shooter's face) and the final concern was that the weapon had very little tolerance for dirty ammunition (a handful of filthy rounds was enough to render the rifle totally inoperable).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 24-01-2013, 04:01:26
You should visit Lithgow mate, only several hours drive or train stations away from Sydney, NSW.

They have specific museum and the whole biased stories about why they didn't stray from SMLE.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 30-01-2013, 00:01:01
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llevfljIn21qfb6lco1_500.jpg)
This picture made me wonder: What did the allied actually do with all the confiscated goods after WW2?
Firstly: they found a lot of Gold from jews, (under form of rings in concentration camps as for example here), art, but ofc mainly under form of nazi gold bars made from toothgold (and money of jews and nazis that's still blocked by the swiss, but they'll probably never give anything back and keep it for themselves) etc. But when they found it, did they keep it as money for their own state or did they use it to refund to survivors of the holocaust or did they take it to the US and use it to support the marshall aid funds (if last option: what with the USSR?)?
And secondly, what with the money they got from the posessions of executed nazi's? Did the family get the heritage? And there are nazi's who "didn't have family" after the war to protect the identity of the family members. Or did they just sell for example all the nazi castles and use the money for something?

(and yes, i know some will have disappeared with the soldiers, but most is probably recovered)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 30-01-2013, 06:01:55
I'm willing to bet there is a soldier somewhere who pocketed some of those rings and got married! Can't take all that much though, its difficult to hide a box full of gold.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 30-01-2013, 07:01:23
I always wondered, where are the "guncams" located?

I mean, we all seen footage of i dunno, Bf-109 vs B24 Liberator or P-51 vs Fw190, but where is the camera?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 30-01-2013, 07:01:43
On the nose cone of the propeller.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tuco on 30-01-2013, 09:01:17
Mustangs was located on the left inner wing.

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2mn223d.jpg)

P47's camera and location

(http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o363/p47sig/guncamera001.jpg)

Me109F

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aircraft-requests/164452d1302473322t-bf-109-gun-camera-2239290362_ca4355eeed_o.jpg)

Some model Hurricane.

(http://www.flyingheritage.com/images/hangar/Under_the_Cowl/camera1.jpg)

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 30-01-2013, 11:01:12
Is the gun cams has any other big purpose besides recording confirmed kills?

I kinda have the impression that the gun cams are there only to document the heroic action of the sky knights. Might sound ego-maniacal, when you compare it to the the troops at the ground were fighting for warm clothing, a loaf of bread and several sips of water (nevermind bullets), while these flyboys get fresh film rolls most of the times when they go to action, so they can claim the prize and add something to the paintjob.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: DLFReporter on 30-01-2013, 11:01:57
They also needed proof that the pilots didn't just dick around in the air. ;)
As usual, a downed enemy plane is worth more than a soldier on the ground.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 30-01-2013, 11:01:51
IIRC, gun camera is only activated when the gun trigger is pressed. So, control around dicking pilots are just as good as knowing that they don't shoot friendly targets?

I actually kinda think of the enemy killing footage is more valuable as propaganda material than anything else.

In desperate Battle of The Britain times, when the whole British isles is under threat of starvation due to U-boot threat, and luftwaffe bombers, materials are in alarming shortage for the whole population. So I can't really imagine that the RAF dared to request film rolls to be imported from the US for all of its several hundred fighters, along with primary goods like food rations, raw materials, and other needs of those including the Royal family and the nobles.

But I heard that not all fighters are equipped with gun cams, is that true?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hslan.Corvax on 30-01-2013, 13:01:32
Gun cam footage was also used to study enemy planes, tactics their maneuverability and such. Also not all gun cams where gun-triggered. In fact most weren't. They had to be activated by the pilot, otherwise you would only have some few seconds of random gunfire that made no sense, so cams where typically started before an engagement. Also, the extended 8mm rolls could hold quite a lot of footage, so that wasnt the problem either.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 30-01-2013, 14:01:02
Gun cam footage was also used to study enemy planes, tactics their maneuverability and such. Also not all gun cams where gun-triggered. In fact most weren't. They had to be activated by the pilot, otherwise you would only have some few seconds of random gunfire that made no sense, so cams where typically started before an engagement. Also, the extended 8mm rolls could hold quite a lot of footage, so that wasnt the problem either.

That makes a lot of sense now. Thanks for the answer.

But anyway, did all fighters carry gun cams indefinitely?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 30-01-2013, 16:01:06
Thanks Tuco, that's what i wanted to see  ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 30-01-2013, 19:01:54
What did the allied actually do with all the confiscated goods after WW2?
From what I know, it ended up:
- in private possession of soldiers and officers
- in museums (art)
- in possession of the remaining family members of the previous owners (mainly Jewish property)
- being transported to the US and USSR and used for financing the Cold War (well, not sure what it was used for, but since Cold War was quite expensive, that's my "educated" guess)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: TASSER on 08-02-2013, 15:02:49
I've recently been reading a bit about Stalingrad, and I'm curious about the assaults which took place on Pavlov's House. Why didn't the Germans just level the building and deny the Rooskies the cover? Did they not have the fire support? Was the building very well built and resisted being destroyed? Did the Germans not know it was occupied until too late? Did the Germans want to occupy the building themselves? It just seems logical that they would destroy such an important fortification for the Soviets, rather than sending wave after wave against it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 08-02-2013, 17:02:14
Quote
The tactical benefit of the house was its position on a cross-street giving the defenders a 1 km line of sight to the north, south and west.[1]

My guess would be the germans wanted it for that reason.  Other than that, I haven't a clue why it wouldn't have been leveled.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 09-02-2013, 06:02:25
Patton, overrated General?.

''Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.'' he said, but i disagree with him.

Many call Patton as one of the best Generals in WW2... is he among them?

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 09-02-2013, 07:02:35
He was racist... A general which discriminates his soldiers is never a good general.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 09-02-2013, 11:02:14
Patton commanded the first all-black units in US Army.

Was he racist? Let me ask you back, what is racism? Some people openly talks that he/she dislikes certain group of people, but they are okay when doing things together. But some people never talk about it or even goes as far as publicly showing that they are politically correct, yet they still can't accept it when dealing with people different than theirs.

Best generals? At least he is much better than Lloyd Fredendall and today's overrated US generals.

His tactics? Similar with Rommel: he is no sitzkrieg generals, they don't like static defenses, hence their dislike for fixed fortifications. They are quick action generals, sometimes with little regards towards logistical challenge. The Invasion of France clearly shows how fixed fortifications like Maginot line fails. But you can't deny the effectiveness of Sevastopol or Leningrad defenses against such massive siege, but then it also owes to their relatively strategic position. There are some more thorough, strategic, complete, decisive commanders like von Rammstein, Kesselring, Zhukov, Bradley, Nimitz, and alike.

So to conclude him based on that view alone: is he one of the best? I would say yes.

I don't usually take a drastic contrast look towards mainstream historical subjects directly. Many said Rommel is the best, many say Kursk was the biggest tank battle, Montgomery saves Britain, Italians were the losers, Mustang D was the best fighter.

Yes we know that Italians won some battles, yes in FH2 it is not correct to portray the small underdog factions as the mainstreamers see it: but it is too hipster. Italians did lose badly to Greece, they lose badly to Commonwealth forces in early North African campaigns. They however, performed better under Rommel. But nothing says that they did well in WW2.

So, if you are trying to overturn a mainstream views toward a WW2 subject, better back it up with lots of evidence.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 09-02-2013, 20:02:04
Well, but what big battles Patton won during the WW2? Apart from being a guy liked by his forces and etc, can you mention a Battle won by Patton that was remarkable?.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-02-2013, 20:02:59
Battle of Gela and Messina
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 09-02-2013, 20:02:00
It is ironic that he didnt see d-day because he slapped a GI in the Italian campaign.  :P
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 10-02-2013, 01:02:34
Messina doesn't really count, considering the Germans never once tried to hold Sicily, they merely tried to evacuate it.  Technically, Sicily is counted as a strategic German victory.

Also, I've had many a rant about Patton and Rommel's incompetence on these forums.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 10-02-2013, 06:02:13
Well, but what big battles Patton won during the WW2? Apart from being a guy liked by his forces and etc, can you mention a Battle won by Patton that was remarkable?.

Patton was an attack dog. He wasn't that great of a general, but he was useful for applying pressure to areas of the front. Granted, he did this by wasting men.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-02-2013, 11:02:00
Patton wanted to go attack the soviets after WW2 to kick them out of eastren europe  ::) I can believe the theory that he got murdered.

Some historians once wrote an article about how patton significantly slowed down the M26 pershing development, along with other US High brass folks. Claiming that the Pershing would severly hamper logistics and fuel supplies and that it was very inreliable. When it was finnaly deployed in 1945 none of these claims were true, and one Field commander said that one pershing was worth well over 5 shermans. Then by calculating stuff and shit, it was estimated that, when patton and others did not hampered development/production/introduction, the US forces could have fielded 500 T26 (the then designation) Pershing tanks at the start of D-Day. With over 2000 avaible near the battle of the bulge.

Also these would not have hampered Sherman tank production aswel.
People like general Lesley J. McNair claiming that the Pershing would not save any more lives

Tell me what would save more lives? 15 men in M4 death trap shermans?
Or 5 men(As it was claimed one pershing= 3 shermans) in a tank with a powerfull 90mm gun that can penetrate any german tank minus the Kingtiger. With armour that can withstand the PZIV/Stug main gun, the 88mm of the tiger tank at most ranges and the Panther tanks gun beyond 1000 meters?

True the pershings armour was not That great. But it was simular to the Tiger tank. Now take 2000 tiger tanks for the allies who weight 12 tonnes less...


No people like Patton are not that "big war heroes" in my opinion.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 10-02-2013, 15:02:28
So that left us with Omar Nelson Bradley, the polite general as one of the best famous US Generals in WW2?

I have to argue that Patton was made famous due to his slapping incident. After he slapped the poor soldier, he was relieved and sent back to the homeland, where he did a lot of publicity with the presses. And the MEDIAs love it. Of course, to promote war bonds like Captain America, he had to look good, and his victory in North African dessert would be one of the great stories there.

So really, the media is to be blamed. Just like how Norman Schwarzkopf made famous in a some country bullying contest, or modern weaponry live test dubbed Operation Dessert Storm.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 10-02-2013, 17:02:59
Ok I said in the Militaria thread (a long time ago) that I now possess an american WWII officer's overcoat.

question is, can I take it to the dry cleaners or should I wash it manually? Ironing is I presume as usual.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 10-02-2013, 17:02:41
Bradley, Eisenhower, and Stilwell rank highly in my regard.  Hodges and Simpson were also quite good.


As for your coat, Panzerknacker, dry clean ONLY.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 10-02-2013, 18:02:22
Was Piat used in africa?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 10-02-2013, 18:02:31
Nope, first PIATS were used in Sicily
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: pizzzaman on 10-02-2013, 18:02:39
Did the British forces in Africa use the Sten gun at all?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 10-02-2013, 19:02:26
Afaik they did. I think i saw a photo of a British Soldier holding a Sten in NA.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 10-02-2013, 23:02:40
Ok I said in the Militaria thread (a long time ago) that I now possess an american WWII officer's overcoat.
question is, can I take it to the dry cleaners or should I wash it manually? Ironing is I presume as usual.

 Mudra suggested dry cleaning but it can actually damage wool (especially older products)

 from my years of maintaining tunics, I have found that spot cleaning and a fabric brush are much more effective than attempting dry cleaning (which actually uses wet chemicals).

 On an inside (or inconspicuous location), try using a mild solution of wool-safe laundry detergent (woolite is my brand) that has been mixed with some lukewarm water. Rub/blot gently with a soft cloth (that doesn't give off fabric pills) and if that cleans up well enough for you, then continue on with the rest of the material. use the fabric brush on areas that have fabric discolouration or on dry (non-setting stains) like mud or maybe some powder from a bag of chips.

 Hang the clothing to dry (preferably in the sunshine) and only iron if you haven't been able to hang away the creases. Do not use starches and make sure the setting is on lower Wool with  low power-steam. Never apply the iron to one location for too long, instead be patient and revisit the locations that look less desirable to you after the fabric has cooled somewhat.

 if your iron doesn't have a steam setting, you can also use a thick towel which is thoroughly soaked and place the wet towel under the areas that you wish to iron. It draws the steam through the fabric in a gentle fashion, as long as your iron is not too hot.


 These tips are straight from veteran's who still wear their original uniforms and from my personal experience of maintaining my collection of Highland attire. It works, costs less than a dry cleaner and has less risk of damaging the fabric. Certain stains will never come out, so be advised and don't work he fabric to death or complain to the dry cleaner (if you use one)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 11-02-2013, 01:02:01
big thanks to both of you  ;D

I'll try your approach Sheik, and if I manage to fail at it I'll take it to the dry cleaners.
Thanks again  :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 11-02-2013, 02:02:30
THanks for the tips too Sheik.  I've never cleaned my uniforms (cuz reenactment should look dirty xD) so I always just figured they would be dry clean stuff.  Interesting to know there's a better way to do it!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 11-02-2013, 03:02:45
Some historians once wrote an article about how patton significantly slowed down the M26 pershing development, along with other US High brass folks. Claiming that the Pershing would severly hamper logistics and fuel supplies and that it was very inreliable.

To this claim, the Pershing is a very wide vehicle compared to a Sherman. The Sherman had the advantage of being narrow and short enough to easily fit through any railroad tunnel in the US. The Pershing could not boast this claim in the first half of the 1940s. Furthermore, because of the width of the vehicle, it would be more difficult to ship overseas like ALL American stuff had to be. It used more fuel and was a new vehicle. New vehicles and weapons are always under suspicion of being unreliable until they have been tried in combat.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 11-02-2013, 16:02:11
And IIRC that same argument was mentiond as "Roads in Europe are narrow" and "The bridges might not be strong enough"
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 11-02-2013, 16:02:51
He was not wrong. Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 11-02-2013, 18:02:43
And IIRC that same argument was mentiond as "Roads in Europe are narrow" and "The bridges might not be strong enough"

Yes, this is again true. For every ton you add to the total weight of a vehicle, that is one more bridge you can't cross. Also, as I said before, the Pershing is a very wide tank, a whole 3 feet wider. It is also 16 tons heavier. This would reduce the number of bridges that it could cross and tunnels it could pass through.
(http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/19/60719-004-E4388089.jpg)

I'm not saying it was a good idea to delay use of the Pershing, but the reasons behind it weren't just made up.

ADDITION:
The Pershing was too heavy for mass shipment with the shipyards of the time. It could not be lifted onto ships by most cranes, something that was a design specification of the Sherman.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 11-02-2013, 22:02:48
 I feel that I should add a few more tips for maintaining uniforms:

1) never expose fabric to direct and overly strong sunshine, it causes colour fade. A bonus to drying in the sunshine are the antibacterial properties of sunlight exposure (approx. 1 hour of sunlight will kill nasty armpit smells)
2) when hanging wool products watch for any stretching. If that is happening, lay the product on a clean and flat surface and flip it over periodically.
3)when using a fabric/lint brush, be gentle and do not exert too much force on the fabric, it causes excessive pilling of the fabric which in turn leads to premature wear and tear.

This one is for Muddy and anyone in desert areas...
4) Burning sagegrass is helpful to keep clothes smelling clean. Like sunlight, there are very interesting antibacterial properties to the smoke that is put off by sage and it smells alright afterwards.  (easily one of my favourite hippy/green tips)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 11-02-2013, 22:02:01
Why was there never an anti-tank gun version of the Panther's gun? Too cumbersome?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 11-02-2013, 22:02:39
Why was there never an anti-tank gun version of the Panther's gun? Too cumbersome?

I don't know. However, one should note that German at gun design had hit somewhat of a dead end. Calibres kept getting bigger and guns were becoming so huge and cumbersome that they were almost unusable in actual combat. Even the Pak40 was so inflexible that thousands of them fell into enemy hands simply because they couldn't be moved in time. In mid war they tried to counter act this trend with the squeeze bore system (2.8cm SPzb41 for example) but they needed tungsten for that, which was hard to come by. So late in the war they planned to replace all at guns with this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/PAW600_8cm_1.jpg)

This thing shot an 8cm HEAT warhead over only 750m while still being very maneuvrable. It used a new kind of propulsion system.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 11-02-2013, 22:02:20
Why was there never an anti-tank gun version of the Panther's gun? Too cumbersome?
To expand on the above post.

There was no reason to make it. There was already the Pak 40 that was in the PzIV and the somewhat rare Pak 43 that placed the 88mm FlaK 18 in an anti-tank mount. It was heavy and difficult to move but mean as a junkyard dog.
(http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger-2-2002-Picz/PaK43.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 11-02-2013, 22:02:50
Basically this was a weapon exclusively for extreme long range combat, instead of an ambush weapon like most PAKs.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 11-02-2013, 22:02:37
Basically this was a weapon exclusively for extreme long range combat, instead of an ambush weapon like most PAKs.

They would still try to ambush enemy tanks, just at longer range.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 12-02-2013, 00:02:33
Question about the Waffen-SS Chain of command.

We all know the Oberkommando des Heeres, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, Obk. der Marine and Obk. der Luftwaffe, but which one was the main Waffen-SS command?

Was it attached to the Wehrmacht one or the Heer one?.

I know the OKW was the main one, and there were conflicts with OKH, but did the SS one acted independently?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 12-02-2013, 00:02:47
It was under the OKW nominally.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 12-02-2013, 00:02:03
I see, i do know too that they had conflicts with the Heer, iirc the supply lines were different, for both Waffen-SS and Heer.

Thanks
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-02-2013, 11:02:26
Why was there never an anti-tank gun version of the Panther's gun? Too cumbersome?
Because the Pak 40 was much lighter and yieled better results then the Kwk 42. The Pak 40 is more powerfull then the panther tank's gun. The calibre of Pak 40 is 75x718R while the kwk 42  is 75x640R
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 12-02-2013, 12:02:02
What weapons did French Resistance use?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 12-02-2013, 12:02:39
everything they could get their hands on?

Sten, Mp40, Kar98, old hunting rifles, private pistols, walthers, webleys, all that french arsenal from WW1 and WW2, maybe even MG34s, anything that was available. No?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 12-02-2013, 12:02:02
everything they could get their hands on?

Sten, Mp40, Kar98, old hunting rifles, private pistols, walthers, webleys, all that french arsenal from WW1 and WW2, maybe even MG34s, anything that was available. No?

This and weapons supplied by british, mostly Thompsons and Stens, possibly PIATs.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 12-02-2013, 13:02:26
didn't some french make their own stens?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 12-02-2013, 15:02:32
I only knew about the Liberator Pistol and sten, but didnt know about other stuff.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-02-2013, 18:02:51
and even old grass rifles
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 12-02-2013, 18:02:15
Glass?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-02-2013, 18:02:27
Glass?
*gras sorry my bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gras_rifle
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 12-02-2013, 18:02:07
Oh, I see.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 12-02-2013, 18:02:37
On the Gras rifle topic... A clever cover up for a rifle...Dunno what its supposed to be though.

(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7724/ww2greece.png)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 17-02-2013, 01:02:33
Was it really common to get wrapped up in barbed wire like in the movies? I thought it was mostly to just be a nuisance and funnel enemies into where you want them to go.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 17-02-2013, 05:02:57
Was it really common to get wrapped up in barbed wire like in the movies? I thought it was mostly to just be a nuisance and funnel enemies into where you want them to go.

It wasn't too common, mostly because you didn't exactly just charge wire.  It was indeed for funneling the enemy, or forcing them to slowly cut through the wire under fire.  It also wasn't too deadly, it was a common tactic too, if you had on a thick enough uniform, have one guy jump on the wire and hold it down with his body weight whilst the rest of the unit ran over it.  This was somewhat prevented in WW1 by the use of razor wire, which actually is capable of maiming/killing.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 17-02-2013, 06:02:33
Assuming you're asking about concertina wire (coils)...

Taking off your coat and laying it down with some rocks on top works well. Don't try and wade through the wire though, you'll trip and maybe even lose a shoe.
Razor wire on the other hand is just a pain in the ass to cross without removing it. Several wooden planks or corpses works. Razor wire takes much longer to cross or remove. Mostly psychological, I would much prefer to blow it up in a hurry than attempt anything else.
When you fall on wire, you might just have all your limbs under seperate coils. I saw someone purposely lay back on some in a demonstration once, she didn't even touch the ground.

You might find this PDF very interesting! Mostly covers setting up wire rather than removing, but you should get some insight on various types in how they are constructed in the field.
http://compass.seacadets.org/pdf/nrtc/cb1/14234_ch8.pdf
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-02-2013, 10:02:01
the first most effective way of dealing with barbed wire was with the tank. During the battle of Amiens in 1918, the allies did the most important breaktrough of WW1 thanks to new whippet and Mark V tanks. They drove trough barbed wire defenses like it was nothing, completly surprising german defenders.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 17-02-2013, 11:02:13
I remember when we had to build roadblocks in basic training, using those giant coils of razor wire. We got extra thick gloves to pull them appart and did our best not to get stuck in them with all our equipment. Those things were pretty nasty because, unlike traditional barbed wire, the "razor blades" were very sharp and you got stuck easily. AFAIK the best solution, when you´re unable to cut through the wire, is to throw a wooden board over it. I´ve seen our infantry doing that, although it´s a bit tricky.
Here´s part of the check point we´ve built, showingthe entrance (the bunch of barrels down the road), the main lane and to the right the vehicle and people control "boxes". The coils have a height of around 40 to 50 cm and are probably enough to stop wheeled vehicles. Two of them at the bottom and one on top would be enough to be a serious PITA for heavier vehicles.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img834/60/aga09015.jpg)

the first most effective way of dealing with barbed wire was with the tank. During the battle of Amiens in 1918, the allies did the most important breaktrough of WW1 thanks to new whippet and Mark V tanks. They drove trough barbed wire defenses like it was nothing, completly surprising german defenders.
I think nowadays it´s a bad idea to drive with a vehicle over concertina wire. A buddy of mine was a former "Panzergrenadier" (mechanized infantry) and he told me a story where the driver of his Marder accidently drove over a roll of concertina wire and had his tracks completely messed up by it, jerking the vehicle to a sudden halt. Apparently the poor driver spent the rest of the day removing bits and pieces of wire from the tracks.
We were also taught in basic training that 3 rolls of wire stacked together are an effective way of stopping even a MBT and especially together with AT mines make for good obstacles to funnel enemy vehicles into kill zones.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 17-02-2013, 11:02:48
Were resistance forces from different and far away countries contacting eachother?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-02-2013, 11:02:11

the first most effective way of dealing with barbed wire was with the tank. During the battle of Amiens in 1918, the allies did the most important breaktrough of WW1 thanks to new whippet and Mark V tanks. They drove trough barbed wire defenses like it was nothing, completly surprising german defenders.
I think nowadays it´s a bad idea to drive with a vehicle over concertina wire. A buddy of mine was a former "Panzergrenadier" (mechanized infantry) and he told me a story where the driver of his Marder accidently drove over a roll of concertina wire and had his tracks completely messed up by it, jerking the vehicle to a sudden halt. Apparently the poor driver spent the rest of the day removing bits and pieces of wire from the tracks.
We were also taught in basic training that 3 rolls of wire stacked together are an effective way of stopping even a MBT and especially together with AT mines make for good obstacles to funnel enemy vehicles into kill zones.
Yeah that tactic is also applied here in the Belgian army.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hslan.Corvax on 17-02-2013, 13:02:00
He we also had to build those checkpoints with razor wire. We also got those super thick oven mat like gloves, but the problem was that the wire always go caught in your pants and other stuff and it was a huge pain to move that crap around since you had to hold it away from your body and it was kind of heavy.

Also yeh, tanks are not supposed to drive over too much wire. It can, as homer already said, mess up your tracks quite badly when it gets completely caught in the running gear and roadwheels. Also razor wire would mostly be rigged with explosives, so when a tank drives over it and it gets caught in the tracks the explosives get pulled towards the tank and disable it. So driving over wire even in a Leo was always a no-go.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 17-02-2013, 16:02:02
Were resistance forces from different and far away countries contacting eachother?

No,


 In WW2, Allied resistance forces were mostly co-ordinated from London through organizations like the OSS.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-02-2013, 19:02:14
Did WW2 tanks had heating inside them for winter conditions?
Or did they used the heat of the engine?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 17-02-2013, 19:02:58
I'd imagine that the engine heat was enough. If not, the crew had thick winter clothing. If they used some sort of channels to vent engine heat to the crew compartment, it would transfer fire and fire extinguisher gases as well, so I don't think they did.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 17-02-2013, 19:02:14
What armoured vehicles did the Greek Army use in WW2?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 17-02-2013, 19:02:37
the first most effective way of dealing with barbed wire was with the tank. During the battle of Amiens in 1918, the allies did the most important breaktrough of WW1 thanks to new whippet and Mark V tanks. They drove trough barbed wire defenses like it was nothing, completly surprising german defenders.

Considering tanks had been in combat since 1916, it was not suprising at all.  Also considering the combat record of tanks in WW1, the tanks basically did nothing.  Amiens was a victory because the German army at that time was spent and being pushed back along the entire front.  The spring offensive had failed to achieve it's final goals before the arrival of the americans, and had ended in the casulties of 200,000 of her best troops.  Also, I'd say the most important allied breakthroughs in 1918 were the Americans at St Mihel and Argonne (which broke the German rail network of supply, meaning their armies in France could no longer be supplied), and arguably the Serbians at Dobro Pole, since that breakthrough essentially caused the collapse of Austria, Bulgaria, and Turkey in one fell swoop (though the Bulgarians managed to regain the initiative at Doiran, their government was overthrown).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 17-02-2013, 19:02:59
What armoured vehicles did the Greek Army use in WW2?

Mostly captured italian tanks and some british Bren carriers and light tanks. Greek terrain was not really suited for tank warfare (at least on the Western side)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 18-02-2013, 10:02:08
Thanks for the answers about barbed wire. I have a new question I bet a lot of you can answer.

What is the most common weapon you rarely see in FH2, and the least common you see a lot? I'm thinking of hand weapons but you can include vehicles if you want. To elaborate: suppose you got a friend to play FH2 and he knows absolutely nothing about World War 2. He plays for a week and plays all the maps 10 times. What weapon would he walk away thinking was really common (when in real life it was super rare) and what weapon would he think was hard to find (when in real life it was used lots).

I was curious because of reading some old threads here that had some people moaning about how the G43 is so common in FH2 (apparently), which added to my own thoughts about how hard it can be to find a faust in Europe but you could have an endless geballte army in theory.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 18-02-2013, 11:02:19
One of the "common rare" weapons would be the FG-42, especially the ZF-version, and the "rare common" would be the M1A1 Carbine, since we have many airborne maps and the majority of Carbines we see there are fixed-stock M1s and Garands.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 25-02-2013, 21:02:20
Two questions on the Pacific war:

1) Is it true that the US didn't attack Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor (not talking about the Doolittle attack, but on an all out attack to defeat Japan asap) because of
a) lack of carriers
b) distance
c) reaince on airpower which needed airfields close enough to Japan?

2) Is it true that the battle of the Philippine Sea was the biggest naval battle in world history? (Or is it a case of Prokhorovka?)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 26-02-2013, 01:02:24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_naval_battle_in_history

And yeah, we were on the defensive for the rest of 1941 and into 1942, and didn't secure the naval aspect until after Midway really.  Beyond that, Roosevelt made the agreement to deal with Germany first, probably due to the need to aid the Soviets and British before dealing with an enemy whom we had much greater buffer zone from the various nations engaged.  Add in that Japan, due to the distances, had to be defeated methodically one island chain and fleet at a time, versus general ground offensives in Europe, Japan would have been thought to be the longer lasting foe.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 26-02-2013, 01:02:46
2) Is it true that the battle of the Philippine Sea was the biggest naval battle in world history? (Or is it a case of Prokhorovka?)

Biggest as in number of ships or troops? Which battle of the Philippines?

I believe the battle at Chi Bi was the largest in history, with General Cao Cao claiming to have almost a million troops (real number estimated at 200,000) and the coalition having about 50,000. Hard to prove since it was almost 2000 years ago however. A lot of ships would have been needed to carry that size of an army, horses and supplies included.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 26-02-2013, 12:02:01
What about first world war and the Battle of Jütland aka Skagerakschlacht?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 26-02-2013, 13:02:37
Thanks for the asnwers, I didn't realize that you can name "biggest naval battle" in so many different ways. At least the battle I meant was in the list :)

@ Korsakov: before I asked the question I thought it'd be in the number of ships, but it turned out to be the largest single naval formation ever to give battle in tonnage. Also it was the largest carrier battle, and the largest one of WWII. I meant that Battle of the Philippine Sea in 1944.

@ Oberst: that battle is in the wikilink too which Mudra posted.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-03-2013, 15:03:17
Okay guys, since this is a "General" questions thread, i feel like posting this, even tought it is science fiction

I always had a huge thing for alien invasion movies. And War of the worlds (2005) is a favorite. Its a movie with flaws, but those tripods are just so fucking awesome. And the horror that they create...Brilliant

but

there is one flaw i just cannot...cannot get talk good.

Now in this movie about 2/5 down the way, Ray ferrier meets up with a TV crew after there first encounter with these tripods. The TV crew said that they were attached to a national guard unit and they said that "Shells and missiles detonate before they impact because of a shield".

Now here is a thing that puzzles me. You later see M1A1 Abrams tanks engaging these tripods with the above result. The shells detonate before they impact.


But..

How can a 120mm APSFDS Solid tungsten shell "Detonate" when it is a shell that relies on kinetic firepower and does not contain explosives? Issent this a big flaw in the movie as M1A1 abrams primarly use these APSFDS shells over HEAT rounds????
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 10-03-2013, 15:03:44
it's not such big of a flaw, IMO, I didn't know that until now. Heck I don't even remember Abrams shooting the tripod.

Researching the shell types (even remembering to research the nature of the shells) is a bit much to ask of Hollywood, and later to explain to everyone not familiar with the tank shells of the US Army why didn't the shell go off like every other shell....too much work for that 2 second blast.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-03-2013, 15:03:28
Still they mention that the shield makes the shells "Detonate" BEFORE they can impact. So basicly something is done that makes the explosives detonate prematuraly.

Still a bit of a flaw IMO. They should have said that she shield stops "Anything" before it impacts. Would have made more sense
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ajappat on 10-03-2013, 15:03:35
Well what if the shield just smelts the round into spectacular shower of steel and what ever other stuff that shell has.

Edit: Watched that part on youtube and I couldn't see single hit on those tripods that was shot by abrams.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 10-03-2013, 15:03:31
Was the Canadian Ross rifle still in use during WW2?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-03-2013, 16:03:32
Was the Canadian Ross rifle still in use during WW2?
Only in training did some canadian soldiers got there hands on them

and the Royal Canadian Navy, the Veteran's Guard of Canada, coastal defense units, training depots, the British Home Guard, London Fire Brigade and such


But only Mark 3 Ross rifles
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-03-2013, 20:03:26
New question

did german WW2 ammo has corrosive primers?

And if so, what type of rifle bore cleaner did they used?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 10-03-2013, 20:03:15
According to my rather poor knowledge about German equipment, they were corrosive just like the British ones were. I am not shure if the German practice of cleaning barrels was much different from the British one. Usually, you would simply run piping hot water through the barrel, but avoid causing any spills, since guns don't like water at all, especially if it leaks below the furniture  :P . After that you would dry and oil it. The German gun oil of the time has been Ballistol Universaloel. That stuff is quite good, I have used it to great effect. I'd say it beats Rem-Oil in many ways.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-03-2013, 20:03:59
people say windex is great but its not ammonia who disolves the windex, its the water inside the windex ;D

I currently use not to hot soapy water(Very carefully ofcourse) and then i go trough it with a brush(Nylon not metal)

then i dry it and inspect the barrel after 2 days. If its clean i oil the barrel for the next time usage
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Nilsson on 11-03-2013, 13:03:28
What would be the closest distance ww2 era bazookas would be fired upon enemy tanks? Safely that is.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 11-03-2013, 18:03:26
What would be the closest distance ww2 era bazookas would be fired upon enemy tanks? Safely that is.

Now, you're talking about an American M1 "bazooka", right? If so, you don't want to get all that close. Against a tank, I would say you don't want to be closer than 15m if shooting a tank. Further than that if shooting at something concrete, brick, or masonry.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Nilsson on 11-03-2013, 18:03:22
What would be the closest distance ww2 era bazookas would be fired upon enemy tanks? Safely that is.

Now, you're talking about an American M1 "bazooka", right? If so, you don't want to get all that close. Against a tank, I would say you don't want to be closer than 15m if shooting a tank. Further than that if shooting at something concrete, brick, or masonry.

Thank you for the quick reply!
I'm making a small diorama (perhaps to be posted in the military modelling thread) and I was planing to have an american antitank team ambushing a StuG, but I'll have to rethink it then.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 11-03-2013, 20:03:16
Did any WW2 land vehicles (tanks/jeeps/trucks/tractors/etc) have locks or anti-theft devices? In theory, could enemy soldiers steal a tank? Did this ever happen :D?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 11-03-2013, 20:03:46
Did any WW2 land vehicles (tanks/jeeps/trucks/tractors/etc) have locks or anti-theft devices? In theory, could enemy soldiers steal a tank? Did this ever happen :D?
Many allied vehicles had a sort of key. you could remove it to render the vehicle inoperable unless you had such a "key".  These keys could be used on any vehicle of its same type however. It basicly cutted the power of the vehicle. Its not entire failsafe as the germans could macgyver there way around it, but it was time consuming wich was in the beginning the design goal=To make sure the enemy could not immediatly use captured equipment

6PDR tank guns also had such a system of what i can remeber.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: SiCaRiO on 11-03-2013, 21:03:57
did infantery modified their weapons in WW2?  I remember reading about some garands modified to fire in full auto.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 11-03-2013, 21:03:08
(http://imageshack.us/a/img518/5820/m190325rndmagkw1.jpg)

USMC converted M1903's to accept M1918 BAR magazines at Guadalcanal, or so it is thought.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 12-03-2013, 00:03:58
Heinz Petry (16) (picture) and Josef Schoner (17) (not on picture, couldn't find picture of him)
(http://www.veltmaete.nl/wp-content/gallery/afbeeldingen-art-in-gleichem-schritt/werwolf04.jpg)
They got arrested for espionage. During the trial they explained that they had been detained in a camp and offered the chance to clear their names by reporting on the movements of American troops. Acts of espionage lead to execution during wartime, but they were executed in June 1945... Why did they get executed for espionage when the war has ended (in Europe at least)? I tried to search some information about it, but i can't find real answers.
(http://www.offthemall.com/Military/general/thm_Heinz%20Petry,%2016,%20of%20the%20Hitler%20Jugend.%20Petry%20was%20tried%20as%20a%20spy.jpg)
A firing squad of the U.S. Ninth Army executes young Heinz Petry, 16, of the Hitler Youth (Hitler Jungend). Petry was tried as a spy and executed by American troops on June 11, 1945.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Dukat on 12-03-2013, 01:03:39
Hmm. Maybe the crime was committed during wartime or during post war emergency rule, while the execution was delayed in time by a clemency plea or something else.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 12-03-2013, 02:03:01
Did any WW2 land vehicles (tanks/jeeps/trucks/tractors/etc) have locks or anti-theft devices? In theory, could enemy soldiers steal a tank? Did this ever happen :D?

If you are asking if any German could just walk up and commandeer a tank, the answer is no. You have to know what you are doing to start up a tank, much less drive it. Furthermore, everything is in another language. Jeeps could be stolen without too much trouble, trucks if you know how to drive one, but tanks could prove difficult if you don't have the proper training.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 12-03-2013, 05:03:10
If you were a tanker and came across an enemy tank intact, they'd easily take one over. The finns captured their first T-34 by driving it away when it was abandoned by russians because they had driven it over a tree stump and got stuck.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 12-03-2013, 06:03:04
A trained tank crewman could drive a captured WW2 tank if he wanted to, driving is possible, now using it in combat is a bit different story.

Spare parts, ammo, fuel, etc would be a problem.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 12-03-2013, 10:03:20
Hmm. Maybe the crime was committed during wartime or during post war emergency rule, while the execution was delayed in time by a clemency plea or something else.
He was caught in februari, but his trial was the same day as the execution
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 12-03-2013, 16:03:09
Espionage still carries a death sentence outside of war.  Remember the Rosenbergs?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 12-03-2013, 16:03:40
How frequent was the G98 used in WW2?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 12-03-2013, 16:03:55
Quote
They got arrested for espionage. During the trial they explained that they had been detained in a camp and offered the chance to clear their names by reporting on the movements of American troops. Acts of espionage lead to execution during wartime, but they were executed in June 1945... Why did they get executed for espionage when the war has ended (in Europe at least)? I tried to search some information about it, but i can't find real answers.

Convictions during wartime where still executed after the war was over. Even the Germans where allowed  to shoot deserters after the war.

Quote
The execution of Bruno Dorfer and Rainer Beck by surrendered German troops in Canadian custody was a product of many factors. Under a dubious interpretation of international law, Canadian military authorities permitted a continuation of the German military structure after the demise of the Third Reich. German assistance was indispensable in the disarmament, concentration, and evacuation of the German armed forces within Holland.
Unfortunately, disinterested Canadian military authorities also left the German military in control of order and discipline. German commanders and military judges applied a military law warped by National Socialism. The Canadian military, distracted by larger political and strategic concerns, tardily instituted restrictions on these proceedings. Dorfer and Beck, seeking safety and friends, instead found indifference and enemies.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 12-03-2013, 16:03:36
How frequent was the G98 used in WW2?

Not very frequent, they mostly saw civilian use during the period. When they were used for combat, they were fitted with a scope often. I think they were given to some... undervalued companies/battalions.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 12-03-2013, 17:03:41
I can confirm this. The biggest users were the Volkssturm and the SS Volunteer units.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 12-03-2013, 17:03:26
Alright, I have one question related to Operation Torch: Did any British units take part in the Battle of Sidi Bou Zid?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 12-03-2013, 18:03:00
I can confirm this. The biggest users were the Volkssturm and the SS Volunteer units.
Also saw a lot of use with snipers. Was slightly more accurate than the K98 due to the longer barrel.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-03-2013, 18:03:28
few G98's were used because the grand majority were converted to Karabiner 98A B and AZ

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 12-03-2013, 18:03:12
Alright, I have one question related to Operation Torch: Did any British units take part in the Battle of Sidi Bou Zid?

No, most of the British forces were to the west.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 12-03-2013, 18:03:03
East.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 12-03-2013, 20:03:15
Thank you for your quick replies!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 13-03-2013, 04:03:04
few G98's were used because the grand majority were converted to Karabiner 98A B and AZ

On the Gew98, I've seen quite a few SS using them, plus they were very common amoung garrison troops.  Plus, as Kading pointed out, they were quite liked by snipers.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 13-03-2013, 21:03:36
They where refurbished sometime in between the 2 wars right? I cant imagine a weapon that has been true the trenches and probably fired hundreds if not thousands of rounds in wet stinking trenches being still that accurate after 30 years.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Sgt.KAR98 on 13-03-2013, 21:03:20
Mauser C96 was used in WWII as well by the germans,right?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 14-03-2013, 01:03:12
Mauser C96 was used in WWII as well by the germans,right?
While all manner of semi-automatic pistols were found in the German military, nearly ALL of them were Walther P38s. Anything else would have to have been captured or passed down from a veteran relative.

Edit:
I should also say that Luger pistols were also around, but only if they had been in the military during the mid 1930s or earlier. However, because the Walther was an issued weapon DURING the war, it was by far more common.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 14-03-2013, 06:03:23
The C96 was used but only by rear troops.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 14-03-2013, 16:03:28
Are there photos of original Stalin's Order 227? Or at least a copy?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 14-03-2013, 17:03:18
They where refurbished sometime in between the 2 wars right? I cant imagine a weapon that has been true the trenches and probably fired hundreds if not thousands of rounds in wet stinking trenches being still that accurate after 30 years.

<shrug>  My k98k was probably fired hundreds of times but is still nice an accurate.

As for the C96, they absolutely saw service, but as Kading said, mostly as a pass me down.  The P38 and Lugars were the most common, followed by the various foreign pistols the germans mass produced, such as the Radom, Browning High Power, and Czech pistols.


Actually, I just did some digging.  Production numbers are, as follows:

2,000,000 Lugars between 1909 and 1942, of which about 1,000,000 were produced by 1918, the rest being produced between 1919 and 1942, when producted was ordered to halt.

1,000,000 P38, of which only 600,000 were produced during WW2, the rest being post-war builds until the improved P1.

600,000 Czech vz27, of which about 200,000 were captured in occupation of Czechoslovakia, and another 400,000+ produced during the war.

