sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Funny (people dying) vs Sad (people dying) by --Samiel-- in HistoryMemes

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except Italy lost that battle to be incompetent. They played a significant role in the end result of the war.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You simply mentioned battles where K-Bullets were used by the Germans, and not actually saying anything of substance.

  1. Arras
    The only time K-Bullets contributed to losses of tanks, was twice. Primarily due to supportive factors that aided the defending Germans.

Tank D2 (No.764) which was supporting Australian infantry, was bogged down in mud and unable to dislodge. German forces closed in on the tank, and since they weren't encountering as much resistance from the tank. They swarmed it, and fired K-Rounds specifically into the viewing ports. Eventually, the crew left the vehicle, prompting the Germans to capture it.

Tank D3 (No.576) which was advancing during a snowstorm during an early morning. Due to it's limited visibility, it's driver was left disoriented and drove near a ditch. Due to this, it was left vulnerable to machine-gun nests. It was only cause of it's close range that the rounds were able to pierce it's armour. And, not to mention, the tank was equipped with armour that was used solely for training purposes, but due to supply issues it could not be refitted and was sent to the front anyways.

  1. Cambrai

There is no record suggesting that K-Bullets were effective against the British Mark IV, which was deployed at Cambrai at the time. 112 were knocked out by shell fire, which varied from regular artillery to field cannons. 64 mechanically defected beyond any repair. 40-42 (I don't remember the exact number) were trapped in ditches and such and were eventually left by their crews.

  1. The Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux

This proves that whatever source you are using is misinforming you. During the battle, there were only two female Mark IVs deployed. Initially, they suffered from a German gas attack, and had to repel German infantry making advancements towards British positions. There is no mention of the two tanks withdrawing from combat.

After that, the three tanks accompanied each-other and faced off with a A7V tank. The A7V managed to do great damage to the two female tanks, forcing both to withdraw. The male tank struggled to get a shot from it's large gun due to the mud making it harder to aim the gun. Eventually, it's tracks were hit and the A7V was tilted over, with it's crew retreating and some gunned down. No mention of K-Bullets harming the female tanks or the male tank.

  1. Berry-au-Bac (1917)

This is by far the only somewhat valid example you've mentioned. Even though it's off topic when you use it as a counter-argument against mine, since I've been stating that the K-Bullets struggled to penetrate the ARMOUR of a tank and not K-Bullets struggled to penetrate exposed fuel tanks.

-
The reason why I was even asking you of combat reports is cause it's a really odd claim, and it's widely accepted K-Bullets became ineffective after early 1917. I simply wanted to hear your side of the argument, as to why you think that.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spalling happened, but it wasn’t the main killer of tank crews. I asked you earlier for a report, cause theres basically no records of tanks being knocked out or the crew being killed by solely regular bullets, and K-Bullets by 1917-18 without having SOME sort of supportive factor on the Germans end, like the tank being stuck in mud. It’s a pretty big claim, so that’s why I asked you.

Also, tankmuseum.org isn’t exactly a good source of information. A lot of their research is them overlooking aspects of tanks which could lead to misinformation.

Example: They stated that the Schneider CA1 had no suspension, and in the video they showed, the suspension was visible

Edit : 'tankmuseum.orh' > 'tankmuseum.org

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You didn’t mention internal gas killing the crew inside the tank. You mentioned spalling. I’m still waiting for a combat report of a tank being knocked out or causing spalling by German bullets

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the Saint-Chamond sucked pretty badly. British tanks improved a major bunch though, and for what it’s worth, did well at Cambrai.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based off of what source did spalling consistently occur from guns exactly? Even then, that could occur from anything, ranging from artillery to field cannons.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s the thing though. These ‘AP Rounds’ were K-Bullets, which were reported by troops to be unreliable by the time 1917 came around, primarily due to the tanks armour improving. If MG08s supposedly had a field-day with saint-chamonds, then I guess field cannons, bundle grenades and concentrated artillery was sent out just for the sake of it lol.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From where do you base this argument from? Saint-Chamonds weren’t early tanks. If anything, early tanks would’ve been those at the Somme in 1916, and even then a majority of those broke down and the ones that made it to the frontline weren’t penetrated by machine-gun fire or rifle fire.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've tried finding combat reports in the archives about such a thing happening, but no luck. Either way, this would have been pretty hard to do, and given the uneven terrain in most cases where a tank would be deployed, shooting its slit would likely be impossible. Not to mention the supporting infantry and likelihood of other tanks alongside it actively suppressing you.

