• Auxillary pics VI - Mostly war photos edition
    708 replies, posted
Humans we're a mistake.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/265888/84d7c524-cd39-4578-a4be-e1d8119e2fda/image.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/265888/2a4c39fe-9dc8-40f0-ae31-4a2597298873/image.png Mining dump trucks still don't seem real to me. Imagine if someone militarised one of these big bois
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/107029/02db6bf1-b610-40ed-967e-86332ab18042/image.png It's been done, sort of. ISIS turned a couple into VBIEDs. Which really isn't as scary as you'd think because they're huge, slow targets and the sturdy construction of the bed means it contains most of the explosive force within itself. Those same reasons would make them kind of shit military vehicles. Big slow targets that don't really do anything helpful.
That is some Ork shit right there, all it's missing is checkers and red paint
I tried to find that clip of one of those dump trucks suicide bombing a base and this is all that showed up https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/228931/06448239-523c-40f5-8fc3-57e64c6aabf5/image.png Thanks youtube but not quite what i was looking for
Probably because related videos are ISIS propaganda and better off not available to everyone?
I mean i saw the clip on a documentary on youtube. There's a pretty substantial difference between documenting ISIS and "Come join the caliphate, all the sex slaves and kuffar to slay you could ever possibly want. Enlist today and recieve a complimentary Kurdish concubine!"
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/2183/bbd41c50-78f4-4554-8177-6332fff995c4/14515564914_96fc5a4150_o.jpg Boeing 707 Vertical Stabilizers at AMARG circa May 1996.
It's amazing how many airframes are just chillin' in the desert. So many planes just... wasted.
I dont like this recurring point. (Not because it's ISIS, but because it's also the same argument people use for German over-engineering stuff to hell during WW2, with criticism being that "large targets in an empty field are just target practice for everyone else on the battlefield, from aircraft to anti-tank vehicles and equipment...".) The thing about these massive monstrosities is first and foremost the moral factor. The same way a Tiger II absolutely terrorized both the Americans and Soviets. You see this massive hunk of reinforced metal coming your way and you're going to have more than a few of your troops demoralized, sometimes to the point of inaction. Even if all iterations of the Tiger were prone to a wide array of mechanical failures, this didn't negate its fear-factor in live combat when it actually worked properly and participated in combat, without getting stuck in mud somewhere along the way. Big slow targets have their practical uses, and it's important to remember that massive mechanical machines like that and, say, the Soviet IS-2 with it's massive, 122m main barrel which was slow to reload and used bulky two-piece naval ammunition, weren't just rolling across open fields unsupported by themselves. They're often accompanied by troops and other mechanized machines, denying the enemy of any supposed comfortable target practice. To take one down, you theoretically need air-support, artillery, and a coordinated ground assault, sometimes all working together in unison to achieve a breakthrough, something that was fairly rare back in WW2 and still is to this day, considering ISIS were at some point fighting other rebels with makeshift equipment and not much else. And if it reaches that point, the "big slow target" has already served its intended purpose. Hell, T-34s were so ill-equipped to deal with late-stage German armor that they point-blank resorted to ramming their tanks at full flanking speed into the enemy as a desperate method of disabling their armor.
The Tiger tanks weren't significantly larger than other heavy tanks, and they were already large targets back in the day. In modern times we can hit a tank from 10km away, from beyond visual range. There is no need for any complex coordination, it's rough location simply needs to be reported and an Apache can just find it and destroy it. A huge tank doesn't do anything more than a regular tank does. A modern tank already has the power and sensors to destroy practically anything, it already destroys morale in that sense. Making it bigger only makes it easier for AT teams to spot and hit it, it massively reduces mobility and simply removes the ability to cross bridges. There are all things research groups all over the world worked on for the past century, and you're saying we should do the exact opposite because "it's scary". If anything, I'd be less demoralized if the tank that's trying to kill me can't physically reach me, and is a giant target.
Also the germans faced the conundrum of knowing that their production was significantly outnumbered. They couldn't have outproduced the others in lighter tanks anyway, going heavier wasn't the worst idea they had. A tank that lasts a little bit longer. Obviously the best choice would've been an early surrender and taking those resources to rebuild. But in the situation they were facing, it's understandable how they came to the conclusion they came to. also the tiger is not the same as the isu-122, which was technically artillery.
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/328071334576741/ The bull is really cool
Pixel art animations of different countries https://i.imgur.com/v0VOtom.gif https://imgur.com/gallery/nTs3K5M
Argentina has the Falklands.
Las malvinas son británicas
Unfortunately I no longer have the picture. But the Tiger 2 and Sherman where just about the same height, and had almost the same sized front profile.
someone correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Falklands have a vote on what nation they wanted to be a part of and they voted to be part of Britain?
They did yes, I've recently come back from being posted there (ammo depot woop woop) and the locals are very happy to not be part of Argentina.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.