350,000+ Polish Radom pistols produced for the Germans during the war, plus captured stock.

300,000+ Browning High Powers produced during the war for the Germans, plus captured stock.

Not included are various French, Italian, Spanish, and Russian pistols.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 14-03-2013, 18:03:25
23 850 Modelé 35 pistols were produced for germany in 7.65 Longué Calibre

They where refurbished sometime in between the 2 wars right? I cant imagine a weapon that has been true the trenches and probably fired hundreds if not thousands of rounds in wet stinking trenches being still that accurate after 30 years.
No mather how rusted on the exterior, as long as the barrel and sights are fine, a G98 will shoot amazingly accurate. During testings in 1935 it came close even in beating the Swedish Gevar 96 in 6.5x55mm

the german republic after WW1 was allowed to update/refurbish existing G98/k98a rifles, including producing new barrels
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 15-03-2013, 01:03:40
Aw tarter sauce! I always forget the foreign production stuff. Need to increase my research rate.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 15-03-2013, 14:03:26
What was the most common camo of Opel Blitz?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 15-03-2013, 16:03:14
What was the most common camo of Opel Blitz?

All vehicles were painted dark grey until 1943 when the Germans started painting just about everything tan. The soldiers who received these items were to use the tan as a base for their own camouflage that they would paint on themselves.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 15-03-2013, 22:03:06
Can someone tell me what gas mask did the French and the Russians use in WW1?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 15-03-2013, 23:03:39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_gas_mask  Main French mask that I'm aware of.

For russia, this:

(http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/infantry/regin008-50.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 15-03-2013, 23:03:02
Looks like the French had less evolved gas masks than the other nation's masks.

And, oh God, the Russian mask is freaking disturbing. It gave me goosebumps. I would definately freak out if a soldier wearing that kind of mask would be running over at me through the thick smoke....   :o
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 16-03-2013, 00:03:22
AI would definately freak out if a soldier wearing that kind of mask would be running over at me through the thick smoke....   :o

When the enemy wears masks, they become dehumanized to your own soldiers, and killing them without remorse is much easier.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 20-03-2013, 13:03:51
When the enemy wears masks, they become dehumanized to your own soldiers, and killing them without remorse is much easier.
never seen it that way, nice insight
(http://www.printcollection.com/sites/default/files/27239u.jpg)
American, British, French & German Gas Mask

btw, i think i have french WW1 masks on the harddrive of my other comp, might upload some of them if i think of it later on (only in weekends possible and usually i then think of other stuff)

I do have a WW1 gas mask on this comp, but i think it's German; might be wrong in this, so correct me if this is the case :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 21-03-2013, 18:03:32
How does one adjust the British braces for the BD trousers? These things are seemingley impossible to shorten!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 22-03-2013, 00:03:51
(http://img.rodastjarnan.com/gasmasker-gasmask-belgisk-med-filter-7058-c1.jpg)

While searching gasmask info, i came across this.
We have this gasmask at home (without the filter), i remember i played with it as kid, but i don't know anything about it, i actually always thought it was some nice made toy (we also had plastic helmets and plastic guns). The brown that covers the face is rubber and not leather (i remember that rubber smell that stayed on ur face  8) )

The "Belgisk" in the URL name makes me think it's Belgian (https://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=640&q=belgisk+gas+mask&oq=belgisk+gas+mask&gs_l=img.3...17.6279.0.6620.16.7.0.9.0.0.98.367.7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.7.img.xdbQtAeO2Vk)

Could anyone tell me more about this? Era, what nations used it, etc.?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-03-2013, 00:03:13
That my friend is a post WW2 Belgian gas mask.M51 to be exact.
This gasmask landed in the top 3 of scariest gas masks  ;D i gotta find that site again
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 22-03-2013, 00:03:46
Was it used by other nations, and when post-war? 50-70? 60-80? Did it ever see action? Congo conflicts or so?
I have no clue how this ended up in our house... my father has always hated everything war and military related, time to shoot some questions next time i see my parents :)

and actually, i don't think it's that scary, i've seen many more scarier, or maybe it's becuz im used to the sight and i actually like the looks due to nostalgia
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-03-2013, 00:03:25
Was it used by other nations, and when post-war? 50-70? 60-80? Did it ever see action? Congo conflicts or so?
I have no clue how this ended up in our house... my father has always hated everything war and military related, time to shoot some questions next time i see my parents :)
From the 1950's to well into the 90"s was this gasmask used. Congo conflict? most likely but rarely used.

France and belgium were the only users.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 22-03-2013, 00:03:20
And weirder question: does it have any value? I googled a bit after you gave me the name of the mask, but i find people who say it's finnish, i find proud owners but i see never one for sale :)
Not that i wanna sell it, but just curious, i never knew we had a real militaria from modern times in house  ;D
ANd btw, thanks a lot for all the info, next time i'll see it, i'll look at it differently
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Torenico on 22-03-2013, 02:03:28
What was the UK-France reaction to the USSR invasion of Poland?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 22-03-2013, 11:03:18
http://img.rodastjarnan.com/gasmasker-gasmask-belgisk-med-filter-7058-c1.jpg

While searching gasmask info, i came across this.
We have this gasmask at home (without the filter), i remember i played with it as kid, but i don't know anything about it, i actually always thought it was some nice made toy (we also had plastic helmets and plastic guns). The brown that covers the face is rubber and not leather (i remember that rubber smell that stayed on ur face  8) )

The "Belgisk" in the URL name makes me think it's Belgian (https://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=640&q=belgisk+gas+mask&oq=belgisk+gas+mask&gs_l=img.3...17.6279.0.6620.16.7.0.9.0.0.98.367.7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.7.img.xdbQtAeO2Vk)

Could anyone tell me more about this? Era, what nations used it, etc.?

Hahaha, i have 2 of these gasmaks in there original bag including the whole NBC kit (full suit, medical stuff and chemical and nuclear detection stuffs. They are epic, quite comfortable the first hour, then they just start hurting your face.

It is for sale here for like 10 euro a piece.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Sgt.KAR98 on 23-03-2013, 23:03:01
Started to get interested on gasmasks on the last two years.WWI ones are the most differente/strange/creepy gasmasks that will ever exist.They look very sci-fi,steampunk and makes you wonder what's behind them.

The russian one was called the Zelinsky Gasmask.Kinda resembles the soviet GP-5 gasmask.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Various_gas_masks_WWI.jpg)

BTW,anyone know what is this red thing at the PH Helmet?
(http://www.themanchesters1914-18.org/img/uniform/PhAll2.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: |7th|Nighthawk on 23-03-2013, 23:03:48
^ That's the exhaust valve.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 24-03-2013, 00:03:33
Oh, ww1 gas masks... I used to be very interested in them. I even wanted to buy one, but apprinately old masks contain blue asbestos, which id very dangerous for the lungs...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 24-03-2013, 01:03:37
IIRC only the filters have blue asbestos
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Sgt.KAR98 on 24-03-2013, 04:03:53
Yes,only the filters.IDK if there are any WWI gasmasks available in the market.At least replicas.
Saw a Hypo Helmet replica on a site for sale.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 27-03-2013, 19:03:28
How many Karabiner 88's were used by which countries in WW1?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 27-03-2013, 19:03:54
how many is difficult to say.
But the rifle and carbine were used as second line weapons by Austria-hungary, German empire and ottoman empire
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 28-03-2013, 22:03:54
There is one thing that always troubled my mind: How did regular troops (not Commandos!) carry their (private purchase) FS knives? Also, did they only have the leg sheath with wings back then or did they already have an option to get what Sheffield Knives describes as a 'belt sheath'? Additionally, what oil did the British Army use for lubrication and cleaning of firearms during the war?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 29-03-2013, 07:03:18
There is one thing that always troubled my mind: How did regular troops (not Commandos!) carry their (private purchase) FS knives? Also, did they only have the leg sheath with wings back then or did they already have an option to get what Sheffield Knives describes as a 'belt sheath'?

Non regulation items had no regulations. You would probably keep it tucked away so as not to upset any sergeants. Germans would also kill Commandos that they captured because of an order from Hitler, so it would probably not be a good idea to risk being mistaken for one.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 07-04-2013, 11:04:53
Did B-29 bombers ever got shot down by the Japanese? Are there any pictures of the damage because of japanese planes/AA
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 07-04-2013, 11:04:15
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3365/3240064693_25981b4610_z.jpg?zz=1)
Quote
A B-29 falls in flames after a direct hit by an anti-aircraft shell over Japan

(http://www.mrprophead.com/b29_2/dnjapftr.jpg)
according to the caption, this is a japfighter downed by a B-29 on Tinian

(http://fly.historicwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/HighFlight-Saipan2-1024x656.jpg)
Quote from: fly.historicwings.com, Published on November 27, 2012
By August 1944, the US had captured Saipan in the Marianas, one of the last in a series of island invasions that were the hallmark of the Pacific Campaign against the Japanese in World War II.  Within days, the US Navy’s famed Seabees were at work building a new airbase that would be called Isley Field.  By November 1, the first of the USAAF’snew Boeing B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers of the 20th Air Force overflew Tokyo on a reconnaissance mission.  Alarmed, the Japanese made attacks against the American bombers on Saipan a high priority.  Immediately, bombing raids began — yet these were largely blunted by the fighter cover provided by the combined forces of the USAAF’s P-47 Thunderbolts in daylight operations and P-61 Black Widows at night.  Then on November 27, 1944, 68 years ago today in aviation history, the Japanese staged their most daring raid yet.  It was a one-way flight of 12 bomb-laden A6M5 Zero fighters.  At high noon, the attack began, having achieved complete tactical surprise.

And just from wiki:

... The first B-29 combat losses occurred during this raid, with one B-29 destroyed on the ground by Japanese fighters after an emergency landing in China,[32] one lost to anti-aircraft fire over Yawata...
...
The tactic of using aircraft to ram American B-29s was first recorded on raid of 20 August 1944 on the steel factories at Yawata. Sergeant Shigeo Nobe of the 4th Sentai intentionally flew his Kawasaki Ki-45 into a B-29; debris from the explosion following this attack severely damaged another B-29, which also went down. Lost were Colonel Robert Clinksale's B-29-10-BW 42-6334 Gertrude C and Captain Ornell Stauffer's B-29-15-BW 42-6368 Calamity Sue, both from the 486th BG.[36] Several B-29s were destroyed in this way over the ensuing months
...

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 12-04-2013, 17:04:31
Were the private purchase officer pattern FS caps authorised for wear by NCOs and ORs in general? As far as I am concerned the reason why ORs wore the standard issue was the private purchase version's price.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 13-04-2013, 12:04:50
how many days did it take to invade Poland and France?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 13-04-2013, 12:04:18
how many days did it take to invade Poland and France?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29)

Wikipedia is a good start if you need information on anything and want to read up on it...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 13-04-2013, 12:04:50
how many days did it take to invade Poland and France?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29)

Wikipedia is a good start if you need information on anything and want to read up on it...

I dont trust Wiki....
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 13-04-2013, 12:04:49

I dont trust Wiki....
A certain skepticism is always good, but that´s just a balls-out retarded (*cough*) statement, since the articles on Wikipedia need to have their facts verified with sources. Sure, there might be some obscure little articles that don´t get much attention and are therefore more prone to being wrong, but atleast the big articles that get lots of exposure can be trusted, especially when you´re asking for simple things, such as dates of certain events.
Simply dismissing the whole thing because of borderline paranoia is kinda....odd, atleast.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 13-04-2013, 16:04:09
You'd better trust Wiki other than some opinion-biased other encyclopedias.

I prove this based on the subject I'm familiar with like aviation and IT industries. Wiki is as reliable as they are seems to be. Just don't get caught with their discussion over seemingly trivial stuff.

Generally, they explains WW2 battles much better than most mainstream documentary on mainstream "scientific" channels. Since they are aimed at much broader audience, experts included. While TV documentaries are mainly aimed at general audience.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 13-04-2013, 19:04:15
Were the private purchase officer pattern FS caps authorised for wear by NCOs and ORs in general? As far as I am concerned the reason why ORs wore the standard issue was the private purchase version's price.

Could aynone enlighten me  ;) ? Also, Wikipedia is usually a very good website, however you should investigate the sources given at the bottom of the article.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Lightning on 13-04-2013, 19:04:54
I dont trust Wiki....
You don't trust a website that is fact-checked by thousands of people daily, so you ask your question on a forum where it may be read by about a dozen people, none of whom is an academically trained expert in this particular field?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 13-04-2013, 19:04:32
I dont trust Wiki....
You don't trust a website that is fact-checked by thousands of people daily, so you ask your question on a forum where it may be read by about a dozen people, none of whom is an academically trained expert in this particular field?

Still, you guys are wise dudes. And now I learned my lesson. I'll check wiki next time....
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-04-2013, 21:04:11
Wikipedia is not A source on its own. WIkipedia takes many sources and puts that info on a page. This info must be linked to a source and people have to vote if this source is reliable yes or no. If a wiki page is considered Biased, it too is dealt with
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 13-04-2013, 22:04:59
Ok, can someone give me a rundown on how all of a German soldier's field gear should be carried?

I have a set of y-straps and most of my field gear, just not entirely sure how to put it all on.

Also, if I don't have the internal suspenders, do I need the 4 little tunic hooks? 

(VM I'm looking at you)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 14-04-2013, 06:04:57
The first shot from the Allies in WWII came from the Australian coaster Woniora, under command of Captain Smale, on September 3rd, 1939. The same guns fired the first shot of WWI on August 5th, 1914, a few hours after the war was declared. From everything that is currently known about the start of both wars, is this still true?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 14-04-2013, 16:04:22
Cold War question: how many Soviet missiles were actually placed on Cuba? It is obvious that many were on their way to Cuba in various ships during the crisis, but I was wondering how many missiles were actually on the island.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 14-04-2013, 18:04:15
I dont trust Wiki....
You don't trust a website that is fact-checked by thousands of people daily, so you ask your question on a forum where it may be read by about a dozen people, none of whom is an academically trained expert in this particular field?

Hey...I'm an academically trained expert in this field :(
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 14-04-2013, 19:04:38
then answer my question!
(http://www.troll.me/images/dr-steve-brule/ya-dingus.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 14-04-2013, 20:04:39
The hooks are still useful in holding the belt close, but no, they're not really needed without internal suspenders.  As for how to wear the gear:

http://www.mp44.nl/equipment.htm
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 14-04-2013, 20:04:49
Thanks Von Mizzle! 
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hslan.Corvax on 14-04-2013, 20:04:29
The hooks are still useful in holding the belt close, but no, they're not really needed without internal suspenders.  As for how to wear the gear:

http://www.mp44.nl/equipment.htm

Yay haha i got the same bike :P Without the rack on the back thou.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 16-04-2013, 16:04:35
Did the Finns use the CSRG Chauchat during the Continuation War? How many of them, were they common?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 16-04-2013, 16:04:49
Some unlucky soldiers briefly used them in the start of Continuation War. But dont run into suggesting it in the finnish weapons thread because it wont happen.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 16-04-2013, 16:04:56
I wont..... altough some day if I get that Chauchat model+texture animated, I might put it in FH2 myself. Or at least try to.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 16-04-2013, 23:04:28
Cold War question: how many Soviet missiles were actually placed on Cuba? It is obvious that many were on their way to Cuba in various ships during the crisis, but I was wondering how many missiles were actually on the island.
Anyone know about the number of missiles?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-04-2013, 18:04:13
Did any female finns took part in battle during WW2?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ciupita on 17-04-2013, 18:04:04
Did any female finns took part in battle during WW2?

No, there was Lotta Svärd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotta_Sv%C3%A4rd), which helped in non-combat stuff.

During last months of Continuation war, 14th Searchlight Battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Searchlight_Battery_%28Finland%29) was formed from Lottas who received military training, but it didn't take part on any battle. They covered searchlights in least-dangerous northwestern sector of Helsinki.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 17-04-2013, 19:04:45
Cold War question: how many Soviet missiles were actually placed on Cuba? It is obvious that many were on their way to Cuba in various ships during the crisis, but I was wondering how many missiles were actually on the island.
Anyone know about the number of missiles?

Quote
Between mid-June 17 and mid- October, 24 launching pads, 42 R-12 rockets, including six training ones, some 45 nuclear warheads, 42 Il-28 bombers, a fighter aircraft regiment (40 MiG-21 aircraft), two Anti-Air Defense divisions, four mechanized infantry regiments, and other military units (47,000 troops in total) were transferred.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 17-04-2013, 21:04:19
Thanks VM. I read that, but apparently I missed the June part, so I was unsure whether that stuff was only transported, or actually deployed. It looks like it was deployed :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 17-04-2013, 22:04:31
Was Chauchat still in service eith the French colonial forces during 1919-1922?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 17-04-2013, 22:04:44
Was Chauchat still in service eith the French colonial forces during 1919-1922?

It was made till 1922 and used till the end of WW2. I think it is safe to assume that it was used in there colonies.
The myth of the jamming and terrible reliability was only because of the bad first versions. The later versions had many of these problems fixed.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-04-2013, 22:04:01
the problems were the early magazines, wich were open to reduce weight and cost. Wich brought in dust into the action wich caused the jammes. Once problems were fixed, in 1917 the Chauchat was actually pretty decent. Keep in mind, the westren allies had thousands of LMG's(Lewis, chauchat...) while the germans were lacking them. This became especially noticable in the 1918 allied offensives.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 18-04-2013, 18:04:14
Furthermore, a lot of the jamming stories come from Americans, who were issued USED ones. So with all the quality problems plus they had been in the trenches for a couple years already, they gained the title "worst small arm in US Army history."
But they forget: it's better than nothing.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 18-04-2013, 18:04:13
Plus they rechambered it to the more powerful 30.06, which meant more stress and heat on the gun.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 18-04-2013, 18:04:45
I've always admired that gun, even though the sucky magazine. Also, whats's the fire rate? How much rounds does the magazine hold? Is there a restriction of how many rounds you load in the magazine like the MP40?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Roughbeak on 18-04-2013, 18:04:27
I am quite sure that the Polish used the Chauchat also alongside the Browning BAR (7.92mm Mauser) :)

If it matters ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 18-04-2013, 18:04:46
Yeah they did, Blue Division (AFAIK)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 18-04-2013, 18:04:51
The ROF for the Chauchat was pretty slow. Slower than an MP-40 IIRC. Yeah, 240rpm.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 18-04-2013, 19:04:49
I will just post some links about it. This guy has his facts pretty good most of the time. Some neat pictures of the weapon in different calibres.

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/the-worst-gun-ever/

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/chauchat-followup/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 20-04-2013, 16:04:35
What is the French truck of WW2?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 20-04-2013, 17:04:23
Later on it would be American trucks like the GMC, Studebakers etc. Until 1941 Renault produced the AGR with some 3500 finished exemplars, which was then used by the Germans. Renault later on produced and repaired German tanks and trucks. The factory got however destroyed by allied bombers.

(http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Renault_AGR_uA_im_Schlamm_Ostfront_Neg.jpg)

The following link is on french, but you find the other Renault trucks there in the rubric "Camions":
http://www.secondeguerre.net/articles/vehicules/index.html
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-04-2013, 18:04:31
does anyone know how much the bullet weight of 8x57mm is? Talking about WW2 German ammo


Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 20-04-2013, 18:04:04
Later on it would be American trucks like the GMC, Studebakers etc. Until 1941 Renault produced the AGR with some 3500 finished exemplars, which was then used by the Germans. Renault later on produced and repaired German tanks and trucks. The factory got however destroyed by allied bombers.

(http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Renault_AGR_uA_im_Schlamm_Ostfront_Neg.jpg)

The following link is on french, but you find the other Renault trucks there in the rubric "Camions":
http://www.secondeguerre.net/articles/vehicules/index.html

So the most common would be the AGR?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 24-04-2013, 10:04:35
Gas masks dont work if the eye part id cracked or broken right? Or is there a part seperating them?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 24-04-2013, 18:04:28
Depends on the type of gas mask, some have a cone around the mouth so a broken eye glass wont stop you from breathing clean air, but then again some gasses will react to water so then it will still make you blind.

In general you can say a gasmask has to be intact to work properly and also has to be airtight, that means no beard or long hair since that can break the seal.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 24-04-2013, 22:04:34
How often did Heer soldiers in WW2 wear camouflage?  My reenacting unit has everyone wear water & tan camouflage, but in historic photographs I usually only see the feldgrau.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 25-04-2013, 00:04:10
Depends on unit.  Some never got camo, and so had to wear Zeltbahns.  Others were well supplied (21st Pz is usually in tan and water smocks in normandy from what I've seen).  So if your unit got lots of camo smocks, perfectly fine.  BUT...if they're a unit that more or less was nothing special, they probably only had zeltbahns and helmet camo until late 1944.  Around late 44 on, camo becomes almost ubiquitous.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 25-04-2013, 16:04:59
I heard gas was used in Gallipoli 1915. Any documents you got?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 25-04-2013, 16:04:53
Depends on unit.  Some never got camo, and so had to wear Zeltbahns.  Others were well supplied (21st Pz is usually in tan and water smocks in normandy from what I've seen).  So if your unit got lots of camo smocks, perfectly fine.  BUT...if they're a unit that more or less was nothing special, they probably only had zeltbahns and helmet camo until late 1944.  Around late 44 on, camo becomes almost ubiquitous.
Thanks VM.  The unit I joined is the 100th Jager so I suppose that makes sense then.  It also is nice to have the camo smock instead of all that wool in the summer!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 25-04-2013, 18:04:30
What were the most common used handguns in the Korea War by American forces? I've seen pictures with Garands, but what other weapons were used? Thompons? And it seemed weird to me that they would still use the same rifles as in WW2 since usually, war boosts newer and better weapons, and the best of them are never finished during the war.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 25-04-2013, 18:04:33
I'm guessing Grease Guns, M2 carbine, BARs and Garands.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-04-2013, 18:04:30
What were the most common used handguns in the Korea War by American forces? I've seen pictures with Garands, but what other weapons were used? Thompons? And it seemed weird to me that they would still use the same rifles as in WW2 since usually, war boosts newer and better weapons, and the best of them are never finished during the war.
Actually the grand lot of US weapons were that

Garand, M1's supplanted by the new M2, M1A1 and m9 bazookas. The new M18 recoilles rifle, BAR, M1919A6, Thompsons, grease guns...Colt 1911's.

The US basicly had the same weapons of WW2 till 1963
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 25-04-2013, 19:04:54
They replaced the Garand with the M-14 in 1959 though I think.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 26-04-2013, 03:04:01
Depends on unit.  Some never got camo, and so had to wear Zeltbahns.  Others were well supplied (21st Pz is usually in tan and water smocks in normandy from what I've seen).  So if your unit got lots of camo smocks, perfectly fine.  BUT...if they're a unit that more or less was nothing special, they probably only had zeltbahns and helmet camo until late 1944.  Around late 44 on, camo becomes almost ubiquitous.
Thanks VM.  The unit I joined is the 100th Jager so I suppose that makes sense then.  It also is nice to have the camo smock instead of all that wool in the summer!

One of the MANY reasons I like doing FJ. All the advantages of camo, plus a nice light uniform. I should say, that on a day that is 70 degrees or below, if one is WELL HYDRATED, the wool uniform is no real obstacle to the in shape reenactor ;)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 26-04-2013, 03:04:26
I did cross country so I have a lot of stamina compared to some of the older reenactors.  Should go to the gym more though...

In regards to the camo question, is it about the same for helmet covers?  I have gotten the impression that while not ubiquitous, they were more common than camo uniforms for German soldiers. 

Edit:  What other reasons do you like about the FJ impression?  Just curious.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 26-04-2013, 04:04:48
I did cross country so I have a lot of stamina compared to some of the older reenactors.  Should go to the gym more though...

In regards to the camo question, is it about the same for helmet covers?  I have gotten the impression that while not ubiquitous, they were more common than camo uniforms for German soldiers. 

Edit:  What other reasons do you like about the FJ impression?  Just curious.

Helmet covers were available much earlier, as VM said. And if helmet covers weren't available, netting, chicken wire, even tire tubes would be used to secure foliage to the helmet. This is actually a secondary use for your breadbag strap.

FJ is fun because the whole idea is you are supposed to be a sneaky bastard. The boots are cool, and the helmet stays in place because it is a 4 point chinstrap. The wool trousers have side vents to keep you cool. Also, there is MUCH more variety in uniform choices. You can use 2 types of jump boots, low boots, mountain boots, jackboots, tropical boots, even captured ammo boots. Also, tropical uniforms that were actually used in Italy, so you have more excuse to wear spiffy trousers along with the widely used tropical uniform.
The icing on the cake, is that you can put together a uniform for Crete that can be used, without getting anything else for the impression, up until Berlin.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 30-04-2013, 16:04:43
I come back with yet another (minor) question.

So on German y-straps you've got the four little dangle-y straps in the front.  Two of them can be hooked onto the ammo pouches, or I suppose your belt.  What about the other two with loops instead of hooks?

Are they to be used for my belt to go through?  Or are they are for carrying more things?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 30-04-2013, 16:04:09
Was poison gas used in Gallipoli 1915? I've seen photos of soldiers from Gallipoli with gas masks, but no document gas was used.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 30-04-2013, 19:04:45
I come back with yet another (minor) question.

So on German y-straps you've got the four little dangle-y straps in the front.  Two of them can be hooked onto the ammo pouches, or I suppose your belt.  What about the other two with loops instead of hooks?

Are they to be used for my belt to go through?  Or are they are for carrying more things?

It's how you attach your A-Frame pack.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y18/pzrwest/CDN%20Figures/100_7389.jpg)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y18/pzrwest/CDN%20Figures/100_7390.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 30-04-2013, 20:04:51
Aha, makes sense.  Merci again Kading. 
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 01-05-2013, 02:05:56
Aha, makes sense.  Merci again Kading.

If you are going to reenact, might as well be as perfect as you can. Otherwise you are just cosplaying. Part of what I love about the hobby. The "this is exactly what it was like" moments are what I crave. Also, more practically, I don't make a lot of money, so I have to research the crap out of everything I buy to ensure against wasted money.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 01-05-2013, 19:05:38
Aha, makes sense.  Merci again Kading.

If you are going to reenact, might as well be as perfect as you can. Otherwise you are just cosplaying. Part of what I love about the hobby. The "this is exactly what it was like" moments are what I crave. Also, more practically, I don't make a lot of money, so I have to research the crap out of everything I buy to ensure against wasted money.
Precisely !  Which is why I'm asking all these questions haha.  To which I will add one more:

I'm going today to try to sew on the German Nazi breast eagle onto my tunic.  I have only found two posts on the internet about how to do so, and I couldn't really follow the steps at all.  I'm only a novice sewer, and this is a harder job than I expected. 

Has anyone here sewed on the breast eagle themselves?  If so I'd appreciate some help.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 01-05-2013, 19:05:25
Was poison gas used in Gallipoli 1915? I've seen photos of soldiers from Gallipoli with gas masks, but no document gas was used.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 01-05-2013, 19:05:06
I should say, the A-frame was introduced in 1941 and ditched soon after. The soldiers hated it, as it really couldn't carry anything and was just extra weight.  Also, the hooks/loops shown to attach the A-frame are also for attaching the rucksack when it's the type without it's own straps.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 02-05-2013, 00:05:25
I saw in a movie (below) that a German destroyer used some kind of hooks that he led behind him like the Sea Shepherds and the japs use prop foulers in the arctic. The destroyer used this after he ran out of depth charges, but was this really used?
here u can see them use it: http://youtu.be/zXxUGbdRWMw?t=39m24s

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: |7th|Nighthawk on 02-05-2013, 09:05:16
I've read some articles that both sides used them in WWI but it was rarely used in WWII. Plus, the so called "U-Bootdrachen" were not only hooks but hooks with depth charges which exploded upon contact and were only to be used when the regular depth charges were running dry. The effect was also limited as you had to know the
exact position of the submarine. They developed a more advanced version in 1941 but in 1944, there is no mention about such a weapon.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 03-05-2013, 06:05:20

Precisely !  Which is why I'm asking all these questions haha.  To which I will add one more:

I'm going today to try to sew on the German Nazi breast eagle onto my tunic.  I have only found two posts on the internet about how to do so, and I couldn't really follow the steps at all.  I'm only a novice sewer, and this is a harder job than I expected. 

Has anyone here sewed on the breast eagle themselves?  If so I'd appreciate some help.

It's sort of a zig-zag pattern if you want to be "more correct", but a machine stitch job will do the trick, too and is also correct.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-05-2013, 18:05:32
Why did the british used Cordite in there .303 rounds while every other nation used nitrocellulose???
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 04-05-2013, 00:05:03
Quote
The original .303 service cartridge employed black powder as a propellant, and was adopted for the Lee-Metford rifle, which had rifling designed to lessen fouling from this propellant. The Lee-Metford was used as a trial platform by the British Committee on Explosives to experiment with many different smokeless powders then coming to market, including Ballistite, Cordite, and Rifleite.[3][4][5] Ballistite was a stick-type smokeless powder composed of soluble nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine.[5] Cordite was a stick-type or 'chopped' smokeless gunpowder composed of nitroglycerine, gun-cotton, and mineral jelly, while Rifleite was a true nitrocellulose powder, composed of soluble and insoluble nitrocellulose, phenyl amidazobense, and volatiles similar to French smokeless powders.[4][5] Unlike Cordite, Riflelite was a flake powder, and contained no nitroglycerine.[5] Excessive wear of the shallow Lee-Metford rifling with all smokeless powders then available caused ordnance authorities to institute a new type of barrel rifling designed to increase barrel life; the rifle was referred to thereafter as the Lee-Enfield.[3] After extensive testing, the Committee on Explosives selected Cordite for use in the Mark II .303 British service cartridge.[3]
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 20-05-2013, 18:05:36
were there any clashes on the maginot line, or was it unused totally?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 20-05-2013, 19:05:13
were there any clashes on the maginot line, or was it unused totally?

The Maginot Line, whenever it was attacked, inflicted ghastly casualties on any attacking forces. Though it was bypassed as much as possible, the Boche still had a crack at it in a number of places. Sections of the line held out under assault (even from the supposedly weak rear) until after the French Government surrendered.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 20-05-2013, 19:05:27
Maginot Line! Stupidest thing France has ever built...
Seriously, the Germans just went around it. An absolute waste!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 20-05-2013, 19:05:38
Were there any fighting men of any country (apart from Jack Churchill whom everyone knows about) that actively employed weapons like spears, lances, swords, or any other forms of weaponry we would associate closer to the middle ages? I know some cavalry used lances and the Japanese of course used swords in battle. Who else used such weapons?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 20-05-2013, 19:05:07
The marines who captured japanese swords, or brought their own machetes I presume.

In Europe, I think no one sane used that sort of melee weapons on purpose, except perhaps the Cossacks.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 20-05-2013, 19:05:29
Bayonets. :)

/Edit: And shovels!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 20-05-2013, 19:05:25
Yes, the Cossack's and their Shashka's. Don't forget the Polish cavalry had swords (mostly Szabla wz. 34) The Republic of China had the Dao, used heavily on the eastern end of the Great Wall. The Japanese of course... Don't forget British India, they used swords. There was the British Smatchet, which may classify as a sword.

Oh, and I just remembered that some Hungarian officers, mostly veterans, still carried their cavalry swords.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 20-05-2013, 19:05:51
Maginot Line! Stupidest thing France has ever built...
Seriously, the Germans just went around it. An absolute waste!
At Verdun, the French saw the tremendous effort to took to capture Fort Vaux, and to re-capture Douaumont.  Forts seemed entirely vindicated by the battle.  You have 20/20 historical hindsight. 
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-05-2013, 19:05:14
Maginot Line! Stupidest thing France has ever built...
Seriously, the Germans just went around it. An absolute waste!
Actually no. The maginot line was designed to prevent the entire german army from steam rolling directly trough france towards paris. It prevented that and the germans had go around

However if the maginot line was not build, Germany would have been very unlikely to defeat france. The grand lot of budget was allocated to the maginot line, in wich the modernisation of the army and airforce severly lacked behind.

Had the maginot line not been built, France would have had at the start=

-Char G1 tanks. Diesel powered tanks with a dual purpose gun with high mobility and >60!< mm of sloped armour (Designe in 1937!)
-An airforce with equally good planes as the luftwaffe and in equal numbers.
-MAS 36 bolt action rifle and Mas 49 semi-auto rifles that completly replaced the lebel and Berthier.
-New 47mm Anti-tank guns for the infantry in every division

And many many many things more that became completly impossible due to the maginot line

There were 2 type of guys who were competing for being in charge of the army in the 1930's.

One type wich called for a modern, well equipped, large number army designed with mobility to complete prevent an trench war Number 2.

and another type who wanted to create gigantic fortifications and lure the germans into another trench warfare that they would surely lost again

The latter became in charge, and dozens and dozens of groundbreaking projects got severly stalled and haltedwich would eventually lead to france his defeat.

Yes, the Cossack's and their Shashka's. Don't forget the Polish cavalry had swords. The Republic of China had the Dao, used heavily on the eastern end of the Great Wall. The Japanese of course... Don't forget British India, they used swords. There was the British Smatchet, which may classify as a sword.
Dont forget the Kukri"s of british india. Many aussie soldiers also used these in WW2, just like bowie knifes.

Maginot Line! Stupidest thing France has ever built...
Seriously, the Germans just went around it. An absolute waste!
At Verdun, the French saw the tremendous effort to took to capture Fort Vaux, and to re-capture Douamount.  Forts seemed entirely vindicated by the battle.  You have 20/20 historical hindsight. 
That aswel
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Lightning on 20-05-2013, 20:05:33
Were there any fighting men of any country (apart from Jack Churchill whom everyone knows about) that actively employed weapons like spears, lances, swords, or any other forms of weaponry we would associate closer to the middle ages? I know some cavalry used lances and the Japanese of course used swords in battle. Who else used such weapons?
Some of the soldiers in the Dutch East India Army had swords based on the indonesian 'Klewang'. Nepalese soldiers of course also had their Khukri knives.

While the former was mostly ceremonial, I guess, the Khukri knives were extensively used, especially during the siege of Tobruk, when they were a great method of taking out German patrols and outposts without making much sound.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 20-05-2013, 20:05:24
Yeah they had to go around - straight through Belgium. The planners probably didn't think about that. Didn't really save France though, but it's still nice to look at today.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 20-05-2013, 20:05:15
Yeah they had to go around - straight through Belgium. The planners probably didn't think about that. Didn't really save France though, but it's still nice to look at today.
Well didn´t it? That´s the reason why the British entered WW1.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Lightning on 20-05-2013, 20:05:00
Yeah they had to go around - straight through Belgium. The planners probably didn't think about that.
The planners did think that, in fact, that was exactly the plan. The Maginot line was not intended to stop the Germans, but to force them to go around it through Belgium. That's why most of the French army was positioned at the Belgian border at the start of the war. When the Germans invaded, the French army moved straight into Belgium to stop them. Unfortunately for the French, they had put all their forces in the western part of Belgium, under the presumption that the Ardennes were impenetrable. The Germans simply rolled through the Ardennes unopposed to catch the French army on their flank, cutting them off entirely from the rest of France and surrounding them eventually at Dunkirk, which is only a few kilometres from the Belgian border. The Maginot line served its purpose exactly during the war.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 20-05-2013, 20:05:24
Yeah they had to go around - straight through Belgium. The planners probably didn't think about that. Didn't really save France though, but it's still nice to look at today.

What Lightning said.  The Maginot Line was constructed specifically to force the Germans sinto Belgium.  The idea was that they would have a meeting engagement in Belgium where the French and BEF would defeat the Germans, and keep the war off French soil.  As Lightning points out, they felt that the Ardennes was impassible to tanks, and taht the Germans would have to go through the fields of western Belgium and Southern Holland.  They were wrong about that, but, technically, the Maginot Line served it's purpose perfectly.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 20-05-2013, 21:05:47
did the Polish forces in the Western Front only use British made equipment, or did they have something unique?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 20-05-2013, 23:05:41
Purely british, but with dress uniforms it was common to see Rogatywkas, both field and garrison, worn as the dress hat.  Enlisted men also commonly wore British SD officer's uniforms, or gaberdine tailored BD's, for dress.  They also of course wore polish rank insignia, unit insignias, and medals/badges, and many officers continued to carry their Radom pistols, and even sabers for dress.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 22-05-2013, 03:05:47
Thanks for help!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 22-05-2013, 05:05:46
Were there any fighting men of any country (apart from Jack Churchill whom everyone knows about) that actively employed weapons like spears, lances, swords, or any other forms of weaponry we would associate closer to the middle ages? I know some cavalry used lances and the Japanese of course used swords in battle. Who else used such weapons?

 A dearly departed friend of mine (served with the Imperial Seaforth's) carried his Scottish dirk with him throughout the entire Burma/ Thailand/ India campaign and relied on it on a number of occasions but he did say that the bayonet on his jungle Enfield was more comfortable due to the longer reach that he was afforded.

 To paraphrase old Bobby,  "" I never wanted them to get close enough to get a crack at me anyways""

 R.I.P. to one of my best friends ever...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 28-05-2013, 01:05:09
Playing WinSPWW2 as some German pioneers. Some of the weapons are listed as "sprengladung" and "rohrladung". Google can't tell we what on Earth these weapons are, but I know someone around here will know!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 28-05-2013, 01:05:01
IIRC, Sprengladung= TNT (like a satchel charge) and Rohrladung= bangalore torpedo.


As example, here's a Rohrladung being used in the German assualts on the Maginot Line in 1940:

(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3668/10pf4.jpg)

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 28-05-2013, 02:05:03
Knew you'd know :D. Thanks pal.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 28-05-2013, 13:05:15
Rohr = tube if that helps you

Did the Allies face more Germans or more foreigners/Ostbattalions at Omaha beach? I know Franz Gockel (a German) from a documentary who served there. Yet the Germans deployed alot of Ostbattalions on the beaches. Were there more Germans than on the other beach-sections on Omaha that the Allies met so much resistance there? Or was it really only bad luck that the bunkers/MG nests were still intact? I´m asking because morale was rather low in those Ostbattalions as they were forced to fight for the Axis and were rectruted from people in occupied territories. I think it´s rather hard to put up so much resistance when you aren´t willing to fight/ you don´t see Western Allies as your enemy.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 28-05-2013, 14:05:09
Where did the Turkoman division serve?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 28-05-2013, 15:05:46
@ Butcher: I saw pictures of foreign regiments from all around the world on the Atlantik Wall on several places. I thought i even saw Indian gunners there. So it seems very plausible to me that they encountered a lot of foreigners on D-Day.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 28-05-2013, 17:05:27
The Ostbattalions were mainly on the other beaches, such as Utah, Sword, etc.  The reason the Omaha beach defense was so severe was the  352nd Infantry Division, which was battle hardened from the Eastern Front and was at the time recuperating and retraining in France, was on the Atlantik Wall for a beach defense training operation, ie, they just happened to be there doing exactly what they would end up having to do.  The other beaches were technically just as well protected...just they had conscript and forign volunteers who didn't see it as their fight.  It was not uncommon for them to shoot any German NCOs and surrender, or to fire all their ammo over the heads of the attacking allies and then surrender.

Also, the Indian Battalion was not at Normandy, they were based around the Bay of Biscay.


As for the Turkoman volunteers, the were one of the few independent divisions, meaning their battalions were not split up and scattered amoungst various places.  They found themselves fighting in Italy for the war, and apparently aquitted themselves well.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 28-05-2013, 17:05:15
Yeah, I know they encountered a lot of foreigners there. The question was rather: Did they encounter more foreigners than Germans during the landings and whether there were more Germans present at Omaha - as the other beaches were taken rather easily. Not some bullshit that being German makes you a better fighter but morale being the aspect. Or were there the same amount of Ostbattalions on Omaha?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 28-05-2013, 17:05:20
The Ostbattalions were mainly on the other beaches, such as Utah, Sword, etc. 
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 28-05-2013, 17:05:39
Inland from Gold had osttrupp too, they basically sat on their russian asses and waited for british to come and capture them.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 28-05-2013, 17:05:05
Um, as I said.  352nd Infantry Division was at Omaha.  This was a pure German division that was heavily battle hardened on the eastern front.  That is namely the reason Omaha was so bad.  There were also Ostbattalions on Omaha, but they were under command of the 352nd and thus under watchful eyes.  The main defense however fell to the 352nd, and they did their job extremely well.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 28-05-2013, 17:05:14
Thanks for the replies, especially VonMudra. I didn´t notice your reply (didn´t get that red warning that someone posted while I was writing) so I was asking again.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-05-2013, 17:05:58
well alot of screw ups also on the allied side.