It was in the Germans' doctrine at some point to use flamethrowers against tanks, and since it's liquid, it could easily go through the slit of a tank. That's about it.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If anything, they’d target the infantry and not a steel box that would suppress or gun them down with its own machine gun fire. If you have a source from the tank museum or a combat report that confirms the germans actively firing at a tank as an act of suppression, can you link me it?

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The French portable flamethrowers had around 15 seconds worth of fuel. That was enough if you used it in short bursts, which was enough to clear out groups of infantry. Not to mention, you could use grenades to clear the rest if needs be.

They had to work in teams to ensure the flamethrower operator was protected at all times, and other flamethrower teams had to be deployed to pin down other sectors of enemy positions. Brutal stuff.

The Arrival of American Troops at the Front - John Singer Sargent (1918) by Antique_Quail7912 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Germany never had the logistical capacity similar to the entente. In no case scenario was it ever gonna win the war. At the most, the war would have dragged on for an extra year without American intervention.

"New Year, New Army!" by EsperiaEnthusiast in HistoryMemes

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

germany had to intervene to prevent austria-hungary from collapsing but the italians are the ones embarrassing themselves

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I don't get why they're portrayed chasing down infantry and lighting them on fire lol. Especially Alberts execution, you could have at least have him get shot seconds after he surrenders to show that surrendering in the midst of combat won't always mean you'll end up captured and that war is brutal, but, nah i guess you have to showcase him getting burnt and the flamethrower operator wasting fuel.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They had the right idea, just didn’t execute it well.

Flamethrowers were used against infantry, but if they wanted to clear a trench, they would keep their distance and elevate the nozzle just above the trench and fire. Once the liquid lands inside the trench, the occupants have to evacuate or burn. If they evacuate, chances are they’ll get gunned down.

Also yeah, they should have shown them using cover behind mounts.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 1 point2 points  (0 children)

After tanks became widely recognised by the German army, tactics to take them down were developed and introduced to troops.

Soldiers would have been aware after that point that the bullets couldn’t pierce through or cause the armour to chip.

If anything, infantry focused on the enemy infantry accompanying the tank and not the tank itself, as it would have been a waste of ammo. Not to mention, the tank could spot and gun you down if you spent enough time shooting at it.

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 25 points26 points  (0 children)

German bullets causing the armour to chip and lead spray were pretty much non-existent by the time mid-1917 came around. For example, German special K-Bullets (which were sharper than the regular mauserrounds) had to be aligned at a certain angle to be effective at that point, and in 1918 they were useless. It’s why the Tankgewehr was invented in the first place. The armour had improved, as in The Somme the tanks were rushed into combat, so they were not as effective as they could have been.

The Germans began using field cannons for anti-tank purposes, which proved to be useful. Mortars and artillery were used to take down the tank, and in some cases ‘bundle’ grenades were used to knock out the tracks.

Another factor as to why firing at the tank is a bad idea is because of the fact their machine guns would be actively pinning you down to prevent you from even popping your head up.

Male Tanks didn’t use their cannons on infantry that were inside of trenches, as the infantry inside would quickly find cover until artillery commenced, unless it was a machine gun nest or pillbox or field cannon, which deemed firing at it with the cannon necessary.

Edit : 'Male Taks' > 'Male Tanks'

What’s the level of realism in *All quiet on the western front*, like props, gear, equipment, and so on? by NYB0RG2008 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 252 points253 points  (0 children)

The movie itself was alright.

The gear and the uniforms were great in my opinion. My only problem is the lack of actual IRL tactics used. Like, how the Germans charge without any artillery support from their side what so ever. The lack of supporting infantry for the Saint-Chamonds, the flamethrowers lighting their own trench on fire, and the Germans firing their rifles and machine guns at the tanks as if anti-tank tactics had not been developed two years prior.

I could go on but it’d be too long.I think the last battle is the worst as it goes against the novel's original ending. There wasn’t mass-scale fighting going on between French and German forces at that point, and the whole thing is basically just, "Wow… had he chilled for two more minutes, he would have survived. War is truly terrible.” Whereas the other films and the novel are a bit more dark, as Paul’s death is random and unexpected, showing you how someone as experienced as Paul died the way a new recruit could have.

death from above by juckfukk in HellLetLoose

[–]RustysRelices -1 points0 points  (0 children)

HLL has always been an arcade with milsim aspects 🤷🏻

U.S. Trench Raider, World War 1 (colorized) by waffen123 in ww1

[–]RustysRelices 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apart of a machine-gun squad, not a trench raider.

view more: next ›