Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Just Tony wrote:
Actually, we do that with M4 mags to this day. The spring system will have the tips of the rounds against the inside front of the magazine, so when someone loads a mag, they hit it against their helmet. One of the many reasons I feel we need to switch to the FN FAL

Isn't the FAL a battle-rifle and not an assault rifle though (rifle cartage not intermediate cartage)?

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm not concerned by this. "Hitler had the right idea, let's start mass executions" is not speech that needs to be protected.

That's a dangerous enough argument by itself, but it's also missing the point. This isn't about free speech, and what government sanctions might be put on this guy. This is about whether it is okay for private citizens to enable other private citizens to threaten a guy who's politics they don't like.

That's not really a fair comparison, because nobody here is advocating the idea of threats against political rivals over normal political disagreements. There's a huge difference between getting death threats over a difference of opinion on tax policy and getting death threats because you're a Nazi/KKK member/etc. I do not want a society where people who advocate genocide and would work to turn their beliefs into reality if given the chance feel safe in holding those beliefs.

The presence of some random gak on the fringes of political discourse is extremely normal.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Actually, we do that with M4 mags to this day. The spring system will have the tips of the rounds against the inside front of the magazine, so when someone loads a mag, they hit it against their helmet. One of the many reasons I feel we need to switch to the FN FAL

Isn't the FAL a battle-rifle and not an assault rifle though (rifle cartage not intermediate cartage)?

Fires the same round as the SCAR and the AR-10.

Enough please, with the discussion of "is it ok to kill X". Thanks

edit: also let's stop saying the FAL should be the infantry rifle. a) it's off topic and b) feth that thing is heavy

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Germany may have been slowly on the road to recovery without Hitler, but they were far from it. The German Mark was still horribly inflated, the Great Depression was still in full swing after the run on U.S. banks (that had loans with the post-World War One German government) in 1933, unemployment was still high, there was still political/labor unrest due to a weak Weimar Republic, the military was still forced to maintain a weakened state of readiness, and Germany was still under crippling war reparation payments.

Hitler putting the country on a war footing and revitalizing industries needed for his future war plans accelerated the economic recovery of Germany. Of course, the war ended up smashing it all down by 1945.

They were still part of a depression era world, sure. No-one was having a great time of it. But the era of hyperinflation was gone (in fact the most recent monetary crisis was deflation), and employment was recovering.

Then Hitler won power, and he cranked up the printing presses and flooded the economy with reichmarks, fought inflation by enforcing wage and price controls, and started manipulating currency conversion rates. This was a recipe made to fund rapid military expansion at the expense of financial stability beyond a three or four year window. By the time they hit that window, Germany kept things going basically by robbing internal political enemies and later the countries they had occupied. This is not a case of "Hitler did some good things for the economy". This is a case of Hitler turning a slow recovery in to a time bomb for collapse.

 motyak wrote:
Enough please, with the discussion of "is it ok to kill X". Thanks

edit: also let's stop saying the FAL should be the infantry rifle. a) it's off topic and b) feth that thing is heavy

Well you have to admit, it's the calmest discussion of guns in the politics thread ever.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, we were in a cold war with them for the next 30 years or whatever, so that might have something to do with it.

Yeah, I read an interesting argument a while back that after the war, when the Soviets became the new enemy, the allies took the fighting experience of the German commanders very seriously. Of course, those commanders had their own point of view, and an their own motivations for protecting their own reputations. This led to a lot of myths such as the impossible vastness of the Soviet army, or blaming so many things on Hitler.

It doesn't really explain stuff like believing Hitler transformed the economy, though.

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
When we allow an environment where free speech brings with it risk of personal threat, then we don't really have free speech.

I'm not concerned by this. "Hitler had the right idea, let's start mass executions" is not speech that needs to be protected.

I saw an interesting argument comparing it to Nazi Germany, asking if people who claim they would have worked to stop Hitler can also argue that this Nazi can't be resisted. But to turn that argument around - if we create a political dialogue where stepping out and saying something political can lead to the release of home addresses and threats against a person and their family, how many of you would still be willing to speak openly?