"THe invasion will be a huge succes with out new Sherman DD tanks"

*Ökay drop the sherman DD's way to early in the water..
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 28-05-2013, 18:05:37

Also, the Indian Battalion was not at Normandy, they were based around the Bay of Biscay.


Do you have more information about them?

Just curious.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 28-05-2013, 18:05:23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_Freies_Indien
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 28-05-2013, 18:05:31
from that article

"

Netaji sought and got agreement from the Germans that the Wehrmacht would train the Indians in the strictest military discipline, and they were to be trained in all branches of infantry in using weapons and motorized units the same way a German formation is trained; the Indian legionaries were not to be mixed up with any of the German formations; that they were not to be sent to any front other than in India for fighting against the British, but would be allowed to fight in self-defence at any other place if surprised by any enemy formation; that in all other respects the legion members would enjoy the same facilities and amenities regarding pay, clothing, food, leave, etc., as a German unit. "

Nice.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 29-05-2013, 16:05:27
Question: has World of Tanks created an audience of millions of players who love tanks, or was that audience always there and more people care about tanks than previously thought?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Fuchs on 29-05-2013, 21:05:39
50/50 is my guess. A big part just likes tanks and is glad there's a game about it, other's just like a good shooter and whether that's with tanks or teddybears, as long as it's fun. I think most of these people just like tanks. In general guys just like war. And some girls.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 30-05-2013, 07:05:17
Question: has World of Tanks created an audience of millions of players who love tanks, or was that audience always there and more people care about tanks than previously thought?

From day one, tanks have gathered enthusiasts by the dozen. The fact that a game was made just about tanks is proof of this. You don't create a game with no audience, it has to already exist.

That being said, as a tank museum tour guide and historical consultant, it warms my heart to see increased active interest in this subject. It is important, however, to not learn too much from video games. This is because vehicles in WoT are subject to balancing. Stats are altered, armor penetration is reduced or increased. Even horsepower ratings for engines are changed. And that's not even getting into such impossible things like mounting a 105mm howitzer in a Hetzer. But I do like the game, and play it regularly.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 30-05-2013, 10:05:50
Question: has World of Tanks created an audience of millions of players who love tanks, or was that audience always there and more people care about tanks than previously thought?

From day one, tanks have gathered enthusiasts by the dozen. The fact that a game was made just about tanks is proof of this. You don't create a game with no audience, it has to already exist.

That being said, as a tank museum tour guide and historical consultant, it warms my heart to see increased active interest in this subject. It is important, however, to not learn too much from video games. This is because vehicles in WoT are subject to balancing. Stats are altered, armor penetration is reduced or increased. Even horsepower ratings for engines are changed. And that's not even getting into such impossible things like mounting a 105mm howitzer in a Hetzer. But I do like the game, and play it regularly.

Reminds me of a friend. From time to time he comes up with statements like x tank of y nation was bollocks, because... And things like: German tanks blowed up everything. Late soviet tanks were total invincible!
Then I start talking a little bit about: Number of produced tanks, mechanical reliability or - the good old - german late war steel quality, trained crews, etc.
When i ask him, where he got his information from: WoT

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 30-05-2013, 11:05:28
German tanks blowed up everything.
Didn´t German tanks perform eccelently throughout the war? More Allied tanks got lost than Axis. This might be shifted due to extensive use of Paks, Flaks and Panzerfaust but on the other hand late in the war alot of german tanks got blown up by their own crew and didn´t go down in combat. Also the Germans had a greater reach for their guns - especially from 1942- early 1944 with dedicated anti tank guns mounted on almost all their standard tank models way before the Allies did so in 1944. So my bet still goes on the german tanks.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Thorondor123 on 30-05-2013, 12:05:24
German tanks were thoroughly decimated in Poland and France. Later in the was most allied tanks were destroyed by PAK's, not tanks.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 30-05-2013, 13:05:40
^ Maybe there were more PAKs produced?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Fuchs on 30-05-2013, 14:05:06
^ Maybe there were more PAKs produced?
Maybe interesting to note but Rommel was an advocate for producing more PaK's instead of tanks later in the war, to shift to a total defensive fighting stance and just place PaK's all over the place and ambush all allied tanks. Probably would only have delayed everyone a bit.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 30-05-2013, 18:05:38
German tanks blowed up everything.
Didn´t German tanks perform eccelently throughout the war? More Allied tanks got lost than Axis. This might be shifted due to extensive use of Paks, Flaks and Panzerfaust but on the other hand late in the war alot of german tanks got blown up by their own crew and didn´t go down in combat. Also the Germans had a greater reach for their guns - especially from 1942- early 1944 with dedicated anti tank guns mounted on almost all their standard tank models way before the Allies did so in 1944. So my bet still goes on the german tanks.

1(a). Considering how out-matched German armor was at the start of the war, they performed very well. This can largely be attributed to the use of radios in every tank and proper combined arms operations. Late in the war, crew quality started to slip. This was especially so after the near complete destruction of the Panzer Lehr Division, which contained most of the best tank school instructors.
1(b). Steel quality did go down late in the war with the shortage of manganese and it can be said that German tank armor in 1945 was considerably more brittle than the armor found in 1943.
1(c). One must remember that the Germans used a LOT of assault guns, so you have to add those to the number of lost "tanks". Not to say that they lost more, but the numbers are at least in the same ballpark that way.
2. Most French tanks, and most British tanks (after Dunkurque) were fitted with dedicated anti tank guns (47mm and 2 pounder respectively). Although these guns would later be outclassed by armor increases, in 1939-1941, they were plenty good for dealing with any major German tank at that time.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-05-2013, 18:05:31
1 b)

The primary reason of decline of german steel was because of the element Molybedenum. This element is crucial in making RHA (Rolled homogenous armour) for tanks. It gives hardness yet strenght to steel. Germanies primary source, accounting for over 95% of production, was a mine in Norway, wich got demolished in 1943 by LA RESISTANCE.
Supplies ran low quickly, and the only source was a pretty small mine in Ukraine. Germany started to compensate with additional carbon. This hardens the steels, but also makes it brittle. And then germany started to lose supplies to other elements, Like manganese and chrome.

Quote
Reminds me of a friend. From time to time he comes up with statements like x tank of y nation was bollocks, because... And things like: German tanks blowed up everything. Late soviet tanks were total invincible!
Then I start talking a little bit about: Number of produced tanks, mechanical reliability or - the good old - german late war steel quality, trained crews, etc.
When i ask him, where he got his information from: WoT
Soviet tanks were better then the German ones all around. They won for a reason. Wars are won by winning, not by producing good results in one battle. German tanks were fine in firepower and armour. But crew training declined rapidly in 1943. Also german tanks were NOT ALL reliable. This is a myth that has been busted many times. The PZIII and IV were fine, reliable tanks. The tiger tank was reliable IF you kept it under constant maintance. The panther tank was a joke from the beginning and the situation still was not optimal in the last years of the war. The Kingtiger was a disaster at first. But gradly improved. By late 1944, the Kingtiger had infact an higher operational ratio then the Panther tank.

Soviet tanks were crude, simple, easy to construct and repair, could knock out german tanks, were produced in huge numbers, were reliable and the crews were easily trained.

This may not look impressive on a K/D ratio, but it is this what wins wars. In a tactical situation, a german panzer division might have a higher chance of winning one battle. But when it comes to a strategical situation, they are destined to fail.

The battle of kursk is a perfect example. The germans might have destroyed 3 times more tanks the russians. But when they were worn out, exhausted, out of supplies, greatly deminished in operational strenght and morale, the Russians still had a large army in reserve, ready to finish the job. And when they retook the ground, half of those "destroyed" T34's were easily repaired.

Because one crucial thing is always let out. The flammability of german tanks. All german panzers had VERY high chance of catching fire, simular to the so called "Ronson" Sherman. My god, the panther tank burned just as well as it.



Does this mean germany could have never won tank wise? no because germany truly had tank master minds. Who developed designs, ready for mass production, that would have been a bit less combat effective as a panther tank, but twice as reliable and 2-3 times larger in numbers.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 30-05-2013, 18:05:40
I wasn´t refering to early war, but from 1942 onwards. I know that the bulk of German armour was Panzer IIs early on. However later the guns mounted on StuG and Panzer IV were only 2 years later matched by allied guns on their standard tanks with the 76mm on M4s and the 85mm on the T-34. That´s the time period I was referring to.

I counted StuGs as AFVs and even if we add them it´s not the same ballpark:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II

    Soviet Union: Between 96,500 to 100,000 tanks
    UK : Around 20,000 tanks
    USA: Around 20,000 tanks

    Germany: Around 45,000 to 50,000 tanks
    Italy: Around 3500 tanks
    Japan:Around 3000 tanks

That´s a third on the whole scale to the Allied losses. Granted Japan is also included in this. However France and other nations aren´t.

The thing I consider most German tanks better is the advantage of fire range they maintained as soon as the 75mms became standard. I just don´t like how Russians threw away their tankers - sacrifising them - so others could flank. It might be an advantage on the whole scale, but if you are sitting there in that T-34 I doubt you will find this acceptable.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 30-05-2013, 18:05:41
The panther tank was a joke from the beginning and the situation still was not optimal in the last years of the war.
>:(

 
By late 1944, the Kingtiger had infact an higher operational ratio then the Panther tank.
Operational ratio?
(If you mean better survivability and K/D, then...No shit! double the frontal armor and add the L/71, why am I not surprised it preformed better?)

This may not look impressive on a K/D ratio, but it is this what wins wars. In a tactical situation, a german panzer division might have a higher chance of winning one battle. But when it comes to a strategical situation, they are destined to fail.
Might?
Yes it is well known that the Germans were masters of tactics and the Soviets were masters of strategy...

The battle of kursk is a perfect example. The germans might have destroyed 3 times more tanks the russians. But when they were worn out, exhausted, out of supplies, greatly deminished in operational strenght and morale, the Russians still had a large army in reserve, ready to finish the job. And when they retook the ground, half of those "destroyed" T34's were easily repaired.
So would've been the "destroyed" german tanks.

Of course, because the OKW didn't know the Soviets were going to put 4 fucking fronts in the bulge, if they did they wouldn't attack and would probably divert the force somewhere else. They counted on lower numbers and didn't quite expect of them to know their whole damn plan, did they?

Because one crucial thing is always let out. The flammability of german tanks. All german panzers had VERY high chance of catching fire, simular to the so called "Ronson" Sherman. My god, the panther tank burned just as well as it.

Aha. I thought it took a direct hit (+penetration) to knock a tank out, now I see you had to set it on fire to render it useless eh?


Does this mean germany could have never won tank wise? no because germany truly had tank master minds. Who developed designs, ready for mass production, that would have been a bit less combat effective as a panther tank, but twice as reliable and 2-3 times larger in numbers.

They wouldn't. They'd always choose quality over quantity, meaning they wouldn't just stamp out PzIV Gs but start to put out lesser numbers of Panthers.

Why? Because the OKW wanted superior tanks and good crews. Besides, with a manpool like Germany, a few good tanks was the only way to go, otherwise they would've been dealing with the lack of crews in 1943 already.

Not to mention that the German output of tanks actually peaked in 1944, which would suggest that if they started the war later they could've competed with the soviet tank output. But that's another thing because Germany didn't have the "vastness of peaceful space behind a giant mountain far away" where it couldn't be reached by bombers, which gave the Soviets the decisive advantage in the war.

Not that they had tanks which COULD BE manufactured cheaper and faster. They had enough factories to put out hundreds of tanks per month and vastly outnumber their opponents. The sheer number of the untouchable factories was the key, not the simplicity of the tanks. They could've produced hundreds of Tigers if they wanted to, not just T-34s and Su85s
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 30-05-2013, 19:05:44
I wasn´t refering to early war, but from 1942 onwards. I know that the bulk of German armour was Panzer IIs early on. However later the guns mounted on StuG and Panzer IV were only 2 years later matched by allied guns on their standard tanks with the 76mm on M4s and the 85mm on the T-34. That´s the time period I was referring to.



The thing I consider most German tanks better is the advantage of fire range they maintained as soon as the 75mms became standard. I just don´t like how Russians threw away their tankers - sacrifising them - so others could flank. It might be an advantage on the whole scale, but if you are sitting there in that T-34 I doubt you will find this acceptable.
Well, I don't enjoy getting lost in statistics. But it is somewhat sketchy to add together all the Allied losses and compare them to the losses of a single country. Furthermore, the Soviets had HORRIBLY trained tank crews. In the early parts of the war, some would have had less than 72 hours of training in their vehicle. The Soviet Union also had what could almost be considered a tradition of a near complete disregard for casualties, as long as objectives were taken/held.
Anyway, you have to remember that the 76mm on the early T-34s and the 75mm on the Sherman were pretty good guns when first introduced. It was only with the uparmoring and upgunning of the Pz. IV and StuGs and the introduction of the Heavy Cats that said guns became obsolete.
HOWEVER:
German tank crews, up until 1944 were some of the best tankers in the world. This is due to their quality training program that taught them proper tactics that would maximize the effectiveness of their armor and guns. In addition to this, heavy tank crews were selected from the ranks of medium tanks and StuGs, so they would have had a good deal of experience and skill that would maximize the effectiveness of the German heavies.

PS
Please excuse my lack of mineral knowledge.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 01-06-2013, 07:06:50
What vehicles did Soviet partisans use in their operations? Any captured tanks?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 01-06-2013, 17:06:35
Whatever they got their hands on I suppose! It's not like they were an organized army with a bunch of vehicle factories reinforcing them. And whenever they did ask for tanks I imagine that they were always denied since they had no training in using them.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 02-06-2013, 12:06:23
Was the recoil of the gebirgsjager G33/40 considerable heavier then the mauser K98k?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 02-06-2013, 15:06:21
Soviet tanks were better then the German ones all around. They won for a reason.
If you lose more of your stuff, it´s most likely not better. Russian tanks had serious flaws you don´t see in games, such as the thing with the JS-2 that had to recalibrate its gun and aim again after every shot to reload. Late "tank" models (ISU, JS-2) had VERY slow reload times and couldn´t keep up a long fight as they soon ran out of ammunition. Thus ISUs had to be deployed in batteries of vehicles to put up an adequate rate of fire.

Crew comfort was the worst and nobody cared about the exhausted crews. There is your Russian crew comfort: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQh9KfUUpUE#t=4m41s

So really not the best, just a lot of them.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Thorondor123 on 02-06-2013, 15:06:48
'Tis sadly little known fact, the the exhaust fumes of Glorious Reich's tanks smelled of rose water, you could eat off the floors and when you open the breech after firing, tiny little bunnies jump out of the gun. <3
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 02-06-2013, 15:06:06
(http://www.howitworksdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/T-34_cutaway.jpg)

(http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/145/9/c/panther_by_joseph_mnbc-d510vbk.png)

But I got the message. Stopping this now. <3 <3 <3
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 05-06-2013, 15:06:40
http://youtu.be/14K_Iy2Z6qY?t=1m58s

Does anybody know what gun that muzzle behind the guy belongs too?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 05-06-2013, 15:06:12
Beretta M38A

(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/1194/boltopenmuzzlecompensat.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 05-06-2013, 17:06:36
http://youtu.be/14K_Iy2Z6qY?t=1m58s

Does anybody know what gun that muzzle behind the guy belongs too?

(http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/smg/smg89/beretta38a_2.jpg)

/Edit: Maybe I should've read the last page before answering... ::)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-06-2013, 20:06:39
http://youtu.be/CXmQmqp_fTI?t=5m6s

What german song is this?  ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 05-06-2013, 20:06:09
http://youtu.be/CXmQmqp_fTI?t=5m6s

What german song is this?  ;D

It's about little hans who goes out into the world for an apprenticeship.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 06-06-2013, 16:06:18
Did the trenchline in WW1's West Front actually go from the canal to the Swiss border, without any gap?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 06-06-2013, 18:06:49
Yep, it did.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 06-06-2013, 18:06:12
A gap would have shortened the war considerably :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 10-06-2013, 16:06:15
Quote
... According to Howard K. Smith, who covered the executions for the International News Service, Rosenberg was the only condemned man, who when asked at the gallows if he had any last statement to make, replied with only one word: "No".

This is about the Nuremberg trials, but does anyone know where you can read his "coverings" about the trials?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 10-06-2013, 23:06:04
Do any of you know of any veterans who enjoyed war? It's not popular to think but plenty of people get a rush out of battle and don't altogether dislike the opportunity of killing people. I'd like to read something from a vet who felt something other than the usual "senseless loss of life" kinds of feelings.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 10-06-2013, 23:06:02
I don't think you'll come across many people who'll tell you stories like "...and then I stabbed that fucker in the balls and punched his teeth in, man it was so funny"
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 11-06-2013, 00:06:25
Lieutenant Colonel Jack Churchill is the man you are looking for  ;D . Originally I wanted to post a huge wall of text, but I am too tired to create a quality reply, so I shall post more tomorrow.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Surfbird on 11-06-2013, 01:06:05
I remember watching a Stalingrad documentary when a Soviet veteran was interviewed who was part of those "stormtroops" that rushed buildings in high danger. He was grinning a lot and described how he encountered a German soldier on a stairway, took his spade and cut a young soldier that begged for mercy to pieces with it. Not sure if that's what you want to hear, but he did not seem depressed about it at all. I don't want to judge, but he actually seemed to feel satisfied and rather happy and if I remember correctly he imitated the way he was hitting too. It was awkward.
I doubt he loves war though, was rather happy to be succesful in a one on one close combat situation which could have resulted in his death.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 11-06-2013, 01:06:06
there are actually quite a lot of veterans who enjoyed the war. They usually have as arguments "it made me see the world" refering to it as a travel or "in war, you know who your friends really are" and then they say war creates friendships like no other situation can do. This is also one of the reasons veteran meetings are frequently so popular. My professor History of Public Law also always used an anecdote to picture one of the reasons why after WW I the 1 man 1 vote principle came in use. He then started reading from a letter (he always had some sort of folder with all kinds of stuff in), the letter was from a young aristocrat, who used to dispise the poor, but in the trenches, he is faced with others, the plebeians. They wear the same uniform and have the same miserable job as soldier in the trenches. The letter was about "My friend the laborer", and things that happened, it was just a letter to his family home, but yet that change of thinking is astonishing in those days.

Also during the Napoleon Wars, the army was fun, which made the "Saint Helena" medaillons very popular in the Belgian region since it reminded them of their military duty in the army. The Napoleon army learned you french and showed you the world, while you won almost every battle. And when you came back home, everyone saw you as a hero and due to your knowledge of the french language, you would get a great job.

Oh well, that's some examples that i remember right now from my history lessons, correct me if i'm wrong somewhere
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 11-06-2013, 01:06:57
Killing is a bad thing, it shouldn't happen, etc etc etc...

Ok, I'll drop the façade for a moment. The feel of squeezing a trigger, the smell of all the explosions, sweaty hands, and oh, that satisfying and easily distinguishable fountain of blood 100m out caused by hitting an artery. When we see that we'd give each other a high five if not for all the other people shooting at us. And when you slit someone's throat it makes your gloves warmer for a time but sometimes that's not enough and you wouldn't mind showering in it or perhaps even tasting it while no one's looking. If you toss a grenade you almost want to keep your head up and watch people be torn apart. But then there's the pain you get when they're doing the same to you, it really hurts but it's worth it. Once I stood next to some charred corpses and it started to rain, and it makes a rather awkward sound but dulls the stench a bit. Speaking of smells and corpses, you can smell them for half a kilometer away if the bodies are old enough and the wind is strong, and that really builds up some suspense. Lots of shouting, we love to shout while we're at it.

That's the short version of just a few sensations people get when killing.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 11-06-2013, 18:06:52
What MG is that? Doesn't look like an MG-15 to me, with that frying pan-like magazine.

(http://i.imgur.com/0NN0tZX.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Thorondor123 on 12-06-2013, 17:06:48
What MG is that? Doesn't look like an MG-15 to me, with that frying pan-like magazine.

(http://i.imgur.com/0NN0tZX.jpg)
DA,  Degtyaryova Aviatsionny?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 12-06-2013, 21:06:05
Seems about right. Thanks.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 15-06-2013, 16:06:24
Does anyone know a good book about austria-hungary during WW1? Especially about the military?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 21-06-2013, 10:06:41
Was Chevy 30cwt also used in Europe?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 24-06-2013, 16:06:11
can anyone tell my how you can open the same document twice on win7?

EDIT: i found a way, i saved the same document again under a different name, but aren't there other ways?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 24-06-2013, 23:06:29
Was the webbing inside the British MkII "Brodie" helmet and the Canadian MkIII "Turtle" helmet the same in the wartime years? Was the Turtle helmet also made in wartime United Kingdom?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 25-06-2013, 03:06:10
You mean the liner?  Far as I know they are the same.  And yes, the UK produced and wore the Turtle helm too.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 25-06-2013, 05:06:09
Okay, this is one of those things I assumed I would figure out as I learned more and more about the military but for whatever reason I still have no idea how this works.

How does a soldier wind up in a particular branch of an army? I know you can go for Air Force or Army or Navy, but to use Germany as the easiest example, how did a normal civilian end up in the Gebirgsjaeger? Or an Arctic unit? Or any other unit for that matter. When you went into the military could you request to go to the mountain troops? Or ere the mountain troops made up of people who already lived in mountain areas? I have no idea how your average civilian who enlists or is drafted winds up where he ends up.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 25-06-2013, 06:06:54
Gibergsjager in the Wehrmacht were ex-Austrian army personal mostly.  Others were recruited from German sections of the alps.  Otherwise, you could request, but would need to pass stringent training and such, and would probably wash out compared to people who had lived at high altitude all their lives.  Otherwise, you took written and physical exams that were graded extensively and you were sent to wherever you were best qualified.  Generally lower scores put you in infantry or supply or such, high scores put you in things like artillery or other math heavy areas, and having work experience could change things up, Panzermen were often ex-mechanics and electricians.  Fallschirmjager were generally the most athletic, highest scoring troops, and pilots generally had to have political connections or extremely high test scores, or civilian flying experience.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 25-06-2013, 08:06:24
Or battle experience from the Spanish civil war.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 25-06-2013, 09:06:06
Was Chevy 30cwt also used in Europe?

If it was, it would have been in truly pathetic numbers. It was replaced by American Jeeps and light trucks in North Africa.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 25-06-2013, 09:06:17
Gibergsjager

All these years, my friend, and you still misspell that name.  ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 25-06-2013, 20:06:34
Gibergsjager

All these years, my friend, and you still misspell that name.  ;D
Still nice to see that he knows the word "Berg" (mountain) and tried to form a rank out of it. It´s however derived from the word "Gebirge" which is another word (next to the plural: Berge) to describe mountains.

Generally lower scores put you in infantry or supply or such, high scores put you in things like artillery or other math heavy areas, and having work experience could change things up, Panzermen were often ex-mechanics and electricians.  Fallschirmjager were generally the most athletic, highest scoring troops, and pilots generally had to have political connections or extremely high test scores, or civilian flying experience.
They also put you in a Panzer if you were not very tall or fit the expectations for being a regular in the infantry. :P

Pilots were heavily recruited from those taking lessons in operating a glider before the war. Gliding was promoted by the government for exactly that reason.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: mopskind on 25-06-2013, 20:06:54
I wonder if there was even one german fighter pilot who lastet from the beginning of the war to the end
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 25-06-2013, 20:06:51
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_B%C3%A4r
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 25-06-2013, 21:06:11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Galland
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: mopskind on 25-06-2013, 21:06:59
Well the second guy served at the homefront after the Battle of Britain ;)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 25-06-2013, 21:06:14
Gibergsjager

All these years, my friend, and you still misspell that name.  ;D
Still nice to see that he knows the word "Berg" (mountain) and tried to form a rank out of it. It´s however derived from the word "Gebirge" which is another word (next to the plural: Berge) to describe mountains.

Generally lower scores put you in infantry or supply or such, high scores put you in things like artillery or other math heavy areas, and having work experience could change things up, Panzermen were often ex-mechanics and electricians.  Fallschirmjager were generally the most athletic, highest scoring troops, and pilots generally had to have political connections or extremely high test scores, or civilian flying experience.
They also put you in a Panzer if you were not very tall or fit the expectations for being a regular in the infantry. :P

Pilots were heavily recruited from those taking lessons in operating a glider before the war. Gliding was promoted by the government for exactly that reason.

Yeah, I just am dyslexic for i and e, and often flip them in words, Gebirgsjager being one of them x3

And yeah, the Hitlerjugend ran a glider program for teenagers specifically to help train pilots.  There were also programs for HJ driving insturction and HJ Sailing instruction to train tank drivers and naval personal.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 25-06-2013, 22:06:45
Which countries contributed forces to the Germans? I mean whole units not just counter-partisan duty. Is there a wiki or another site to read about that?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 25-06-2013, 22:06:40
Which countries contributed forces to the Germans? I mean whole units not just counter-partisan duty. Is there a wiki or another site to read about that?

This looks about right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_non-Germans_in_the_German_armed_forces_during_World_War_II
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Thorondor123 on 26-06-2013, 00:06:16
Well the second guy served at the homefront after the Battle of Britain ;)
during that time Galland flew combat missions against his orders and later in the war he flew a Me-262 in his unit.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 26-06-2013, 00:06:13
Were there ever any official/formal objections to use of flame artillery?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Jimi Hendrix on 26-06-2013, 02:06:18
Which countries contributed forces to the Germans? I mean whole units not just counter-partisan duty. Is there a wiki or another site to read about that?

contributed?

It's a short list.

-Italy and ummmmm............

 ;)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 01-07-2013, 23:07:18
So, the german helmets, or any other, did they come in different sizes, and if not, how did they fit on too big/too small heads?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-07-2013, 23:07:01
I think its not neccesarly the helmet itself, but the webbing inside of it. And i believe there is some sort of "One size fits all" in wich the user can adjust the helmet the way he wants.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Fuchs on 01-07-2013, 23:07:41
It's helmet sizes. I have a German helmet here, size inside the webbing says 56. It's a reproduction, I think. Maybe the iron is original but the webbing is definitely repro.

But yeah it's very small and the helmet just looks silly if I wear it. So I hope there's larger helmets or the German Heer would've been one silly place.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-07-2013, 23:07:59
58 is the "common size" for european folks. from experience with russian helmets, caps and such, 58 is "large" to XL

My russian helmets dont have a size indicator, maybe the germans seem to have one
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 02-07-2013, 01:07:53
German stahlhelms had sizes ranging up to 70 (though 70 was extremely rare).  For instance, the one I have is a size 66, with a size 59 liner.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 05-07-2013, 21:07:57
I've got 2 questions regarding my findings in the X-WW2 mod.

1) Can someone tell me what this thing is?

(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/4913/dson.jpg)

It dropped out of the Ju52 with a parachute, so Im guessing its an ammo box or similiar.

2) Did the Commonwealth use any Zis-5 in North Africa, or is this just an easter egg?

(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7391/ip4l.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Fuchs on 06-07-2013, 02:07:44
That box might be the weapon containers. German paratroopers were dropped without their main firearms, so they had to scramble to the weapon container and grab it. Very shitty when you drift off.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 06-07-2013, 09:07:37
That box might be the weapon containers. German paratroopers were dropped without their main firearms, so they had to scramble to the weapon container and grab it. Very shitty when you drift off.

Especially if the enemy expects you and goes there first to pick up your weapon as it happened at Crete.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 06-07-2013, 11:07:21
Ugh... That sounds really bad, and if the crate is captured...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-07-2013, 14:07:17
This is the reason why FSJ casualties were so high. Also Luftwaffe casualties were unusually high. The luftwaffe pretty much lost 1/4th of its transport capability due to heavy damage and aircraft down, wich was fatal in later battles at the eastfront.


Still Allied losses were also high. But the biggest blown was the damage dealt to the royal navy. They shot down many luftwaffe aircraft but they took losses aswel.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 06-07-2013, 19:07:27
Actually, what was more common was to set up a bren or vickers overlooking the container and shoot anyone who tried to get near it.  Walk down, drag away bodies, and repeat.

In general, the container way of dropping was to allow usage of a low opening parachute, thus dropping the time the FJ spent floating in the air.  Problem was, the low opening chute necessitated a special forward roll on landing, which meant a rifle on the back would crack your spine.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 08-07-2013, 19:07:13
Did any nation used the awesome super epic mauser rifles chambered in 7x57mm in WW2?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 08-07-2013, 22:07:19
Not sure on WW2 persay, but they were used by the South American armies during the Gran Chaco War in 1932-35 and the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War in 1941.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 12-07-2013, 21:07:44
Just measured the outer shell lining of the M35 helmet I have at home, it measures 70cm in circumference. Taking away the 2cm of steel thickness, I guess  I have a size 68 helmet. Did I do this right and is there an alternative way to find out the size?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 12-07-2013, 21:07:14
Check metal, find the stamp that tells you the size.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 12-07-2013, 22:07:45
Yeah, there should be a stamp on the inside of the helm.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 12-07-2013, 22:07:51
Checked, there's no stamp. The steel is worn out though, but I really can't discern anything, it's like trying to find a certain crater on the Moon.

Also, what modern weapons use the 7.92x57mm mauser ammo?
A friend brought me a souvenir, an empty cartrige with a little brochure which depicts an event in the war of 1991. It's identical to the inert ammo Mauser 7,92x57mm cartrige I have, but the stamp on the bottom is different, a star, number 14 and number 54.
So I'm confused, in 1991 what weapons could've been used by the Yugoslav People's Army which used the Mauser cartrige?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 12-07-2013, 22:07:53
M48 Mauser rifle.

Zavasta M53 (a yugo mg42)

Zastava M76 sniper rifle (yugo drugonov)

That is all i can say of the top of my head.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-07-2013, 23:07:29
FN Model 1949, AKA SAFN, AKA Hakim. These were chambered in 8x57 for the egyptian army.


The M76 is still in use by ex-yugoslavian countries as the 7.92x57mm round and the M76 have more accuracy and range then most 7.62x51/7.62x54mmR rifles. With modern powders and bullets, this is a round wich is easily capable of performing 30% better.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 13-07-2013, 00:07:10
Hah, all I could think of was the M48 copy, that seemed odd for 1990s.

Ok, I think I got it, thanks  a lot siben and Theta :D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 13-07-2013, 11:07:30
FN Model 1949, AKA SAFN, AKA Hakim. These were chambered in 8x57 for the egyptian army.


The M76 is still in use by ex-yugoslavian countries as the 7.92x57mm round and the M76 have more accuracy and range then most 7.62x51/7.62x54mmR rifles. With modern powders and bullets, this is a round wich is easily capable of performing 30% better.

Hakim is based on the swedish Ljungman ag42 Thata. It is completely different then the FN Model 1949, SAFN or AFN like it was called in the Belgian army by its Grunts.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-07-2013, 11:07:03
The egyptians had an SAFN version and this one was also sometimes called an Hakim rifle. but merely from confusion
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 14-07-2013, 22:07:06
Hey guys this is gonna be a pretty long post but I didn't really know where else to put it.  A friend liked a post in a facebook group, and looking that group I saw this post.  It's just a casual list of the 10 most important battles of WW2.  I know that's some teleological history but I was wondering what you guys thought about it since it piqued my interest.  Do you agree or disagree with this dude, and if not what do you think were the most important battles?  Again I'm shamelessly taking this from someone else I didn't compile it myself. 

Quote
On a related note, I also believe that WWII as a whole didn't really have a strictly decisive singular set of engagements (which is where I'd disagree with Overy's book that I mentioned yesterday). But if I had to make a list of the overall 10 most important battles of the war, I'd do so as follows:

1) The Battle of Sedan: This battle, in securing the success of Operation Sickle-Slice, created the gigantic Nazi Empire that was able to spend years fending off two rising superpowers and one declining superpower. From this one French catastrophe, all else that went wrong in the war for some and right for others followed. No Sedan or more precisely no French collapse, no war as we know it.

2) The Malaya-Singapore Campaign: The campaign that did in the British Empire, provided the greatest military performance of the Imperial Japanese Army in the entire war, and provided another classic illustration that superior manpower and firepower insufficiently used lead absolutely nowhere. It's worth pointing out again that nowhere did Japan have a quantitative superiority in manpower or a qualitative superiority in equipment. The only difference was the people in command.

3) The First Battle of Smolensk: Doomed Operation Barbarossa, and set in motion the apocalypse in slow motion for the Nazis that the Eastern Front proved to be. Eight weeks of fighting that for the Nazis brought tactical victory on all sectors but one brought for the Soviets a strategic victory and a tactical victory on one sector of the Front, to boot.

4) The Battle of Crete: A shattering German victory due primarily to Freyberg's fumbling, this battle was a Pyrrhic victory that ended German use of airborne troops as anything but elite cannon fodder while providing the major rationale behind the Allied development of airborne troops as the war went on.

5) Operation Overlord: In inaugurating the major confrontation in Western Europe and setting up the defeat of the Axis Powers in Normandy, this deserves IMHO a ranking on any list in the Top 5. It is ranked here primarily because the first four had IMHO greater strategic impact on the overall war, as I see the fate of the Axis as only a matter of time from the summer of 1943. I could easily switch this one up to 3 an drop down First Smolensk and the Battle of Crete without any real issues.

6) The Battle of Beda Fomm: This battle ensured that the Axis made the dubiously considered decision to send German troops into a campaign they knew never had a chance before it began, thereby establishing ultimate Axis disaster and the ruin of Erwin Rommel's carefully Goebbels-inflated reputation.

7) The Battle of the Ruhr Pocket: After this battle major combat in the Western side of the war was over, at a fraction of the staggering losses sustained in the Battle of Berlin. This, however, is included where the latter was not because the Vistula-Oder Offensive had, along with the other 1944-5 campaigns already ensured the Axis-Soviet War was won and Yalta had established the occupation zones. The Ruhr Battle, OTOH, greatly shortened the overall war.

8) The Battle of Okinawa: This battle was a decisive element in the decision to drop the atomic bombs, by virtue of increasing the fear of what a third campaign in a major Axis belligerent would have involved. It was also by proportion one of the few campaigns where the Imperial Japanese Army actually inflicted more casualties than it sustained, and a sign that as odd as it sounds their doctrine was still improving in 1945 even as the country stood on the brink of collapse.

9) Operation Solstice: Delayed the Berlin Offensive by a matter of some months, thereby prolonging the endgame and permitting the Nazis to build the elaborate and very powerful defenses around Berlin that bled the USSR as heavily as they did in Zhukov's sector.

10) The Battle of Illomantsi: A delayed confirmation that a rational military approach commanded by generals, not thugs dedicated to a cartoonish ideology, could have actually dealt severe damage to a USSR even at its peak. Also the battle that enabled Finland to avoid outright satellization as was the case with other late-war Soviet attacks on small Axis countries.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ekalbs on 14-07-2013, 23:07:56
Hey Guys,

Simple question.

Where there any Panzer 4 H with skirts and Zimmerit in the African theater? We started flames of war and i have 10 but would use them in my European force instead.

Thanks,
Ekalbs
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 14-07-2013, 23:07:38
Nope. Not present
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 15-07-2013, 01:07:24
Do you agree or disagree with this dude, and if not what do you think were the most important battles?
 

Quote
On a related note, I also believe that WWII as a whole didn't really have a strictly decisive singular set of engagements
 
This is a matter of perception, and thuis it is personal. It is also semantics: battle, campaign, strategic or tactical victory, you can split and/or lump as much as you like: it will take pretty long before it gets ridiculous.

OK, my opinion:

1) The Battle of Sedan: agreed, esp with Fall of France as signpost event for Axis domination over Europe.

2) The Malaya-Singapore Campaign: somewhat agreed, it was a major factor in ending colonial empires as a whole, not just the British. But it had more meaning for the postwar period than for the war itself.

3) The First Battle of Smolensk: agreed, identical to "start of Operation Barbarossa", which is a classic pivotal point in the war, recognised by many historians.

4) The Battle of Crete: disagreed, only the use/disuse of paratroopers was decided here, but their influence on the overall war was minimal. The Soviets next to never used them, and still they contributed the most in European victory.

5) Operation Overlord: agreed. Without Overlord, a longer war and no American influence in postwar Europe.

6) The Battle of Beda Fomm: disagreed. There is only one decisive battle in Africa and that is of course El Alamein.

7) The Battle of the Ruhr Pocket: disagreed. After Bulge the Germans were already incapable of mounting anything offensive. Ruhr was a large mopping up, not a "decisive" battle.

8) The Battle of Okinawa: disagreed. This battle was a decisive element in the explanation ofthe decision to drop the atomic bombs. Many people keep forgetting that both Eisenhower and Marshall told Truman that dropping the bombs was not necessary in any military way. Truman wanted to do it to see what the bomb could do (hence there were two bombs dropped, of different types), and to show Stalin what he was capable of. The fact that Japan might end the war sooner was nice, but not the main cause. I agree in the sense that this was the last major battle, but not anyhthing decisive again. Guadalcanal was way more decisive, or Midway.

9) Operation Solstice: disagreed. Something isn't decisive when it only delays something, with the end result being the same.

10) The Battle of Illomantsi: agreed and disagreed. Agreed on Finland's part. What I know about it, is that it was quite important for Finland's future, but overall in the entire war, minor siginificance.

I get the impression that this guy is anti Soviets, as he calls them thugs and their ideology cartoonish, only mentions the way they lost many lives, but dismisses their results totally. I'm not saying the Red Army didn't know any thugs or that communism is cool and all, but to each his own. The USA has also an ideology, and the people believing in that aren't thugs either, right?

Also, Stalingrad should be in any type of list composed just like this one. "Forgetting" that one is very biased, or simply stupid. Same goes for mentioning Ruhr but dismissing Berlin.

So, my list, in no particular order (well, it turns out to be somewhat chronological):

Fall Weiss, Fall of France, Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Midway, Guadalcanal, Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Berlin.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Eat Uranium on 15-07-2013, 01:07:36
Something I've been wondering:

When the various NATO nations decided that the 105mm L7 wasn't good enough and went to 120mm guns, why did the British decide that 2 part ammo was the way to go while the Germans (and thus the rest) continued to use combined ammo?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 15-07-2013, 01:07:57

I get the impression that this guy is anti Soviets, as he calls them thugs and their ideology cartoonish, only mentions the way they lost many lives, but dismisses their results totally. I'm not saying the Red Army didn't know any thugs or that communism is cool and all, but to each his own. The USA has also an ideology, and the people believing in that aren't thugs either, right?



Read it again, he means the germans.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 15-07-2013, 02:07:35
Fall Weiss, Fall of France, Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Midway, Guadalcanal, Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Berlin.

Why do you mention Fall Weiss but don't mention Pearl Harbor? (not meant as saying you're wrong or forgot something, just asking this out of interest since i see them as practically the same importance)

And own opinion on this matter:
I hate lists of "10 things that blablabla", if it really is 10, then idc, but taking 10 just because we have a decimal system is bullshit. I largely agree with Slayer his battles, but for example think Kursk also has its place in it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 15-07-2013, 03:07:10
Quote
the ruin of Erwin Rommel's carefully Goebbels-inflated reputation.

I at least like this bit ;)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 15-07-2013, 08:07:25
Something I've been wondering:

When the various NATO nations decided that the 105mm L7 wasn't good enough and went to 120mm guns, why did the British decide that 2 part ammo was the way to go while the Germans (and thus the rest) continued to use combined ammo?

The two part ammunition was also used by the US in the M-103. Actually, it was the same gun as the British Conqueror. That took place several years before the Leopard I was introduced with its 105 mm gun with single part ammunition. Later, with the most recent generation of first rate MBTs starting in the 1970s, the tank guns got back up to 120mm single part ammunition.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Erwin on 15-07-2013, 09:07:02
Any list without Battle of Kursk is not true in my opinion. Putting Stalingrad aside, it was the main failed-offensive for depleting Germany's last reserves and in the end it caused almost a swift loss of Ukraine. After this Soviets retook half of Ukraine in a 3 months effort.

Also, depleting Panzer forces could not be replaced soon which enabled Soviets to gain the initiative over the entire front. After this battle Germany had no longer enough armor to support it's 2 Army Groups at the same time so they began to send their forces to the attacked one and tried to rely on their intelligence for the next upcoming attack. The most famous failure of their intelligence was believing Soviets to attack South of Ukraine, instead where they attacked Central Army Group. Stripped from it's Panzers, Army Group Centre was decimated and Germany lost half a million soldier in a few days.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 15-07-2013, 10:07:20
Fall Weiss, Fall of France, Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Midway, Guadalcanal, Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Berlin.

Why do you mention Fall Weiss but don't mention Pearl Harbor? (not meant as saying you're wrong or forgot something, just asking this out of interest since i see them as practically the same importance)



Noone even mentions the battle of Imphal. sigh
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 15-07-2013, 10:07:47
Battle of Tali & Ihantala was way more important to Finns than Ilomantsi was.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 15-07-2013, 13:07:53
Read it again, he means the germans.
Ah yes, I see it now. It was a little late last night ;) My point about Soviet losses and results, Stalingrad and Berlin still stands, though.

