I highly doubt it's true as it would involve French soldiers not immediately drinking looted wine.
General History Questions thread
- Thread starter Almalexia
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
They look good;
They make the soldiers look taller, which may cause the enemy to aim too high;
They blunt the impact of sabre strikes to the head;
And they look good.
They make the soldiers look taller, which may cause the enemy to aim too high;
They blunt the impact of sabre strikes to the head;
And they look good.
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
It was also the final evolution of what started as a normal, broad brimmed hat.
The brim was pinned up on one side, a la mosquetaire, on two sides, bi corn, on three sides, tri corn, or reduced in circumference, top hat style shako...
Then done away with altogether in the stovepipe and bell topped shakos.
The brim was pinned up on one side, a la mosquetaire, on two sides, bi corn, on three sides, tri corn, or reduced in circumference, top hat style shako...
Then done away with altogether in the stovepipe and bell topped shakos.
Were WW2 tanks shooting their MGs at each other? I am curious, because I have been reading pre-war Czechoslovak army manuals and there is stated that entrenched infantry defending against armored attack should fire all their weapons (rifles and MGs) at the armor when no soft target can be engaged. Possibly just to annoy the crews and disorient them a little.
I imagine it would have forced the crew to "button up", i.e. close all the hatches. In turn, the crew is now only capable of limited vision, which could be harmed further by rounds being fired in the direction of the viewing ports. Any smoke/dust would cause disorientation.
As said above. Aditionally, one could assume massive (tracer) fire upon the tank's location made it stand out more and an easier targets for those who had AT weaponry at hand. It would also force hostile infantry mounted on the tanks or accompagnying the tanks to remain behind the vehicle, incapable of returning effective fire on any present AT crews.
Also some tanks of the pre-war period were quite light in armor, so pelting the tank with many rounds might actually have a real effect. In WW1 it was known that even small arms could cause metal splinters to fly around on the inside of the tank from impacts on the outside (which was the reason why British tankers wore those odd maille visored helmets). It is possible that even in 1938 this was still a valid tactic on some of the lighter tanks (like the Panzer I and maybe Panzer II).
Skot the Sanguine said:
While I would disagree entirely with your statement about small arms fire being effective against advancing tanks (miracle hits aside, most early and even pre-war tanks had up to 30mm frontal armour, way beyond effective damage), it could effectively hide the AT-rifles that were thought to have a good chance at disabling one from being identified too easily.
AP bullets were a thing pre-WW2 and commonly assigned to MGs. Their penetration wasn't much better than FMJ or HP but it did mean that there was a tiny chance to penetrate the armour. Aside from that, forcing the commander to close the hatch is always useful as it restricts visibility.
I don't know about other armies, but CZE infantry was not regularly issued AP ammunition to rifles and light machine guns (separate HMG companies (12MGs) armed with TK vz.24 (water-cooled Schwarzlose MG) had them, though), although the ammunition was in stores and LMGs in fortifications had them.
As for rifle round penetration, I have read somewhere how some Tommies were shooting at Italian wrecks with BREN and made some 9mm penetration on 100m range. Vz.24 rifle could penetrate 8mm of armor. When TK vz.33 was constructed, its requirements were to resist rifle fire at ranges greater than 150m and it ended up having 8-12mm armor thickenss, but had problems on trials, because some bullets went through. I think penetrating anything thicker than 15mm of armor at any range with rifle AP round is highly improbable.
As for rifle round penetration, I have read somewhere how some Tommies were shooting at Italian wrecks with BREN and made some 9mm penetration on 100m range. Vz.24 rifle could penetrate 8mm of armor. When TK vz.33 was constructed, its requirements were to resist rifle fire at ranges greater than 150m and it ended up having 8-12mm armor thickenss, but had problems on trials, because some bullets went through. I think penetrating anything thicker than 15mm of armor at any range with rifle AP round is highly improbable.
You don't need any money to produce tanks in a war. When some tanks are referred to as "expensive" it usually means manhours needed to manufacture it; sometimes it can also mean resources needed. Almost never money. Also because money are horribly unrepresentative, as you have no idea how much they are worth. Lasty, for example, when certain destroyers were manufactured in Britain and in USA, their cost in money could differ as much as three times, even though it was the same type of destroyer.
djogloc02 said:
I've often wondered this too. I mean, I can grasp it somewhat given the size of nations and what not but it still befuddles me.
With the massive bombing campaigns of the RAF and USAAF from 1943 onwards, how did Germany manage to continue putting tanks, weapons and aircraft into their respective theaters? How did they afford to do it?
Bombing was highly inaccurate in general and not happening daily/nightly either. Repairs were also carried out very quickly, which enabled factories to resume work sometimes hours after being bombed - though generally the delays were measured in days. Small arms could be manufactured practically anywhere, so their production wasn't much impacted. New assembly lines were also created and existing ones were dispersed to minimize bombing damage.
I read that Hitler assigned that civilian guy to manufacturing and production went up in the final years of the war. Albert Schpeer... Speer... He enlisted women into production which the Germans avoided during most of the war. I think carpet bombing is too inaccurate, you can blast civilians away but they can always hide in bomb shelters.
Heard that the Scandinavian iron mines were a big contributor to their production. Then again, Iron is available pretty much anywhere.
Heard that the Scandinavian iron mines were a big contributor to their production. Then again, Iron is available pretty much anywhere.
Have the eastern Slavs ever at any point served in the Varangian Guard in any considerable number, or was it just Scandinavians and later Anglo-Saxons?
Of course they have. The Varangian Guard itself was originally formed of 6000 soldiers sent as an aid to Basil II from the knyaz of Kievan Rus in the late 10th c. Considering there has never been a massive Scandinavian colonization of the Russian lands (which is expectable), the greater part of the first Varangians would've been of local Slavic origin.