That's not really a fair comparison, because nobody here is advocating the idea of threats against political rivals over normal political disagreements. There's a huge difference between getting death threats over a difference of opinion on tax policy and getting death threats because you're a Nazi/KKK member/etc. I do not want a society where people who advocate genocide and would work to turn their beliefs into reality if given the chance feel safe in holding those beliefs.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the fact that the courts have upheld that political speech and unpopular or undesirable speech is still protected speech. The fact that you want to silence that speech is why it's protected. You don't get to silence the sole he of others and they don't get to silence yours. Keeping speech free means that bad speech is never unopposed that's why people with bad ideas always try to stifle any opposition speech whenever they try to gain power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The wrongness of an idea is subjective once you set the standard that murder is ok for people with "wrong" ideas then any idea can be "wrong" and anyone can be murdered.

The wrongness of genocide is about as far from subjective as you can get. That is why it is regarded as a crime against humanity, not humans, but the whole of humanity.

Then in a free society with the open exchange of ideas it shouldn't be a problem to point out to people that genocide is awful and nobody should support it.

 motyak wrote:
Enough please, with the discussion of "is it ok to kill X". Thanks

edit: also let's stop saying the FAL should be the infantry rifle. a) it's off topic and b) feth that thing is heavy

Last words before I drop it: it's superior to the AR-15 platform in every conceivable way, and you should be able to fire the 240B from the shoulder at a dead run, I know I could with the M60 AND the 240B back when I was leg. So the FAL is nothing to me weight wise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Actually, we do that with M4 mags to this day. The spring system will have the tips of the rounds against the inside front of the magazine, so when someone loads a mag, they hit it against their helmet. One of the many reasons I feel we need to switch to the FN FAL

Isn't the FAL a battle-rifle and not an assault rifle though (rifle cartage not intermediate cartage)?

Fires the same round as the SCAR and the AR-10.

AND it has a carbine configuration for urban environments.


Damn it, was supposed to drop it...


Oh well. Back to politics...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donald-trump-lost-most-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/

Slight change of pace back to the election, this link makes an interesting finding - while Clinton lost the election and a minority of counties across the country, she won almost 64% of the total economic activity of the country. This isn't a result of Clinton just winning the popular vote, as Gore also won the popular vote but he captured just 54% of economic activity. The article also notes that this isn't a case of counties that have grown recently staying with Clinton, while areas in decline have shifted to Trump, the imbalance in counties about the same as it was in 2000. Rather, this is a product of areas that were strong moving to Clinton, while areas that were weak moving towards Trump.

This is probably linked to the Nate Silver's finding on 538 that education level was the primary predictor of which way a county voted in comparison to earlier elections.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

There's a lot of weird pro-nazi revisionism that has become ingrained in our psyke, like the whole tiger-worship. Now the early German light tanks were actually pretty good, but stuff like the Porche Tiger were expensive, over-engineered, breakdown-prone, overheating nightmares. And the quality of German steel at the time was so bad, that the armour didn't have anywhere near the defensive capabilities of the equivalent amour of American or Russian steel, and when punctured could catastrophically shatter. And it didn't even use sloped armour, something that both the T-34 and M4 used. But you also hear about "Oh the Sherman was so bad", when it was a great tank. It's anti-tank round easily punctured the tiger's armour. And you only every hear about some sort of soviet human wave, when they had the best tank in the world, the t-34. It was so good, the Germans straight up said that they had nothing of a similar size to match it.

....... OK......

One, the Russian tests done on the Tiger (and any tank not theirs) were horribly flawed in methodology. But, frankly, their purpose was not to actually test German tanks properties, but to create pro Soviet propaganda. To 'test' the quality of German armor, according to the testing docs I've seen, they'd put an tank gun at about 15 inches from the German tank and fire at the same spot for several tests in a row. If you are in the least familiar with the tanks in question, the Tiger could pen a T-34 at a little over 1.5km, the 76mm zis on the T34-76 had to get within 500m to penetrate the Tiger's lighter armored surfaces. The T-34-85 could penetrate the front at the same distances, but was vulnerable to the tiger at over a km.

Also, the 75mm the M4 carried could not pen a Tiger at anything like actual combat distances (100 yards to pen the side, unable to pen the front even at point blank), and even the Easy-8 struggled on occasion, despite superior performance in all ways compared to the M4. The only Sherman that 'easily' punctured a Tiger was the Sherman Firefly with the 17 pounder gun on it, though the 105mm carrying 'Jumbo' could also get the job done. The reason that Shermans were considered bad was that they had an alarming tendency to catch fire, hence the German's nickname for them, 'Ronsons' for the lighter's advertising campaign (it lights the first time every time). German tanks used diesel and were less likely to burn. They also carried lighter armor, meaning that the germans could kill several as they attempted to close with the Tiger to get inside penetrating ranges.