Why do you mention Fall Weiss but don't mention Pearl Harbor? (not meant as saying you're wrong or forgot something, just asking this out of interest since i see them as practically the same importance)

And own opinion on this matter:
I hate lists of "10 things that blablabla", if it really is 10, then idc, but taking 10 just because we have a decimal system is bullshit. I largely agree with Slayer his battles, but for example think Kursk also has its place in it.
I agree with the importance of Pearl Harbor being largely equal to Fall Weiss, but I was making this list, and I had 8 so I had to pick 2 more and chose the start and the end of the war in Europe (Weiss and Berlin). Also agree with the "it has to be 10" thing.

Battle of Tali & Ihantala was way more important to Finns than Ilomantsi was.
Thanks, I knew you would elaborate on this one :)

@ Kursk: yes, could be in, too. Maybe switch it for Berlin, as that was "only" the endfight.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 15-07-2013, 18:07:35
Well, it is a battle, not a whole campaign. So Operation Barbarossa or "Kursk" simply cannot be included to the counter list.

So for my pieces here:

Pearl Harbor is like inevitable, it was a surprise attack, did not change the outcome of the war, and the US was kinda expecting it but don't know when or where. It is much more symbolic rather than a true military success. It hits the US public much surprise, which helps explain the hype and apparent significance. But, it eventually helped to change the US public's opinion regarding the US participation on the war. It could have happened anywhere and as little as limited engagement incident that resulted in American casualties. And the US will join the war anyway.

The battle itself is pretty much one-sided, and the Japanese Navy doesn't achieve much more than bombing the facility and killing more than 3,000 people. It is not in anyway equal to Fall Weiss (which technically cannot count here) or the Battle of Sedan, where it will lead to eventual Nazi domination over western Europe and changes the face of the second world war from the "Great War." The Great Britain was on the brink of defeat after that, potentially altering the course of the war if the outcome of the Battle of the Britain wasn't favourable to the British side. Moreover, the Japanese never really took advantage over their surprise victory on Pearl Harbour, instead the US successfully retaliated with more symbolic raid over the Japan's capital city itself! The French or the Brits couldn't really bomb Berlin 4 months after being defeated at Sedan.

I am more with Erwin, the whole Kursk salient battles are very important indeed, technically the Prokhorovka, where the German Southern offensive was successfully held back at heavy cost and reversing the momentum which will eventually lead to German defeat. To me is like a boxing match, where a series of punch exchanges forced the other weaker but more technical boxer into his guard stance until his eventual defeat. Stalingrad was much more like a surprise hit from the opponent, dealing a shocking blow to the other boxer's morale, which is arguably detrimental to the outcome of the match.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 15-07-2013, 18:07:43
Something I've been wondering:

When the various NATO nations decided that the 105mm L7 wasn't good enough and went to 120mm guns, why did the British decide that 2 part ammo was the way to go while the Germans (and thus the rest) continued to use combined ammo?
The british believed that it was easier to handle in the cramp confinements of the tank
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 15-07-2013, 21:07:33

Thanks, I knew you would elaborate on this one :)


I was going deeper at first, but then I realised Im out of time and had to run, leaving only a very shortie post instead.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 15-07-2013, 23:07:54
Well, it is a battle, not a whole campaign. So Operation Barbarossa or "Kursk" simply cannot be included to the counter list.
Like I said ;)

Moreover, the Japanese never really took advantage over their surprise victory on Pearl Harbour
Not true, the Japanese used the time the Americans needed to recover from Pearl Harbor, to conquer South East Asia as far as they could, with great successes.


Thanks, I knew you would elaborate on this one :)


I was going deeper at first, but then I realised Im out of time and had to run, leaving only a very shortie post instead.
Nevermind, you can still post it later when you have more time. Or link to a previous post you made about this (I seem to remember you did) ;)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 15-07-2013, 23:07:01
Quote
Well, it is a battle, not a whole campaign. So Operation Barbarossa or "Kursk" simply cannot be included to the counter list.
Then isn't the Battle of Britain also more a campaign than a battle?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 16-07-2013, 00:07:47
Different discussion actually, and not really important either, imo ;)

Do you agree or disagree with this dude, and if not what do you think were the most important battles?
 

Quote
On a related note, I also believe that WWII as a whole didn't really have a strictly decisive singular set of engagements
 
This is a matter of perception, and thuis it is personal. It is also semantics: battle, campaign, strategic or tactical victory, you can split and/or lump as much as you like: it will take pretty long before it gets ridiculous.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 16-07-2013, 04:07:32
Well, since CPS' friend is pretty detailed and careful in making that list, I think we need to be on the same level as well. There are many aspects that define battles or engagements or just skirmishes, from scope of location and also time.

About the Pearl Harbour, whether it happened or not, I think the South East Asia conquest would still proceed unhindered. Other than the public morale boost, Pearl Harbour also change the eagerness for USA to enter the war. I doubt that without Pearl Harbour, the US would deploy a full scale intervention forces to stop Japanese advance. I need more opinions on this though.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Erwin on 16-07-2013, 09:07:48
Barbarossa is a Campaign which involved Army Group Size actions on multiple fronts.

Kursk on the other hand is an Operation(Operation:Zitadelle) which involved 1/3 of German Eastern Front in a small area. So you can't call this a "campaign."
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 16-07-2013, 16:07:57
Quote
A campaign is a phase of a war involving a series of operations related in time and space and aimed towards a single, specific, strategic objective or result in the war. A campaign may include a single battle, but more often it comprises a number of battles over a protracted period of time or a considerable distance, but within a single theatre of operations or delimited area. A campaign may last only a few weeks, but usually lasts several months or even a year.[1]

Yes, Operation Zitadelle is a campaign.  Just like Operation Overlord is also known as the "Normandy Campaign."  The D-Day Landings were "Operation Neptune".  Operations are something entirely different:

Quote
Military operations can be classified by the scale and scope of force employment, and their impact on the wider conflict. The scope of military operations can be:

    Theater: this describes an operation over a large, often continental area of operation and represents a strategic national commitment to the conflict such as Operation Barbarossa, with general goals that encompass areas of consideration outside of the military such as the economic and political impacts.
    Campaign: this describes either a subset of the theatre operation, or a more limited geographic and operational strategic commitment such as Battle of Britain, and need not represent total national commitment to a conflict, or have broader goals outside of the military impacts.
    Battle: this describes a subset of a campaign that will have specific military goals and geographic objectives, as well as clearly defined use of forces such as the Battle of Gallipoli, which operationally was a combined arms operation originally known as the "Dardanelles landings" as part of the Dardanelles Campaign, where about 480,000 Allied troops took part.
    Engagement: this describes a tactical combat event of contest for specific area or objective by actions of distinct units. For example the Battle of Kursk, also known from its German designation as Operation Citadel, included many separate engagements, several of which were combined into the Battle of Prokhorovka. The "Battle of Kursk" in addition to describing the initial German offensive operation (or simply an offensive), also included two Soviet counter-offensive operations: Operation Kutuzov and Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev.
    Strike: this describes a single attack, upon a specified target. This often forms part of a broader engagement. Strikes have an explicit goal, such as, rendering facilities inoperable (e.g. airports), to assassinating enemy leaders, or to limit supply to enemy troops.

And as for Battle:

Quote
The use of the term "battle" in military history has led to its misuse when referring to almost any scale of combat, notably by strategic forces involving hundreds of thousands of troops that may be engaged in either a single battle at one time (Battle of Leipzig) or multiple operations (Battle of Kursk).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 16-07-2013, 17:07:28
I like to use the word "campaign" when I talk about Tali-Ihantala since it lasted for so many days and the battle had several stages and it was not focused into just one area, not to forget the quantity of men and equipment of both sides. I dont know if anyone would agree with me on that logic but I just think "battle" makes it sound kind of small. Just like something like "Battle of El Alamein" makes it sound like its just a brawl while in reality it was a massive multi-staged operation on a rather large front involving large numbers of men and material.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 16-07-2013, 18:07:24
As noted in the above quotes, battle is a sorely misused term.  For instance, battle can mean everything from the "Battle of Mont Ormel" (an actual battle by definition), to "The Battle of France", which refers to the entire German offensive in 1940.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Roughbeak on 17-07-2013, 16:07:51
I thought about posting this in the Realityforums, but then i had to create another account..

Ok! Weapons talk, this L85a2 in PR. When the soldier reloads and hits that green button behind the magazine catch. What is it called? I know on the other side is the bolt release catch, but how about this one, or what does it do?
The animation that follows in PR: British soldier takes out the magazine, puts a fresh one in, hits the green button behind the magazine release catch, then he hits on the other side, which he strikes the bolt release catch, then ready for firing.

Again, what is this green button behind the magazine release called? :) 

(http://imageshack.us/a/img853/3083/79u3.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: th_battleaxe on 17-07-2013, 17:07:06
Could be the safety switch...

Other than that, no idea.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Roughbeak on 17-07-2013, 17:07:43
I believe the safety catch is above the trigger guard (that looks like a pin).
Yeah, i still do not know what that green button behind the magazine catch is?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 17-07-2013, 17:07:01
As noted in the above quotes, battle is a sorely misused term.  For instance, battle can mean everything from the "Battle of Mont Ormel" (an actual battle by definition), to "The Battle of France", which refers to the entire German offensive in 1940.

I always thought that the term is "The Battle for France."

But the massive air campaign over Britain is always famously remembered as "Battle of Britain." That includes Operation Eagle Attack and series of other uncoordinated attacks on British cities which is not the objective of Operation Eagle Attack by the Luftwaffe.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 17-07-2013, 21:07:12
Green switch appears to be fire selector switch, with safety being the catch above the magazine.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 21-07-2013, 23:07:45
Does anyone have information about use of poison gas on the WW1 fronts the Ottomans fought on?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 22-07-2013, 00:07:37
During WWI? Yes, the Ottomans did use chemical weapons although... I'll have to look it up and edit this post later, I know what instance I'm thinking about but it was a one time thing, be surprised if I can even find it on the internet.

Edit:
La Renaissance was a French language newspaper based in Constantinople in 1918-1920. It was of course all news that concerned Armenians. It was either printed for propaganda purposes, or to counter any censorship but it should be noted that decades later survivors and others would confirm the paper's daily reports. It's also very important to modern historians as it covered the postwar trials and is good for cross-referencing.
Now, during the third session of the Trabzon trials it was brought to light by doctors that in two schools, gas, and gas equipment, was used on school children. This was covered in an article which is sourced by well known authors in dozens of books, and if you could find it I'm sure it will detail this part of the trial. You might even find what gas was used and who ordered it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 22-07-2013, 00:07:31
I did some research, looks like Russians used some against Ottomans in the Caucausian front, but no more info.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 24-07-2013, 15:07:29
Were there ever lafettes/scoped MGs mounted on half-tracks? Seems like they would greatly increase their effect.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 24-07-2013, 16:07:36
Never seen such, though some tracks and such used a lafette style mount for recoil/aiming, I've never seen one with scope attached.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 24-07-2013, 16:07:54
Were there ever lafettes/scoped MGs mounted on half-tracks? Seems like they would greatly increase their effect.

Lafettes are a bit bulky for half tracks, and the mount is pretty stable as it is. Would have been a lot of work for little gain. The scope cannot be mounted directly to the MG, making a "scoped MG" not very practical at least for mounting on armored prime movers.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-08-2013, 17:08:55
Can somebody explain to me the purpose of the whirlpool thing camo on the propellor nose?

And the little thing on the left.?

(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1673/bhxs.png)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 09-08-2013, 17:08:48
Little thing on the left is an air intake for the engine. so that it can do its combustion. Little things underneath the wing are its radiators, since it is a water cooled engine.

The thing in front of the propeller is just to make it more visible if it turns i sepose.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 09-08-2013, 17:08:00
The thing in front of the propeller is just to make it more visible if it turns i sepose.

Yup, also modern jetengines have it for the same reason
(http://learningfromdogs.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/trent-900.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 09-08-2013, 21:08:34
It also just looks cool.  Never doubt the power of something just "looking nice."
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 10-08-2013, 16:08:20
Well, this Rolls Royce RB211-22 (powering Lockheed Tristar and older Boeing 747s) doesn't have that kind of painting.

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRPZiDNVfWBOHZOt49lAOn8qI5jxjYAX7XHeV84aRg2w0RbMs-)

This GE CF-6-80C2 (powers Boeing 767s) doesn't have that as well.

(http://files.gereports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/AdvancedInsta2.jpg)

I used to think that it is there to scare off birds or at least make it visible to them.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Thorondor123 on 10-08-2013, 20:08:58
In the case of modern airliners, it's a easy way to tell if the engine is running on a busy and noisy airfield where the ground crew is wearing hearing protection.

During WWII different nose cone and propeller blade tip paint patterns were used in identification purposes as well as safety.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 15-08-2013, 23:08:19
How do prop hub mounted cannons or Motorkanone work? I believe most of them are blowback-operated, but how are the axle and the barrel related to each other?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 16-08-2013, 00:08:38
I'll say again, never doubt the power of something just looking 'neat.'  ID purposes, safety, etc, were all secondary to the swirl just looking cool....
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 16-08-2013, 06:08:40
How do prop hub mounted cannons or Motorkanone work? I believe most of them are blowback-operated, but how are the axle and the barrel related to each other?

I think they are mounted inside a hollow prop bearing.

I'll refer to my Avia Graphica airplane cutaway diagrams for more information.

here is Bf-109G:
http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/MM/MM-112/0307-08-2-9.jpg
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 22-08-2013, 12:08:16
When president Hindenburg died, it was even more easy for Hitler to grab power, is what i've always learned, but what actually happened to the function of president? Hitler became Reichskansler and president? Or did the president function disappear or did some nazi take that function over?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 22-08-2013, 12:08:00
Well, no.

Hitler became Reichskanzler in 1933 and when Hindenburg died, Hitler just took all the presidents powers to himself, changing his title to "Führer und Reichskanzler"
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 22-08-2013, 15:08:16
Adolf Hitler became Reichskanzler in 1933, then Reichstagsbrandverordnung used Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution in less than a month, the Ermaechtigungsgesetz was passed on the 23rd of March, and on August 2nd 1934 Hindenburg died a day after a law was passed which allowed Adolf Hitler to assume his powers so he became Reichspraesident as well, creating the new office of Fuehrer.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 22-08-2013, 15:08:13
Can the MG42 use the drum mag from MG34?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 22-08-2013, 15:08:11
Yes.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-08-2013, 21:08:28
Not the saddle drum.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 22-08-2013, 21:08:23
I mean this thing:

(http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/uploads/mmmmmm34/MMMMMM34DRUM-039349.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-08-2013, 21:08:00
I know wich one you ment, i'm just saying= Not the saddle drum  ;D


Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 22-08-2013, 21:08:45
Yeah that one is obviously not gonna fit in the mechanism ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-08-2013, 21:08:24
They did experimented with it, and made a bunch of them. Unlike what the belt-fed religious people said, the belts clogged up alot of dirt in the LMG role
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2013, 20:08:24
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/557401_10201576217024127_556772547_n.jpg)

Does anyone know what aircraft this is???
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 23-08-2013, 21:08:07
Photo taken in 2009, between Mechelen and Antwerp. It's an off limits area though, not sure exactly where. I'm afraid that's all I can find out for now.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 24-08-2013, 08:08:53
NAMC YS-11, a Japanese made turboprop passenger aircraft.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 25-08-2013, 07:08:01
Can the MG42 use the drum mag from MG34?

To expand on the "yes". Aside from jamming issues, the high rate of fire of the MG42 uses up the...I want to say 75 rounds, pretty quickly. So fast that it was more practical just to feed it directly from an ammo box.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 03-09-2013, 04:09:33
A question for our german members.

How do you guys pronounce the "R" in words?
 I'm having a discussion with a colleague, since I've always read most of it "the french way" "Je ne parle pas français" (can't really think of a way to put it now, but the throaty "R"), and he suggests that it should either be read "the russian way" (Россия!) or just read silent, like the "H" in the middle of a word surrounded by vocals.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 03-09-2013, 04:09:19
Relax your tongue, try not to make any faces, don't think too hard about it. Now then, wiederholung hinter mir.

Quote
Die Katze tritt die Treppe krumm

Praktizieren Zungenbrecher mehrmals jeder Tag. You'll get it by accident eventually and find how to replicate it, maybe you'll have it in a month if you practice a few hours a day. I'm sure a native speaker will have a better way though.
Also, you're not learning a Bavarian accent, no need to overdo it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 03-09-2013, 05:09:19
Yeah, sounds good. I'll try that. Thank you for the tip!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 04-09-2013, 06:09:04
After having unsuccessfully searched all over the internet, I would now like to ask the specialists of the community this question: What were the eligibility requirements for officers in the British Army in the late 1930s? What classes of society were able to become officers? What education was necessary? Did the big cultural and educational gap between men and officers still exist as it did during Victorian times?

I would be really grateful for any replies that would clarify these questions, since I have been thinking about them for a while now.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 04-09-2013, 06:09:31
If you didn't have an education in at least a public school it was almost impossible to become an officer. and being an aristocrat wasn't a requirement but if you look into the backgrounds of some officers you can see that it definitely helped, that remains true of todays modern British army.

I can't seem to find the exact requirements but as I said, if you look into the backgrounds of officers you'll get a general idea of what the requirements were.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Damaso on 04-09-2013, 11:09:01
Is it true than the polish actually charched with some kind of "Hussar" cavalary (the cavalary with swords... but not really swords)  against German tanks and/or infantry, and they actually once atacked an infantry division and defeated them by surprise?

I could never understood that... how did they managed to make those charches, why, and how did they finaly died?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 04-09-2013, 17:09:55
Is it true than the polish actually charched with some kind of "Hussar" cavalary (the cavalary with swords... but not really swords)  against German tanks and/or infantry, and they actually once atacked an infantry division and defeated them by surprise?

I could never understood that... how did they managed to make those charches, why, and how did they finaly died?

Well, for starters, those horses dragged pretty potent AT cannons.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-09-2013, 18:09:17
Is it true than the polish actually charched with some kind of "Hussar" cavalary (the cavalary with swords... but not really swords)  against German tanks and/or infantry, and they actually once atacked an infantry division and defeated them by surprise?

I could never understood that... how did they managed to make those charches, why, and how did they finaly died?
The polish did many major cavalry charges

of wich the grand majority were huge succeses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#Cavalry_charges_and_propaganda


The germans took one battle as propaganda, of wich an polish cavalry unit was ambushed by panzers and withdrew(suffering minor losses) And used it as a "Great victory for superior german troops with modern equipment against puny polish cavalry wich were slaughtered by the thousands.


Reality was that many times the "superior german" troops got there asses KICKED



Not to mention the last cavalry charge being done by the Polish troops fighting with the soviets. In berlin, one crossroad was heavily defended by german troops, in wich 3 Soviet attacks failed to defeat the defenses

One Polish cavalry unit did an surprise charge in wich they took the crossroads with minor losses. With german defenders running like the wind.




The polish cavalry units facing german tanks is a PURE MYTH and has been busted with overwelming evidence.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 04-09-2013, 18:09:52
stop destroying my wonderful bedtime stories you wanker!


OT:

Why so many different callibres and why those exact numbers?

I mean, couldn't the 88mm Flak be the 87mm flak, or why is the russian airplane cannon 23mm instead of 20, or even 24mm.

Why is the 57mm cannon 57mm, why didn't they make, for example, a 58mm cannon or a 60mm one?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-09-2013, 18:09:00
Because the sizes are common metal construction sizes of pipes

For example
3 Inch= 76.2mm

Every cannon calibre in FH2 is a diameter i have encountered at my work
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 04-09-2013, 18:09:34
No idea, but often if you put it into a different scale it gets more clear, for instance a 76mm gun is the same as 3 inch. 88mm gun is 3.5 inch. 57mm is 2.25 or 2 1/4 inch.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-09-2013, 19:09:22
So far i have encountered 37mm, 75mm,88mm,90mm, 76.2mm, 47mm,105mm and 155mm pipes
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 04-09-2013, 19:09:43
HA! But not 128mm!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-09-2013, 20:09:31
HA! But not 128mm!
They are in the table of pipes, we dont use them tough
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 04-09-2013, 22:09:04
the 57mm COULD have it's root way back when the projectile was a cannonball, and cast of iron(?) and weighed 6 pounds, hence the 6pounders.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-09-2013, 22:09:05
57mm is also a pipe, imperial size that is, but any 6PDR gun designed had that calibre for some reason
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 04-09-2013, 22:09:59
Maybe that is the size you get when you make a steel or lead ball weighing 6 pounds.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-09-2013, 22:09:39
ooh yeah
good thinking there boys
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 04-09-2013, 23:09:34
huge succeses

asses KICKED

With german defenders running like the wind.

overwelming evidence.

I love how Tao always uses epic-speech-mode when describing allied successes. Not doubting that Polish cavalry was successful, but it´s funny to see.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-09-2013, 23:09:23
Churchill tank was vastly superior to the hugely inferior kingtiger tank

however both churchill and Maus were equally




YEAH
sounds epic!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 05-09-2013, 20:09:11
What is the song played on bagpipes the British use when they do bayonet charges?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-09-2013, 21:09:59
What is the song played on bagpipes the British use when they do bayonet charges?
Link?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 05-09-2013, 21:09:20
No link, I know the melody, but since I cant hum it and record it and out it here...

Arent there some stuff that are regularly played with bagpipes in the army?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 05-09-2013, 21:09:48
I assume that you refer to All Blue Bonnets are over the Border. I think that everyone gets goosebumps and just wants to charge like mad as soon as they hear it-at least I do  :P .

Here is a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N84Iq1PnEPQ
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 05-09-2013, 22:09:17
Thank you for your reply, Korsakov! You confirmed my assumptions. I think with this information I can conclude that the immense cultural gap was, at least to a certain extent, bridged since people with a good education were also common in the other ranks because they did not go to the select schools that were reserved for the lower upper class and upwards, an education at which in turn was needed to become an officer. The system was changed in 1942, when officer candidates would be chosen by scientific testing instead, but in fact it was despised by many and it remained true that a lower class person would not stand a chance even if they passed the tests well. To-day, all you need is either an A-level or a university education. A top attitude and gentlemanly behaviour is of course still prerequisite.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 06-09-2013, 16:09:31
I assume that you refer to All Blue Bonnets are over the Border. I think that everyone gets goosebumps and just wants to charge like mad as soon as they hear it-at least I do  :P .

Here is a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N84Iq1PnEPQ

Ah yes, its that one! Thank you. :)

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 07-09-2013, 14:09:17
So theta i've tried searching everywhere for this but not a single mention anywhere of a Greek throwing his rifle as a spear. Little help, or at least the basis of the myth?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 11-09-2013, 14:09:33

Polish cavalry did not of attackings German panzer corpse.
Still of much humor
http://i.imgur.com/D79SC6h.png
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 11-09-2013, 15:09:07

Polish cavalry did not of attackings German panzer corpse.
Still of much humor
http://i.imgur.com/D79SC6h.png

Anyone knows what are those comics called?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 11-09-2013, 16:09:21

Polish cavalry did not of attackings German panzer corpse.
Still of much humor
http://i.imgur.com/D79SC6h.png

Polish cav actually slaughtered the German tanks.  So still not good :3
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 11-09-2013, 17:09:24
They are countryball comics. Google it for the lulz


I have a question about the antiquity.

In the 19th century we had huge amounts of literature about how elephants are useless in warfare.  This was based on small groups of elephants the Romans faced in armies that were unused to utilising them. On the other hand Elephants were used in much larger numbers in Subcontinent by all powers ranging from the Indo-Greek city states, to the random muslim rulers in the middle ages.
My question is why did the Greeks (Daidochi) use them extensively if they were useless in combat and they had awesome European phalangites to beat back the savages?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 11-09-2013, 17:09:58
In the 19th century we had huge amounts of literature about how elephants are useless in warfare.  This was based on small groups of elephants the Romans faced in armies that were unused to utilising them. On the other hand Elephants were used in much larger numbers in Subcontinent by all powers ranging from the Indo-Greek city states, to the random muslim rulers in the middle ages.
My question is why did the Greeks (Daidochi) use them extensively if they were useless in combat and they had awesome European phalangites to beat back the savages?
It looks like you answered your own question. The "fact" that elephants are useless, is derived from 19th century literature, and my guess is that that literature was wrong.

Just like the Renaissance humanists made the Middle Ages look like a very backward time in which nothing happened, which is also totally wrong.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Leibermuster on 11-09-2013, 20:09:27

Polish cavalry did not of attackings German panzer corpse.
Still of much humor
http://i.imgur.com/D79SC6h.png

Polish cav actually slaughtered the German tanks.  So still not good :3
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Countryball+Comics.+Certainly+not+OC.+Tags+Lie+--%3E_23145c_4039467.png (http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Countryball+Comics.+Certainly+not+OC.+Tags+Lie+--%3E_23145c_4039467.png)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kelmola on 12-09-2013, 10:09:52

Polish cavalry did not of attackings German panzer corpse.
Still of much humor
http://i.imgur.com/D79SC6h.png

Polish cav actually slaughtered the German tanks.  So still not good :3
The German flag is also anachronistic as is the Tiger... ;p Not to mention that those are Monacoballs being anschlussed.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 12-09-2013, 12:09:21
The Poland flag in countryball meme is intentionally reversed, and it is mentioned in the knowyourmeme.com page. Monacoball difference with Indonesiaball, is Indonesiaball wears a traditional fez-like cap.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 16-09-2013, 22:09:49
What was the most commonly used anti-tank mine by the Italians in Africa before the Germans arrived?/ did they use any at all? I've got info that the Italian B-2 mine was used but can't find any pictures or info on it
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 18-09-2013, 23:09:17
Okay I got a question for the Panzer nerds:

In books, sites, videos etc. I often hear (well, almost constantly hear) about how a large part of the success of the German tanks early in the war (1939-42ish especially) was down to the fact they worked in teams. They would deploy armor en masse and to great effect, especially against enemies like the Brits and the French, who would deploy their tanks scattered over great distances and generally pepper tanks amongst the battlefield.

The way this usually went is that the team of panzers would come across a couple Allied tanks here and there, and destroy them, largely thanks to their superior numbers.

But none of these books, sites, videos and so on ever seem to mention something that's always bugged me: if the Allied tanks were scattered amongst the battlefield, how come you hardly ever hear of a platoon of them destroying German infantry/support/artillery while the pack of Panzers was off somewhere else? Having all your tanks together is great for defeating the enemies you encounter, but surely it means you don't encounter all of the enemies there are to be fought?

Example (might be kinda off but just for the sake of argument)

France, 1940:

Germany is advancing along a 2km-wide patch of forest and villages.

Germany has 20 Panzer IIIs. They are employed in 4 platoons of 5 tanks, each about 200m away from each other. France has 20 tanks, SOMUAs and Chars and Renaults, working in disorganization (compared to the Germans) and with 2 tanks here, 3 tanks there, 1 tank here and so on, along the line.

So Germany attacks, and when they encounter 3 S-35s near a wooded area, they surround and destroy the tanks, since 2 or 3 of their platoons can see every enemy that any other platoon finds. But to effectively overwhelm the enemy, they need to keep their armor close together. They can't cover a 2km wide front since they have 20 tanks, not 80.

So why don't the French tanks who don't encounter panzers have a free shot at the infantry behind them? Why aren't they blasting the panzer grenadiers to smithereens? If the main force of panzers has moved off in one direction, isn't the other area they left now free to be attacked?

I know there's a ton of variables to shit like this but so many of the accounts I've read of France in 1940, the desert in 1941 and so on blabber endlessly about the German tanks working as a team, but they didn't have 40,000 tanks to take those countries. They couldn't attack and defend everywhere all the time. There had to be some considerable gaps in their ranks, so why do we hardly ever hear of Allied tanks happening on completely defenseless German troops while the panzers are off hunting somewhere?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 18-09-2013, 23:09:36
My guess is because they hauled ass when they saw the German Panzers coming, but I'm not sure. It is also a matter of communication: I don't think French tankers could know that the enemy was miles away so they would have a free hand, so instead they kept waiting in defense.

But this is just (somewhat educated) guessing.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-09-2013, 00:09:58
so why do we hardly ever hear of Allied tanks happening on completely defenseless German troops while the panzers are off hunting somewhere?
Because the grand majority of people intrested in WW2 are german fanboys. This is not my silly meme i started years ago. You see it in video games, internet sites, reenactment groups and militaria fairs.

When these people talk, its always about the superior german stories, not the allied ones. However if one searches good enough, you can find many of them.

During the battle of france for example, Many times did Char B1's wrecked straight trough german defenses. One famous incident involves a char B1 emerging from the woods, with its tracks covered in blood from a first skirmish, in wich the german troops panicked and ran for it.

Or during the Defense of tobruk, where a single Matilda II destroyed 5 panzers and dozens of troops that were behind them.

The germans were also much more keen to document things, where the allies did not. And thus german propaganda machine was perfect in its role for creating stories of superior german troops smashing trough allied ones. The allied propaganda machine had an easier job tough at its homefront.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 19-09-2013, 00:09:39
so why do we hardly ever hear of Allied tanks happening on completely defenseless German troops while the panzers are off hunting somewhere?
Because the grand majority of people intrested in WW2 are german fanboys. This is not my silly meme i started years ago. You see it in video games, internet sites, reenactment groups and militaria fairs.

When these people talk, its always about the superior german stories, not the allied ones. However if one searches good enough, you can find many of them.

During the battle of france for example, Many times did Char B1's wrecked straight trough german defenses. One famous incident involves a char B1 emerging from the woods, with its tracks covered in blood from a first skirmish, in wich the german troops panicked and ran for it.

Or during the Defense of tobruk, where a single Matilda II destroyed 5 panzers and dozens of troops that were behind them.

The germans were also much more keen to document things, where the allies did not. And thus german propaganda machine was perfect in its role for creating stories of superior german troops smashing trough allied ones. The allied propaganda machine had an easier job tough at its homefront.


Sources pl0x
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Redbadd on 19-09-2013, 00:09:31
Battle of Stonne and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Billotte, thats Wittmann territory.

Also because of speed of German advances the Allies had great difficulty to direct their own counter offensives. A french armoured division was desintegrated before even coming into contact with Germans as a unit. They wouldn't know where their subunits, being spread around and out of contact. were and then chaos would come, no fuel etc. A Char B had a rediculous small action radius.
Germans had jerry cans enabeling to refuel relatively quick  where as the Frech relied on fueling from trucks wich would take much more time. One tank one truck.

The better performance of Germans wasnt so much in their weaponry as in their unit organisation command structure and flexibilty.
A british officer was surprised to find an old vickers aa gun mounted on a russian carriage that had been lend leased to Russia and was in northern africa in Germans use posing as an 88.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 21-09-2013, 11:09:03
http://www.zib-militaria.de/epages/61431412.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/61431412/Products/140003

Did the M1903 and M1917 enfield used this type of sling???
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 23-09-2013, 15:09:04
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16276#axzz2fiYhA9cR
anyone knows where the complete audio of this speech can be found?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 23-09-2013, 15:09:21
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16276#axzz2fiYhA9cR
anyone knows where the complete audio of this speech can be found?

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/collections/utterancesfdr.html
Tape number is 201-212. The FDR library has it but you'll have to order it or pay them a visit.

http://www.zib-militaria.de/epages/61431412.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/61431412/Products/140003

Did the M1903 and M1917 enfield used this type of sling???

I do know that there used to be universal slings, can't say how widely used they were though. Something to note is that the M1 Garand's had more than one type of sling.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 24-09-2013, 23:09:06
anyone knows where i can find it online for free?

And totally different question: i would like to get a sixpack and i used to do sit-ups for that, but i read they are bad for a dzillion things, so i was wondering: anyone knows how to work on it without harming your body in other ways?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 24-09-2013, 23:09:05
I always buy sixpacks in the supermarket. Easiest way ;)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 25-09-2013, 05:09:21
And totally different question: i would like to get a sixpack and i used to do sit-ups for that, but i read they are bad for a dzillion things, so i was wondering: anyone knows how to work on it without harming your body in other ways?

Getting a sixpack is not an easy task.

You've got to put a lot of dedication onto it. Instant ways are mostly misleading. But keep this rule in mind: healthy body is 70% kitchen, 30% gym. So you got to really control your diet, less sugar, less salt, less fat. Don't reduce the portion of your intake, just alter the balance, and never be totally absent from all those "harmful" things, you may eat them, just eat them junks less than before.

"Six pack" is a well-toned abdominal muscle with proper definition. And to define your muscle (make them show), you need to have at maximum 15-17% body fat (12% ideally). So, you'll need other exercise too, not just sit ups to assist the fat burning. I'd recommend big muscle exercise (back, chest, and legs), since bigger muscle, consumes more energy and hence burn more fat. But of course, you have to balance it with healthy dose of small muscle exercise (shoulder/deltoid, hip, neck/trapezius, arm/triceps-biceps, etc...). Want to burn more? Do some high-intensity cardio exercise, like sprinting in short burst, or some aerobic exercises.

One last tip: make sure you got the right body posture before exercising, many people bent their backs when lifting weights (dangerous for your spine), don't use breathing techniques (tires you quickly), and lock their movements to the trained muscle (ineffective exercise). So, do a bit of research by googling more and see some YouTube videos on how to properly use a training equipment, or if you got some extra money, hire a professional trainer.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 22-10-2013, 05:10:29
When was the last time "true* anti-tank guns were used? I can't find any reports of PaK 40s, 88s, 17-pounders, whatever, after WW2 ended. I know that recoilless rifles, missiles, tank destroyers etc. replaced them but did any solid-shot AT guns get used in the 50s, 60s and later?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 22-10-2013, 06:10:02
If by "true" you mean those outdated a crappy pieces of shit from WWII, I remember seeing a D-48 being used in combat although I can't tell you about that incident. They're still used though.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 22-10-2013, 12:10:47
Probably some have been hip-fired from the Syrian Rebels i say.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 22-10-2013, 17:10:34
Some time ago I read Sniper on the Eastern Front: The Memoirs of Sepp Allerberger, Knight's Cross and how he was a MG gunner at first. In the book he says he got 15 confirmed kills with a MG (MG 42 I think) before getting hand on a soviet Mosin Nagant sniper rifle.

But did they keep track on each individual kills of the soldiers who did not use a sniper rifle? It seems a bit hard. Could he have remembered wrong, or did the writer misunderstand? I've never heard of it before.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 22-10-2013, 17:10:32
Probably a private tally that he remembered.  The translation of the book was off in some areas as I recall.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 05-11-2013, 16:11:06
Was the IL-2 effective?
Like so effective it deserved a game named after it?  :)

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 05-11-2013, 17:11:13
Extremely, especially against soft targets.  But, as usual, kill claims against tanks are difficult to judge and not backed up by the rather reliable german tank loss reports.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 05-11-2013, 17:11:12
I always thought that CAS was quite inaccurate, and tanks were abandoned when the crew shat their pants seeing low flying aircraft.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 05-11-2013, 17:11:57
I used to be a fanboy of Soviet equipment before, but to think clearly of it, I rather explain it rather carefully.

Il-2 is known by the German as the "flying tanks." I read a lot of books saying that the German soldiers feared it because of its powerful armaments and swarming attacks. They are relatively difficult to be brought down, but many other aircraft possessed the same quality.

I would consider Il-2 to be great because of its ease and cheapness to manufacture, after all, they are the most produced combat aircraft in history. About its true effectiveness as a weapon of war, I can't be sure, because the number of losses are too great, even greater than the German's ground attack aircraft. Moreover, the Soviet improvement in Il-2 employment tactics after 1942 doesn't improve its operational records either, they suffered even heavier loses after that.

Attacking against enemy positions, the Il-2 suffered from its low speed and relatively huge silhouette, making them easy to spot by AAAs. They are also lightly armed to take on hardened emplacements. But Il-2 is very effective against lightly armoured targets. It has rapid firing ShKAS, probably the fastest firing aerial machine guns. And then it is equipped with 23 mm cannon from the beginning of the conflict, making them one of the deadliest flying thing out there.

The plane has so many potential, but it was either hindered by the lack of training or experience of the crew, Soviet strategy/tactics when employing the aircraft, or the general situation in the eastern front. Let's compare by figures and claims: armaments are heavy, flying characteristics are favorable at low altitude, protection is excellent (the highlight of all), and the manufacturing is cheap, this nullifies the engine reliability problem that most Soviet planes suffered. Basically, it should be an okay aircraft.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-11-2013, 18:11:27
There is a certain thing about its armour tough. Yes, it was Insanely tough.......really..Really tough

But its armour was Not so great when being fired from above. Especially the tail was a weakness.


From below however, it could easily survive, even deflect, 20mm shells. The only AA gun that was effective against the IL-2, was the 3.7CM flak guns.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 05-11-2013, 18:11:21
Actually there are accounts of concentrated MG34 and MG42 fire bringing down IL-2s hitting the tail. I doubt 20mm would have huge problems taking down this plane then.

A nice plane however. Keep in mind ground attack aircraft in general did suffer huge losses.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 05-11-2013, 19:11:18
IL-2 Sturmovik is glorious Soviet airplane, top of its class for many years!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-11-2013, 19:11:08
Actually there are accounts of concentrated MG34 and MG42 fire bringing down IL-2s hitting the tail. I doubt 20mm would have huge problems taking down this plane then.

Concentrated. AKA many. Most likely the bullets hitted the cockpit

Altough i did forget one important weakness. The Liquid cooled engine. If one bullet penetrates in the right spot....The IL2 pilot has to immediatly set course for home or risk watching his/her plane go up in flames


Another reason why planes like the P47 and FW 190 had such a legendary survivabilty. These planes can keep on flying even with over half of there cylinders knocked out. One bullet can bring down a Spitfire/me109/mustang

Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp and BMW 801 are very facinating engines to read about :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 05-11-2013, 19:11:04
Every radial engined plane can do that as well. The Shvetsov ASh-82 powered La-5 and La-7 fighters can enjoy that survivability as well, but their poor cooling system hinders this ability.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-11-2013, 19:11:08
euhm

The P47& FW 190 have AIR cooled engines

There is a major survivability diffrence between an liquid cooled engine and a air cooled engine
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 06-11-2013, 04:11:36
Radial engines use spinning motion and massive intake as cooling mechanism, of course it is classified as "air-cooled" engine. The FW-190 also suffered overheating at low speeds, thus they need to put additional fan in front of that BMW 801 to suck in more air as seen here:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/BMW_801D_Duxford.jpg/300px-BMW_801D_Duxford.jpg)

Soviet's Shvetsov ASh-82 is also air cooled, but the aerodynamically shaped nose and air ducts of the La-5 and La-7s prevented efficient cooling system.

The in-line engine (sometimes in V-arrangement) uses liquid coolant to cool the engine. If the piping lines are punctured, the cooling system will be drained and the engine will overheat, parts melted and finally seizing.

Here are pros and cons from Wikipedia regarding radial (air cooled) and inline (liquid cooled):

Quote
Pros
Weight: Liquid-cooled inline engines often weigh more than equivalent air-cooled radial engines.
Damage tolerance: Liquid cooling systems are generally more vulnerable to battle damage. Minor shrapnel damage easily results in a loss of coolant and consequent engine seizure, while an air-cooled radial might be largely unaffected by small damage.[7]
Simplicity: Radials have shorter and stiffer crankshafts, a single bank radial needing only two crankshaft bearings as opposed to the seven required for a liquid-cooled six-cylinder inline engine of similar stiffness.[8]
Reliability:The shorter crankshaft also produces less vibration and hence higher reliability through reduced wear and fatigue.
Smooth running: It is typically easier to achieve smooth running with a radial engine

Cons
Cooling*:While a single bank radial permits all cylinders to be cooled equally, the same is not true for multi-row engines where the rear cylinders can be affected by the heat coming off the front row, and air flow being masked.[9]
Drag: Having all the cylinders exposed to the airflow increases drag considerably, adding turbulence that can destroy the laminar airflow over the fuselage and adjacent wings.
Power: Because each cylinder on a radial engine has its own head, it is impractical to use a multivalve valvetrain on a radial engine. Therefore, almost all radial engines use a two valve pushrod-type valvetrain which may result in less power for a given displacement than multi-valve inline engines.
Visibility: Pilot visibility is often poorer due to the bulk of the engine
Installation: The designer can be limited in engine placement, having to ensure adequate cooling air, which can be a challenge in a buried engine installation or pusher configurations.

