Tonks: Tigers, Armatas, T-72 Alphabets
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
Not directly related to tanks, but I heard the cost of a kilo of explosive delivered on a V2 was 100 times the cost of a conventional air-dropped bomb.
That’s all I have to say about that.
That’s all I have to say about that.
True, but those were stabilized in the vertical plane only, which means it only has meaningful effect when the tank drives slowly on level terrain. Prototype designs basically.
Centurions introduced gun stabilization in both the vertical and horisontal plane, which is basically the design categorized as true gun stabilization used in modern mbts today.
I recently read that ww2 US ships had various early computers (particularly so-called mechanical integrators) which would calculate the trajectory of shots with better accuracy.
Today this is likely done even with a cheap pocket calculator.
Today this is likely done even with a cheap pocket calculator.
PhroX
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,684
Not sure about the cup rack, but it did have a BV or "Boiling Vessel". Which.... yeah, it's a kettle. And, jokes about stereotypical Brits asides, it's actually a really good thing to have in a tank. Allowing the crew make a quick hot drink without having to leave the vehicle is a great way for them to catch a bit of safe downtime during a lull in battle.
Yeah, early analogue computers. WW2 warships would engage targets at long range; often you barely had visual contact with the enemy ship you were firing upon. Early fire control systems had to account for range, winds, temperature, the curvature of the Earth, the movement signature of both vessels and the roll and pitch of your own vessel. There's just no way to successfully accomplish all of this in realtime, without some form of computation to aid you.
PhroX
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,684
Mechanical gun laying computers were developed before the First World War. See for example the British Dreyer Table.
Probably something more accurate by ww2 ^^ At any rate, Feynman mentions the system in his book, along with various other examples of how early computers had numerous problems and required either mechanical ingenuity or a number of human helpers.
from Wiki:
That does look like a mechanical integrator, though (they typically rely on disk elements where, eg, speed of turning can stand for curvature). Just of less reliability.
Last edited:
Notice the rather drastic changes to naval warfare from the 19th century to the 20th. The main principle of the wooden ship of the line and frigates, was to make them carry enough guns on both sides of the hull, to increase the odds that you would hit something with every full barrage of cannon balls.
Then comes the ironclads and steel armored sail ships + boiler and propeller propulsion. Tougher steel armor brings bigger gun calibers to defeat that armor, which means fewer guns. The dreadnoughts arrive with even fewer and bigger guns, with the largest mounted in turrets. The philosophy is that with much fewer and slower firing large guns, every shell fired needs to be more accurate on target. Otherwise your vessel is just a waste of resources and manpower.
Then comes the ironclads and steel armored sail ships + boiler and propeller propulsion. Tougher steel armor brings bigger gun calibers to defeat that armor, which means fewer guns. The dreadnoughts arrive with even fewer and bigger guns, with the largest mounted in turrets. The philosophy is that with much fewer and slower firing large guns, every shell fired needs to be more accurate on target. Otherwise your vessel is just a waste of resources and manpower.
It'd be great if such become widely available in toy form:
You could, for example, use it with some toy cannon, and establish how to consistently hit certain targets (like enemy toys) on your room's carpet. I'd buy that ^^
Mechanical Differential Analyzer – Joseph Henry Project
commons.princeton.edu
You could, for example, use it with some toy cannon, and establish how to consistently hit certain targets (like enemy toys) on your room's carpet. I'd buy that ^^
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Would make sense to be fair, like most wonder weapons the V2 was innovative and expanded upon post war, but almost completely counter productive to the war effort. Plus thousands of slave labourers worked and died in hellish camps to construct them, but that probably wasn't unique to the V2 or even wonder weapons to be frank given the Nazi regime and its total disregard for just about every norm in their desperate search for victory.
Those comments do irk me a little though. Lost count of how many times I've seen people on Youtube or Reddit quote something about the British just sitting around and drinking tea in the middle of a battle. Its like they think that taking a break and conserving your energy when there's nothing to be done is somehow a bad thing. Shades of the confrontation at Nijmegen bridge during Market Garden.
To add, the V2s were mostly used on civilian targets in South-East England instead of military targets, making them almost entirely redundant to the German war effort. Reminds us of a current dictator bombing another nation with his Wunderwaffen, almost exclusive hitting apartments blocks, supermarkets, hospitals, parking lots and energy grid instillations.
Considering how the Brits performed and conducted themselves in WW2, we should all be drinking tea in the hope of becoming as badass as they were.
I know an anecdote from the Gulf War; an Iraqi POW was placed in an American APC and noticed a picture inside the vehicle. It was a picture of Erwin Rommel. The Iraqi, obviously confused, asked the American crew why they would display a picture of one of their most feared adversaries in WW2 inside their vehicle? One of the Americans replied: 'Buddy, if you had studied the books about Erwin Rommel and armored warfare, you wouldn't be sitting in the back of my tank now.'
Considering how the Brits performed and conducted themselves in WW2, we should all be drinking tea in the hope of becoming as badass as they were.
I know an anecdote from the Gulf War; an Iraqi POW was placed in an American APC and noticed a picture inside the vehicle. It was a picture of Erwin Rommel. The Iraqi, obviously confused, asked the American crew why they would display a picture of one of their most feared adversaries in WW2 inside their vehicle? One of the Americans replied: 'Buddy, if you had studied the books about Erwin Rommel and armored warfare, you wouldn't be sitting in the back of my tank now.'
Ideology has nothing to do with it; it's about military doctrine and its application. Oskar Schindler was a Nazi too.
Alexander the Great is familiar to you, I assume? I don't think the people living in the lands he conquered ~2300 years ago, would share our reverence of the man. The World is not black and white.
Hey! It wasn't against you at all. I just find it rather suspicious that a literal tankie (well, tank crew member) has a picture of Romel for entirely unrelated reasons to ww2 germans
That said, personally I consider it rather uncouth to revere any nazi army figure. I am sure Romel wasn't the worst by far, but he was still a nazi general.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Actually more were fired at Antwerp and Belgium (1,664) than London and South East England (1,402). Antwerp was at least in theory targeted for military reasons but the poor accuracy of the V weapons meant it had far more impact on the civilan population than the war effort.
One of my favourite annecdotes comes after the British surrender at Arnhem bridge. A German officer offered his congratulations on a well executed defence, remarking that he fought at Stalingrad and feels the British must have had a lot of experience in street fighting. The British officer remarked that no, this was their first time, next time they'll do much better...
That and the "We simply don't have enough room to take you all prisoner" response to the German suggestion that of surrender to the outnumbered and outgunned paras
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Yeah I did read somewhere that its a bit of an amaglam of two real events. One was Frost instructing his subordinate to tell them to get lost, the other was a small group of airborne soldiers at the bridge (possibly Mackay's engineers) being asked if they'd consider surrender during a separate local ceasefire and replying that they didn't have room to accept the surrender of so many Germans.
Either way badass
Either way badass
