Author Topic: Questions Thread  (Read 64064 times)

Offline Turkish007

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.005
  • Mini-mod necromancer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #150 on: 10-02-2013, 18:02:22 »
Was Piat used in africa?

Offline Torenico

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.480
  • ¡Viva la Revolución!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #151 on: 10-02-2013, 18:02:31 »
Nope, first PIATS were used in Sicily


Offline pizzzaman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 958
  • Test Map De-coder
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #152 on: 10-02-2013, 18:02:39 »
Did the British forces in Africa use the Sten gun at all?
You are bathing in misery and hope, waiting for someone to come and pull the plug.

Offline Torenico

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.480
  • ¡Viva la Revolución!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #153 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.


Offline sheikyerbouti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.402
  • Yay, Rep feature is dead
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #154 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)
My Quebec includes Canada

Offline PanzerKnacker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.907
  • Tommyjäger
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #155 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  :)
He was not wrong. Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics.

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.127
  • Traction Wars Developer- Research Dept
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #156 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!

Offline Kading

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #157 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.

Break your picks and crack your spades! Dig deep if you want to live!

Offline Steel_Lion_FIN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.474
  • Mostly drunk.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #158 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"
I'd rather play Kimble with my ass!


Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.547
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #159 on: 11-02-2013, 16:02:51 »
He was not wrong. Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics.

Offline Kading

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #160 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.


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.
« Last Edit: 11-02-2013, 22:02:34 by Kading »
Break your picks and crack your spades! Dig deep if you want to live!

Offline sheikyerbouti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.402
  • Yay, Rep feature is dead
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #161 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)
My Quebec includes Canada

Offline CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.448
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #162 on: 11-02-2013, 22:02:01 »
Why was there never an anti-tank gun version of the Panther's gun? Too cumbersome?
Quote from: TASSER1
you suck. noone likes you. and your mother isn't pretty

Quote from: Eightball1182
Andrew.Drunk.Drive...I love u man. You get it...u get it 100%. Stay cool Canada brother.

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.547
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #163 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:



This thing shot an 8cm HEAT warhead over only 750m while still being very maneuvrable. It used a new kind of propulsion system.
« Last Edit: 11-02-2013, 22:02:26 by Ts4EVER »

Offline Kading

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #164 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.
Break your picks and crack your spades! Dig deep if you want to live!