*P-47's Pratt & Whitney R-2800 is also configured as two rows of radially arranged cylinders, but that massive gaping mouth in P-47 allows more air to come through to cool the engine, while La-5 and La-7 didn't enjoy this. FW-190 simply use that fan, which takes a good 30-70 HP from the engine, depending on the airspeed.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 06-11-2013, 04:11:15
I need your help regarding a temporary substitute for M43 trousers. My M37 trousers will only arrive in a couple of weeks, what really displeases me is that my uniform, which includes a M43 jacket, is complete apart from that. However, I cannot wear it without any trousers, and that is where the the root of the problem is: I do not want to spend much money on a reproduction M43 pair of trousers, but it is imperative my appearance is not shabby or sloppy. Does anyone recall seeing something that could fill this gap just off the top of their heads? Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.

Also, I bought an Auto Ordnance M1911A1 half a year ago and I love it. I realised that there is still a lot of bad talk going on about those pistols, but since Kahr took over, they are just delightful. Would anyone be interested in a review? If so, I would write one later this week.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 06-11-2013, 16:11:56
It is 100% completely correct to wear M37 trousers with a M43 jacket.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 06-11-2013, 20:11:39
I've had 2 questions for some time of which i know most people will call me retarded, but idc

anyway
a)
Why aren't VTOL aircraft being used on regular navy ships (cruisers, frigates, destroyers, ...). Are they far less controlable than helicopters when flying vertical, so landing on a small space is too hard? Or are there other reasons?

b)
Why haven't there been large planes that functioned as fighters? To me, it would have seemed useful in late cold war situations to have planes similar to E-3 Sentries or so, that carry a good radar , so they spott hostiles early, and that combined with Phoenix-like missiles, so they can just shoot down any plane before they get in range of enemies. And when employing heavy planes, you can probably even add guided miniguns that can take down incoming Surface-to-air Missiles or Air-to-Air Missiles. Is it impossible? Is it too expensive for it's function? Other reasons?

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 07-12-2013, 18:12:47
What Stahlhelm vairant (or even other helmets) did the Finns use during the Continuation War?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-12-2013, 18:12:02
i think the m35
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 07-12-2013, 19:12:01
What about the M1916 or M1917? Only in Winter War?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 07-12-2013, 19:12:07
@Born2Kill:

a) infact I think most of the VTOL planes are infact S/VTOL planes. Short take off landing allows for carrying much more ammunition and fuel. As the Vertical take of itself is already very fuel consuming. It would just give very little use to use them on destroyers, as you wouldn't have the range or couldn't carry the waeponery.

b) I guess they are still big ass targets. Gigalomantic vehicles have proven most of the time to be to complicated, as the effect doesn't grow linearly with its size. Just think about too large tanks. At some point they are not practicle anymore. For planes this could also mean, you need much bigger air fields, although a lot of military fighters also need large runways. Maybe someone else should comment on this.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 07-12-2013, 20:12:37
What Stahlhelm vairant (or even other helmets) did the Finns use during the Continuation War?

They used an asston of helmets:

http://koti.aina.net/~mk/pottia/finnhelm.htm
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 07-12-2013, 20:12:03
Sorry for the late answers. But here is what I've been thinking:

a) As Oberst has said, VTOL planes are limited by its MTOW. Harrier jets for example, can't lift off vertically after you shove a couple of 1,000 lbs bombs. It also requires quite ample space of jet blast clear area along its take-off path.

Are they far less controllable? I don't know about F-35, but Harriers uses series of thrusters located at the tip of the wing, nose, and tail empenage to control its movement while hovering (as normal control surfaces are useless without adequate airflow). They do this by deflecting engine thrust into these thruster outlets. This is the tail's thrusters (labelled with warning signs), controlling the yaw motion:

(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4127/5039522255_f6a04a3a1a_z.jpg)

It is quite tricky, since there is almost no protection envelope to prevent the pilot from maneuvering too much during this critical phase. Then there is problem with cooling. While hovering, the engine needs to work hard to suck air in, so the circulation is kinda less, and this increases heat. Harriers carry a lot of water coolant to keep the engine from overheating while hovering for 90 seconds (can be longer if the engine is cool or the air temperature is low enough). When this runs out, the jet engine will overheat and seize, instantly crashing the plane, without any chance of gliding safely into the ground (normal planes can still use their excess airspeed to glide safely in the event of engine outage).

Helicopters use 3 different controls, collective, pitch, and cyclic. These are meant for hovering, almost as long as there is enough fuel to keep the engines turning. So yeah, helicopter is kinda less tricky. But videos from Lockheed Martin, showed how easy it is to control F-35 when hovering. Probably even less tricky than in Battlefield games, since it is said to be protected with limitation envelope and other computer assistance.


b) "Big" planes that you mention generally don't carry FCR or Fire Control Radar. They can be mounted on them, sure some like this Boeing P-8I maritime patrol aircraft carries Harpoon missiles to kill naval targets:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W_JA-qjuqYA/UNHOR4QXGMI/AAAAAAAAA4I/wikbQhCYTUk/s1600/Boeing_Poseidon_P8_I_shelbs2_devianart_com.jpg)

Radar-guided missiles carries launching signature, so it kinda bad for hiding from the enemy radars. And these "big" planes are quite slow and not very maneuverable, when intercepted, they will be an easy prey. And large planes like AWACS or tankers are designated by USAF as high value airborne assets. They cannot be risked in any way into doing dangerous job like killing another airborne target.

Missiles with stand-off attacking range like Harpoon missiles and AIM-54 Phoenix you mentioned are designed to hit big targets. Phoenix are intended to hit long-range bombers or anti-ship attack planes before they can launch their missiles at US Navy fleet ships. Recently it also become anti-AWACS as well. It is not very maneuverable, so it almost has no chance against nimble evading target. Moreover, they are very expensive too. The Phoenix required matching radar (AN/AWG-9 and AN/APG-71) to fire them. Despite being big, an AWACS is quite packed and extra space could be a problem (mounting them externally will create another extra drag), even big fighter planes like A-10 doesn't carry FCR.

The rapid-firing machine guns to counter missile threats like CIWS on naval vessels can only work with again, matching fire control radar. And not to mention that they are, as a system, quite heavy and bulky. When firing, it will cause stress to the plane's structure (A-10 and other jet fighters are specifically designed to withstand this), causing their operational age to shorten. It will need further reinforcing that also adds weight.

All in all, the plane will accumulate so much weight that it requires bigger engine, which means bigger fuel consumption. That is particularly bad for AWACS plane, whose job is to loiter as long as possible watching the skies around it. We have learned that making specialized plane is much better than having "floating battleship." Because, it will be maintenance heavy due to numerous components and parts shoved into it. For every hour of flight, I imagined it will require more than the normal 4 hours of maintenance.

I hope this long post helps with your curiosity. Please feel free to correct the wrong things that I've posted.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 07-12-2013, 21:12:41
What Stahlhelm vairant (or even other helmets) did the Finns use during the Continuation War?

They used an asston of helmets:

http://koti.aina.net/~mk/pottia/finnhelm.htm

Good lord, that is a lot. Well, which one will the Finnish guy will be wearing in FH2 most probably?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 07-12-2013, 21:12:00
The same that the germans are wearing.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 07-12-2013, 21:12:52
So I bought myself a Miltec M43 cap repro, olive green and all that jazz. The visor is flat, not curved, and quite big. Do I, and how do I bend it so it doesn't look "bad"
Because right now it's a mix between an M43 and THIS

(http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/463645667/Rapper_Cap.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 07-12-2013, 23:12:58
Use your hand, duh.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 07-12-2013, 23:12:26
I bought mine from Epic Militaria in Wales, the quality is really nice on that one. Also, thanks for your reply VonMudra, but I think that you slightly misunderstood me. The issue is that I did not have any trousers at all and I wanted to wear my uniform, therefore wanting to find a substitute for the mean-time. Thank you nonetheless  :D .

By the way, how common was the use of the M1911A1 pistol in .45ACP by the British Army?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 08-12-2013, 00:12:49
And ah, I see.  Well in the old days they used swedish stuff, so a pair of swedish wool WW2 trousers might work as a stop gap till you get the M37s.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 08-12-2013, 01:12:26
Use your hand, duh.

hahah ok thanks  ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 08-12-2013, 05:12:43
Did the U.S. Army use synthetic stock M870 shotguns without magazine extensions in Vietnam? That question always bothered me. I found info that the Marines had it, but that is about it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 12-12-2013, 04:12:56
Does anyone know if the Colt Model 601 was still around in front-line service in the late 1960's and possibly even early 1970's?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-12-2013, 17:12:49
Does anyone know if the Colt Model 601 was still around in front-line service in the late 1960's and possibly even early 1970's?
Yep, special forces and Navy seals still used them in Vietnam and bordering countries where they did operations.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 12-12-2013, 23:12:24
Thanks! I hope that a few regulars could still be found with them after '67, since I am about to trade my M4A1 for a 601. Almost completely original. Complete with three-prong flash-hider and all those special small parts, like the selector with a hole in it, etc. Words cannot express my fervent joy, so I let Mr. Chow do it for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8o0vO779-k  :D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-12-2013, 23:12:34
M4A1 sucks
everyone has one

an origenal colt 601 on the other hand

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 12-12-2013, 23:12:51
That is so true my friend! I love AR-15 rifles, but they have to be A2 or earlier, preferably A1, to be fully appreciated by me. Just out of curiosity, did you get to shoot one of those yet? If not, I cannot recommend it strongly enough! They are amazing rifles, if you run the bolt assembly wet with CLP. Otherwise you will encounter one of those famous jams...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-12-2013, 23:12:20
the only AR15 Variant i fired is an M16A1 from "Nam. These types of firearms are not so popular here in Belgium altough they are appearing more at the gunrange.

(http://www.gmj-web.com/resources/upload/products/155771813_1.jpg)

Such sexy!

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: |7th|Nighthawk on 13-12-2013, 00:12:41
What's wrong with the A3? It looks like the A2 and is full auto. What do you want more? ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ciupita on 13-12-2013, 01:12:10
What's wrong with the A3? It looks like the A2 and is full auto. What do you want more? ;D

So rare that it costs zillions.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 13-12-2013, 02:12:09
Oberst, thanks for the reply
Zoologic, really nice post, thanks a lot, you covered almost everything i wondered. Just had a few minor questions left:
A)
I know a VTOL plane burns fuel like it's nothing when using the vertical flying mode but wouldn't it be interesting to have a plane to intercept hostile incoming aircraft. (90 seconds isn't a problem i guess, in 90 seconds, you're gone i guess) There are some helicopter launched missiles that have a further range than the standard SAM most ships carry. Would be interesting to have a VTOL on board then to intercept the chopper before it gets the range to fire at you. Same with incoming heavy planes similar to the P-3C Orion, that can fire Harpoons from a dsiatnce you can do nothing about. In general, i think you're better off with a helicopter to search for subs, but in a task force of a few destroyers/frigates, i guess 1 VTOL can be interesting. So maybe if the F-35 is more controlable, would it be a possibility to put them on smaller ships?
B)
Now i see i didn't put the question exactly the way i meant: I didn't mean this project on a huge scale. I meant it more as an own evolved idea of the practical use the Tu-16 had in anti-navy use. The Tu-16 could cary heavy missiles with an astonishing range, but was a sitting duck if it got out of the air-defense zone or had to attack a carrierfleet with F-14's. With adding the radar and the long range anti-air missiles, i guess you could work that weakness out, and have the perfect carrierhunter. I guess it will also be able to have a longer range than most fighter planes, which may be useful to intercept some tergets when spotted on time.

"Missiles with stand-off attacking range like Harpoon missiles and AIM-54 Phoenix you mentioned are designed to hit big targets."

From the harpoon i knew it, but not from the Phoenix. So the Phoenix has a hard time taking down fighter sized planes?

You also say "when intercepted" but my idea more relies on the idea of taking down the enemy before they can intercept you, or is this impossible?

About the gatling guns to fend of incoming missiles, i was thinking of lighter guns than the one the A-10 uses, i was more thinking of gatling guns like they are used in teh AC-130. For the radar, i thought the same radar could be used as the one monuted on top, or is this impossible because they are too different?

And lastly: well, yeah it would need some bigger engines, but i wouldn't use it as loiter aircraft that needs a 8 000 nm action radius. More as plane to investigate contacts seen on a baseradar, or maybe even to assist in raids, when equiped with land missiles. Anyway, it would be sent out with a mission, not just as patroller.

Anyway, many thinks for your awesome reply, i more or less see why these things didn't happen. The second i doubt a bit more (I think it's more efficient in the first case to just get SAMs with a bigger range), but I guess it, as you said, fails at costingprice/piece and maybe too high reliabiltyrate on the long range missiles.

PS: sorry for late reply :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Musti on 13-12-2013, 02:12:39
the only AR15 Variant i fired is an M16A1 from "Nam. These types of firearms are not so popular here in Belgium altough they are appearing more at the gunrange.

Awwwwww yeeeah, M16A1, my favorite variant of AR15. fixed stock, non-detachable carrying handle, triangular front grip, no stupid rails. Wonderful
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 13-12-2013, 07:12:11
Hi Born2Kill 007,

You are welcome.

On point A)
Well, if the idea of having planes is to fend off air attacks that potentially employs long-range anti-ship missiles, then VTOL fighter jets are pretty much useless. First of all, unlike most big planes, fighter jets are small. Some are small enough so the jet engine can be spun and pre-started using their own batteries. The big ones, like F-16 or F/A-18 (including F-35, maybe) need external power generator to help them start the engine. Like most aircraft, the checklists from start to take-off is quite enormous, you may skip them in emergency situations, but it wouldn't be sufficient for responding the threat.
An idea would be to keep the VTOL onboard the naval vessels constantly on scramble mode during conflict. But it takes a lot of fuel and man resources to keep them that way. Not to mention the cost of keeping them ready like that and the maintenance effort. It is also more dangerous, because on scramble mode all the weapons carried by the fighter are armed.
Then in a carrier group or group without carrier (whatever it is called), a VTOL aircraft needs parts, supplies, and a hangar. A Ticonderoga class cruiser can house 2 helicopters in its hangar bay, well either that or 1 F-35B. I'd choose 2 helicopters, even though I'm inside a group of other ships that carries redundant-tasked helicopters. They are more useful for the ship than the F-35B. I'll let the CIWS do the job of screening the launched missiles.

B) The key here is planning. An asset like Tu-16 or Tu-22 or B-1 Lancer bombers cannot be simply deployed on a mission with high risk of interception. There are a lot of things to be done, like clearing the area using electronic warfare/jammer aircraft like the EA-18G Growler to keep the enemy blind/short-sighted, then defeating the enemy's air force while at the same time, wild weaseling their AA defenses. And finally we can "bomb them back to stone age." This is a very US doctrine.
About AIM-54, yes they have difficulties killing small, nimble targets such as jet fighters. They are designed to kill other high value airborne assets like AWACS, tankers, bombers, and so on. F-14 is designated as carrier group defender not attacker. They meant to shot down anti-carrier missile carrying bombers before they could get in-range. Nowadays, a very maneuverable jet fighters like Su-33 can carry Moskit missile (can also armed with nuclear warhead), so imagine the challenge here. AIM-54 has a rather small control surface, and in a world of knifes and daggers (AIM-120, AIM-9, R-77, R-73), this thing is like a heavy broadsword. It can deliver heavy blow, but was too cumbersome to be swung around. So, yeah, I think AIM-120ER would be more likely.
About the CIWS system on AWACS/expensive stuffs. Yes they use different radar. The one carried by E-3 Sentry planes are search/tracking radar. They can locate enemy assets, give us the position and transmit the information to nearby friendly fighters. That's why the radar designation is AN/APY-2 (Y being surveillance). They need fire control radar to lock into target and guide a missile.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 13-12-2013, 10:12:16
again many thanks  ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 13-12-2013, 19:12:06
(http://i.imgur.com/hfXXtQh.jpg)
(http://camopedia.org/images/0/00/Turkey9.jpg)

Does anyone know what this camo is called?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 13-12-2013, 20:12:25
I don't know the name or designation, but it's been in use by the Turkish Armed Forces since 2008 and the Free Syrian Army since 2012.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 13-12-2013, 22:12:15
Heh, I see what you did there, and of course what the government of Turkey did...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 14-12-2013, 05:12:54
Did the Russian interwar flamethrower tanks like OT-26, OT-27, OT-130, OT-133 etc. ever achieve any success at all? I can't find anything with Google other than that they got their asses handed to them constantly.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 14-12-2013, 07:12:03
Yes they were successful, just need to search in Russian, not English.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: |7th|Nighthawk on 17-12-2013, 08:12:39
I have a question about rifles: Many modern rifles use pistolgrips and even in WW2 there were machineguns and submachineguns that used them. This leads me to this question: Why did weapons like G43 or M1 Garand that were developed later in the war (unlike K98 or M1903) not designed with pistol grips? Why do hunting rifles today not use pistol grips? Is the latter out of tradition and looks or has it usefull features? I thought pistol grips greatly improved weapon control as they are used nearly everywhere today and on most automatic weapons in WW2 too (Sten or PPsH might not had them because of production costs?).
Also about the forward grip: Thompson had it but noone had the idea to put it on weapons like BAR, FG42 or even just the semi automatic rifles? Thompson ceased to have it at one point too.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 17-12-2013, 09:12:56
Garand was developed before the war, there just weren't enough of them to be issued to all units at the start of the war (USMC). The magwells of the MP-40 and Stg-44 werre intended to be used as frontal foregrips. Thompsons stopped having front pistol grips because the horizontal grips were easier to manufacture, and for the same reason the drum mag was left out. Australian Owen-SMGs had pistol grips and foregrips, as well as the later sten guns, namely mk.V and mk.VI, which had wooden buttstocks as well. Also the BARs manufactured under licence in Poland had a pistol grip. The G43 didn't get pistol grips mainly because it was reverse engineered from the Soviet SVT-40.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 17-12-2013, 10:12:37
I don't know what you guys are talking about. Almost every rifle in WW2 had pistol grips. One of the few that come to mind that did not have them is the mossin nagant. The pistol grip is integrated in the stock.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 17-12-2013, 16:12:37
One of the big reasons bolt action and semi-auto rifles in WW2 generally didn't have pistol grips (integrated pistol grips =/= the pistol grips he's talking about) is simply that they really don't do anything if it's just a single shot at a time weapon.  The control it offers is when firing multiple shots in succession automatically, thus it's inclusion on almost all full-auto capable firearms, and afterwards on assualt rifles.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 17-12-2013, 18:12:04
I don't know what you guys are talking about. Almost every rifle in WW2 had pistol grips. One of the few that come to mind that did not have them is the mossin nagant. The pistol grip is integrated in the stock.

Yeah, it is integrated, but at such an angle, like ancient flintlock pistol grip.

More modern single bolt action rifles like this L96A1 AWM/P have a very distinctive integrated grip:

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSG_zPHvlk7wAsRriGY9KrDPql1FwsEMYIWMsu2PdXj7UtVv17r)

Compared to this integrated grip of M1903 Springfield:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Rifle_Springfield_M1903A4_with_M84_sight.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 17-12-2013, 23:12:42
Anyone can tell my why so many Soviet planes have a cyan cockpit?
example from wikipedia:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/MiG-21_cockpit.jpg/450px-MiG-21_cockpit.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 18-12-2013, 00:12:51
It's not as hard on the eyes.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: |7th|Nighthawk on 18-12-2013, 00:12:00
Thanks for the answers.
Yes, Steel_Lion, I should have looked it up ._. Thanks for pointing that out.
@Mudra: What about FAL, G3 or those refurbished M14?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 18-12-2013, 01:12:15
Battle rifles with full auto.  So they need the pistol grip in order to make the full auto at least a bit controllable.  As for the EBR, that's more just how most modern sniper  rifles just have a pistol grip anyways- ergonomics.  Pistol grip is just considered more cozy and popular.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 18-12-2013, 02:12:13
It's not as hard on the eyes.

That color is the best color for the eyes?
And then why don't other producers use it (US, EU, ...)?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 18-12-2013, 03:12:49
I don't know why the US and EU fighters don't use that colour. But for sure, most modern passenger jets use bluish-grey colour, e.g. Boeing 787 (previously, big Boeing planes cockpit panels are all brown), Airbus cockpits.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 18-12-2013, 03:12:23
It's not as hard on the eyes.

That color is the best color for the eyes?
And then why don't other producers use it (US, EU, ...)?

Um, he might have been joking. I would say that camouflage is the more likely reason. The position of the cockpit is important in dog fighting, it allows the opposing pilot to get a quick reference as to the direction of the enemy fighter. Similar idea with some aircraft painting a false canopy on the underside of the aircraft.
(http://th09.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2010/046/e/6/A_10_False_Canopy_by_doubledeckerbus.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 18-12-2013, 03:12:26
Ahem, I repeat myself, it's easy on the eyes. You want a paint scheme that blends in with your instruments or the ground then be my guest, but that's not how it's done in Russia.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 18-12-2013, 04:12:58
What good will the A-10 be in a dogfight anyway?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 18-12-2013, 05:12:04
The A-10 is quite nimble at low altitude and low speed. It is armed with 2 Sidewinders. The HUD even features dogfight mode.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 18-12-2013, 05:12:07
It doesn't compare to any modern fighters like the mig-29, SU -30, Upgunned Mig-21s, HAL, Rafale, Eurofighter, and the like. If there isn't air superiority, it won't last a bit against more nimble fighters, or planes with MOAR AAMs.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 18-12-2013, 08:12:45
They need that ability to survive when intercepted. Plus, cockpit aiming is an age-old tradition when dogfight still involves putting gun reticle to score headshot at the target's pilot.

When you select dogfight mode, the first thing the system select (can be tuned in plane's DTC) is sidewinder missile!

The US, back in Vietnam war, thought this way and decided not to equip their fighters with internal guns. But missiles from that era were very unreliable. The sidewinder AIM-9B from that era still chases the sun, could only lock into tailpipe/exhaust (non all-aspect), and short range. Now, the sidewinder can even ignore flares, lock from any angles (all-aspect), have extended range, shoot to the back (very wide seeker gimbal limit, able to chase enemy from off-boresight with help from JMHCS), etc.

I think this is because most of the threat for US fighter planes come from aircraft of older era that still operates under "classic dog fight guns vs guns concept" and they always bullied them in the air.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 18-12-2013, 12:12:51
Ahem, I repeat myself, it's easy on the eyes. You want a paint scheme that blends in with your instruments or the ground then be my guest, but that's not how it's done in Russia.
Wouldnt purple or red be better than? Now if you fly upside down in a digfight, it also may have a similar color to the air?

It's not as hard on the eyes.

That color is the best color for the eyes?
And then why don't other producers use it (US, EU, ...)?

Um, he might have been joking. I would say that camouflage is the more likely reason. The position of the cockpit is important in dog fighting, it allows the opposing pilot to get a quick reference as to the direction of the enemy fighter. Similar idea with some aircraft painting a false canopy on the underside of the aircraft.
Seems plausible, but i've also seen it in the IL-62, I don't think the IL-62 is made to dogfight...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/b/b3/IL62_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kading on 18-12-2013, 21:12:44
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: TASSER on 26-12-2013, 06:12:20
Hey folks,

Got an M1 Garand bandolier kit for Christmas. Six clips, the bandolier itself, and six cardboard inserts to cover the rounds in the clips. I'm curious what the purpose of these cardboard covers are? They to prevent the rounds from making noise if you're carrying a bunch of them? Keep the rounds from getting banged up and dirty? Something far more ingenious than I can ever imagine?!

Thank you wise ones :)

(http://www.serviceofsupply.com/images/Weapon%20Related%20Page%20Buttons/Bandoleer%20Cardboards%203.JPG)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 26-12-2013, 08:12:39
Not a damn clue here :P
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 26-12-2013, 10:12:29
'Muricans love packaging?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 26-12-2013, 10:12:48
first time i hear of those.

Quick Read says its a Korea thing for some protection when having a bandoleer with enblocks.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 26-12-2013, 11:12:50
was 185 grain the standard bullet weight for the german 8x57mm round in WW2? did the snipers get heavier ammo?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 26-12-2013, 12:12:51
was 185 grain the standard bullet weight for the german 8x57mm round in WW2? did the snipers get heavier ammo?

Snipers on the eastern front often used the Luftwaffe signal ammo which explodes on impact.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 26-12-2013, 15:12:41
was 185 grain the standard bullet weight for the german 8x57mm round in WW2? did the snipers get heavier ammo?

Snipers on the eastern front often used the Luftwaffe signal ammo which explodes on impact.
Those were only issued in 1944 tough, with 20 rounds issued next to there standard load of 90 rounds
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: TASSER on 26-12-2013, 16:12:41
Not a damn clue here :P
'Muricans love packaging?

*Gasp!* Stumped both you guys?! I didn't even know that was possible haha. (I only mention it because I'm constantly in awe over how much historical information you and most other forum members possess).

Also, thank you siben!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 05-01-2014, 19:01:58
Other than the Winchester we all know and love, what other shotguns were used in combat in WW2? Regular issue or partisan/irregulars.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-01-2014, 19:01:25
Other than the Winchester we all know and love, what other shotguns were used in combat in WW2? Regular issue or partisan/irregulars.
Many single shot shotguns ofcourse, popular with civilians. Like FN made shotguns. These were popular all over europe
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 05-01-2014, 19:01:13
Ithaca M37, Browning Auto 5, Remington M10, Remington M11, Winchester M1897, Winchester M1912, Stevens M520, Stevens M620, all of which are made in the USA because they're the only ones who were fool enough to bring it to WW2. Those partisans use what they got, and they usually were not of military quality, more like for hunting.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Musti on 05-01-2014, 20:01:32
Other than the Winchester we all know and love, what other shotguns were used in combat in WW2? Regular issue or partisan/irregulars.
Both Winchesters, :D, probably anything they could find (depending on how desperate partisans were)
Probably this Danish beauty (at least according to wiki):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2C5eKkPl_k
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Musti on 05-01-2014, 20:01:43
Oh gawd damn it clicked the wrong thing. ;/
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 06-01-2014, 18:01:32
I'm reading The Sergeant in the Snow (http://www.amazon.com/Sergeant-Snow-Mario-Rigoni-Stern/dp/0810160552/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389029573&sr=1-1&keywords=rigoni+stern) atm, and there is a passage about the Italians leaving their posts to retreat. The sergeant then tells his men to drop everything unnecessary, but to keep the handgrenades, especially the ones of a good brand: O.T.O. or Breda. The grenades of the S.R.C.M. brand should be dropped, because they were so bad.

Knowing that the Italian grenades in n FH2 are the O.T.O. type, I was wondering:

1) did other countries also use several different brands of grenades?
2) what was the difference in use?
3) wasn't it dangerous for soldiers to have to use different brands?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-01-2014, 18:01:51
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfzKgU_sjvc

Intresting design
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 06-01-2014, 19:01:47
Ah, from what I know of grenades, the fuses are sometimes different between brands. A grenade from one brand for example may explode in 5 seconds, another brand 7, and so on.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 06-01-2014, 19:01:16
No no, that are the Different fuses, no? you have a whole range in that going from 0 seconds (booby trap) to your normal 4 seconds all the way up to 10 seconds and more for rifle grenades.

During WW2 i can only imagine that hand grenades where made by many different manufacturers, some doing i better job then others. Often companies did changes to the disign that they see fit in order to increase production, or lack of materials. For Italy i can believe that some brand where really awefull, considering i read many things about unreliable bullet manufacturers.

Don't forget that Uniforms, Rifles, bullets, helmets where made by many different companies at the same time, in order to increase the output.

Example, Berthier Rifles and mossin nagant rifles where made in USA during WW1 for export to France and Russia. Same with Belgian Mausers. The British P-14 rifle,.... And not always in good Quality, The Berthier rifles Remington made where considererd not fit for frontline use.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 07-01-2014, 19:01:21
During WW2 i can only imagine that hand grenades where made by many different manufacturers, some doing i better job then others. Often companies did changes to the disign that they see fit in order to increase production, or lack of materials. For Italy i can believe that some brand where really awefull, considering i read many things about unreliable bullet manufacturers.
OK, sothe answers would be something like this?

1) did other countries also use several different brands of grenades? Yes, to increase output
2) what was the difference in use? Only minor differences
3) wasn't it dangerous for soldiers to have to use different brands? No, because of the minor differences

Which manufacturers were producing grenades for countries like
- the UK
- the US
- Germany?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 08-01-2014, 08:01:21
How far away do you need to be to start deflection shooting? Target: Enemy soldier running at a 90 degree angle of you.

Also, was the RPM of the MG42 a blessing or a curse?  And how was the spread? Was it common to be hit by multiple bullets from it?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 08-01-2014, 10:01:20
Also, was the RPM of the MG42 a blessing or a curse?

Both, obviously.

+
High output (more lead => more kills)
Terror effect (suppression, signature sound)
Need to produce less of them due to high output

-
Overheating
Ammunition consuming

Naturally, you'd have to keep to short bursts to save ammo and to hit your target, but that's standard for any automatic really, so I'm not putting it down on either. Could technically be a minus, though.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 08-01-2014, 12:01:11
MG42 is pretty accurate machine gun, even at burst. It was deadly when put on Lafette tripod. I think Mudra posted a lot of terrifying stories from Americans at Normandy campaign during their encounter with this weapon.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 08-01-2014, 16:01:52
Is the MG3 as acurrate as the MG42?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 08-01-2014, 16:01:04
During WW2 i can only imagine that hand grenades where made by many different manufacturers, some doing i better job then others. Often companies did changes to the disign that they see fit in order to increase production, or lack of materials. For Italy i can believe that some brand where really awefull, considering i read many things about unreliable bullet manufacturers.
OK, sothe answers would be something like this?

1) did other countries also use several different brands of grenades? Yes, to increase output
2) what was the difference in use? Only minor differences
3) wasn't it dangerous for soldiers to have to use different brands? No, because of the minor differences

Which manufacturers were producing grenades for countries like
- the UK
- the US
- Germany?

Reading more upon the Italian Grenades i can now see why he said that the S.R.C.M. had to be thrown away. It apears that they where the most advanced grenades of the 3. The manufacturer put a fail safe in them while the others did not. This meant that the grenade did not explode if the impact was not big enough, example, of you drop it instead of throwing it then instead if seeing a red mist where once your leggs where you now have an inert grenade that is useless. I can understand that some people considered to make the grenades less effective in combat though since of you threw it in some soft sand it might not explode. In short, because the grenade was safer it was worse then the rest.

To be honest, i would not know who made these grenades, I am not aware of a full list of them. But i know the germans at least put manufacturing codes on them, just like anything else. 1 single factory could have never made the 75 million handgrenades the germans used in WW2, or the 300 million in WW1
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 08-01-2014, 18:01:50
MG3 is prob a bit less accurate due to lower fire rate.

Fire rate, when it reaches a certain point, actually helps accuracy.  Eventually, the recoil turns from single bangs to one long push, allowing a lot more control if you know how to handle it.  The MG42 was accurate out to 1500m (accuracy judged by 50% of rounds hit the target).  This was one of the reasons US troops had so much trouble with them, american troops were trained before combat that the MG42 was fast firing, but wouldn't be all that accurate and could be easily advanced upon, and many green troops were killed before the truth sunk in.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 08-01-2014, 18:01:30
The MG3 does have a heavier barrel. And a slower ROF, less powerfull cartidge means less heat buildup per shot.

But with todays battlefield, of being able to react fast, i think an MG just like the MG42 is becoming more and more desired
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 08-01-2014, 20:01:19
Reading more upon the Italian Grenades i can now see why he said that the S.R.C.M. had to be thrown away. It apears that they where the most advanced grenades of the 3. The manufacturer put a fail safe in them while the others did not. This meant that the grenade did not explode if the impact was not big enough, example, of you drop it instead of throwing it then instead if seeing a red mist where once your leggs where you now have an inert grenade that is useless. I can understand that some people considered to make the grenades less effective in combat though since of you threw it in some soft sand it might not explode. In short, because the grenade was safer it was worse then the rest.
Ah, thanks. In the book they are in Russia, so they throw the grenades on a snowy ground: makes sense with your story :)

To be honest, i would not know who made these grenades, I am not aware of a full list of them. But i know the germans at least put manufacturing codes on them, just like anything else. 1 single factory could have never made the 75 million handgrenades the germans used in WW2, or the 300 million in WW1
Anyone else?

I'm wondering about this especially since Italian made stuff almost always has the "Modello..." thing in the name, and stuff from other countries hasn't (like M1 Carbine, Kar98, etc.).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 08-01-2014, 21:01:27
Carbine Model 1a1, Pistol Model 1911, Assault Rifle Model 16
M1a1, M1911, M16, M14. I think the M stands for Model.

I know for certain though that older Greek weapons used in WW2 had "Y" for Ypodeigma (model) on em. Oesterr Waffenfabr Ges. Steyer Y:1874 (my rifle has that written on)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 08-01-2014, 22:01:22
Carbine Model 1a1, Pistol Model 1911, Assault Rifle Model 16
M1a1, M1911, M16, M14. I think the M stands for Model.
Yes, but that doesn't clarify anything about the manufacturer, whereas the Italian stuff has "Modello Breda", or "Modello O.T.O." on it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Eat Uranium on 09-01-2014, 15:01:07
The thing with the Italian grenades that seems to differ from other examples is that in the latter case separate companies all build to the same design, where as the O.T.O. and SCRM grenades are definitely not the same design.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 09-01-2014, 17:01:47
I'm wondering about this especially since Italian made stuff almost always has the "Modello..." thing in the name, and stuff from other countries hasn't (like M1 Carbine, Kar98, etc.).

I don't fully understand what you mean, the other countries also had the manufacturer on there things, sometimes written fully, sometimes in a letter or number code. It is just that they use the more official name and not the name of the manufacturer. Just imagine an Italian looking for his Terni, or a frenchman for his Châtellerault  or a british soldier needing a new BMB.

On a side note, 21 different companies made Brodie helmet shells. and 15 made the liners.

The thing with the Italian grenades that seems to differ from other examples is that in the latter case separate companies all build to the same design, where as the O.T.O. and SCRM grenades are definitely not the same design.
What is a different disign? In theory they do the same, have the same specs and funtion the same, with the difference that one needs more force to explode. Sure the outer canister looks different, but is it a completely new design because of that? The mills grenade we all know is the 5th variation if i am not mistaken, does that make the other 4 models any less of a mills grenade?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 09-01-2014, 19:01:09
I'm wondering about this especially since Italian made stuff almost always has the "Modello..." thing in the name, and stuff from other countries hasn't (like M1 Carbine, Kar98, etc.).

I don't fully understand what you mean, the other countries also had the manufacturer on there things, sometimes written fully, sometimes in a letter or number code. It is just that they use the more official name and not the name of the manufacturer. Just imagine an Italian looking for his Terni, or a frenchman for his Châtellerault  or a british soldier needing a new BMB.

I meant that when people see the most regular German rifle, they will call it the K98, or the Kar98. Almost nobody will call it the Mauser. Whereas when one sees an Italian rifle, it is most often called a Carcano.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 09-01-2014, 19:01:18
Yes, but it is the same thing, they call any German rifle a K98 while there are many different rifles they used. Just like the Germans only had lugers as a pistol.

To be honest i think it is also because nobody really knows the names of the different models of Carcano. It is written nowhere on the rilfe. Italian rifles only have the Serial, manufacturer, roman year and fachist year of production.

And to be honest, most people i know call the German rifle a Mauser, and all British rifles a Enfield.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 09-01-2014, 20:01:47
From my understanding, it is because most of the rifles used by German in WW2 are the Mauser Karabiner 98K or short carbine version of the venerable Mauser G98 rifles. Then, in between WW1 and WW2, most of the G98 issued to active units are the Karabiner 98 variants, hence we use Kar-98 more often instead of G98. While the Italians and the Soviets still widely use the full size of Carcano and Mosin rifles during WW2.

I always think that the real Mausers in WW2 are used by the Swiss or Chinese Nationalists or the Nationalist Spain.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 09-01-2014, 20:01:05
Which is considered the most successful unit of ww2 ?  I'm interested in death to mission objectives accomplished and overall involvement during the war.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 09-01-2014, 20:01:57
There's no real way of gauging that tbh?

If you want highest decorated, I know the 442nd Regimental Combat Team was the most decorated unit in the US Army:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_%28United_States%29
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-01-2014, 21:01:11

I always think that the real Mausers in WW2 are used by the Swiss or Chinese Nationalists or the Nationalist Spain.
The swiss did not had any mausers.

(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c98/USMA-82/SwissLadies002.jpg)

The swiss had the same system as everyone before WW1. The rifle and the "carbine". However the Swiss carbine was infact a short rifle. They used the Gewehr 11 and Karabiner 11 till 1930, when these got supplanted by the Karabiner 31. Overal lenght simular to the K98k. But it had the same size of the K11 but with a shorter reciever, thus longer barrel.

I guess Karabiner is also a name for any short rifle. They did not said "kurz gewehr" they just said karabiner, aka anything smaller then the long 1.2meter Gewehr 98
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 10-01-2014, 05:01:48
Ah I forgot that straight pull action discussion you pulled with others  ;D

Sorry, I forgot about that.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 11-01-2014, 05:01:59
Gentlemen, I am trying to trace two of my ancestors, one of them my Great Grandfather served in WW1. He was deployed in France, and was somewhere high up in the logistics department. any help would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 11-01-2014, 06:01:26
Has been in France, dealt with logistics, was a man, was alive sometime after 1914, at one point had children... that narrows it down really to what could be less than 100000 people. All we need now is to know his nationality, name, date enlisted, date of birth, date of death, years served, occupation before the war, and so on.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 11-01-2014, 06:01:50
He was a subject of the British Crown, Indian, and his name was Satish Chandra Bandhopadhyay. He retired in 1926, and was born in 1871 or 1872 (yes my granny is a bit forgetful), and he was a school teacher before the war.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 11-01-2014, 06:01:08
Have you tried contacting British or Indian vet affairs departments?  At least in US, you can go through vet affairs department, they have a service for finding service records of relatives.  You sounds like you have the info needed.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 11-01-2014, 16:01:55
1) Does anyone know what gas mask the Ottoman Army was equipped with? Or any photos?

2) What kinds of armored units were recorded which were deployed in Anatolia by the occupying allies after WW1 had ended? I know about the French FT17's, but were there any other armoured units deployed by the French, Commonwealth, Greek or Italian, Armenians?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 11-01-2014, 16:01:17
1) Does anyone know what gas mask the Ottoman Army was equipped with? Or any photos?

2) What kinds of armored units were recorded which were deployed in Anatolia by the occupying allies after WW1 had ended? I know about the French FT17's, but were there any other armoured units deployed by the French, Commonwealth, Greek or Italian, Armenians?

Quote
The WW1 Ottomans received German Gas Mask training in Berlin, and were issued with these, as part of the Ottoman Turkish military commitment to Eastern European front, which ended in September 1917, with the withdrawal of Russia from the war. Turkish soldiers were wearing gas masks during the Battle of Galitsia/Galicia, 1917. The actual gas mask pattern being used look to be the Model 1915 Gummimaske [gas mask] [1].

---------------------

[1] Birinci Dunya Savasi'nda Turk Askeri Kiyafetleri [Turkish Military Uniforms during WW1]: 70.


The British def had tanks in theater:

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/index.blog?topic_id=1113723

Donno if they made it into Anatolia though.  Greeks prob had none, and Italians never took part in the occupation.  Armenians for sure had none.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 11-01-2014, 17:01:48
He was a subject of the British Crown, Indian, and his name was Satish Chandra Bandhopadhyay. He retired in 1926, and was born in 1871 or 1872 (yes my granny is a bit forgetful), and he was a school teacher before the war.
Did he died in WW1?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 11-01-2014, 17:01:29
Greeks had no tanks in the Asia Minor Liberation campaign.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 11-01-2014, 17:01:07
He was a subject of the British Crown, Indian, and his name was Satish Chandra Bandhopadhyay. He retired in 1926, and was born in 1871 or 1872 (yes my granny is a bit forgetful), and he was a school teacher before the war.
Did he died in WW1?

Would be very uncommon to die before retiring?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 11-01-2014, 18:01:50
He was a subject of the British Crown, Indian, and his name was Satish Chandra Bandhopadhyay. He retired in 1926, and was born in 1871 or 1872 (yes my granny is a bit forgetful), and he was a school teacher before the war.
Did he died in WW1?

No, he did not. Although one of his sons died in India during the war due to cholera, but he wasn't allowed to return home.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ciupita on 11-01-2014, 20:01:33
He was a subject of the British Crown, Indian, and his name was Satish Chandra Bandhopadhyay. He retired in 1926, and was born in 1871 or 1872 (yes my granny is a bit forgetful), and he was a school teacher before the war.
Did he die in WW1?