Shermans were superior to German tanks in two ways. One, they could be very easily repaired in the field. Four bolts and you can swap out a whole transmission. Secondly, the Sherman used a herringbone patterned final drive, as opposed to the plain gear used in German final drives, with it's straight teeth. This meant that the transmission on a Sherman was able take a heavier beating to it's transmission without being immobilized.

Two, the Germans could see the Porche Tiger was a dud, that's why they went with the Henschel. The Tiger's real weaknesses where poor transmission design and a somewhat under-powered engine prone to failure. As far as angled armor, the germans approach was to angle the Tank when firing. This produced largely the same effect, as the Tiger had fairly substantial side armor.


But this is wildly OT.

 sebster wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donald-trump-lost-most-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/

Slight change of pace back to the election, this link makes an interesting finding - while Clinton lost the election and a minority of counties across the country, she won almost 64% of the total economic activity of the country. This isn't a result of Clinton just winning the popular vote, as Gore also won the popular vote but he captured just 54% of economic activity. The article also notes that this isn't a case of counties that have grown recently staying with Clinton, while areas in decline have shifted to Trump, the imbalance in counties about the same as it was in 2000. Rather, this is a product of areas that were strong moving to Clinton, while areas that were weak moving towards Trump.

This is probably linked to the Nate Silver's finding on 538 that education level was the primary predictor of which way a county voted in comparison to earlier elections.

Its almost as if people who are doing okay think things are going well or something

What are your folks thoughts on slashing NASA's climate research program?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/23/trump-adviser-proposes-dismantling-nasa-climate-research/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpbriefing-650pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Personally, I'm okay with it, as long as the funding is actually reacolled elsewhere, without governmental oversight. Then again, the NASA label on science does tend to lend an air of credibility. Then again, anybody who dismisses climate change at this point doesn't read NASA briefings/papers anyways. I'm so confused.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
What are your folks thoughts on slashing NASA's climate research program?

Stupid, stupid idea.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

There's a lot of weird pro-nazi revisionism that has become ingrained in our psyke, like the whole tiger-worship. Now the early German light tanks were actually pretty good, but stuff like the Porche Tiger were expensive, over-engineered, breakdown-prone, overheating nightmares. And the quality of German steel at the time was so bad, that the armour didn't have anywhere near the defensive capabilities of the equivalent amour of American or Russian steel, and when punctured could catastrophically shatter. And it didn't even use sloped armour, something that both the T-34 and M4 used. But you also hear about "Oh the Sherman was so bad", when it was a great tank. It's anti-tank round easily punctured the tiger's armour. And you only every hear about some sort of soviet human wave, when they had the best tank in the world, the t-34. It was so good, the Germans straight up said that they had nothing of a similar size to match it.

....... OK......

One, the Russian tests done on the Tiger (and any tank not theirs) were horribly flawed in methodology. But, frankly, their purpose was not to actually test German tanks properties, but to create pro Soviet propaganda. To 'test' the quality of German armor, according to the testing docs I've seen, they'd put an tank gun at about 15 inches from the German tank and fire at the same spot for several tests in a row. If you are in the least familiar with the tanks in question, the Tiger could pen a T-34 at a little over 1.5km, the 76mm zis on the T34-76 had to get within 500m to penetrate the Tiger's lighter armored surfaces. The T-34-85 could penetrate the front at the same distances, but was vulnerable to the tiger at over a km.

Also, the 75mm the M4 carried could not pen a Tiger at anything like actual combat distances (100 yards to pen the side, unable to pen the front even at point blank), and even the Easy-8 struggled on occasion, despite superior performance in all ways compared to the M4. The only Sherman that 'easily' punctured a Tiger was the Sherman Firefly with the 17 pounder gun on it, though the 105mm carrying 'Jumbo' could also get the job done. The reason that Shermans were considered bad was that they had an alarming tendency to catch fire, hence the German's nickname for them, 'Ronsons' for the lighter's advertising campaign (it lights the first time every time). German tanks used diesel and were less likely to burn. They also carried lighter armor, meaning that the germans could kill several as they attempted to close with the Tiger to get inside penetrating ranges.

