- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Vader’s Model Desk: Semovente L40 da 47/32
Posted on 5/9/25 at 4:21 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 5/9/25 at 4:21 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Make sure you thoroughly clean your gun anytime you use it. What I do is after I’m done painting, I immediately flush it with warm water, this is good since I use acrylic paints. I then use this stuff…
I use a airbrush everyday, all day long. I clean mine with a mixture that I mix up then run alcohol through it to clean the tip of any debris or liquid. I do fairly heavy sprays compared to what you are doing. I am mass painting, not doing small projects so I use syphon feed bottles. I bet you use a gravity feed.
But your advice is correct. Keeping your gun clean is vital.
0
Posted on 5/9/25 at 4:29 pm to TigerHornII
quote:
Not entirely sure what you meant there in the first sentence. Had either Moscow or the Caucuses oil fields fallen, no practical amount of Lend-Lease would have saved Stalin. The Caucuses would have meant the end of offensive operations by the Red Army. As it was, we supplied 100% of their avgas. We could not have supplied them with enough diesel to keep the tanks running.
WRT to Moscow, that would have shattered already-fragile Red Army morale, and possibly would have caused a coup. Things were so bad in the Red Army that the NKVD executed more Soviet troops for various real and imagined acts than the US had in total casualties for the war.
Sorry "near" not "neither". I'm saying the Soviets f'd up big time and still managed to save Moscow; I don't think that's anything to be disputed. Sure, Germany may have been able to capture Moscow had they not divided their attention, but, they did, and my original statement about logistics and technology being leveraged faster and in greater numbers by the Allies in regard to what really happened and not what if. Germany had the advantage in tactics and technology early in the war, but, once they were stopped in the Battle of Britain, North Africa, and Barbarossa, the Allies we able to match them in tactics and technology and vastly overmatch them in quantity.
Yes, you mentioned they had mostly obsolete tanks but then stated the thing about German combined arms tactics and the soviets losing battle after despite having far superior tanks.
quote:
You can't leave out combined arms tactics and C2 from this. The Soviets lost battle after battle, to the tune of nearly 25,000 tanks destroyed and 3M+ POWs, with far superior tanks and greater numbers in every respect in 1941-42.
You know they didn't have the numbers of far superior tanks to make much difference, but this statement makes it seem like they should have been pivotal to those early outcomes. Just sounded off.
quote:
WW2 made it glaringly obvious that the side who could leverage technological advancements in mass quantities with the logistics to get it where it needed to be was going to win.
This statement is what you originally responded to. There was a rapid advancement in technology during that time period and the Axis lost because they couldn't get enough of it into the field compared to the Allies.
This post was edited on 5/9/25 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 5/9/25 at 6:15 pm to DakIsNoLB
and the Axis lost because they couldn't get enough of it into the field compared to the Allies.
—And the Axis…well the Germans…tended to over-engineer their superior armor, making maintenance a big problem.
—And the Axis…well the Germans…tended to over-engineer their superior armor, making maintenance a big problem.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 6:24 pm to TigerHornII
Soviet command track radios were 3 Watt. If they worked at all.
—In Soviet army, radios had two channels. Channel 1 was official propaganda. Channel 2 had a voice saying, “Turn back to channel 1”
(Kudos to Yakoff Smirnoff)
—In Soviet army, radios had two channels. Channel 1 was official propaganda. Channel 2 had a voice saying, “Turn back to channel 1”
(Kudos to Yakoff Smirnoff)
Posted on 5/9/25 at 6:25 pm to cypresstiger
quote:
and the Axis lost because they couldn't get enough of it into the field compared to the Allies. —And the Axis…well the Germans…tended to over-engineer their superior armor, making maintenance a big problem.
Not to mention the large variety of armored vehicles they made. It had to be a logistics nightmare for units in the field. Hell, look at tank destroyers/assault guns alone. You had StuGs, Marder (three variants), Nashorns, Hetzers, Jagdpanzer IV, JagdPanther, and Jagdtigers that all needed maintenance and parts. It was idiotic.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 10:51 pm to Darth_Vader
Darth, when the Germans took over production of this AFV, were they able to up-gun the main gun or did they continue to use that 47mm main gun?
I can't imagine being a crew member in that AFV. Like you said one of the three crewmembers can't duck down and get some cover.
I can't imagine being a crew member in that AFV. Like you said one of the three crewmembers can't duck down and get some cover.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 11:05 pm to TigerHornII
I didn't know about the 30 watt to 3 watt Soviet disadvantage! That's terrible.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 11:16 pm to Darth_Vader
Darth, this AFV has no secondary armament at all, right? No machine gun is mounted in the vehicle.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 11:52 pm to Darth_Vader
Did it have two forward and four reverse gears?
Posted on 5/10/25 at 7:10 am to Champagne
quote:
Darth, when the Germans took over production of this AFV, were they able to up-gun the main gun or did they continue to use that 47mm main gun?
As far as I can tell they probably continued to use the 47mm. The interior of this little thing was already cramped, so I can’t see them mounting anything bigger.
quote:
I can't imagine being a crew member in that AFV. Like you said one of the three crewmembers can't duck down and get some cover.
Yeah. I’d hate to be the loader on this thing.
Posted on 5/10/25 at 7:12 am to Champagne
quote:
Darth, this AFV has no secondary armament at all, right? No machine gun is mounted in the vehicle.
That’s correct. The crew would have to rely on their sidearms for close in protection. The problem there is they’d have to expose themselves to enemy fire to use them.
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:51 am to Darth_Vader
Darth, were these AFV crewmen who manned this thing in 1942 on the Eastern Front in WW2 the very bravest of all AFV crewmen of all time?
Do you suppose that they actually fought this AFV? Wouldn't they just bail out and run away as soon as a T-34 noticed them? That's what I would do.
Thanks for the great thread, Darth.
Do you suppose that they actually fought this AFV? Wouldn't they just bail out and run away as soon as a T-34 noticed them? That's what I would do.
Thanks for the great thread, Darth.
This post was edited on 5/10/25 at 9:52 am
Posted on 5/10/25 at 10:15 am to Champagne
quote:
Darth, were these AFV crewmen who manned this thing in 1942 on the Eastern Front in WW2 the very bravest of all AFV crewmen of all time?
Don’t know if they’re the bravest, but it took a lot of balls to do it, that’s for sure.
Posted on 5/10/25 at 11:35 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
but it took a lot of balls to do it, that’s for sure.
Here's the Panzerjager I. You have built a model of this. I just learned that the 47mm gun on this AFV is Czech, but the 47mm gun on the Semovente is Austrian. Of course, both AFVs would be used in similar ways on the battlefield, but, I wonder which 47mm gun was a more effective anti tank gun?
This post was edited on 5/10/25 at 11:38 am
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News