Small Observations General Thread (things not worth separate threads)

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Was it in alphabetical order? Hatshepsut was in between Augustus and Amina and Ashoka.

It's weird. Hatshepsut is the odd one out, but everyone else is in alphabetical order

 

[Wohlauf]

Was it in alphabetical order? Hatshepsut was in between Augustus and Amina and Ashoka.

There's a second graphic further down that has them in correct order.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There's a second fraphic further down that has them in correct order.
View attachment 715049

Himiko is not hidden, BTW

 

[Jeppetto]

Kublai Khan or Kamehameha or Justinian
Going by past choices that is. They can go with something new.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Seems like a good day to put out the Meiji guide and Himiko FL, since they were originally revealed by Nintendo.

I'm such an idiot that I just got this. Nintendo, the Japanese company that first began during the Meiji Restoration period, got to reveal Meiji Japan and the Japanese leader during their Direct.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There's a second fraphic further down that has them in correct order.

Freat catch. But if Giraxis also observes your liberal spelling conventions, it could grankly be anyone.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Kublai Khan or Kamehameha or Justinian
Going by past choices that is. They can go with something new.

I like Justinian idea. Can't wait to see his plague persona!

 

[chaosprophet]

Kamehameha also fits modern age timeline, as the last leader will likely be from.

 

[Venceslau Pietro Pietra]

Karl Marx

 

[8housesofelixir]

I like Justinian idea. Can't wait to see his plague persona!

A plague persona is fine, but the "Escape from the Angry Byzantine Football Hooligans" persona will be much more intriguing...

 

[Archanist]

Was it in alphabetical order? Hatshepsut was in between Augustus and Amina and Ashoka.

You don't know about Ahatshepsut?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Did NATO (or Pre-Nato armies) has anything equivalent to BS3 10cm field gun? What is US Army equivalent that's called 'Guns' rather than 'Howitzers' and has long barrels and same antitank capabilities?

Late in WWII the British Army used their 17-pounder as both a towed and self-propelled antitank piece, and although it was only a 76mm cannon, it had the same ballistics as the L70 7.5cm cannon mounted in the German Panther medium-heavy tank and much more advanced APDS ammunition. At the same time, the US Army used the 90mm antiaircraft gun as an antitank piece mounted in the M36 self-propelled tank destroyer. Both also proposed 120mm antitank/antiaircraft pieces, but never fielded them as direct-fire artillery except mounted in post-war heavy tanks like the US M103.

None of the western armies used direct fire artillery pieces except in exceptional circumstances, like blowing in the gates of the Metz fortresses with 155mm 'Long Tom' cannon from 300 meters' range (which caused the German commander of the defense to complain that the Americans weren't playing fair!). Both the British and US armies had invested too much effort in creating extremely flexible indirect fire systems that could mass fire on any target within range in a few minutes, which was far, far more effective than sitting in the front line dodging enemy counterfire while trying to hit a target.

 

[Potworny]

It's weird. Hatshepsut is the odd one out, but everyone else is in alphabetical order

Maybe because she was in the first preview build alongside the other three?

Himiko here has headwear that is different than the one in the Nintendo showcase, no? Maybe it means a persona?

 

[Sagax]

Himiko here has headwear that is different than the one in the Nintendo showcase, no? Maybe it means a persona?

Same headwear, just with the reduced spikes size.

 

[Potworny]

Appparently yes, though I think there was no blue veil (?)

 

[Ryansinbela]

I think that might just be some lighting

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A plague persona is fine, but the "Escape from the Angry Byzantine Football Hooligans" persona will be much more intriguing...

Why not both?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Late in WWII the British Army used their 17-pounder as both a towed and self-propelled antitank piece, and although it was only a 76mm cannon, it had the same ballistics as the L70 7.5cm cannon mounted in the German Panther medium-heavy tank and much more advanced APDS ammunition. At the same time, the US Army used the 90mm antiaircraft gun as an antitank piece mounted in the M36 self-propelled tank destroyer. Both also proposed 120mm antitank/antiaircraft pieces, but never fielded them as direct-fire artillery except mounted in post-war heavy tanks like the US M103.

None of the western armies used direct fire artillery pieces except in exceptional circumstances, like blowing in the gates of the Metz fortresses with 155mm 'Long Tom' cannon from 300 meters' range (which caused the German commander of the defense to complain that the Americans weren't playing fair!). Both the British and US armies had invested too much effort in creating extremely flexible indirect fire systems that could mass fire on any target within range in a few minutes, which was far, far more effective than sitting in the front line dodging enemy counterfire while trying to hit a target.

to this end. their antitank guns never has been dual purpose fire support field guns? and there's no antitank shells for indirect fire field artillery of the US Army anad British Army as well as NATO?
also did BS3 has indirect fire capabilities or even if Soviets or their sattelite states ever retrained their gun crews to do that? or next generation of artillerists became more educated?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A direct fire cannon is inherently bad at indirect fire.

First, because their carriages are designed for the guntube to fire in a relatively horizontal mode. To fire high angle to reach ndirect targets, the carriage has to handle a much wider range of recoil stresses, and that at least doubles the weight of the carraige and recoil mechanisms, an also tends to make the gun much higher - making it far more vulnerable to counterfire if it is in the front line firing directly. The famous German 88mm antiaircraft gun is a good example of this: since its mount was designed to allow it to fire vertically against airc raft, at high angles as an indirect fire weapon, and horizontally against enemy armor, the resulting mount was over 2.5 meters high and weighed more than the mount for a 105mm cannon. When used as an antitank gun against tanks that had good high explosive cannon, like the Soviet KVs and T-34s in 1941, while they knocked out a number of Soviet tanks, they also suffered appalling losses, reaching 50% in some units by October 1941.

Second, because direct fire weapons use cartridges combining the propellent and shell, they cannot vary the muzzle velocity the way howitzers with separate propellent charges can, and so it is extremely difficult to drop shells onto all targets at various ranges. That results in 'dead spots' that they cannot hit at all.

Third, the techniques for indirect fire - setting fuzes, calculating range and azimuth, pacing the crews to provide steady fire over long periods - are entirely different from those for direct fire, which emphasizes fast reaction when a target appears and 'bursts' of firing at high speed frequently followed by a quick escape to avoid return fire. That means crews need, essentially, twice the training time to become proficient at both. And if the same gun/cannon is to be used for both types of fire, it needs entirely different ammunition loads for each type of mission: indirect fire is almost always conducted with high explosive ammunition, direct fire with armor or concrete-piercing rounds, smoke shells, illumination shells, and less amounts of high explosive ammunition. That complicates the logistic burden, and the supplying artillery ammunition is already the greatest burden on any logistic apparatus - it amounted in WWII to 75% of all supplies delivered, by weight.

So, while U S, British and German artillery all supplied 'direct fire' antitank rounds (usually shaped charge types after 1941) to their regular artillery, in most cases they supplied only a tiny amount - 4 - 6 rounds per piece out of a basic load of 100 - 120 rounds total, because direct firing at tanks was considered to be only an emergency measure. When the Germans tried using their 105mm howitzer against Soviet armor in 1941 as emergency antitank guns, they lost on average one howitzer for every tank they knocked out, and in one case (7th Infantry Division, October 1941) an artillery battalion lost 7 howitzers destroyed by tank fire while knocking out only 2 tanks and damaging 3 others. Basically, that was 2 bat teries of artillery destroyed while knocking out a single platoon of tanks, a very bad ratio in any army at any time.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ And how did Antitank Field Guns are organized? did Western Allies and Germany follows the same model as Soviet Union to make a full regiment of Antitank Gun or what?