If he retired in 1926, of course not. And I fixed your grammar.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 12-01-2014, 04:01:16
I don't know a lot about commandos and such but I've been reading a lot about the Brandenburgers today. Anyone know a bit about them? What are some equivalent "special forces" from other nations during WW2?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 12-01-2014, 04:01:50
The Brandenburgers were a bit unique, the only unit of that time that I can think of are Australia's M Special Unit. Most other special forces of the time had more of a combat role.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Redbadd on 12-01-2014, 19:01:48
I know that in may 1940 they were used to secure bridges in the Netherlands and Belgium in the houres before the official German attack, by overpowering the guards.
They would pose as Dutch soldiers or police, sometimes bringing in "prisoners", they had recruited Dutch personel aswell as Germans living in the Netherlands.
They did manage to secure a couple of bridges other times their incomplete uniforms would give them away.
A border guard recounted that an enemy was wearing a helmet that appeared to be made out of paper machee, because when he hit him on the helmet with his sword it went al the way through.

Another unit did not go into action because 3 out of 4 members were still too drunk.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 14-01-2014, 18:01:02
I have a question for all of you who served or still are serving.

What were the physical prerequisites and control norms to pass the medical exam?

running certain distances on the clock, not having any chronic diseases and conditions?
Do they disqualify you for some conditions like alergies?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 14-01-2014, 18:01:49
For which army/country?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 14-01-2014, 18:01:15
Well, I'm asking for your personal experience, it would be a bit pointless to ask about my country's army.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 14-01-2014, 18:01:43
i was rejected from belgian army because of chronic disease

allergies were no problem
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Miklas on 14-01-2014, 19:01:56
I have a question for all of you who served or still are serving.

What were the physical prerequisites and control norms to pass the medical exam?

running certain distances on the clock, not having any chronic diseases and conditions?
Do they disqualify you for some conditions like alergies?
It all depends on what type of position you are looking for. The difference in requirements between paratrooper and radio operator at HQ are obviously big.

In Sweden the minimum requirement to pass basic training was (for everybody no matter what position) running sub 50 minutes / 10 km (no equipment), running sub 15 minutes (?) for 3km with full equipment, skiing sub 50 minutes / 15 km, swimming 250 meters (no time restriction), and you were required to do x amount of push ups, etc.
Basically, anyone that is not very unfit can do this with just a short period of training.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 14-01-2014, 19:01:57
When I was being inspected getting touched by the balls and had to cough.

They then asked me for any allergies or diseases. Then they took my weight and measured my height and handed me out a paper that I was fit for duty. This however is for draftees, I don´t know what the requirements are for real soldiers though.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 14-01-2014, 20:01:20
The best person to ask about the physical and medical requirements in the Soviet or Russian army is someone who has avoided conscription, you won't believe how many people have documents forged and officials bribed. There's a list of diseases that can exempt you, as well as weight requirements for certain heights, etc.

The examination is a bit unpleasant, in 1976 I and a bunch of other recruits had to line up in front of a couple asshole-sniffing doctors. Probably still done today.

(http://imageshack.com/a/img689/4651/4694.png)

These guys had it worse, they had their picture taken.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 14-01-2014, 20:01:17
iirc for apply to the bundeswehr (and for police in germany as well) as a regular soldier (e.g. for a certain time and position) you should fullfil the requirements of the German sports badge (Atleast it helps with your application, although I am not sure if its fully mandatory these days, as not enough people apply anyway). You have to meet the requirements in 5 categories (endurance, swimming, speed, agility and strength), where can choose from various disciplines in each category. You only have to meet the requirements once in each category. For every age and depending on your gender, their are different requirements to fullfill (certain times for running, or heights for high jump etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Sports_Badge

In the german Bundeswehr itself there is also the Basic fitness test (BFT), which is very easy to achieve. You have to do this every year. Requirements:

- Sprinting 11x10 m in max. 60 seconds,  where you have to lie down on the ground in between each 10 m.
- being able to hold (static) yourself longer than 5 seconds in a pull-up position
- running 1000 m in maximum 6 minutes and 30 seconds

The daily sports was harder, than that.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 14-01-2014, 20:01:26
We had a program called Gotov k trudu i oboronye SSSR, Readiness for Labor and Defence of the USSR. They had badges too and while they weren't a requirement to join the military the program was to ready young people for conscription or to become an athelete. It was started in the 30s by Stalin, and some of the original tests were grenade tossing and the carrying of crates of ammunition. That has me wondering now if it was inspired by the early German system.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 14-01-2014, 21:01:55
Well I'm just trying to get a general picture of what the army expects of its recruits and volunteers, from their health to physical abilities.

This is good, so I can put some standards ahead of me and try to achieve them before I apply for the course.

I'm gonna go for the officer cadet school, probably the "leadership&management program" (as opposed to the "army engineering") which gives you 3 options; MP, Army intelligence or the Infantry, and I'm yet to decide on which to apply for.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 14-01-2014, 22:01:28
@Korsakov: Atleast the german sports badge was used by nazi germany for its own purpose.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 14-01-2014, 22:01:33
How effective is a PKM in combat? I know it never jams, but what about its accuracy?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 14-01-2014, 22:01:49
A PK is not as accurate as an FN MAG. But its accurate enough. Infact high accuracy is not a good thing always with an MG. British bren gunners and MG42 gunners kept worn barrels with them to have a higher cone of fire when firing...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 14-01-2014, 23:01:08
How effective is a PKM in combat? I know it never jams, but what about its accuracy?

Accuracy is only useful in the hands of a good gunner, even if you have high accuracy your aim can be off because who in the hells has the time to aim at and identify targets when you're being suppressed?

As for the PKM, I would prefer something lighter and mobile. But having shot at people and having been shot at with it and without going into gory details I would say it gets the job done.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 15-01-2014, 19:01:14
my uncle was an MAG shooter in Belgian army, and in west germany he trained with various MG's. In the end, he found the MAG, PKM and MG3/42 to be the best MG's.

He said the M60 was infact the most accurate of them all...But he called that the worst MG ever invented...gassytem attached to the barrel, stoppages, cycling problems, cheap plastic stock...Akward to use rear sights...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Harmonikater on 15-01-2014, 20:01:26
Well I'm just trying to get a general picture of what the army expects of its recruits and volunteers, from their health to physical abilities.

This is good, so I can put some standards ahead of me and try to achieve them before I apply for the course.

I'm gonna go for the officer cadet school, probably the "leadership&management program" (as opposed to the "army engineering") which gives you 3 options; MP, Army intelligence or the Infantry, and I'm yet to decide on which to apply for.

For the german officer cadet program they told us exactly what kind of sports stuff we had to pass way in advance, so thatl part was actually the easiest to pass. The interviews and logic and maths and whatnot tests, and psychological evaluation were actually more of a problem for most.

With the pre existing conditions it really depends on what you want to do. If you have back issues you probably aren't allowed to be a paratrooper etc.

But the testing in that is not as stringent as it can be. They check a lot more thorough if you want to become a pilot, there's actually cases where soldiers wanted to change to pilot training after the mandatory national service, but during testing they found conditions that disqualified them from military service alltogether.

Plus they're prone to make errors anyway. Happened to me, I passed all the tests for naval officer cadet combined with studying aeronautical engineering, but after a week of basic training the medical service realizes I have a slight colorblindness, which stops me from doing a lot of stuff in the navy...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 25-01-2014, 15:01:33
#1: Can anyone name this camo?

(http://f1303.hizliresim.com/17/s/ldv7x.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 25-01-2014, 16:01:52
Don't know, looks old and Turkish, from the east maybe.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 25-01-2014, 16:01:47
Don't know, looks old and Turkish, from the east maybe.

Old:

Turkish:

From the East: X (Also used in Cyprus)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 26-01-2014, 09:01:22
How effective were flame fougasse mines, specifically in the Eastern Front of WW2? I read something today that said the Russians used them well early in Barbarossa and the Germans were impressed enough to use them as well.

So were they truly effective or mostly psychological? I can't find much info on these weapons. I always picture a squad walking through an area and the guy on point steps on a man, becomes a walking barbecue and the rest fall back. Accurate picture?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 26-01-2014, 14:01:57
I imagine it more like a man stands on a mine and the whole squad gets bbq'd, because the mine is deep inside the range
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 13-02-2014, 22:02:08
A friend of mine is selling a P-37 webbing belt which lacks the two one-inch buckles on the rear of the belt. I am interested in buying for walking out purposes, but I wondered if the lack of buckles is negligible.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 14-02-2014, 02:02:42
To be fair, why not get one with the two buckles so you can later upgrade it to a full gear set?  You need those for the cross straps.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 14-02-2014, 12:02:11
How many British Rolls-Royce armored cars were deployed in the Dardanellse campaign?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 28-02-2014, 07:02:49
I need some help from our Mosin-Nagant specialists. I know that both Hungary and Italy captured a great many of these rifles in the Great War and later sold most of them to Finland. Were any of these rifles issued, even if just in very small quantities, by either of the aforementioned two nations during World War Two?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-02-2014, 14:02:19
None of the origenal great war rifles as far as i know. They were all sold to Finland
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 28-02-2014, 15:02:44
What game has the most authentic AK-47 sound?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Erwin on 28-02-2014, 16:02:06
What game has the most authentic AK-47 sound?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=485156

 ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-03-2014, 18:03:02
What AAA weaponary were present during the battle of the bulge??
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 01-03-2014, 20:03:50
on what side
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-03-2014, 20:03:33
on what side
Sorry, American
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 02-03-2014, 02:03:25
Lots of 90mm, which was used in the AT role.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 02-03-2014, 02:03:00
yanks had 90mm AA? Jeez  :o

(http://www.oocities.org/fortadams1799/gunpix/90mm.jpg)

?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 02-03-2014, 02:03:43
yanks had 90mm AA? Jeez  :o

(http://www.oocities.org/fortadams1799/gunpix/90mm.jpg)

?

Yes, it was mounted on the Pershing and the M36 Jackson :D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Chad1992 on 02-03-2014, 02:03:53

Yes, it was mounted on the Pershing and the M36 Jackson :D

Where the hell you been?  We miss you on Thursdays   :'(
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 02-03-2014, 14:03:45
yanks had 90mm AA? Jeez  :o

(http://www.oocities.org/fortadams1799/gunpix/90mm.jpg)

?
And quite frankly the most effective AA gun of the war, when it recieved the SCR-584 radar. it became the best AA gun out their, wich was demonstrated in Anzio in february 1944.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 02-03-2014, 15:03:47
the allied boffor 90mm could have played the same role as the German 88. However, the allies used it almost solely in as an AA, hence reducing the overall potential this gun could have had.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 02-03-2014, 17:03:39
It was there all along if you played Blitzkrieg series. It is the best allied AA, but not as good as FlaK18/36 88 mm for destroying tanks/SPGs/TDs as it lacked the AT shell supplies.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 02-03-2014, 17:03:08
the allied boffor 90mm could have played the same role as the German 88. However, the allies used it almost solely in as an AA, hence reducing the overall potential this gun could have had.
From 1943 the 90mm guns of the US army recieved new carriages and sights for use against ground vehicles, wich were used to great effect in italy and during the battle of the bulge. In stavelot alone did a single 90mm destroyed 5 panther tanks.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Chad1992 on 02-03-2014, 17:03:25
From 1943 the 90mm guns of the US army recieved new carriages and sights for use against ground vehicles, wich were used to great effect in italy and during the battle of the bulge. In stavelot alone did a single 90mm destroyed 5 panther tanks.
Sounds like FH2 needs this gun.  ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 03-03-2014, 19:03:21
Did the Brit Commandos during ww2 use helmets or their berets during operations? What about modern day commando units? I know for Greek but im not sure for the rest.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 03-03-2014, 19:03:07
Helmets, of course.  They still carried the berets as their issue field cap, but they weren't wearing them in combat.  Same for modern commando units, beret is just a show off thing.  In real combat, they wear helmets, though sometimes not standard issue ones.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 03-03-2014, 20:03:45
Yeah here in Greece we use Kevlar whereas the Army has the metal and plastic combo ones. I was just asking because games and many movies show the Commandos wearing their Green berets during combat and i was wondering if it was really like that for other armies. Wouldn't make any sense. 
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tolga<3 on 03-03-2014, 20:03:26
What about modern day commando units? I know for Greek but im not sure for the rest.

Depends really. On both what you mean as Commandos, since a lot of countries don't really use the word "Commandos" anymore and what they're doing at the time. I've seen French and Canadian units on occasion use berets on Peacekeeping deployment. Of course they're all issued kevlar helmets as well. A lot of units still keep older M1 helmets for their recruits that are going through Commando acceptance trials. I believe your Greeks are one of those countries that keep the M1 helmet for training occasions. :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 03-03-2014, 21:03:10
Yep we still got those M1 helmets which are used during training mostly (at least for Spec ops). Wouldnt want a trainee drop a kevlar and lose it or break it now would we :P
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 04-03-2014, 05:03:37

Yes, it was mounted on the Pershing and the M36 Jackson :D

Where the hell you been?  We miss you on Thursdays   :'(

Been a bit too busy for video games. It came to my attention I'm fat, broke, stupid and boring, and as it turns out playing FH2 all day was a poor strategy to fix those things. I'll be back in the spring some time. Tell the gang I miss them and tell Eightball he's a faggot.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 08-03-2014, 07:03:41
I am looking forward to your return, Christie! I have drawn the same conclusions for myself. I have one question that might be a bit difficult to answer: After Miklos Horthy was forced to sign power over to the Arrow Cross party and thereby effectively surrendered it to the Nazis he was deeply upset. Those bastards threatened him with the death of his son and did pretty much everything to which he objected. In many sources it says that he saw the soviets as a lesser evil, although he still passionately hated them. I know that after Operation Margarete, some Hungarian soldiers sided with the soviets for a variety of reasons. My question is if Horthy supported his former soldiers joining forces with their former enemy or if in spite of his now firmly established hate towards the Nazis he still favoured them fighting on against the CCCP. To my understanding he was more inclined to side with the CCCP, judging from some of his war-time remarks. I think that the dreadful atrocities committed after the capture of Budapest may have laid those sympathies into ruins instantaneously.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 09-03-2014, 05:03:21
Some questions about the 1st American Volunteer Group, before they were handed over to the U.S Air Force.

Were they under command of Nationalist China? Did they use their uniforms, their ranks, and did their planes have markings similar to that of the Chinese planes? How many actually spoke Chinese?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 09-03-2014, 06:03:59
They were under Nationalist Chinese command, and wore their ranks/uniforms, plus had Chinese markings on their planes.  Many did have civilian flying gear as well, plus their own clothing.  Few actually spoke Chinese, indeed, few even knew how to fly before joining up.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 09-03-2014, 06:03:48
That's awesome mate, thanks a lot.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 09-03-2014, 07:03:43
Yes, they do carry the Chinese insignia:

(http://www2.gol.com/users/sychang/WB/p40_mono.gif)

I think Claire Chennault, the commander can speak Chinese very well.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 10-03-2014, 19:03:26
Does anyone know the exact name of this vehicle:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/TOMA2.JPG/800px-TOMA2.JPG)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 10-03-2014, 19:03:54
It's right there in the filename: TOMA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOMA_(vehicle)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 10-03-2014, 19:03:49
Toplumsal Olaylara Müdahale Aracı
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 11-03-2014, 11:03:27
Yes I know about that, TOMA means riot control vehicle. Those huge busses you saw during Gezi are called TOMA too.

I was asking if its a copy of a military vehicle of some kind?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 11-03-2014, 14:03:42
looks like the swat APC in GTA IV.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 11-03-2014, 14:03:46
Cadillac Gage Commando V-100, riot police version.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 11-03-2014, 16:03:53
looks like the swat APC in GTA IV.

Hehe:

(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100131135755/gtawiki/images/b/b4/SWAT-GTASA-front.jpg)

Oh all the times I tried to put it in my garage before the mission ended.  ;D

Cadillac Gage Commando V-100, riot police version.

Thanks man, looks like it is! :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 11-03-2014, 20:03:47
Thats GTA:SA though, ;) i was talking about GTA:IV. But this one looks more like it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 14-03-2014, 16:03:50
Need a bit of help iding a German general  to win an internet argument:

(https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t1.0-9/10001316_563093587131571_900381265_n.jpg)

Specifically the one on the top...some guy is saying that's Rommel, and I know that ain't Rommel.

EDIT:  Nevermind, it's Paulus.  I win. :D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 14-03-2014, 17:03:21
What´s the Waffenfarbe of Nebelwerfer units attached to Grenadier units of the Wehrmacht during the later stages of the war? Red for artillery or green for grenadiers? Or was the Waffenfarbe of infantry units white? I´m confused...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 14-03-2014, 23:03:14
Green is panzergrenaidier, white is infantry.  Nebelwerfer wore Bordeaux red though, different from artillery, as they were theoritically "chemical" troops.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 15-03-2014, 09:03:55
Cheers, thanks for the answer, Mudra!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 15-03-2014, 18:03:21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_MVo-4RgA

At 7:53, is that the MG I am thinking about?  ::)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 25-03-2014, 06:03:16
I've been reading a bit about the Italian "Blackshirts" division, or the camicie nere. They are always referenced as the "CCNN" but what do those letters stand for?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 25-03-2014, 09:03:09
camicie nere nazionale, Italian for national black skirts I think.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-03-2014, 09:03:23
Why did the germans kept on using gasoline engines for their tanks???
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ciupita on 25-03-2014, 10:03:32
Why did the germans kept on using gasoline engines for their tanks???

Because diesel is only for pussies (counts sailors)







/jk
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 25-03-2014, 12:03:30
Why did the germans kept on using gasoline engines for their tanks???
In 'Panther vs. T-34', it says in the chapter on design and development, that 'In particular, Hitler regarded the diesel engine as imperative' and therefore chose the design by Daimler-Benz.

In the end, the MAN design was chosen, because it could enter production quicker. This after Speer, who had also favored the diesel engine, was persuaded to go with the MAN design by his deputy Saur, who insisted that the Panther 'had to' be in production by Dec. 1942. A diesel engine would not be ready by this time. But a new Maybach petrol engine was.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Musti on 25-03-2014, 12:03:03
Why did the germans kept on using gasoline engines for their tanks???
Because the sound of petrol V-12  is more than worth all the pain and suffering when it gets hit and set on fire.
But mostly what Butcher said. :D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 25-03-2014, 13:03:12
Why did the germans kept on using gasoline engines for their tanks???

Technical pros, but not so good logisticians apparently.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 25-03-2014, 16:03:58
Am I just pulling this out of my arse, or was the engine based on an aircraft engine like the Rolls-Royce Meteor was based on a Merlin without the charger?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 25-03-2014, 17:03:58
No, that was the case for British Cruiser tanks. Because the engine has to be light and powerful. In case of German tanks, the engine blocks are already enormous and heavy.

Probably it produced less smoke too than the diesel, so less visibility to the enemy when moving.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-03-2014, 17:03:15
The meteor is a great engine. As reliable as a german engine, but less maintance required. I spoke to an Ex-military person before. He joined in 1947, and they had cromwells and such to play with. Shermans and one Panther tank and one PZIV. The german engines performed great, and rarely broke down, But you had to keep up with the maintanence. The panther tank did however broke down numorous times on many parts tough. IIRC this panther tank is now in a private collection

As for the T34 diesel engine. It was a great engine. Simple yet efficient and reliable
But the sound and smoke it could produce, especially when the engine was cold.

Why did the germans kept on using gasoline engines for their tanks???
Because the sound of petrol V-12  is more than worth all the pain and suffering when it gets hit and set on fire.
But mostly what Butcher said. :D
When i heard my first german tank engine...
"You hear that?   YOU HEAR THAT? THAT 3000 RPM GROWL? I love the sound of a maybach engine in the morning!!

And my first Pershing tank engine.....oooh god lovely! It is more growling and thudding like a harley engine when idle. But when it kicks into gear...hmmm Lovely!!!

And yeah, surpsingly, the german tank engines make LESS noise
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 25-03-2014, 17:03:40
The german engines performed great, and rarely broke down, But you had to keep up with the maintanence. The panther tank did however broke down numorous times on many parts tough. IIRC this panther tank is now in a private collection

Correct me here, but I read it was the gearbox, not the Maybach engine that were the Panther tank's reliability problem.

Quote
As for the T34 diesel engine. It was a great engine. Simple yet efficient and reliable
But the sound and smoke it could produce, especially when the engine was cold.

Ah the Sotka engine, famous for helping the Soviet win Berlin and infamous for being used to suffocate concentration camp inmates.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 25-03-2014, 18:03:12
Where did you hear the tanks theta?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-03-2014, 18:03:27
The german engines performed great, and rarely broke down, But you had to keep up with the maintanence. The panther tank did however broke down numorous times on many parts tough. IIRC this panther tank is now in a private collection

Correct me here, but I read it was the gearbox, not the Maybach engine that were the Panther tank's reliability problem.

Quote
As for the T34 diesel engine. It was a great engine. Simple yet efficient and reliable
But the sound and smoke it could produce, especially when the engine was cold.

Ah the Sotka engine, famous for helping the Soviet win Berlin and infamous for being used to suffocate concentration camp inmates.
Sorry, i forgot to add that the engine was never the problem. From what i remember, they burned tough 4 transmissions in less then a month with that single panther tank. Another problem was the gaskets and fuel lines wich would often snap off.


@Siben This was in Wallonia many years ago. The pershing tank i heard in that one tank event in flanders, Patton drivers or something.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: th_battleaxe on 30-03-2014, 15:03:16
How effective could the Surcouf have been, and to a slightly bigger extent, the British M-class submarines?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-03-2014, 15:03:35
How effective could the Surcouf have been, and to a slightly bigger extent, the British M-class submarines?
Well Surcouf was unreliable at first, but after the refit, it was much improved. Would it have been effective? surely, as these ships could strike at merchant ships at far longer torpedo ranges and probaly with more accuracy. But a torpedo has much more killing power so..

Altough their are many cases that Uboats used their Deck guns (88 and 105's) to take out merchant ships, as it was far cheaper
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: th_battleaxe on 30-03-2014, 15:03:57
True, and Surcouf needed two sizes of torpedoes, so that would hamper the resupply, and its guns were not very effective, due to the size of the turret they were placed in, and the fact that they couldn't be fired unless the boat was near perfectly straight and level.

Makes me wonder if a fixed traverse gun with a good guidance system would have been better than a gigantic lumbering turret...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 31-03-2014, 00:03:45
Can you direct fire mortars (in WW2)?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 31-03-2014, 00:03:24
Yes but not recommended.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 20-04-2014, 01:04:24
Why did StG 44 Amunition come in boxes of 14? Seems like an odd number.
I can understand the 15 round boxes though but then again, why also 20 round boxes? Why not make em like 1 or 2 boxes per magazine of 30?
The 240 round battle pack make sense though. 8 full magazines. or did only the number of bullets count in the battle packs, and not the individual boxes? Also, why the big variety?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 20-04-2014, 02:04:24
Remember, you only loaded 28 rounds to keep from harming the spring.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 20-04-2014, 03:04:50
My post was just random thoughts, sorry that it made little sense.
in short: Stg44 amunition comes to my knowledge in 240 round battle packs (8 x magazine of 30 rounds) In those battle packs, depending on who made them, where boxes of 14, 15 or 20 bullets. Sometimes on stripper clips, sometimes not.

now, the question was, why was it done in these weird number (to me)

Remember, you only loaded 28 rounds to keep from harming the spring.
Then you must cary 16 loose rounds in your pocket, well, 36, with 1 magazine in the weapon, 6 in the pouches.
You would assume some thinking went into the chosen quantities for the boxes.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 20-04-2014, 06:04:47
First off, you assume the soldiers actually carried only exactly the "regulation" allotment, rather than as much ammo as they could carry, or at little as they actually had access to.

And planning did come in play.  For instance, the 32 round snail mag for the MPi18 was partly because the 9mm ammo for the luger came in packs of 16 rounds (in other words, 2 full Luger mags).  That's where the 32 round max magazine comes from for German submachine guns (though in the straight mags, it was generally only loaded to 30).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-04-2014, 18:04:22
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2mkxgp.jpg)

i saw this truck today, what is it? (Ulbeek WW2 Allied vehicle convention)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Musti on 20-04-2014, 20:04:14
After a bit of searching Iąm prettz sure its a GMC AFKWX-353 2 1/2 ton truck.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 27-04-2014, 22:04:02
What are some early-war anti-tank weaponry that aren't as well-known as others? Like we all know about sticky bombs, thermos nukes, etc. What are some other anti-tank weapons used early in the war?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Seth_Soldier on 27-04-2014, 23:04:23
Are you asking for rifles etc ... or more like an infantery grenade ?

Certainly the "industrialized" molotov cocktails are interresting. Contrary to the frontline molotov, they were more researched.
Soviet had produced self ignited molotov, using a chemical reaction between 2 substances in Ampoules
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 27-04-2014, 23:04:41
IIRC the Finns did that first, with sulpheric acid filled ampoules, two per bottle opposite of each other.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE on 28-04-2014, 00:04:05
I mean other than AT rifles, what kind of grenades, mines, explosives etc. were infantry of all armies given early in the war, because I really only know about British weapons (Hawkins, Sticky bomb, Thermos nuke, etc.) and Germans (that geballte thing with 8 grenades). I'd love to learn more about personal anti-tank weapons infantry had early in the war, issued or improvised.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 02-05-2014, 20:05:46
I was checking out the gas masks MKEK produces for the TAF and I read something that says: "the default color is black, but it can preferably be light grey."

Here are photos of the same gas mask in different colors:
(http://www.mkek.gov.tr/Urunler/96wXqxsG.jpg)
(http://www.mkek.gov.tr/Urunler/ssdXtU9q.jpg)

So I was gonna ask; what could possibly be the reason to want gas masks in different colors? Camouflage? That sounds too exaggerated to me.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 02-05-2014, 20:05:57
Well camouflage is the initial logical option, for example you wouldn't want a black gas mask while operating in the snow. Also, considering how warm Turkey and surrounding regions can be i wouldn't want a black one in the summer either.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 02-05-2014, 21:05:12
Oh, right, black color absorbs heat! Totally forgot about that. Thanks. (http://www.battlefieldsingleplayer.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/bigthumb.gif)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 07-05-2014, 02:05:31
What exactly was the purpose of motorcycle troops?  I am reading The Foxes of the Desert by Paul Carell and he's always mentioning that "such-and-such" company has 50 motorcycles or whatever.  Did they work as mounted infantry who could drive up somewhere quickly and then dismount?  Were they just for recon and bringing around ammo and wounded?  Or did they actually drive around and attack things like in Company of Heroes or Men of War?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 07-05-2014, 03:05:17
For Commonwealth troops, motorcycles were used as dispatch messengers and occasionally as advance recce elements but only when absolutely necessary.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 07-05-2014, 06:05:54
In the German army they were either messengers or light recce meant to be a motorized version of bicycle mounted troops.  The MG some of the side car was purely for self defense if you were unable to immediately dismount, it was not meant for sustained action.  Otherwise, the motorcyclists were just supposed to ride up to the firing line, dismount, and hop back on when needed to fall back.  The tactic was subpar at best, and it was quickly dropped in favour of simply using halftracks for the mechanized recce unit role.  Part the issue was simple resources, it would take a minimum of 4 bikes to carry the 10 man early-war squad (3 max people per bike) versus one halftrack that was also protected, had superior off road, and could serve in light combat duties.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-05-2014, 22:05:54
Anyone who knows a good book about the M26 M46 M47 M48 and/OR m60 patton tanks?

Preferably about the M26-M48 timeline. it can also be a seperate book about a model
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 07-05-2014, 22:05:35
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/M26M46-Pershing-Tank-1943%E2%80%9353_9781841762029

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/The-M47-and-M48-Patton-Tanks_9781855328259

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/M60-Main-Battle-Tank-1960%E2%80%9391_9781841765518
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 08-05-2014, 16:05:02
Did the Italian Co-Belligerent Army still use their old uniforms and weapons, even in small numbers? I cannot imagine that they were all issued the No.4 rifle. Logistically it would have been easier to let them use the arms they were originally issued and ha ammunition for.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ciupita on 08-05-2014, 16:05:28
I mean other than AT rifles, what kind of grenades, mines, explosives etc. were infantry of all armies given early in the war, because I really only know about British weapons (Hawkins, Sticky bomb, Thermos nuke, etc.) and Germans (that geballte thing with 8 grenades). I'd love to learn more about personal anti-tank weapons infantry had early in the war, issued or improvised.

Koivuhalko.

(http://www.polttopuukokkonen.fi/userData/runnin-bioenergia-oy2/images/k2.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 08-05-2014, 16:05:46
I mean other than AT rifles, what kind of grenades, mines, explosives etc. were infantry of all armies given early in the war, because I really only know about British weapons (Hawkins, Sticky bomb, Thermos nuke, etc.) and Germans (that geballte thing with 8 grenades). I'd love to learn more about personal anti-tank weapons infantry had early in the war, issued or improvised.

Koivuhalko.

(http://www.polttopuukokkonen.fi/userData/runnin-bioenergia-oy2/images/k2.jpg)

In action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M8_hS0gqU8#t=108
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 08-05-2014, 17:05:55
Did the Italian Co-Belligerent Army still use their old uniforms and weapons, even in small numbers? I cannot imagine that they were all issued the No.4 rifle. Logistically it would have been easier to let them use the arms they were originally issued and ha ammunition for.

During their initial battles at monte Cassino in 1943 and 1944, yes they wore their original italian gear and used italian wePonry.  However, after monte Cassino and the decision was made to increase them to corps size, the Liberation Corp was pulled out of the line and fully reeauipped with British weaponry and uniforms, though keeping italian unit insignia and traditions, such as bersalieri feathers and such (but on british helmets).  It was mostly a supply issue, it was too much of a pain for the allies to have to supply italian weapons and ammo and such to a small formation, so reeauipping them as they grew in size would ease that.

Now, italian units operating behind the lines, offloading munitions and such in Naples or such, continued to wear italian uniforms for the most part, though I have seen some evidence of them getting stuff like american helmets.  Also, italian generals sometimes adopted the new british uniforms, and other times continued to wear the Royal uniform.

Pardon any spelling/grammar errors, I am extremely hung over right now.


Now that I am slightly less hungover and have clambered my way to my computer, here is a good pic of the Italian Liberation Corps during the liberation of Florence, these guys being Bersaglieri.  Of interest is that they have retained their Beretta SMGs, one of the few italian weapons to make the cut after the reorganization.

(http://i.imgur.com/XvaEnVY.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 08-05-2014, 22:05:17
Thank you for the detailed reply! That answered my question perfectly. I hope you do not mind if I still ask, but could the occasional Carcano still be spotted even after the re-organisation? Again, thank you very much  :-* !
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 08-05-2014, 22:05:10
Not amoung the frontline troops, but the army's auxiliary divisions def used them since they were way way behind the lines and it was more a formality for them to have guns than a necessity.  They were about 200,000 strong, and did work building roads, moving supplies in ports and such, and never served at the front.  There were also 3 security divisions for policing (2 in Sicily and 1 in Sardinia) that kept their Italian stuff as well.  Basically the allied equipment/uniform issue was solely for the combat groups of the liberation corps.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-05-2014, 13:05:06
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/M26M46-Pershing-Tank-1943%E2%80%9353_9781841762029

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/The-M47-and-M48-Patton-Tanks_9781855328259

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/M60-Main-Battle-Tank-1960%E2%80%9391_9781841765518
Darn you need credit card to pay for it...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 09-05-2014, 16:05:05
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/M26M46-Pershing-Tank-1943%E2%80%9353_9781841762029

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/The-M47-and-M48-Patton-Tanks_9781855328259

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/M60-Main-Battle-Tank-1960%E2%80%9391_9781841765518
Darn you need credit card to pay for it...

Should be for sale on amazon as well as any good historical book store/model building store site.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Fuchs on 09-05-2014, 22:05:50
Last time I checked Amazon was also a credit card elitist site.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 09-05-2014, 22:05:23
Don't they use paypal too?

And whatcha mean elitist?  I've had a credit card since I was 16 :P  Most americans do around that time.  Is that not a common thing in Europe or something?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-05-2014, 22:05:08
Master said dont be trusty with credit card! Nasty little BANKSES!
Lied to us, stole from us, BETRAYED US!!


I'll try amazon  thank you epic mudra
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 10-05-2014, 00:05:18
Don't they use paypal too?

And whatcha mean elitist?  I've had a credit card since I was 16 :P  Most americans do around that time.  Is that not a common thing in Europe or something?

Not really, we just have regular debit cards that we use to do all purchases. barely anyone has credit cards when the are under 25. you only need it when travelling really, or an online purchase. Most European sites let you pay with your regular debit card though.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Fuchs on 10-05-2014, 01:05:33
As Siben said, over here you can use your debit cards for everything. Even when traveling I've always been good with my debit card or just cash in the pocket. Only use for it is online purchases and I can't be arsed to get one just to use Ebay/Amazon/yadda yadda.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 10-05-2014, 02:05:57
wat my debit card works for everything online.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Fuchs on 10-05-2014, 02:05:24
What kind of magic is that?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 10-05-2014, 03:05:37
Wow...that's weirddddd o.=.o

I use paypal for everything that takes that, but if not, I use credit card.  Generally over here it is considering not good to use debit cards online.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: ksl94 on 10-05-2014, 08:05:21
I have a credit card but I prefer cash. It is the only 'real' form if payment to me. By the way, you should be able to use a debit card as a credit card when paying on-line  ;) . If I may ask, what are the disadvantages when using a debut card on-line?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 10-05-2014, 16:05:26
At least from what I understand, it's less secure.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kalkalash on 10-05-2014, 16:05:21
I would certainly claim the other way. Credit cards only require the credit card number, where as a debit card requires the CIC code in addition to an online login to your bank (for which you need another set of login keys).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 10-05-2014, 16:05:19
Normal bank card: needs pin for every payment. takes money directly from your account. No money, tough luck. most secure thing ever to my knowledge. you can also do online banking stuff with it, buy things on most european websites.

Debit visa card: needs pin if you pay in a shop with it, but no pin needed for online purchases. you need the money on your account or you cant pay. also exists in prepaid form.

Credit visa card, same as above with the difference you spend money that you don't have. --> ticket to payment troubles and debt.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Eat Uranium on 10-05-2014, 17:05:04
I had a credit card, but I never used it.  I didn't really want it, but it was given to me anyway when I opened my student bank account.  Anyway, I just use my Visa debit card, never had it refused anywhere.  Physical PIN protection, and online has that Securecode protection.  Even has that newfangled wireless payment thingy in it (which is the least secure thing I've ever seen, though you can't be had for more than £15~20 iirc).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 10-05-2014, 17:05:37
Quote
As much as you might resist it, debit cards should not be used to pay for online transactions; a credit card is always safer for e-commerce. You're not as protected against fraud when you use a debit card, and disputes with those cards can be difficult to resolve. Plus, if someone steals your debit card number, your entire bank account is vulnerable.

Credit card users are protected by the Truth in Lending Act, which says you're not liable for any debts if you report that your card has been lost or stolen before unauthorized transactions are made. Additionally, there's a $50 limit on liability, even after your missing card has been used [source: Block].

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which regulates debit card use, is a bit more convoluted. You could be liable for only $50 -- if you notify your financial institution within two days of realizing that your card has been lost or stolen. If you speak up later than that but within 60 days of the date your statement was mailed (review your monthly financial statements to identify any unauthorized transactions), you could be on the hook for up to $500. Wait longer, and you could be responsible for every transaction -- and quite possibly lose every cent in your bank account [source: Block].
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 10-05-2014, 17:05:54
Mmmh, question:

Do you people get some sort of sick satisfaction from derailing threads?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 10-05-2014, 17:05:15
We know it only annoys some obscure Fins so we don't care.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 10-05-2014, 18:05:24
(http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.18/images/main/fin%201.jpg)

Anal fin sounds kinda obscure.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Biiviz on 10-05-2014, 18:05:34
Do you people get some sort of sick satisfaction from derailing threads?

Mmh, fuck yeah. Tell me more about debit/credit and various payment options. Post those dirty, dirty fish pictures.

Electronic Fund Transfer Act? Oooh, fuu-uuh-uck.

Phew, that was awesome.

Time for a nap.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 10-05-2014, 18:05:58
Dont forget to smoke.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 10-05-2014, 18:05:22
I am surprised that credit card security here is much more advanced.

Basically, after entering the standard credit card information and security number, you'll be given SMS to your registered mobile phone number. Then, the merchant page will automatically open a pop up page, telling you to enter the randomly generated number (valid for 5 minutes) sent to your mobile phone. This means, you have to do transaction from a location with good mobile signal coverage.

In 2015, every Indonesian issued credit card must be accompanied with mobile phone information). That is a good way of getting your number spammed by telemarketers. Can't have all the convenience.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: deltafoxtrot129 on 14-05-2014, 21:05:36
Anybody know exactly what year / model this Royal typewriter is? I did a little bit of googling but came up with some conflicting results. I'm guessing it's from the 1940s at least.

(http://i.imgur.com/uFLW7Fa.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 14-05-2014, 22:05:10
A massive blurry picture does not help much, if it is old it should have at least an information plaque with the serial number and model and such on. take a sharp picture of that please, also, different angles would help and also use a decent camera.

The fifth hit i got on google gave me a whole list of year, model and s/n combination, its not that hard, literally 1 minute of work.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: deltafoxtrot129 on 14-05-2014, 22:05:41
A massive blurry picture does not help much, if it is old it should have at least an information plaque with the serial number and model and such on. take a sharp picture of that please, also, different angles would help and also use a decent camera.

Sorry.

http://imgur.com/a/POxck (http://imgur.com/a/POxck)

All I could find so far as a number was 0111-z on the underside.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 15-05-2014, 20:05:32
Well I'll answer here for Born2Kill 007's question in "Pic of the Day" thread.

About the F-35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
Btw, is it true that stealth is that easy to detect? I know that it is overrated, but this much? And does this also mean stealth in ships is even more werthless considering better radars can be equiped on ships than on airplanes.

Stealth here means you have a very small radar cross section that you can be mistaken for clouds or birds or stuffs that goes through the radar operator's eye or the system's noise filtering. The US concept of stealth AFAIK, from what we know in "diamond shaped" and jagged-edge F-117A, relies on deflecting incoming radar wave, so the tracking radar won't get the same amount of reply ping. This requires the surfaces to be "clean" or no sudden oblique folds in the surface, like pylons or protruding antennae/probe. So it has to carry all of its munitions inside a "bomb bay." It can be briefly detected whenever it opened its bomb bay though. Also (plausible) when deploying its flaps or landing gear.

The plane is not equipped with radar or the radar activity can be passively detected. It is operational condition is restricted, because if it can be tracked visually, it will be useless. Lately, the US also used radar-wave absorbing paint and material. This requires special treatment, such as air-conditioned shelter and special maintenance procedure. Not all airfields are equipped with these facilities, so their base of operations is limited.

The F-22 and F-35 has an on-board multipurpose radar, means they can be passively tracked when they are using their radar. Since the plane is stealthy, even the most powerful radar that the enemy posses needs to:
1. get really close to bombard the object with enough radar wave, so the reflection can be more meaningful out of the absorption and deflection provided by the airframe design.
2. get even closer to "burn through" all the jamming noises from the F-22's ECM.
The range and power of F-22's radar is designed to be overwhelming, because it has to have the first look at the enemy, so it has bigger chance to score the first kill. F-35, which is not specialized in this, has slightly less potent A-A radar capability and maneuverability than F-22. But, since they are pretty confident at this stealthy thing, the F-35 is particularly not required to be agile enough in dogfight.

As you can see, F-35 are prone to ambush, and will less likely win a knife fight. But US military is always like "If you fought a fair battle, you planned wrong." So, they won't go to war if the situation prevents you from bullying the opposition.

Because of ridiculous requirements that Pentagon brass so loved, (like M2 Bradley IFV's requirement to be troop carrier/tank killer/scout vehicle/etc/etc/etc/to infinity) the F-35 (and to smaller extent, F-22) were modified heavily to meet the requirements. Now, it needs to have external pylons to carry more stuffs, because it will replace the multipurpose F-16.

Since it is limited to several base of operations, lack of range really hinders its deployment area, so it has to be able to lift external tanks. Then, it has to be able to do Harrier's stuff, so the massive fan in F-35B (the STOVL F-35) removes about 1/3 of the total fuel in other F-35 variants. This factors effectively kill all that "clean surface" doctrine of US stealth.

While they are sticking to that approach for decades, the enemy already tried numerous effective way to counter it.

