General military questions thread

ThatZenoGuy said:
All that means is they did the right choice and went for the easier alternatives. If you can ride something without it immediately trying to kill you, you can domesticate it. It's just a matter of time, blood, and sweat.
Click to expand...

They arent worth domesticating. They may look like horses, but they arent horses. They are alot more aggressive, far more skittish and their social structure makes them much harder to control than even the wildest of horses. Horses have a social hierarchy. Zebras dont. You can control the herd by controlling the alpha male. Doesnt work with Zebras.

The boers tried over and over again to domesticate them and gave up.
 
AnimalNoodles said:
They arent worth domesticating. They may look like horses, but they arent horses. They are alot more aggressive, far more skittish and their social structure makes them much harder to control than even the wildest of horses. Horses have a social hierarchy. Zebras dont. You can control the herd by controlling the alpha male. Doesnt work with Zebras.

The boers tried over and over again to domesticate them and gave up.
Click to expand...
Zebras are essentially areshole Donkeys on steroids.
 
It's worth noting there's a very clear and strict divide between tame and domesticated. Laypersons may not always recognize it but it's important to the agricultural industry.

Almost anything with a chordate or similar central nervous system can be tamed. Taming just means it's used to humans and doesn't run away from them, and maybe even does some tricks or allows itself to be ridden in exchange for food.

Domestication means that all its panicky reactions and dangerous habits have been removed, and it will readily breed under controlled conditions. This makes the animal safe to employ in large numbers around people without worry of it going berserk or needing constant attention and makes it possible to actually get large numbers in the first place. While there are thousands of animals that have been tamed, there are only about two dozen animals that have ever been domesticated in all of human history. That includes some stretchers like honeybees that are less safe and more "We've learned how not to be brutally murdered by them as long as there's no African genes in the mix," and goldfish that didn't really have any human-dangerous behaviors to begin with. Despite working carefully on it for a couple hundred years we've not yet domesticated the American Bison, though there are many tamed bison.

Pigs are an extremely marginal case, to make pigs safe we cut all the "wolf teeth" out of them shortly after birth, and even then they routinely kill and eat farmers if the farmer isn't on his toes. If they escape they gleefully become feral hogs which is why there are several million feral hogs destroying the entire south of the US. Note that this is after thousands upon thousands of years of breeding pigs to make them easier to tame, we've still only managed to make them kinda safe as long as we perform surgery on them at birth to remove the pointy bits. That's how hard domestication is.
 
A question - exactly how important is a rotating turet to a SPG?
How much less effective would all those self propelled howitzers like Krab, K9, M109, PzH2000, AS90, S19 etc. be if they had an enclosed fighting compartment but fixed, like e.g. the Hummel?
Would the weight and complexity savings (money!) be worth the limitation to e.g. 30 degree traverse?
How often do SPGs fire "off axis" anyway?
 
Buba said:
A question - exactly how important is a rotating turet to a SPG?
How much less effective would all those self propelled howitzers like Krab, K9, M109, PzH2000, AS90, S19 etc. be if they had an enclosed fighting compartment but fixed, like e.g. the Hummel?
Would the weight and complexity savings (money!) be worth the limitation to e.g. 30 degree traverse?
How often do SPGs fire "off axis" anyway?
Click to expand...

I know next to nothing about the specifics of those, but let's apply some general wisdom:
The more complicated you make something, the more there is that can go wrong.
 
Scottty said:
I know next to nothing about the specifics of those, but let's apply some general wisdom:
The more complicated you make something, the more there is that can go wrong.
Click to expand...
Yet the fact is that all (?) SPGs do have revolving turrets - so there should be something going for them and outweighing the (relative) complexity (it ain't rocket science and a proven tech since 1917) and cost.
 
Buba said:
Yet the fact is that all (?) SPGs do have revolving turrets - so there should be something going for them and outweighing the (relative) complexity (it ain't rocket science and a proven tech since 1917) and cost.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a need for something that simplified since WW2, That said you'd be better off just building truck mounted artillery if the cost and time factor was that much of a concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Because of something called being able to fire off axis and easily relocate.
You can put a turretted SPG in an area where there is only one way in and one way out, and not have to spend a long time rotating after firing.

Also, Russia, North Korea and I think China still use non turrets SPGs for thier very large SPGs.
Ot also allows for more rounds to be carried, ease of traverse if targets are quickly changed as well.

Because in a LSCO fight targets arnt going to always be pre-planned. Plenty of new targets pop up
 
I just have one question regarding rifles in general. Did the Lee-Metford bolt action rifle gave out smoke whenever it was fired? I'm trying to look up on the Second Boer War and learned that the Mauser rifles that the Boer commandos gave out no smoke.
 
TheRomanSlayer said:
I just have one question regarding rifles in general. Did the Lee-Metford bolt action rifle gave out smoke whenever it was fired? I'm trying to look up on the Second Boer War and learned that the Mauser rifles that the Boer commandos gave out no smoke.
Click to expand...
Yes, it used black powder for propellant, and that means smoke.
en.wikipedia.org

Lee–Metford - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
In spite of its many advantageous features, the Lee–Metford was something of an anachronism, due to its use of a black powder–loaded cartridge.
Click to expand...
 
TheRomanSlayer said:
I am not sure if it was true that the Boers had the initial advantage because the Mauser didn't release any smoke, and that a British soldier that used the Lee-Metford rifle was easily spotted because of the smoke.
Click to expand...
Well, judge for yourself, that's quite a puff of smoke.
 
I got to say I love metal gear solid
Hey @Zachowon you are in the army can I ask you army stuff?
Like is it possible for a hind to shoot down an f16? I know it’s practically impossible but is it theoretically possible like if the helicopter got the drop on the net could hits weapons hit it?
 
King Arts said:
I got to say I love metal gear solid
Hey @Zachowon you are in the army can I ask you army stuff?
Like is it possible for a hind to shoot down an f16? I know it’s practically impossible but is it theoretically possible like if the helicopter got the drop on the net could hits weapons hit it?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Mil Mi-24 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Anti-Air missiles
  • R-60 Infrared missiles
  • R-60M Infrared missiles
Both can be carried as either one or two per pylon
Click to expand...
If it carries those (same as used by Russian fighters) and gets a good ambush, possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top