Oh I know. The M20B fires slower and has a longer barrel then the SAW.The Slow RoF was actually why it was more accurate.
High RoF means lots of recoil and difficult handling.
The long barrel also helped.
Oh I know. The M20B fires slower and has a longer barrel then the SAW.The Slow RoF was actually why it was more accurate.
High RoF means lots of recoil and difficult handling.
The long barrel also helped.
The PPSh and PPS share ammunition and mags - otherwise these are two quite different weapons.PPSh-41 was partly (at least the 71 rnd drum mag) copied from a earlier Finnish SMG
2.Mortars - no matter 81,60 or 120mm,they could be made before WW1.Why nobody did so?
Like you said, the mortar was primarily a siege weapon used to hit targets over a high wall or some other sort of obstruction that could block the LoF of a regular cannon, but aiming was haphazard and it was just mostly random lobbing TBH.Outside of use by the navy, I think mortars might have been used on land by forces trying to hide their position, as they fired in an arc and did not require direct line of sight (ie the mortar team could hide behind some hills and shoot at an enemy fort), but I'm not too sure about that.
Like you said, the mortar was primarily a siege weapon used to hit targets over a high wall or some other sort of obstruction that could block the LoF of a regular cannon, but aiming was haphazard and it was just mostly random lobbing TBH.
They did. Coehorn Mortars were used as field artillery in the early 1700s past the US civil war, f'rex. It's just that, again, highly difficult to aim compared with shooting straight with a cannon so mortars were more niche than cannons were.Indeed - but with new technology,you could made medium mortars as fieldartillery before WW1.I am interested,why nobody tried that approach.
Pre-WWI the main job of field artillery was to shoot shrapnel at the enemy - and canon were better at this than howitzers or mortars.Indeed - but with new technology,you could made medium mortars as fieldartillery before WW1.I am interested,why nobody tried that approach.
Most likely, as Japanese artillery was designed for horse/human towing.Is the quoted combat weight for the horse traction version?
The very article explains it:Speaking of howitzers - I had a look at the WWII Japanese howitzer:
Looks neat - so, what did the Japanese sacrifice to make so light? I eyeball it at some 300-450kg less than other 100/105mm weapons (and in spite of L24 barrel!).Type 91 10 cm howitzer - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Did it very long recoil as to lessen the stress on the carriage - thus allowing for lightness - at the cost of slightly lower peak practical ROF (rarely used if ever)?
Is the quoted combat weight for the horse traction version? How much weight did truck towing adaptation weight?
Early models of the Type 91 had wooden spoked wheels, but later versions had steel wheels with pneumatic tires for towing behind a motorized transport at the cost of an extra 250 kilograms (550 lb).
Since 17th century and introduction of wheellocks, lance cavalry was on the decline, especially in technological pioneer countries, pistols increasingly competing for being a better shock attack weapon for cavalry (more reuseable, more maneuverable, and a cavalryman may well carry few), in addition to pike and shot tactics being a problem for lances and much less so for pistols.Winged hussarls ceased to exist as fighting force in Poland becouse they practically stopped training and become parade unit.
But idea was still good,and Napoleon proved it with his coussiers.
So, i have question - why nobody other then Poland do not copy winged hussarls and used them as fighting unit before Napoleon ?
And torpedoes.Lots of missles.
LOTS
Here's my question.
How would a modern naval battle play out? Say, a carrier group against a carrier group of equal strength? Submarine, escorts, auxiliary supply ships, etc.
I have a distinct feeling it would be more like the battle of Midway than Trafalgar somehow.
For all practical purposes, same guesses apply as to mediocre anti ship missiles, except ignore jamming/decoys. After all, some early anti ship missiles were pretty much that. This is clearly visible in some early models.I have better question - how many kamikaze in Mig19 you need to sink american carrier ? if all they do not fear and attack no matter how much of them die.