And the biggest blow is, these are alright if the plane only costs like USD 30-40 million per unit. But now, it is about more than USD 100 million. I don't know whether the Lockheed Martin will recover all of the money or the governments will subsidize the original price. But for that amount of money, you'll get 2 Grippens, which does more than that when "bullying" opposition.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 15-05-2014, 20:05:39
Take 3 Gripens if you look at maintance costs. IIRC B2, F35 and F22 needs to be stored in frikking climate controlled hangers...

Not the mention the F35 can not fly trough thunderstorms...Normal combat weapon loadout also severly diminshes performances in terms of manouverability. From variou reports, it was found out that even old F16's with veteran pilots were able to intercept and defeat an F35 multiple times.

The F35 is simply to much, in one package
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 15-05-2014, 20:05:13
Thanks for the answer, but I meant the question more as "Is long wave radar really so capable at detecting stealth as is insinuated in this interview?". In this interview, I had the impression that with the right kind of radar, the F-35 is as visible as the F-16.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Tankbuster on 16-05-2014, 15:05:35
I am surprised that credit card security here is much more advanced.

Basically, after entering the standard credit card information and security number, you'll be given SMS to your registered mobile phone number. Then, the merchant page will automatically open a pop up page, telling you to enter the randomly generated number (valid for 5 minutes) sent to your mobile phone. This means, you have to do transaction from a location with good mobile signal coverage.

In 2015, every Indonesian issued credit card must be accompanied with mobile phone information). That is a good way of getting your number spammed by telemarketers. Can't have all the convenience.
Same thing in India
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-05-2014, 22:05:03
How did the Sherman 105 faired in combat? Talking about fire support missions and tank engagements
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 18-05-2014, 22:05:54
I'd imagine that the infantry really liked  the fire support of the 105. Tank to tank combat, I don't think it fared that good.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-05-2014, 22:05:17
the 75mm WP (smoke) was often used against german tanks, so i guess the 105mm was far more effective in that manner. Also the HE shell should do some damage.

How much rounds were carried in a 105 sherman anyway?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 19-05-2014, 02:05:43
How big was the splash damage of 20 mm cannons? (strafe against infantry)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 19-05-2014, 03:05:52
IIRC each one had a bit less than your average defensive grenade.  18gram of filler in the German Minengeschoss rounds compared to 22.5grams in an american MkII  hand grenade.  However, it would have less shrapnel due to the thin walls of the shell casing.  However that said, a strafing one would mean dozens landing all around you, so lots of concussive force combined with shrapnel whizzing through the air in all directions.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-05-2014, 11:05:39
Any well know Panzer IV aces?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Seth_Soldier on 25-05-2014, 12:05:14
Knispel began as a panzer 4,
I doubt you will found an ace specific to a type of tank, with the evolution of the war the units were refitted with new equipement
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 25-05-2014, 19:05:57
You can with Panthers, TIgers, and Stugs.

IIRC there were a couple Panzer IV aces who made it into the top ace category, the highest one I can find is Hans Strippel with 70 kills.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-05-2014, 19:05:41
Thanks mudra, reading about him now
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 29-05-2014, 04:05:52
Wonderful scene from the movie Nanjing! Nanjing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpwY42NsWqc
But did they actually parade like that? Anyone know the correct term for it and some history?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 29-05-2014, 05:05:30
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/japanese-formal-entry-into-nanking/query/CHINA
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 29-05-2014, 20:05:29
In that video they march like traditional western military.
I was thinking about the ritual march in the movie, if the japanese ever have done something like that or if it's just something the creators of the movie invented.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 29-05-2014, 20:05:45
The point in my post was to show you what the actual Japanese victory parade looked like.  So yes, that seems to simply be a part of the director's imagination. :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 29-05-2014, 20:05:26
B-but it looks so cool!

Okey, thank you :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 06-06-2014, 14:06:19
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189604/The-untold-brutality-D-Day-Antony-Beevor-carnage-suffered-beaches-Normandy.html

So, fighting in Normandy wasn't really a walk in the park eh?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: TASSER on 12-06-2014, 00:06:19
So this past Normandy Invasion anniversary I was reading up on the American airborne operations. I found that the majority of the 101st jumped about a half hour to an hour earlier than the 82nd. I'm curious about the German's general state of alert as the airborne troops flew overhead.

How alert were the Germans that the invasion was underway by the time the 82nd left their planes?

They seemed to have a good amount of their AA manned and active. Were they tipped off that the C-47 flights were incoming after they crossed the coast? Radar?

Did they know something big was going on, or was is simply utter confusion?

Did they assume it was a diversionary force?

One of the famous occurrences is the 82nd jumping literally into Ste Mere Eglise. Was the garrison there aware that troops were on the ground, or were they simply up to fight the fire?


Thanks everyone!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 12-06-2014, 00:06:58
For the most part, they just thought the planes were bombers and opened fire with all the AA they had, thus probably waking up everyone in Normandy.  Once the paras were landing there was tons of confusion, with some thinking it was bailed out crew, others thinking they were commandos, others thinking it was all a diversion, etc.  The guys at St Mere Eglise were indeed awake, as they and the French townsfolk were fighting fires that had broken out from allied bombing.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 13-06-2014, 13:06:14
this is something that has been bothering me for some years now

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Allegory_of_the_1st_partition_of_Poland_crop.jpg/1280px-Allegory_of_the_1st_partition_of_Poland_crop.jpg)

We see Catherine the great and Frederick the great who is arguing with Joseph II. But who is the 4th man on this picture ?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Musti on 13-06-2014, 13:06:05
That would be him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanisław_August_Poniatowski
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 15-06-2014, 11:06:21
Are the iraqi security forces the police of iraq or are these the armed forces?

Because i find it hard to believe that the Iraqi army is losing so badly against ISIS.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 23-06-2014, 12:06:45
How much WW1 ammo was used during WW2?
Recently i have been getting my eyes on large amounts of left behind German 8mm mauser ammunition through a friend from work that lives in the Ardennes and it surprised me that much of it is machine gun ammunition and WW1 leftovers. Was this common? They where all on stripper clips also.

(http://imgup.com/data/images/18858.jpg)
(http://imgup.com/data/images/18859.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 07-08-2014, 23:08:48
Was ear protection any common in WW2? If so, what did they use? I would guess, there was for artillery and gun crews, but what about the regular frontline infantryman? Did the army issue any ear protection and provided the personell with proper information on use? Atlest from my limited army experience, I know how important a well kept ear is in the dark or in the forrest.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 08-08-2014, 01:08:23
Was ear protection any common in WW2? If so, what did they use? I would guess, there was for artillery and gun crews, but what about the regular frontline infantryman? Did the army issue any ear protection and provided the personell with proper information on use? Atlest from my limited army experience, I know how important a well kept ear is in the dark or in the forrest.

Not common at all, for anyone.  The most you see is rarely some cotton or fabric stuffed into one's ears.  But that's very uncommon.  Artillery men especially were not supposed to have anything covering their ears, as, when firing, they were supposed to open their mouths (often yelling) in order to equalize pressure on their eardrums, otherwise they could rupture them.

Basically, there's a reason lots of war vets come home with hearing damage.  Classic way to know if someone served in the artillery was if they yell everytime they speak.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 08-08-2014, 12:08:35
I have a British navel Officer gas mask kit. It has earplugs in them. Maybe officers and NCO had them, i don't know, but for normal man it is doubtful.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 30-10-2014, 05:10:29
How usual was damage on own planes by green/unlucky gunners?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 31-10-2014, 01:10:50
Happened quite often.  I was reading a bit just last night on the US Cruiser killer/battle cruisers the Alaska and Gaum, and the Alaska actually shot down a Hellcat during her first actions off Okinawa.  Luckily, the pilot survived.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 03-11-2014, 11:11:51
Could someone please write down what the Generalmajor is saying in this speech? I can't understand everything and it seems like a good speech.  :)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=418763928188678
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 03-11-2014, 18:11:44
I was thinking more in the lines of shooting your own fin and rudder/elevators. I know I've done that a lot in BF1942 :P
And who can forget "The Last Crusade" when Dr. Jones senior shreds the fin.

The ME 410 pops into my head, since the machine guns are in a different position compared to where the gunner is.


Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 03-11-2014, 18:11:45
As for what i know about this is that almost every aircraft out there had build in security that blocked the machine gun from shooting the moment it was pointed at itself. Pretty easy to implement.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 03-11-2014, 22:11:31
I was thinking more in the lines of shooting your own fin and rudder/elevators.
Saw that documentary about the Lancaster yesterday. It had a mechanism preventing to hit your own fins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_fSwwRa3gI#t=14m30s
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 04-11-2014, 01:11:21
I was thinking more in the lines of shooting your own fin and rudder/elevators. I know I've done that a lot in BF1942 :P
And who can forget "The Last Crusade" when Dr. Jones senior shreds the fin.

The ME 410 pops into my head, since the machine guns are in a different position compared to where the gunner is.

Basically what Siben and Butcher said.  There were some that probably didn't have that mechanism though, the Stuka and Me100 come into mind.  In those cases, the gunner just had to not be an idiot and not shoot off his own tail.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 26-11-2014, 21:11:53
Does anybody have any good sources of German tank aces that fought predominantly in the panzer IV? All my sources produce tigers and stugs etc... Or any notable panzer IV tankers in general?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 27-11-2014, 01:11:28
Hans Strippel – 70 Kills (4. / II/ PzAbt. 1, 1st Pz. Division)–Pz. IV–Knight's Cross 6/4/44.

Emil Seibold – 69 Kills (Das Reich)–Pz IV+ Captured T-34s

There used to be a great list that noted all the aces along with what tanks they used, but I can't seem to find it. :(  Most were Tigers, Panthers, and Stugs, but there were a few others on there, including Panzer IV, Jagdpanzer IV, Nashorn, and Marder types.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 01-12-2014, 15:12:03
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/337/a/e/osprey_draw_of_german_uniforms_02_by_wolfenkrieger-d4i3cyd.jpg

What was the actual purpose of the funny pants of the first guy from the left?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 01-12-2014, 15:12:18
Probably to make room for his massive thighs. SS routine gone wrong (SS, get it?! Dang, I'm a funny man)

(http://startingstrength.com/images/100301_front.jpg)

On a serious note:

Probably goes back to officers on horse back. Then preserved as an officer fashion later after the cav was unnecessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodhpurs

Quote
Jodhpurs are sometimes worn as fashion clothing, not only for riding. In popular culture, jodhpur-style breeches worn with tall boots became particularly associated with military staff officers who wore uniforms based on riding apparel, often derived from the cavalry tradition from which many nations historically drew their corps of top commanders. The style thus came to be associated with authority figures in general and was copied by certain Hollywood movie directors. Flared-hip breeches formed part of the military uniform of staff officers in Nazi Germany and many Soviet Bloc countries, including the former USSR and East Germany,[citation needed] although the motor-car had by then long replaced the officer's horse. They also were adopted as the uniform for some forces of motorcycle police

On why they were so wide:
Quote
Classic riding jodhpurs, showing the extra width in the thigh area which allows for lateral leg movement when in the saddle
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 03-12-2014, 05:12:55
Gotta request here:

Does anybody here know of wartime footage of Finnish soldiers actually aiming and shooting the Suomi?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: kummitus on 03-12-2014, 08:12:56
http://sa-kuva.fi/

If you havend come across yet it's a gallery of 160 000 war time pictures since winter war to lapland war. Happy hunting :P

http://sa-kuva.fi/static/60/48/86048_r500.jpg
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 03-12-2014, 13:12:17
Footage is different to photos, kummitus.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: kummitus on 05-12-2014, 09:12:23
Ahhhh, was still half asleep apparently, well there's some videos too.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 17-02-2015, 18:02:23
(https://scontent-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1466190_835370309869594_1797653005095824134_n.jpg?oh=d9fde08e2b14bfe4fa2c2cd1d924dab7&oe=55584CE6)

What does this suit and the net on his face work for? Its obviously a jammer on his backpack.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 17-02-2015, 19:02:39
That could be a mine/explosive detector in his hands and if that were the case the suit would be to protect against shrapnel, same with the face net except it's not as bulky as a plastic shield. The backpack could be the batteries and an additional component to the detector that could be used to locate/jam electronics.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 17-02-2015, 22:02:00
Net on face is probably just a generic mosquito net.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 24-02-2015, 13:02:37
How effective would something as the fliegerfaust have been? Not only against planes, but also against ground targets?  As we know, its very likely it DID saw combat. But absolutely no records exist, only photographs
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 24-02-2015, 20:02:28
it's said to be rather poor.

Limited range (max eff 200m) cumbersome reload, and for 1945 standards poor calibre did not make this a very useful weapon. Even if it would hit an aircraft (and this thing would have been difficult to aim), the damage of a 20/30mm would be probably insufficient. 
Why fire a fliegerfaust on a tank when you can use panzerfaust ? :) And after the war, no real attempts where made to copy this weapon, which also says something about about the impression it made
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 24-02-2015, 20:02:10
Since we are talking about high explosive shells, something like this has to have its set of effect aswel! How bout half tracks and such? things like a panzerfaust punched a small hole in them, imagine firing a fliegerfaust on it!
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Musti on 24-02-2015, 21:02:33
Since we are talking about high explosive shells, something like this has to have its set of effect aswel! How bout half tracks and such? things like a panzerfaust punched a small hole in them, imagine firing a fliegerfaust on it!
Well, a barrage of 20mm shells would be impressive but I don't think APC were such a big threat to infantry to warrant a development of a completely new weapon. I bet firing it would look awesome though :D.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 24-02-2015, 21:02:26
We have that model actually, might be in the Russian release if we get it animated.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 01-03-2015, 08:03:08
I'm playing Hearts of Iron III right now as USSR and I was wondering...

Could Stalin still sit on his throne without the officer purges? (Real life, not game ofc)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kelmola on 01-03-2015, 13:03:27
Who would have replaced him? See, Uncle Joe began by purging CPSU first so that there would be no one to oppose him. Also, there never was any Trotskyist military plot to begin with (it was all Stalin's invention), so basically nothing would have happened even if all the officers were spared.

Kirov was perhaps the only legitimate political opponent left and conveniently got shot by a lone gunman at the very start of the Great Purge (and Kirov's bodyguard just as conveniently fell of the truck the day after). Zinoviev and Kamenev were non-entities by the time of the Purge, having been discredited almost a decade earlier. Trotsky? Not a chance.

Basically, any plot would have to have involve Berija (as the head of NKVD would have caught wind of any conspiracy). So rather than the (non-existent) opposition ousting Stalin, I would run with the idea that his "inner circle" could have done a coup d'etat thinking that they could run the show better (and with less risk of getting a sudden 9mm haemorrhage) - Berija, Kaganovitš, Malenkov, Molotov, Vorošilov, Hruštšev (who eventually did follow Stalin).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 15-03-2015, 16:03:17
What Bayonet was the most common on the Gew88 in lets say 1915 and what about 1917?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: th_battleaxe on 25-04-2015, 15:04:36
Hi guys, I'm looking for a site where I can find the composition of WWI German FeldfliegerAbteilungen, particularly the Bavarian ones.

I'm hoping to find evidence of the use of Fokker Eindeckers in the Bavarian FFA's and see if a picture exists.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 27-04-2015, 06:04:18
Well, good luck with that, sometimes you can't really find such specific things online and have to visit libraries etc.

Search in German language, try not to use words that changed over time and find their Bavarian dialect whenever you can, use abbreviations sometimes (in this case jagdstaffeln = jastas). Eventually, you might find an old local newspaper with a lead.

Bavarian jastas: 16, 23*, 32*, 34*, 35*, 76!, 77!, 78!, 79*, 80*.
Those are the ones you're looking for. I have marked the ones that didn't fly Fokker eindeckers with *, I'm unsure about those marked with ! but I think we can start looking at 16. It should be noted, the predecessor to jastas were Kampfeinsitzerstaffel Kommando, kestas (or KEK) , so after looking at all of the evolved units can go back and check these.

Jagdstaffel 16 was formed in October 1916, with spare units from Feldflieger Abteilung 9 (which probably was 9b, b being designation for Bavaria), and I think Kampfeinsitzerkommando Ensisheim. The markings you're looking for are most likely going to be thin black and white verticle strips. Unfortunetly eindeckers slowed production in this period and were later considered inferior, but carrying on... here are the airfields at which this group was stationed in particular:
Ensisheim, Habsheim, Chateau-Porcien, Spincourt, Erlon, Mercy-le-Haute, Aertrycke, Le Cateau, Foucaucourt, St. Marguerite, Scheldewindeke. Those could be used as keywords when searching.

Thirty minutes later, still nothing so giving up on trying to search those, instead moving on to back when they were exclusively found in FFA's. Those would be 9b (which again later formed parts of jasta 16), and 6b. 9b has a slanted on sides flat on top decal, thin black, thick white, thick black, thin white, I'm not certain but I think 6b went to the Ottoman's with German/Bavarian pilots.

Right now, finding some notable pilots from 9b. Eduard Buhme, coming close with this one. Paid off!

(http://i.imgur.com/bvcpMWM.jpg)
Now that's not him in the photo, but this was taken on 25th September 1915.
Found in the book Early German Aces of World War I by Greg Vanwyngarden.

Took almost two hours, maybe later I'll look for more. Guess that's what I get for working backwards.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 27-04-2015, 07:04:23
Basically, any plot would have to have involve Berija (as the head of NKVD would have caught wind of any conspiracy). So rather than the (non-existent) opposition ousting Stalin, I would run with the idea that his "inner circle" could have done a coup d'etat thinking that they could run the show better (and with less risk of getting a sudden 9mm haemorrhage) - Berija, Kaganovitš, Malenkov, Molotov, Vorošilov, Hruštšev (who eventually did follow Stalin).

That discounts the powerful allies that follows Stalin. Beria is a coward who seems to play his politics well, but he won't initiate anything.

Now, I wonder if ERA is a danger for friendly infantry traveling around the armoured vehicle. Let's say the AV is ambushed by RPG and such, the ERA does its job perfectly. But wouldn't the explosions and chunks of the flyer plate kill the nearby friendly infantries?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: th_battleaxe on 27-04-2015, 08:04:43
Korsakov, thanks for the trouble, but I was actually looking for FFA2b in particular, and I hoped that a wider search would yield better results. Bohme's aircraft has been the only one I've been able to find myself.

6b indeed went to the Ottomans.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 27-04-2015, 15:04:30
Well here is another one, I believe it's from 5b but didn't find much else about it.

(http://i.imgur.com/IvWDpu2.jpg)
Got that from here
http://www.buddecke.de/ffa5b.htm

Image searching that got me to here as well. The other photos are from the same aerodrome which 5b was located at one point.
http://www.eerstewereldoorlog-2014-2018.nl/thread-695.html

Still no 2b though. I believe however that KEK 2 (?) was created from it, and out of 5b came KEK 1.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 12-05-2015, 13:05:45
In a recent newspaper there was an article about geopolitical decisions still being influenced by WWII. There was this picture, and it said in the description "US and Soviet soldiers in Berlin, 1945". I don't see any US soldiers, though, am I missing something?

(https://www.dhm.de/fileadmin/medien/lemo/Titelbilder/ba005120.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 12-05-2015, 16:05:17
There is no US
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 12-05-2015, 19:05:53
Maybe they thought the guys in the sidecaps were US?  But yeah, that's only Russians.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 12-05-2015, 19:05:36
Thx, nice to know that I was right.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Musti on 18-05-2015, 12:05:45
Here's a question. What kind of field modifications have been made to tanks\tank destroyers etc. by their crews? Like using sandbags or concrete for additional armour, that sort of thing. Maybe you could point me to a decent source? I'm especially interested in eastern front, but won't say no to anything on the subject.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Alubat on 20-05-2015, 21:05:48
Here's a question. What kind of field modifications have been made to tanks\tank destroyers etc. by their crews? Like using sandbags or concrete for additional armour, that sort of thing. Maybe you could point me to a decent source? I'm especially interested in eastern front, but won't say no to anything on the subject.

Better than nothing
Forgotten Hope Off topic thread 2006
http://forums.filefront.com/fh-off-topic/276346-concrete-armor.html
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 12-06-2015, 00:06:42
1. Has any army researched an "optimal" fire rate of machine guns?
2. When was "Sieg Heil" and "Heil Hitler" used? Any rules on what to say when?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Dukat on 12-06-2015, 01:06:51
2. When was "Sieg Heil" and "Heil Hitler" used? Any rules on what to say when?

Heil Hitler was applied as a salutation instead of 'Good day!' and can thus be used at the beginning or the end of any conversation. The term replaced the salutation 'Yours sincerely' in correspondence as well.

Sieg Heil is used as a cheer instead of 'hooray'. The term contains the request to fight for victory, combined with a certain pathos, usually in correlation with nation, heroism and homeland. Naturally it comes at the end of a conversation dealing rather serious matters, like the victory striven for in a world war.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 27-06-2015, 01:06:24
Guys, which tactical gloves would you recommend to buy?
Especially those of you with long field experience, which do prove themselves durable and reliable,
or alternatively, what do you think one should look for in gloves?

I was thinking of the Mechanix M-pact gloves, but wanted to first consult with you guys.
I do have a small dilemma though - fingerless or full fingered gloves?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Sgt.KAR98 on 06-07-2015, 23:07:57
Not WWII related.

Considering the Roman Empire extended at its peak till the Middle Eastern and heavily influenced many aspects in the western cultures,law and languages,then why at some of its former occupied territories (like Germany and England) the national languages spoken today are not part of the romance-languages family but rather from the germanic family?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 06-07-2015, 23:07:37
Germany was never occupied.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 06-07-2015, 23:07:35
Parts of it were, but briefly.  But the answer to his question on England is simply that the various migrations that occurred post-Roman empire to England were from Germanic tribes in Northern Germany and Denmark.  These tribes became the dominant peoples of England.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 07-07-2015, 00:07:19
England is very much latin, but thats because of the french Normans, rather than Romans.

Are there truly that many borrowed words in book idiom English?
Yes. book idiom English (Ancillary World English - Ancwe) is renowned for having borrowed so many words from different languages over the last thousand years. The core of book idiom English is Germanic, but only about 25% of the words in book idiom English today derive from such a root, and that includes those of Norse, Dutch, German and others, as well as English. That may sound like many, one in every four words, but not so much when one thinks that Latin and French each account for 29% of the book idiom English vocabulary. Greek yields an other 6% of words, with the last 10% being from other languages, derived from personal names, or simply unknown.

However, as mentioned earlier, the core of the book idiom English language still mostly consists of English words, which makes an undertaking like Anglish/New-English possible.


If you want to see what a more pure Englishbwould look like, you should look up Anglish/Anglic/New English. It's English, but all the words have Germanic roots. It's quite cool.


World War Two was a worldwide war fought between the Gathered ethels and the Samened lands, from 1939 until 1945. Spanning much of the world, the war led to the death of over 62 micklered, making it the deadliest war in the eretide of man. It was mainly spured up by pent up wrath from Thedeland's loss at the end of World War One.The war was in the end won by the Gathered Ethels.
From the Anglish wiki.
http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/World_War_Two

That being said, a lot of latin came long after the Romans, since it was the lingua franca of science and religious texts in Europe in the middle ages.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Capten_C on 07-07-2015, 02:07:50
Not WWII related.

Considering the Roman Empire extended at its peak till the Middle Eastern and heavily influenced many aspects in the western cultures,law and languages,then why at some of its former occupied territories (like Germany and England) the national languages spoken today are not part of the romance-languages family but rather from the germanic family?

“Legend has it”  and such sources as Gildas (De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae) and Bede etc can be looked at etc that “economic migrants!” from The Germanic lowlands post Empire pushed many of the Romano Brittons westward from what is now modern “England” into areas what are now known as modern Wales & Cornwall.

Anyway… Here’s a list of modern words with Latin roots that are used in my “National” language in a land mass which the Romans once called ‘Cambria’.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Welsh_terms_derived_from_Latin


Our Months and days of the week are from Latin also

Sul Llun Mawrth Mercher Iau Gwener Sadwrn etc
http://users.aber.ac.uk/kaw/techniques/welsh_vocab.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/language_romans.shtml
borrowed words are usually for things foreign to the British before the conquest, such as 'pont' (in Latin 'pons', a bridge), 'bresych' ('brassica', a cabbage), and 'eglwys' ('ecclesia', a church).
Many 100’s of Latin based words are still in daily use, although not sure we are classed as a Romance language.


 But..
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_people
“The names "Wales" and "Welsh" are traced to the Proto-Germanic word "Walhaz" meaning "foreigner", "stranger", "Roman", "Romance-speaker", or "Celtic-speaker" which was used by the ancient Germanic peoples to describe inhabitants of the former Roman Empire, who were largely romanised and spoke Latin or Celtic languages”


e.g. a modern take  Latin dēns (“tooth”)

 An English speaker will go to the “Dentist” if he has a “Tooth”ache.

I will go to the “Deintydd” if I have a “Dannodd” in my “Dant”!  So, no Germanic there then. Mind you, we have a lot of Polish Deintyddion these days!  ;D

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 23-07-2015, 14:07:30
Is there any picture of Panzer4 used by Italian army in ww2?? And did Italian army used german tanks,airplanes( if there is picture of -example,Pnz4 with Italian signs,not with Balkenkreuz)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hauggy on 23-07-2015, 15:07:11
I can tell you for sure the Italians used stuka dive bombers and some flak.
Here's a JU-87 B-2 (I think) :
(http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/ju_87_italian1.jpg)
Panzer III ausf N used by the Division Centauro, some were imported from Germany in Early 1943 :
(http://i33.tinypic.com/j6h79i.jpg)
Panzer IV ausf G of the same combat unit.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/r2pxch.jpg)
StuG III of the same division, between 25 to 30 examples were delivered in april 1943 :
(http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2728&d=1220661712)
Of course in africa only Italian tanks were in service in Italian units.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 23-07-2015, 17:07:52
How about their equipment while they were still relevant in the eastern front? Like Barbarossa until getting wtfpwned in Operation Uranus?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: th_battleaxe on 23-07-2015, 17:07:52
The same as in North Africa, AFAIK.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 23-07-2015, 18:07:44
They used mostly Italian stuff circa 1941, augmented with captured Russian tanks/vehicles/artillery/equipment.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 23-07-2015, 19:07:05
The same as in North Africa, AFAIK.

Im only aware that for the armored vehicles they only had the dinky fiat's and semoventes, not bigger carros or their semovente versions. Can anyone confirm?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hauggy on 23-07-2015, 20:07:44
Damn you just made me think that FH2 has no AB 40 or 41. :(
A much needed addition.
VonMudra is right as far as I know.
Here's a captured T-34 inspected by general Gariboldi.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZyPAnB3.gif)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 26-07-2015, 21:07:59
Not WWII related:

I just came back from a vacation in southern France, close to the Pyrenees. One of the last days (I guess it was 3-4 days ago) I noticed an airplane being followed by a jetfighter. In my country (NL), this happens when an airplane didn't make contact with the groundcontrol of airtraffic upon entering national airspace, they didn't identify themselves and after a few attempts to make contact, the airforce sends in fighters, usually two F16s. They escort the plane un til identification is successful or when they reach the border.

In this case, however, there was only one fighter (I assume a Mirage). Besides, after a few minutes, another airplane came by and it was escorted by three fighters. This made me think that it wasn't an identification thing, but maybe some important hotshots were in the planes and the fighters were there for security. The airplanes themselves were not marked very obviously, they looked completely white from a distance.

Anyone have any ideas of what I may have seen?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 26-07-2015, 22:07:30
Maybe it was for training purposes? Greece fex has some propeller planes to train new fighter pilots and i guess they could be used as "targets".
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 26-07-2015, 22:07:02
Mmm, they looked more like they were escorting the planes, rather than that they were hunting it down. They were flying a short distance behind the airplane and at the same speed, they never passed it or anything.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 26-07-2015, 22:07:20
The german luftwaffe trains the interception of civilian airplanes, which are not responding on a regular base. For this they do charter a plane including pilots - often ex military pilots - from a civilian company, which is subsiduary of airbus defense. For this they often use planes in learjet size. The maneuver works in the way that one of the interceptors follows,  behind while another one tries to get visual contact into the cockpit. You maybe havs seen something like this.

About a year ago during such a training a eurofighter collided with a learjet in germany, not to far from where I live.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Olsberg_mid-air_collision

And usually not even the air force one is  escorted by fighters - unlike in the movies.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 26-07-2015, 23:07:35
The german luftwaffe trains the interception of civilian airplanes, which are not responding on a regular base. For this they do charter a plane including pilots - often ex military pilots - from a civilian company, which is subsiduary of airbus defense. For this they often use planes in learjet size. The maneuver works in the way that one of the interceptors follows,  behind while another one tries to get visual contact into the cockpit. You maybe havs seen something like this.
OK, it might be that the French use larger planes for such a training, because what I saw was larger than the learjet for sure. I hope someone French can enlighten me on this :)

And usually not even the air force one is  escorted by fighters - unlike in the movies.
Ah, thx. Was not 100% sure about that.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 27-07-2015, 18:07:56
Escort maneuvers pose safety risk for both escorted and escorting planes. The Chinese jet fighters collided with US recon plane off Hainan Islands, it could be an accident rather than "intended". It is dangerous, like 2 ships getting too close to each other, one might get caught in one's wake and brought into collision course. That's why it is practiced.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: musska on 27-07-2015, 22:07:09
@ Slayer , by prob order : Mirage, even older version which stationned in normal patrol , then Rafale u might know , even "moustache" & twin engines features. Look for Falcon family from Dassault, first to go on recon oversea usually. A Breguet Atlantic 2 (cargo class) might be an option as paint in grey.... a tiny Alphajet (airshow).....   other it's Nato who know?
Did you see any payload.. patrol plane as 1 aa missile sometimes..
Arf by legend the air police as 7/10 min to see what da fuck going on ?
Army job but without crédits....
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 27-07-2015, 23:07:35
Oh, I can't really say which kind of fighters they were. I was just curious what they were doing, and it looks like a training. I didn't see any payload, the planes flew pretty high and my binoculars only enlarge 10 times (and even then they were still quite small). There were some 5-10 minutes between the first plane with one fighter and the second plane with three fighters. The plane could have been a Breguet Atlantic 2 indeed, although I can't confirm 100%.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 18-09-2015, 10:09:40
How effective have been bow/hull machine guns in tanks? I mean nearly every WW2 tank featured them, how effective have they been and when did they start to remove them from never designs? Any combat reports?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 18-09-2015, 16:09:32
Hull mgs were always useful as a mg- the gunner could sight accuratly due to the tank absorbing the recoil, the Mg in front meant that there was always a defense from infantry there and the turret could safely turn elsewhere with the crew knowing that infantry dangers from the front could be dealt with.  However, the hull MG also introduced a weak point in the tank's armour.  By the mid 1940s lots of prototype tanks that were coming out were eliminating the hull MG, and by the 1950s/60s tanks wee eliminating the position altogether.  Part of this was not so much due to the effectiveness of the Mg, but due to the elimination of the radioman as a crewman- radio advances meant that the commander could easily handle the radio, and so when given the chance, eliminating the radioman meant less weight and better sloping the armour itself.  No radio man, no hull mg, since there is no one left to man it.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Seth_Soldier on 20-09-2015, 22:09:00
Which german unit has executed a british soldier at Polincove in 1940 ?

I'm sure it is the SS totenkopf or the SS leibstandarte but i have some difficulties to find informations about them at this specific location.

I went to a local expo today about local ww2 and there was a story about a british soldier executed by german soldiers. They asked him to dig his grave and to remove his clothes.
Unfortunately i had to leave and didn't investigate further about it (it didn't write down the date it happened).
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: EnemyBoatSpotted on 21-09-2015, 01:09:45
I remember FH dev's saying a FH3 wouldn't be possible because of the cost of an engine and other constraints, but have the dev's gave it a serious thought now that Cry Engine, Unreal Engine 4, Unity and Source 2 are all free and Steam Early Access has gotten big? I've seen alot of bad games get into Early Access, and FH has always been one my favorite WW2 shooters.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Korsakov829 on 21-09-2015, 09:09:43
All work and no reward for the developers... sure, it's possible, but it's unrealistic. It would take say, I don't know, 5-8 years. And after all that it's "hey why not do FH4 on the next big thing!".
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: EnemyBoatSpotted on 21-09-2015, 15:09:21
Well to be fair FH2 took a long time to reach this point mainly because of the previous toolsets, and now making maps are a breeze compared to how it used to be.

Last time I played FH2 there was only one server running with 30-something players in the game, how long can it sustain? Making more content for a dying game that was abandoned by EA and now dead gamespy, seems fruitless.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Wulfburk on 21-09-2015, 17:09:11
Now theres one server running with 60-100 players. And thats after all this time with no patches.

And once it goes standalone like PR (and it will, believe me) it doesnt matter shit if BF2 was abandoned by EA and gamespy has died, after all, it will be standalone. And everyone will be able to just download it and play.

FH3 wont happen. But for all its purposes, i consider Traction Wars to be its worthy successor.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 21-09-2015, 23:09:54
Did Stug lll's were in use in Battle of France? If yes,in which divisions/fights?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 21-09-2015, 23:09:49
Very few of the StuG III Ausf. A were used, around 30 of them:

"First 24 Stug III Ausf A assault gun out 30 produced equipped Sturmartillerie Batteries 640, 659, 660 and 665 and first saw service during the French Campaign. Each battery according to organization scheme from November of 1939 had 6 assault guns in three platoons (with 2 assault guns each). Sturmartillerie Battery 640 became organic to Infantry Regiment Grossdeutschland and was renamed to 16th Sturmartillerie. Last 6 assault guns were issued to SS Sturmartillerie battery of Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler division.  It is interesting to point out that Michael Wittmann served with SS Sturmartillerie battery early in his career.  Two more batteries were formed – 666th and 667th but didn’t see combat in France."
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kalkalash on 28-09-2015, 08:09:27
I have a question about how Germans designated their tanks.

So, regular German tanks have PzKpfw followed by a Roman numeral and then a letter denoting the model. These obviously mean which tank version is it and which model. However, the Tiger I was labeled as PzKpfw VI Ausf. H, and here the H comes from Henschel and not its model, and then later on it was called PzKpfw VI Ausf. E. Where does the E come from? Where there Ausf. A, B and so forth as well?

It gets even more confusing with the Tiger II, which was just Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B with no numerals. What's the deal with that?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Turkish007 on 17-10-2015, 18:10:19
What are the most visible differences between a standart WW2 Finnish and German uniform?
Title: Re: Questions Threado
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 10-11-2015, 12:11:41
Is belgium arhitecture (houses,buildings) pretty same as french during 1930/1940/50- WW2?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 10-11-2015, 13:11:53
North western France yes.  All the rest of the country, no.
What Belgian architecture? The east of the country builds there houses a lot different then the west. Not to mention the south. a few 100km difference makes a lot of changes.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Seth_Soldier on 10-11-2015, 22:11:17
Well it is difficult.
In north of france you have 2 region, east and west.
West is a flemish style (supposed to be the same style as the south of belgium), east is picard/artesian. It's all about history/influence
I'm a little bit niptick but don't worry, most people don't know about france
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 23-11-2015, 21:11:14
I read something about NDH and found this:In east NDH there were common bunkers at roads that had 20 people crew,mashinegun and mortar. Now in that area were also great number of German troops so they were fighting together and making fortifications together. My question is: how did germans build bunkers and do you have pictures/informations about bunkers with mortars in it and 20 soldiers crew?(probably there were rows connected with it?)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 09-12-2015, 00:12:14
I have two questions, if you can only answer one, or even if you can just answer partially, any help is welcome. Extra appreciated are articles that source the information :)

1) During World War I: How did the armies on the western front burry the dead soldiers from the enemy side? (mass graves, seperate graves, with respect, considered worse than trash,...) Did the attitude change over the course of 1914-1918? Were there obvious differences between the Germans and the Brits/Belgians/French? Were there exchanges of corpses during the war itself (maybe during some ceasefire or so)?

2) Why do the Geneva Conventions only have the obligation towards (former) enemy nations to give back the bodies of the fallen, and not towards allied countries?

"Parties to the conflict shall record as soon as possible, in respect ofeach wounded,sick or dead person ofthe adverse Party falling into their hands, any particulars which may assist in his identification."
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Mayhemic.MAD on 09-12-2015, 00:12:29
1. It depends. Pilots were often treated with military honors and given a proper burial in a marked grave.
Dead infantry soldiers between the trenches however did much too often not get any burial at all, simply because no one could recover the dead bodies due to the constant fighting and shelling.

2. Since allies are not in war with each other, they need no regulations in those regards. They don´t have allied soldiers "falling into their hands" in the first place.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Dukat on 09-12-2015, 01:12:44
There are war cemeteries installed by the germans who have been continued after they have been taken over by the allies throughout the course of the war. Those are large cemeteries with thousands of german soldiers buried both by the germans and the allies later.

The geneva convention asks to identify the dead, if possible, and to exchange information about those with the enemy. So the bodies should have received a proper ceremonial burial if possible. I guess in case of the tenthousands on those war cemeteries continued by the allies, this was the case, at least nominally.

Still you probably don't know how ceremonial a burial is being done by the people doing these burials, especially when huge amounts of bodies arrive in waves. For example when they have to be burried quickly, during large scale assaults and operations.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-12-2015, 13:12:44
I've been trying to find a WW2 walt disney cartoon for a while. It shows minnie mouse first attempting to give bacon grease to pluto, but instead they collect it and turn it in. Its about recycling materials and giving it to the goverment for war stuff

anyone got a link?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 09-12-2015, 13:12:52
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=061_1381620464

2 seconds search in Google "WW2 minnie cartoon grease"
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-12-2015, 13:12:49
thats odd, i do the same searching and it doesnt show that link...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 10-12-2015, 00:12:21
thats odd, i do the same searching and it doesnt show that link...

My googles is better than your googles.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 10-12-2015, 08:12:30
Is there any pictures of german and british generals after the war dicussing about battles? I saw guderian was often invited to british veterans groups and they talked about battles and strategies they used
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 11-12-2015, 23:12:37
I'm playing winspww2 atm. The panzer IV with the short 75 mm is titled as a "CS-tank" what does CS stand for?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 11-12-2015, 23:12:04
In the game of SPWW2 it stands for "Close support tank", but that is not an official military term afaik.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 12-12-2015, 01:12:37
Thank you to everyone who answered my question :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-12-2015, 12:12:15
The british used the term of CS tank on any tank, infantry or cruiser, when armed with the either the 3 inch or 95mm howitzer.

The official designation of the PZIV when it was designed and first employed, was as an support tank, to support Panzer III's and troops in combat against anti-tank guns and fortifications. In a panzer battalion, One "heavy" company of PZIV's would support 3 "medium" companies of PZIII's
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Pappa_bear on 04-01-2016, 22:01:24
Did the Forgotten hope team work with Anti matter games to produce the NatGeo series "WW2 Greatest Raids"?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Roughbeak on 04-01-2016, 23:01:14
Did the Forgotten hope team work with Anti matter games to produce the NatGeo series "WW2 Greatest Raids"?

Some models from us are used there, yes.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-01-2016, 23:01:39
I watched that same serie today aswel and i was exactly thinking the same thing
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 22-01-2016, 03:01:07
Ok not WW2, but does anyone know of some good books about the Korean War?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 22-01-2016, 17:01:31
http://www.amazon.com/The-Coldest-Winter-America-Korean/dp/1401300529/ref=pd_sim_14_12?ie=UTF8&dpID=51wkgYDjRyL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR105%2C160_&refRID=1TSHSH7BFYV4T2Z99XBQ

http://www.amazon.com/Coldest-War-Memoir-Korea/dp/0312265115/ref=sr_1_29?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453478698&sr=1-29&keywords=KOrean+War

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 23-01-2016, 05:01:50
Thanks I might check those out.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 14-02-2016, 18:02:39
can somebody provide site that explaines/covers battles between Italy and France 1940 (More detailed that wiki)?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 23-02-2016, 23:02:33
I have a morbid statistics question today, what are the typical losses (wounded, fallen, missing) a front unit suffered during there deployment on the front? I remember something like 2% or something?

How long was a unit typically deployed at the front before being replaced and sent to the rear again? 2-4 weeks? After how many weeks they are deployed at the front again?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Seth_Soldier on 24-02-2016, 19:02:36
you need to more precise because it is variable in the time.

For example, at the end of the war, a new german army recruit has a life expectancy of 4 weeks.
I've read that in 1940, one german artillery strike killed around 1000 french soldier who were going to battle and so the division was severely reduced
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 28-03-2016, 15:03:23
Here is one thing I wondered about: The MG42 fired at about 1250 rounds per minute. Some say this rate of fire is too high. Also it shared the ammunition with the Kar98k, the 7,92x57 bullet.