Shermans were superior to German tanks in two ways. One, they could be very easily repaired in the field. Four bolts and you can swap out a whole transmission. Secondly, the Sherman used a herringbone patterned final drive, as opposed to the plain gear used in German final drives, with it's straight teeth. This meant that the transmission on a Sherman was able take a heavier beating to it's transmission without being immobilized.

Two, the Germans could see the Porche Tiger was a dud, that's why they went with the Henschel. The Tiger's real weaknesses where poor transmission design and a somewhat under-powered engine prone to failure. As far as angled armor, the germans approach was to angle the Tank when firing. This produced largely the same effect, as the Tiger had fairly substantial side armor.


But this is wildly OT.

No. Just no.

The whole "ronsons" thing is BS. Early models had their ammunition stored so that frontal hits set them off, which was corrected quickly. Desial vs gas was not an issue. They caught fire less than German tanks.
They were not lightly armoured, they used 80mm sloped armor. The Tiger, a heavy tank mind you, had 100mm, and little no sloping. It was higher than German medium tanks, such as the Panzerkampfwagen 4.

As far as the 75mm not being able to tanke out tigers and panthers, this report should shed some light on the reality.
https://i.imgur.com/EVKUetf.jpg

They did, admittedly, have some trouble with them initially using HE rounds, but when they actually used the APCBC munitions, it fixed that. They were in no way invulnerable. And the 36mm Shermans worked fine.

And this is all considering that the tiger was a heavy tank whereas the Sherman was a medium tank. The M26 would be a far more accurate comparison (although still technically a medium tank, it was ~40 tons with a 90mm cannon, and similar actual armour).

Also, what sort of nosecone are you reading that is saying that tigers reliably penetrated T-34s at 1500 meters? Unless you are getting confused with Jagdtigers (which were massive wastes of resources, but that's another issue entirely).







And this is exactly what I was talking about. The Tiger was not some sort of super-tank. It was a heavy tank, marred by lots of design issues, with a very good gun. But it is remembered as some sort of unstoppable killing machine. I personally think it's a combination of "look how powerful the enemy we just defeated was!" blown out of proportion, anti-soviet propaganda, and a mix of wehraboos and pro-nazi guys.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The whole "ronsons" thing is BS. Early models had their ammunition stored so that frontal hits set them off, which was corrected quickly. Desial vs gas was not an issue. They caught fire less than German tanks.

The later may well be true, but the Ordnance Department has been condemned since the war for not only knowing how easily Sherman's caught fire, but for covering it up in 1944 and 1945, downplaying the problem, and not fixing it. The problem by the way was not limited to just the ammunition stores. The engine itself was also a problem.

20mm of armor is not a small difference in ballistics (even though looking at thickness generally ignores the quality of the materials used which is probably more important)

As far as the 75mm not being able to tanke out tigers and panthers, this report should shed some light on the reality.
https://i.imgur.com/EVKUetf.jpg

The problems with these tests have been so well known for so long I wonder how anyone can not be aware of them if this is a subject of interest.

EDIT: This is very poorly explained. What I'm getting at here is that the general debate about Tank X vs Tank Y is a sort of pointless thing done by people who both overvalue and undervalue technical specs. The Tiger was an effective fighting vehicle. So was the T-34. So was the Sherman. The battlefield conditions effected them far more than their technical specs, and these produce widely disparate results in their battlefield performance. Sherry picking specific instances, field tests, or research attempts by war planners, soldiers, and commanders reflects this. You get stories of Sherman's pouring shells into Tigers and not hitting a thing, and you get stories about M10's that killed a Panther at 3 miles with a 76mm gun (in Italy 1944).

The reality is that you can both find instances where you're right and the other is wrong, because war is messy and it doesn't really care about simple math about what gun can penetrate what armor. Temperature, distance, trajectory, and a dozen other things can work out to influence these things.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The whole "ronsons" thing is BS. Early models had their ammunition stored so that frontal hits set them off, which was corrected quickly. Desial vs gas was not an issue. They caught fire less than German tanks.

The later may well be true, but the Ordnance Department has been condemned since the war for not only knowing how easily Sherman's caught fire, but for covering it up in 1944 and 1945, downplaying the problem, and not fixing it. The problem by the way was not limited to just the ammunition stores. The engine itself was also a problem.

Certainly they did catch on fire, but it wasn't this "One hit and they are down" nonsense.