Would it be possible to lower the rate of fire by taking bullets out of the belt of the MG42 (as in: One bullet, one empty spot, one bullet, one empty spot...) and did the Germans do this? Either to lower the rate of fire or to get more ammunition for their Kar98ks? Or does that result in the gun jamming?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 28-03-2016, 15:03:37
Nah. If you put them like that you have to cock the gun after every shot.
source: we shot our PKMs like that at the company MG range. 3 + 5 shots. Extremely annoying.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 28-03-2016, 15:03:37
A machine gun functions by taking the energy of the bullet's exploding propellant and using it to cycles the gun. So if you leave one out, it would fail to cycle and would basically be a bolt action rifle.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 28-03-2016, 15:03:05
Download this game (Free on Steam)

http://noble-empire.com/news.php

The animation, the cutaway inner workings will show you each unique mechanism of every gun. It will teach you to disassemble almost every popular weapons in the world, and makes you re-think about the guns you already know.

Also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx9nmjAtwbs
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 21-04-2016, 23:04:13
The cartridge (7.7x58 mm Arisaka) was designed to replace the aging 6.5×50mm Arisaka cartridge after seeing the effectiveness of the 8×57 IS heavy machine gun in action in China during 1937.

Is the "effectiveness" that much better in a 7.92 compared to the 6.5 Arisaka that it's worth switching to that  caliber? I mostly see advantages over the 7.7, like reduced flash, sound and recoil and being able to carry more ammunition. Is the improvement in stopping power that noticable?

Is this decision a result of the pre-"intermediate cartridge revolution"?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 23-04-2016, 18:04:56
Can somebody give some pictures of battle or fortifications during Italy invasion of France1940 at Little Saint Bernard Pass?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Redbadd on 24-04-2016, 01:04:06
The cartridge (7.7x58 mm Arisaka) was designed to replace the aging 6.5×50mm Arisaka cartridge after seeing the effectiveness of the 8×57 IS heavy machine gun in action in China during 1937.

Is the "effectiveness" that much better in a 7.92 compared to the 6.5 Arisaka that it's worth switching to that  caliber? I mostly see advantages over the 7.7, like reduced flash, sound and recoil and being able to carry more ammunition. Is the improvement in stopping power that noticable?

Is this decision a result of the pre-"intermediate cartridge revolution"?
Well most major waring nations had similar callibers all over 7.5mm, can hardly be a coincidence.
I'v read about the Dutch colonial army having trouble when they just, end 19th century, adopted a similar 6.5mm caliber when fighting Muslim rebels in Indonesia. At close range the bullet would often not incapacitate the target, but go through and through. I imagine the lighter bullet would performe inferior to the larger heavier bullet that can handle both ranges with a large charge.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 24-04-2016, 05:04:34
I heard the same also heppens with Carcano's bullet. It underperformed, but don't know exactly how.

Sometimes it is just a magic number.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 24-04-2016, 23:04:17
Yet this was NOT the case with the Swedish mauser 6.5x55mm. Especially with the 140 spitzer bullet m/41 skarp. Records are little about the use of the swedish mauser by the finnish and Swedish volunteers in WW2, but the rifles performed excellent and the bullet was highly effective against the soviets.

And while its also an excellent round for light machine guns, it was not for heavy ones. Wich means 2 rifle cartidges for nations who adopted it. And back then, this could be a logistical nightmare
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 01-05-2016, 17:05:52
Hello everyone.

One question for Mauser K98 fans/owners. I plan on acquiring one soon, and I've seen an ad selling a Mauser K98 marked byf 43. The price is set at 281 € ($322). The seller provided 2 pictures, as follow:

(http://www.njuskalo.hr/image-w920x690/ostalo-oruzje/puska-karabin-mauser-k98-slika-14549650.jpg)

(http://www.njuskalo.hr/image-w920x690/ostalo-oruzje/puska-karabin-mauser-k98-slika-14549651.jpg)

Of course, I plan on examining the rifle up close once I contact the seller, I just wanted to ask for an advice on what to look for in a K98 (to prove it genuine and/or its parts in good condition).

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: McCloskey on 17-05-2016, 23:05:08
(http://i.imgur.com/BSJNcvX.jpg)

Took this shot at a local car show last year - I'm a car noob so I thought I'd ask here if anyone knew what car that is since this place is full of ww2 buffs (naturally) and the car appears to be in WH livery :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Musti on 18-05-2016, 07:05:57
Looks like a 1936-1940 Opel Kadett to me.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 18-05-2016, 08:05:13
PanzerKnacker, did you get the rifle? What history does the rifle go through? Have you found out? Mind sharing a little?

Thanks in advance. I am becoming like you lot because I watched too many Youtube videos about historical firearms.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 18-05-2016, 19:05:40
Nah, it turned out that it was registered as an "old" firearm, which meant I couldn't shoot it...so I gave up. Might as well have gotten me a deactivated repro for that.

Basically, if you register something as an "old" firearm, you can't buy, possess or manufacture ammo for it, and you can neither shoot it nor carry it. So I would've bought myself a really expensive wallhanger. And it'd have to be in a gunsafe so not even eyecandy.

Though the ad is still up and the guy lowered the price, if I change my mind I'll inquire more about it.
It's not deactivated, it's still functional. But as I said, it's no use.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: siben on 18-05-2016, 21:05:46
I am looking to repaint some orriginal .30 cal ammo cans from WW2. I was wondering what the colour is exactly, what paint to spray on it. I know its some sort of dark green but would like to know what type.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-07-2016, 08:07:27
In a good year or so, i will re-start shooting again. I sold many rifles to pay for medical bills a while ago, but i was able to keep 3 (m1917 enfield, Swedish mauser and K31) wich i handed over to a friend his shooting license for safe keeping.

Things are going good, i recently had surgery and my 6 year illness, crohn's disease, might be finnaly out of the way.

I am re-getting that intrest in shooting and as my financial status has drastically improved, i wanna invest again in a rifle i always wanted= A german WW1 mauser. I've always had intrest in a Gewehr 98, the Kar98 AZ or the post war converted Kar98b

I have a hunched feeling that i will end up with a gewehr 98 in the end. But i cannot remember all the things about it that i used to.

-How do you identify an arsenal rebuilt G98 from a WW1 origenal model? (take note, i have no preference)

-Wich of the manufacturers are considered the rarest?

-Are the ballistics very diffrent when firing 8mm S and 8mm SS ammo (the Schwere spitze round is the one from the 30's)

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 26-07-2016, 00:07:27
Why didnt they fit the engine in the front of tanks as extra armor for the crew?

Easier vision? Crew cheaper than an engine? Worse handling?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 26-07-2016, 14:07:30
Why didnt they fit the engine in the front of tanks as extra armor for the crew?

Easier vision? Crew cheaper than an engine? Worse handling?
My random guess wouldbe the weight distribution. The frontal armor plate is the thickest and heaviest part of a tank already. Additionaly for turretless vehicles the weight of the gun would cause trouble as seen on the Jagdpanzer IV aka Guderian duck because it was so front heavy. So the motor which is also heavy is some kind of counterweight in the back.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Oberst on 26-07-2016, 15:07:50
Why didnt they fit the engine in the front of tanks as extra armor for the crew?

Easier vision? Crew cheaper than an engine? Worse handling?
My random guess wouldbe the weight distribution. The frontal armor plate is the thickest and heaviest part of a tank already. Additionaly for turretless vehicles the weight of the gun would cause trouble as seen on the Jagdpanzer IV aka Guderian duck because it was so front heavy. So the motor which is also heavy is some kind of counterweight in the back.

To ciunter that you could move the turret, which easily ways 10 tons+, to a position in the back.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 17-08-2016, 03:08:11
Can anyone recommend any good books on Dunkirk? I wanted to read up and get some more info on the specific units, how the battle was fought etc...

I was thinking of the standard Osprey 'Dunkirk.'
https://ospreypublishing.com/dunkirk-1940-pb (https://ospreypublishing.com/dunkirk-1940-pb)

Or something like the 'Miracle of Dunkirk.'
https://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Dunkirk-Wordsworth-Collection/dp/185326685X (https://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Dunkirk-Wordsworth-Collection/dp/185326685X)

Can anyone recommend a single book that might cover the battle very comprehensively?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MajorMajor on 17-08-2016, 09:08:29
Can anyone recommend any good books on Dunkirk? I wanted to read up and get some more info on the specific units, how the battle was fought etc...

Dunkirk: Fight to the Last Man by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/825845.Dunkirk (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/825845.Dunkirk)). I still haven't read that yet even though it's been in my Kindle for about a year (I still have hell of a backlog to get through) but the reviews on Goodreads seem favorable. I'm skimming through it right now and it seems to focus mostly on the allied side of the conflict. Comes with quite a few maps, too.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 26-08-2016, 02:08:20
Where do you place the crosshair on a no4 sniper? Is it zeroed at the cross or at that nib that point upwards? Any logic behind that small nib?

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 08-10-2016, 22:10:15
So I again looked at this thing and this video shows old man in panther,there are pics of Bundeswehr pulling Panther out and actually some video screenshots of tank on tracks driving out of basment at end of video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoex8Yku-xY
It seems they preety much destroyed weels aldo there were tracks in basment and could ask old men how did he pull panther out when needed.
So what happened next?I assume they will never return panter to the old man.Is there any more pics of tank in basment or actuall video of that video screenshots from video above? Did he really drive tank around from time to time?

p.s. old man really knew how to keep tank running. And he had FLAK 18!!!!!!!!!!!!And someone said flak was his garden decoration ;D

Edit: This is most important I wanted to ask: How this police find out he has tank? Obviusly his 'good' neighbours reported him...
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Dukat on 09-10-2016, 02:10:35
Nice find.

Is there any more pics of tank in basment or actuall video of that video screenshots from video above? Did he really drive tank around from time to time?

When they pulled out the panther of the basement, there were rarely any pictures or footage. Journalists were locked out of the private property and locked out during an police operation.


Did he really drive tank around from time to time?

He was reported to have used the tank in 1979 for the last time, plowing snow in his village during a very strong winter.

It seems they preety much destroyed weels aldo there were tracks in basment and could ask old men how did he pull panther out when needed.

The old man was not cooperative. He probably stripped the tank of the tracks after parking it in a inaccessible corner in his basement to avoid the tank to be stolen or confiscated. Accordingly the panther gave the police a hard fight, without even shooting one single bullet. The old man was violating laws, having a functional MG34 or MG42 in his possession. Even if the tank was stripped of guns, the combination of those two things in one basement was crucial. In the end you can see the change of times in this story. When he drove the tank in 1979 it was probably an odd story already, but in a small village on the countryside such oddities by wealthy citizens were rather accepted. It was the time of the cold war, the man was probably a reputable member of his community, keeping the lawn short in his front garden. As long as you fulfil common expectations in a community, oddities are forgiven. The view on things like these changed when the rumors of his operational machine gun reached certain ears. When it comes to automatic guns in germany, the state is taking rigorous steps. Especially in 2k16. Accordingly nobody gives a fuck about destroying rubber wheels. Military equipment has a very low commemorative value in germany. We're lucky they didn't cut the panther in pieces when they wanted it out of the basement.


So what happened next?I assume they will never return panter to the old man.

When the state confiscates illegal stuff, its either getting destroyed or monetarized. Maybe they have sold it to to a museum, or plan to do so. No clue.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 17-12-2016, 22:12:25
Does anyone know how to find were are positions of italian Folgore division in Second Battle of El Alamein? I searched a lot and found actually some names of ridges and depresions but ABSOLUTLEY NONE of that cant be find with Google Earth or similar. How to find anything in that desert?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MajorMajor on 17-12-2016, 23:12:27
If I were you I would look for detailed topographic maps of the area. Even if they are not labeled, you should be able to recognise terrain features by their contour. I have no idea of how you could find those kind of maps for Libya/Egypt, though.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 30-12-2016, 15:12:55
What battle would you find best for FH2 map to show Italians vs French in mountain Alps?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MajorMajor on 30-12-2016, 15:12:12
What battle would you find best for FH2 map to show Italians vs French in mountain Alps?

If you can read French (or at least speak another romance language), there are some good articles you can find on the internet that give a good overview of the campaign. And, if you feel you need more info, the articles cite their sources, so you can expand your knowledge of those parts of the campaign that are useful for you.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 30-12-2016, 19:12:04
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France#Italian_offensive_.2821.E2.80.9324_June.29
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 30-12-2016, 19:12:07
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France#Italian_offensive_.2821.E2.80.9324_June.29

Wow how did you find that??? I cant believe you are soo smart and full of informations!! :D
 :P
Dude, Im researching that over month, found actually map that shows every bunker and foxhole but didnt find something particullar that would be gameplay fun and good. So I asked  here if anyone  ever had some idea and you show that Im stupid idiot by that post. Please dont reply on my question if you cant help :)
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 30-12-2016, 20:12:03
Well you asked a very basic question, you got a very basic answer.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 19-01-2017, 18:01:14
What was the role of light bombers, like the A26 or the Bristol Blenheim? Did they fulfill their intended role, or were they increasingly devoted to things like night fighting?

If I can ask a related question, what about heavy fighters? Did they have any success in their intended position or were they all used for other things too?

 Both of these aircraft types seem to have been built for niches that failed to actually materialize during the war.

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 19-01-2017, 19:01:58
So light bombers were mostly due to the expense of bombers- it was a cheap, economical way to have a bomber, and to have one capable of operating from less-than-adequate airfields.  They WERE used quite a bit, but soon got their roles eclipsed by medium bombers like the Ju88, B-25, B-26, and such, which were capable of bigger bomb loads, more armour, more attack capability, and could operate from similar runways with more powerful engines and such.  Basically, the light bomber was a stepping stone to the great medium bombers of the war.

As for heavy fighters, well, there is a LOT of myth about those.  To summarize as best I can, most of the mythos comes around from the Me110 and its performance in the Battle of Britain.  The myth goes that Me110s were a total failure, couldn't dogfight, and soon had to be escorted themselves by Me109s!  Like any myth, there is a nugget of truth in it- the Me110 could not dogfight really.  It could turn with Hurricanes easily, but its big problem was that, due to the wing span, it couldn't roll quickly, so a good Hurricane or Spitfire pilot would bank one way, get the Me110 following, then quickly bank the other way, something the Me110 pilot couldn't really do, thus getting him off the tail of the Spit/Hurri.

The big issue is that a lot of people apply that to heavy fighters and go 'see so they suck.'  The problem is, these people seem to assume that there is only one method of aerial combat- that of the dogfight.  What they're not looking at is that heavy fighters were NEVER, I repeat, NEVER supposed to be used that way.  The training doctrine for all heavy fighter units was to be boom and zoom fighters- and this was where they excelled.  Due to their wing size and two engines, the heavies had much better climb rates than single engine planes, and that plus their weight meant they also have very fast dives.  The optimum way to use a heavy fighter was to fly high (and thanks to those wings/engines, they had higher ceiling levels than single engine fighters), and basically conduct fighter sweeps, booming and zooming any flights of planes beneath.  In the main idea of the Me110, it was to fly high, dive on an enemy formation, use the concentrated fire in the nose to break up that formation (possibly taking some of it down), then zoom away and climb back up to escape.  After that was done, a following unit of Me109s would come into the now broken, scattered enemy formation and pick it apart, while the Me110s went back to overwatch, diving on escaping enemy planes/breaking up anyone who came to rescue.  This was the doctrine for the P38 as well, and somehow we don't see people claiming the P38 was an 'obsolete, useless, niche fighter'.  Instead it's considered one of the best day-fighters of the war- and the big reason is that the US stuck to using those tactics for the majority of the war.

The Germans though, had a quandary during the battle of britain.  The Me109s simply could not keep up with the bombers- they had about an hour's flight time, even with drop tanks, over Britian, and couldn't actually escort the bombers.  The Me110 meanwhile could.  Now, this might have worked, had the Me110s been flying high over the bombers.  HOWEVER, German escort doctrine had the idea that escorts were supposed to fly at the same level as the bombers, maintaining the same speed (the idea being it meant faster reaction time to an enemy attack on the bombers).  This, however, meant the Me110s were basically sitting ducks.  They couldn't get up to speed, they couldn't dive, they were left basically unable to use their doctrines.  The wings that were assigned to escort duty suffered tremendously as a result, while the wings that stayed in heavy fighter sweep mode did spectacularly well, leading to weird cases where one day, there might have been 10 or 20Me110s shot down, and then in the next day, another Me110 wing would take out 10, 20 RAF fighters without loss.  The fun information is that, during the BOB, the Me110s actually scored the SAME kill to death ratio as the Spitfire, and outperformed the Me109, despite these losses.  The big reason the Me110 disappears from the skies over England towards the end of the BOB though is production- the Germans only entered the campaign with less than 300 Me110s, lost a bit over 200, and simply were unable to keep up with the losses.  The Me109 suffered just as badly, but having started with greater numbers and production, was able to keep in the skies.  The Me110 had never been expected to take much in the way of losses due to the doctrine of not sticking around to actually do combat, and so when it was forced into that role, there was not the production or numbers to keep it up.  It was supposed to be the tip of the sword, and that's all.

In the end, the myth persists because yes, heavy fighters were sitting ducks when tied to escort duty.  As the USA experimented with escorts, the P38 was pressed into service, and basically did as well as the Me110.  It was pulled out, later replaced with the P51, and went back to doing awesome work as a heavy fighter over the ETO and PTO until war's end.  But all that does is validate the heavy fighter in its role- it was a boom and zoom sweeper, NOT a dogfighter.  It was never meant to stay in contact with enemy fighters, and failed when pressed into that task due to the needs of the generals.

Hope that's an ok summary, lemme know if you have any more questions.  I can try and find the actual KDR's of the 109, 110, and Spit/Hurri in the meantime.


Ah, here it is:

Spitfire 550 victories to 329 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
Hurricane 750 victories to 603 losses – a ratio of 1,2:1
Bf 109 780 victories to 534 losses – a ratio of 1,5:1
Bf 110 340 victories to 196 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Wilhelm on 19-01-2017, 19:01:24
Interesting read, Mudra.

But why would they have continued using the Me110 in the wrong way? You would think if they had a lot of losses on one mission, then an almost opposite outcome on another that they would figure out the original doctrine was superior to the forced escort role.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-01-2017, 20:01:21
The best way to see how this work is actually to play war thunder. If you use a heavy fighter, like a heavy fighter, you're results might be quite amazing. Go for boom and zoom. Did your pass fail? Do not turn. Max throttle and just get out of there.

I had great succeses with the ME110, beaufighter and P38 in War thunder. Many people complain about these planes but the reality is they pilot them like single engined fighters.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: FHMax3 on 19-01-2017, 20:01:18
heavy fighter, like a heavy fighter
Good explaining  ;D
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 19-01-2017, 21:01:47
Interesting read, Mudra.

But why would they have continued using the Me110 in the wrong way? You would think if they had a lot of losses on one mission, then an almost opposite outcome on another that they would figure out the original doctrine was superior to the forced escort role.

Quite simply because they had no other option.  The Me109, even with drop tanks, could not make it far enough to escort the bombers.  They basically had to accept heavy Me110 losses as a trade for not leaving the bombers undefended, which would have been catastrophic.  So the Me110s that were assigned to escort basically drew the short straw.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 20-01-2017, 15:01:51
To cut cost and keep producing more Bf-110, why not ditch that useless tail gun anyway? I think it is one of the reasons why the heavy fighter is unnecessarily heavy. Sure, they did pack more guns, but do they need that extra crews?

With the way they use it in BoB, of course they really need that tail gun, as they were more or less, one of the sitting ducks along with the bomber formation.

Anyway, Richard "Dick" Ira Bong, the highest scoring US Ace flies the "heavy fighter" P-38. He mostly downed far more agile and fast-turning but shabby roll-rate Japanese fighters. The P-38J has aileron booster, which makes its roll rate quite competitive. So to excuse the myth, unlike the Bf-110, P-38J can be ambushed, but still fight back effectively.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 20-01-2017, 16:01:50
The idea for the tail gunner came from the Bristol F2B fighter in WW1- of course it didn't work as well as it did in WW1, due to fighter armour/armament.  That said, BF110 pilots actually liked the gunner, as it gave them an observer in the cockpit, and someone who could, potentially, spray lead at anything that might try to chase them after a boom and zoom (the window would be short, so the point would be just to ward of anyone who might try and follow).

During the night fighter role, they actually wedged a 3rd crewman in to deal with the radar equipment, and kept the tail gunner, as he was useful in spraying lead at bombers after a pass (or up at them in a Schrage Musik attack), and again, more eyes was always better.

And actually, there was a version of the Bf110 that was as agile as the Me109- the BF110F.  Apparently, according to the pilots, it was the best of the Bf110 versions and was fully acrobatic due to much, much more powerful engines, and some redesign of armour and such.  However it didn't come out until 1942, so too late to reverse the myth, and did most of its service over the Russian Front, as well as being a bomber destroyer/first purpose designed night fighter.  What with the night war heating up dramatically at this point, plus the constant allied bomber streams in day time, the 110 got pressed into those roles, both of which it excelled at.  However by the time P51s showed up, it again became cannon fodder, as it couldn't both penetrate bomber streams (heavily laden with rockets and extra guns), and not be pounced with ease by allied fighters.  In the night war though, it continued to excel to the end of the war and produced the top night aces of the war, alongside Ju88 and Do217 conversions.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 21-01-2017, 15:01:47
That's fantastic VM, thank you very much.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: FHMax3 on 23-01-2017, 12:01:20
The idea for the tail gunner came from the Bristol F2B fighter in WW1- of course it didn't work as well as it did in WW1, due to fighter armour/armament.  That said, BF110 pilots actually liked the gunner, as it gave them an observer in the cockpit, and someone who could, potentially, spray lead at anything that might try to chase them after a boom and zoom (the window would be short, so the point would be just to ward of anyone who might try and follow).

During the night fighter role, they actually wedged a 3rd crewman in to deal with the radar equipment, and kept the tail gunner, as he was useful in spraying lead at bombers after a pass (or up at them in a Schrage Musik attack), and again, more eyes was always better.

And actually, there was a version of the Bf110 that was as agile as the Me109- the BF110F.  Apparently, according to the pilots, it was the best of the Bf110 versions and was fully acrobatic due to much, much more powerful engines, and some redesign of armour and such.  However it didn't come out until 1942, so too late to reverse the myth, and did most of its service over the Russian Front, as well as being a bomber destroyer/first purpose designed night fighter.  What with the night war heating up dramatically at this point, plus the constant allied bomber streams in day time, the 110 got pressed into those roles, both of which it excelled at.  However by the time P51s showed up, it again became cannon fodder, as it couldn't both penetrate bomber streams (heavily laden with rockets and extra guns), and not be pounced with ease by allied fighters.  In the night war though, it continued to excel to the end of the war and produced the top night aces of the war, alongside Ju88 and Do217 conversions.
Was the Do-17Z used as a night fighter late war?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 23-01-2017, 17:01:13
There were test-bed attempts but it was never actually used due to poor performance, instead serving more as testing of early on-board radars that would later go into the real night-fighters.  The Do215 and 217 had the actual night fighter types, though it took awhile to actually get them performing well, culminating in the rather good Do217N
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Wilhelm on 23-01-2017, 18:01:19
Why were such planes useful as night fighters?  Was it because they provided enough capacity to fit the equipment needed for the role while still being relatively agile, or was there other characteristics of the airframes themselves that facilitated successful night operations?

Did planes that were more vulnerable during day operations (BF 110 when used outside of its intended role, for example) excel at night operations simply because of the extra protection offered by the night, which offset their poor maneuverability/speed/etc?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kelmola on 23-01-2017, 21:01:53
In addition to boosted ailerons, P-38 also had more raw engine power (thrust/weight ratio) and better aerodynamics than 110 (once the automatically activating flap was installed under the rudder so that rudder wouldn't lose lift in a high-speed dive due to compressibility) so was the better fighter to begin with. The myth about P-38 being unable to fight if surprised is about half true: in the early versions the ergonomy had taken a backseat, so to transform the Lightning from travel to combat you had to turn and press about 20 switches and levers that were conveniently placed all around the cockpit. Of course, this was the byproduct of it having been designed to be an interceptor defending US eastern seaboard against ze Amerika Bombers, and would obviously take off in "combat mode" or at least the pilot would use the time to climb to altitude to make it so - no surprises there so plenty of time to pull those knobs. In later versions the controls were rearranged and some automated (and for example, the gunsight changed so that the lightbulb would not burn out after a few minutes), which made it easier to respond to surprises. Then again, these problems were not unique to P-38, devices like the Kommandogerät (automatically adjusted ignition, boost, mixture, propeller pitch, etc. based on throttle settings, RPM, engine knocking, etc.) were late-war inventions, so a pilot who was suprised was usually in big trouble anyway.

Also, in the Pacific theatre, basically every American fighter except Airacobra had to use zoom'n'boom, yo-yo, etc. tactics against the Zero (and other Japanese acrobatic planes). Airacobra suffered from its single-stage supercharger which limited it to low-altitude fights (critical altitude 3,5km), but down low it was faster and actually had better roll rate than Zero, which is why the Soviets loved it - they didn't need to fly high to gain long range, so could utilize it to the full. I can dig that the Americans needed to fly high to gain the necessary range to anywhere in the Pacific so it was in a wrong place there, but why the RAF never considered to use it against the low-altitude 190 Jabo attacks is a mystery (instead of abandoning the Airacobra because it was not suited for high-altitude fighter sweeps, what a surprise), considering that the chose solution ie. Typhoon was faster than the 190 but seriously outmanoeuvred if it caught its prey.

---

Re why use two-seater twin-engined heavy fighters and light bombeers as night fighters, early radar sets were bulky and heavy so required a larger airplane to carry them. Yes, development was fast and later in the war radar would fit in a pod carried on a wing pylon on a single-engine plane (if the radar used a dish antenna: the "laundry rack" antennae favoured by the Germans were difficult to relocate to wings), but the early radar scopes were horribly unclear, so they basically required a separate radar operator who could dedicate all his time trying to make sense out of all the clutter and interference on the primitive screen.

Even with modern HUD's, large multi-coloured touchscreens, and whatnot, research still shows that a pilot's situational awareness is better if there is a guy in back keeping an eye on the radar, FLIR, etc. while the pilot concentrates on flying and hitting the enemy - this is even more pronounced when in air-to-ground role.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 24-01-2017, 01:01:37
Basically what Kelmola said.  Early experiments with single engine fighters at night fighters were 'mostly' failures, thanks to lack of radar, but also the inability to carry heavy weaponry (night air combat had exceedingly short windows of opportunity, so you had to make a kill in the first pass basically).  Basically the only successful single engine night fighter was the Boston Paul Defiant during the Battle of Britain, as it would do what the Germans would later perfect- use upward firing guns to attack from below.

But, in the end, twin engine planes had enough speed, maneuverability wasn't an issue, and could carry both the radar, the radar operator, and the heavy armament that were all needed for a successful night-fighter role.  Thus, heavy fighters, and light/medium bombers like the Ju88 and Do217, were perfect choices.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Zoologic on 24-01-2017, 14:01:02
I like this knowledge sharing very much. Thank you Kelmola and Mudra.

Yeah, radar usage really does intrigue me. A lot of popular beliefs nowadays makes people have mistaken belief in its capability. I've seen them used to paint clouds in commercial jets. Colourful pictures. But never saw one in action in military jets. There were simulated radar scope for SAM systems. Sure, they are unlike in Hollywood or cartoon movies, as clouds and birds get picked up together.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 05-03-2017, 23:03:13
What did the Japanese plan to take if they won the war with China? I'm having problem finding info about this.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 06-03-2017, 04:03:21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reorganized_National_Government_of_the_Republic_of_China

Basically a puppet state.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-03-2017, 16:03:36
but why the RAF never considered to use it against the low-altitude 190 Jabo attacks is a mystery (instead of abandoning the Airacobra because it was not suited for high-altitude fighter sweeps, what a surprise

Even funnier is seeing how the RAF used spitfires for low altitude fighter bomber attacks. Go in low, stay low. A job, perfect suited for the very agile, low altitude dogfighter the Airacobra was. Not to mentioned it was tough as nails. One of the most armoured WW2 aircraft you could have.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 24-11-2017, 16:11:55
How were surrendering tank crews generally treated? In the First World War, it seems the Germans often summarily executed captured tankers. Was this repeated to any extent in the Second World War in the fighting between the Germans and the Western Allies?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: MajorMajor on 24-11-2017, 19:11:37
According to War Without Garlands, during the late-1941 fighting around Moscow the germans started cannibalising specialised personnel, such as tank crews, to bolster the mauled rifle divisions. Soviets would often shoot on the spot any tanker-turned-infantrymen they captured, since they mistook the tank crew outfits for SS uniforms.

I know that's not the answer you were looking for but I thought it was a nice piece of trivia.  :P
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Redbadd on 25-11-2017, 11:11:53
Why do you think tank crews would be treated differently than infantry men in ww2?
They weren't carpetbombing residential areas.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Born2Kill 007 on 25-11-2017, 11:11:47
Specific types of frustration or seeing friends die in certain ways can do things to the human mind.
Snipers didn't carpet bomb residential areas, but they often didn't have a very nice fate once captured...

I don't want to reduce real war to a video game, but I think the fundamentals of frustrations over roles in war can even be seen here already some times. When you play a vanilla battlefield game with casual gamers, have you never seen frustrations over things like "pussy tankers bla bla bla". It's basically someone who was faced with a tank, and he didn't have the weapons to balance the fight out (no AT weapons for example). He is frustrated by his powerlessness and feels like it's an unfair fight where the other one is just exploiting a powergap not necesarilly related to "courage" or "skill", and once the power balance changes (tank gets deactivated or surrenders or whatever), it isn't unlikely that the frustrations will turn into bad behavior towards the "not so tough now huh" person, where the frustrated person might see it as "just" to "compensate" for the earlier "imbalance".

You can also think here of that Jordanian pilot that was captured by ISIS. He wasn't the "carpet bomb civilian areas" kind of pilot, but ISIS has the frustration of constant jet bombardments on their positions, and they don't have the AA quality to shoot those jets down. When they then get in the position where they catch one of these pilots (by them considered as "cowards" as the pilots know that the chances of getting shot down are very very low, while the chances of their bombs hitting are high), their frustrations may lead to an extra cruel treatment compared to other POWs.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Redbadd on 26-11-2017, 01:11:36
So yeah, basically anyone based on circumstances, not tankers perse. And not by Germans perse.


I ve heard of bombercrews being linched when landed in Germany.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 26-11-2017, 15:11:56
So yeah, basically anyone based on circumstances, not tankers perse. And not by Germans perse.


I ve heard of bombercrews being linched when landed in Germany.
I seem to recall there was even a Fuehrerbefehl which ordered people in Germany to lynch those guys. So that if civilians would encounter them, they would be killed by those civilians.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 26-11-2017, 17:11:43
So yeah, basically anyone based on circumstances, not tankers perse. And not by Germans perse.


I ve heard of bombercrews being linched when landed in Germany.
I seem to recall there was even a Fuehrerbefehl which ordered people in Germany to lynch those guys. So that if civilians would encounter them, they would be killed by those civilians.

Not aware if any such order, and Hitler worked hard to avoid war crimes against Western Troops out of fear of retaliation from them.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Ts4EVER on 26-11-2017, 18:11:59
What about the commando order?
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 27-11-2017, 02:11:38
Yeah, that's one of the few breaks that he did from that line.  That said, I am searching and still cannot find any such order against allied airmen for civilians to kill them.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 27-11-2017, 17:11:28
So yeah, basically anyone based on circumstances, not tankers perse. And not by Germans perse.


I ve heard of bombercrews being linched when landed in Germany.
I seem to recall there was even a Fuehrerbefehl which ordered people in Germany to lynch those guys. So that if civilians would encounter them, they would be killed by those civilians.

Not aware if any such order, and Hitler worked hard to avoid war crimes against Western Troops out of fear of retaliation from them.
Maybe it wasn't an order but a speech (by Goebbels) which urged civilians to lynch airmen. There are accounts of parachuted bombercrews who encountered civilians and that those civilians were helping them out, but also telling them about the lynching-thing: that explained why they were temporarily hiding them from military police and similar German forces who were looking for the airmen. Later the airmen gave themselves up to not endanger the civilians. I saw this in a documentary once.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 27-11-2017, 19:11:31
Yes, Goebbels did do it in a speech, but that was rhetoric.  There WERE cases of lynchings of bomber crew, but they're few and far between.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Redbadd on 27-11-2017, 23:11:30
A while back we had were talking about Putten and what happened there, i thought i'd just let it rest.
But now how would you guys compare the physical removing and or killing of civilians to the impersonal (fire) bombing of civilian areas.
What is the ultimate difference between, driving people into a church and burning it and burning the place all to gether, other than the cause it serves of course.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: VonMudra on 28-11-2017, 00:11:15
Intent.  At minimum, the Allied bomber raids were 'nominally' directed at the economy, while mass murderers like that are specifically directed and carried out with full knowledge of who you are killing and without intent for anything but mass murder and terrorism.  Not saying that carpet bombing by any nation in WW2 was good, but there are graduations.

That said, considering that the carpet bombing did very little to actually bring about economic destruction or the end of the war, it didn't even achieve the goals that were viewed to make civilian losses acceptable- a faster end to the war.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Redbadd on 30-11-2017, 13:11:45
But in the end they are both means to an end with the same result. And even then intent doesnt excuse one from responsibility.
If you look at what the British were doing at night under Harris, they were at best using the cities as kindling to set fire to factories. In a methodical studied way, building up the right conditions for a firstorm.
Then you cant possibly hide behind the intent of trying to hit an economical target.
The fact that the phrase  "to Hamburgerise" didnt catch on has probably to do with a slightly better feel for Propaganda with the allies.


Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 30-11-2017, 22:11:44
Carpet bombing was a very murderous and unsuccessful way for the allies in which they tried to shorten the war.

I think a few things brought them to doing it:
1) Revenge. German Luftwaffe bombed civilian cities in the Blitzkrieg, sometimes as part of a strategic attack on a country (Rotterdam), sometimes as part of an attempt to make the civilian population break and surrender (London). The allies wanted to get back to them about that so they started bombing the Germans, partially in retaliation.
2) Powerlessness. Because they couldn't beat the Germans on the ground (or at least they thought they couldn't or it would cost way too much lives), they resorted to bombing because it was relatively "safe" while it made a lot of damage.
3) Cleanliness. Because of the distance between the bombercrews and their victims, the crews could carry on doing what they were doing. There are numerous accounts of American/British soldiers entering German towns and being shocked to see what their airforces had inflicted on those towns.

In my opinion the dumbest allied argument was to shorten the war. I mean, the Brits themselves had had the experience and they hadn't given in, so why would the Germans ever do so when treated the same way?

The biggest difference between carpet bombing and church burning is imo that the bombing is more technical and mechanized, and therefore less personal. Because the church burning is much more up close and personal it has more of a criminal feel over it. I'm not sure how much the bombercrews knew about the effects of their actions. I'm pretty sure the Germans knew what the effect of their actions would be.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Redbadd on 02-12-2017, 01:12:03
The British bombing force was geared towards strategic bombing from the start and Harris was no angel.
So revenge was a motive but without a doubt they would have carried on like they did, the Germans starting it was convenient.
The British leadership maybe/probably thought they could make  a better job of it, they still were an empire back then.
About the crews, you could say they were just men put there trying to survive, but still, if you drop thousands of kg of bombs in the dark over cities. You cant really blame them it was a war and all that. But you'd have to be Forrest Gump naieve to not think of what was happening on the ground, if one cared is a nother thing all together, because of the less personal nature.

The Americans in daylight had trouble hitting targets, they killed 800 people in Nijmegen destroying the inner city (Netherlands) attacking a railway station, wich they believed to be in Germany.

Even so, if the personal touch makes it feel more criminal, isnt the calculated technical scientific way the most criminal.




Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kelmola on 03-12-2017, 21:12:41
Carpet bombing was the only way to do it at night. Without radar, CEP was about five miles. Meaning that half the bombs fell within five miles of the intended target, not enough to hit anything else than a metropolitan area. With radar, the CEP at night or through cloud cover was about 1 mile, enough to hit a smaller town. Daytime "precision bombing" CEP was about 1000 feet, still a far cry from smart bombs but enough to hit an industrial target.

Strategic bombing in European front did succeed in two goals: destruction of Axis POL plants did wreck the mobility of their armies and eventually throttled their entire logistics (though only later after it was found out that factories were quickly rebuilt). Secondly, it tied over a million men, tens of thousands of guns, and an entire Luftflotte away from the frontlines.

In Europe, with stone and concrete buildings, established fire brigades, and ample bomb shelters, the direct destruction caused by carpet bombing was not that great though, and as said, factories were often quickly rebuilt. Against Japan, however, it did succeed; cities made of wood and paper, with insufficient firefighting capabilities or bomb shelters were wiped out with firebombs, dropped at low altitude for increased accuracy -  the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than the two nuclear bombs combined and destroyed most of the city, civilian and industrial targets alike.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 03-04-2018, 21:04:57
Necro. But I'm sure I'll get some answers here.

Recently I'm quite interested in medieval history. Mostly you can find information about knights and the development of their arms and armour. What I'm more interested in though is the equipment of the simple infantry man which is harder to get information about.

So far I know that those usually were rather poorly equipped with mostly a gambeson and a helmet. But what about the arms they used? One source I found simply talks about polearms. I know that swords were hardly affordable for commoners until the arrival of the Falchion.

Then I found this graphic which only goes back to 1200:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Polearms.jpg)

Does that mean for the largest part of the medieval (until 1200) the only common melee weapon for commoners was the spear? Or what were the most common weapons? To make it easier to answer, let's restrict this to North Western Europe (France, England, Germany) 1000-1200.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Slayer on 03-04-2018, 21:04:11
Commoners (farmers) who were summoned to battle. brought everything which could be useful. So clubs were common, also long poles without anything metal on it (some sort of fighting stick) and even pitchforks when they became more widespread.

Not only were those things affordable (they were present in most households already), but the commoners knew how to handle them, so they didn't need any preparation for battle, unlike knights who were being trained.

So: blunt melee weapons mostly.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Kasztelan on 03-04-2018, 23:04:48
Please, check scholagladiatoria channel on YT there is a fair amount of videos that may be of interest to you.

By common soldier I presume you mean a lower rank foot soldier like spearman/billman/archer/crossbowman who is levied for war campaign or is a semi-professional soldier, rather than a simple peasant levie?   

Most polearms were developed from agricultural tools so early improvised types of  such weapons were definetly very popular among peasant levies. The most widespread weapon among common soldiers since ancient history was spear whithout any question (basically the only exception being the use of Gladius as a main weapon in Roman armies) and from 1100 you would see more weapons like glaives and guisarmes. Polearm was always main weapon of medieval soldiers unless he was crossbowman, archer or paviser (if that's even a word :p). One thing to keep in mind is that more advanced polearms can't really be used effectively with a shield so they never really replaced plain and simple spear untill both were virtually replaced in western European armies by pikes in XVI century.

About sidearms, search for messer wich was a type of single-edged swords developed in Germany, besides that you would see axes, maces, daggers, later falchions, messers and swords.

Edit: I forgot about javelines  ;) in sime parts of Europe they were still a thing, particullary in Iberian peninsula, Eastern Europe, Wales and Ireland.

Edit2: I apologize for chaotic post there is a lot to say about the subject and speaking about medieval we are talking about staggering 1000 years of history. I would gladly share my notes with fellow enthusiast but unless you know Polish they will be of no use to you :-[

Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Seth_Soldier on 04-04-2018, 00:04:33
that's a very interresting subject !
I would advise you to learn about battles, this way you might get more information about the equipement.
I remember Flanders peasants/soldier were known to be skillful with them.

I remember reading some articles and having some presentation about those weapons.
At the time when the commoners were farmers (more or less your period), they used pitchforks and other agricultural tools.
But the most important details is that some of these weapons weren't to kill the knights but to bring it down and keep him on the ground (by example, some middle pitchfork dents could be bent) for ransom.
When the army became more professional, they improved them but they kept the designs (shown in your pattern)

Knifes, daggers,  maces etc ... are also interresting (and frightening) subjects to learn but those are for later wars
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Butcher on 04-04-2018, 17:04:04
Thanks, I appreciate your answers.
Title: Re: Questions Thread
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 05-12-2020, 20:12:45
A pretty brutal necro, but I cannot I cannot manage to google the answer I'm looking for.. (And at this point the forum may appreciate any activity)

Does modern howitzers use different amount of propellant on different ranges? Like if they want to fire on a target pretty close and they don't want to fire in a direct line, but still fire indirect, do they not load as much propellant to get more curve on the shell? Thus still being able to fire from behind cover from hills and forests on targets far within long range/optimal range? They got advanced targeting/ballistics calculators and modular charges/propellant, so they should be able to (IMO), I just cannot find any information on it.