20mm of armor is not a small difference in ballistics (even though looking at thickness generally ignores the quality of the materials used which is probably more important)

Which is why I didn't say "the Sherman had better armour than the Tiger 1". I noted that it was very well protected (often noted as one of the best protected medium tanks in WWII), and was a medium tanks, versus a heavy tank. Along with German steel being utter crap at the time, it meant that the Sherman was very well protected.

As far as the 75mm not being able to tanke out tigers and panthers, this report should shed some light on the reality.
https://i.imgur.com/EVKUetf.jpg

The problems with these tests have been so well known for so long I wonder how anyone can not be aware of them if this is a subject of interest.

This isn't a test, it's an actual after action report. This is a recording of what happened one he battlefield. The Soviet test I will grant were odd, but UK and US testing, as well as battlefield reports, show that the tiger's armour was susceptible to the 75mm AP munitions. They were actually reported to be superior in penetration power to a lot of the big Soviet AT weaponry.

Yeah I poorly explained what I meant. I just edited.

When I said let's not talk about the FAL compared to other firearms, I didn't mean "find something bigger like tanks and talk about that instead"

US Politics thread, please

'K

*cut*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
When I said let's not talk about the FAL compared to other firearms, I didn't mean "find something bigger like tanks and talk about that instead"

US Politics thread, please

Okay I'll stop now XD

Thanks folk. Now, how about that [incident that is currently in the news]. I wonder how that will shake up [the relevant political party]. Crazy stuff, right?

Take it from there

If the USA wants to be a learning nation in world science it shouldn't be dumping serious research work like climate change.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If the USA wants to be a learning nation in world science it shouldn't be dumping serious research work like climate change.

Well considering Trump basically ran on anti-intellectualism, that same sort of "we're tired of experts" from the Brexit stuff, there should really be no surprise of the direction it's going. He's the guy who thinks that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy after all. Be prepared for massive cuts to scientific research in all fields that don't have a large industry behind them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well considering Trump basically ran on anti-intellectualism, that same sort of "we're tired of experts" from the Brexit stuff, there should really be no surprise of the direction it's going. He's the guy who thinks that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy after all. Be prepared for massive cuts to scientific research in all fields that don't have a large industry behind them.

Which will of course do amazing things to help build jobs in a high-tech world where being at the front of science and engineering is vital for success.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well considering Trump basically ran on anti-intellectualism, that same sort of "we're tired of experts" from the Brexit stuff, there should really be no surprise of the direction it's going. He's the guy who thinks that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy after all. Be prepared for massive cuts to scientific research in all fields that don't have a large industry behind them.

Which will of course do amazing things to help build jobs in a high-tech world where being at the front of science and engineering is vital for success.

yeah but those jobs will just go to the Chinese... No wait that doesn't make any sense.

Which party is the one that doesn't kill the economy again?

edit: seems mods said no more of this.

Whoops, saw the mod comment on guns, didn't see the amendment on tanks as well


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well considering Trump basically ran on anti-intellectualism, that same sort of "we're tired of experts" from the Brexit stuff, there should really be no surprise of the direction it's going. He's the guy who thinks that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy after all. Be prepared for massive cuts to scientific research in all fields that don't have a large industry behind them.

Because the Trump debacle never stops giving, he did just come out and say that he thinks there is some substance to climate change. I mean, don't take it that he's about to become some kind hippy, or you know, a person concerned about the environmental future of the planet, in fact he'll probably change his mind again within a week or so, and go back to blaming it on the Chinese. But right now at least he's modified his statement a little.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Its almost as if people who are doing okay think things are going well or something

Pretty much, yeah.

The real mindfuck comes from considering that the average Trump voter was richer than the average Clinton voter.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
[Well, I mean they have already mentioned stuff like a Muslim registry, so it's not too far off.

Well.... to be quite honest the Obama administration did suggest a fingerprint identification system for refugees, which by it's nature would be a Muslim registry. I wonder why no one raised an eye at that?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
[Well, I mean they have already mentioned stuff like a Muslim registry, so it's not too far off.

Well.... to be quite honest the Obama administration did suggest a fingerprint identification system for refugees, which by it's nature would be a Muslim registry. I wonder why no one raised an eye at that?

I'm too tired to talk about this at any length (2:30 at night here), but they are really nothing alike. It's like saying that fingerprinting prison inmates is a registry of black people because the plurality of our prison population is black.