>heavily armored train thats armed to the teeth
>derail it with bomb
Seriously what’s the point of using trains besides for supply’s and transporting? in war
>heavily armored train thats armed to the teeth. >derail it with bomb
>heavily armored train thats armed to the teeth
because they are cool
>men get out with shovels and fix the rails
this is literally what happens, they have a crew inside specifically to deal with this happenstance
right in front of the armored train covered in heavy guns?
Not like you're 10 ft away from them when you shoot them you idjit
That's for minor sabotage. Not fixing a bombed out and still burning locomotive, the bent and destroyed rails and filling up the 6meter deep crater where the oil tank of the train used to be.
Trains in a war zone with guided ammunition and decent reconnaissance are just dead in the water.
Post discarded. Euros should be banned off PrepHole.
It's not for protection against foreign enemies.
Trains are retarded efficient at moving lots of people and heavy stuff to a specific place, they’re basically motorized wagons.
>depots designed explicitly for unloading and loading
>logistics platforms already set up in area
>airports are often intentionally near, enabling quick access to other key resources
>easy to harden
>benefit from mountain tunneling and in non-burger countries connect most major urban centers
Hard to beat a train at a train’s job.
But literally anyone with a fucking blow torch or a jack or some thermite could completely ruin a train moments before it could do anything in time
It's crazy to put your faith in one at least when it comes to high value military assets
Train moves slowly with another locomotive or rail inspector vehicle ahead with equipment specifically designed to pick up defects or anomalies in track. it's also stupid easy to rerail a train and repair the track.
So what happens when these trains are within precision missile range or arty and the enemy has capabilities to monitor your whereabouts in real time?
First of all, driving trains into artillery range is a fucking dumb idea, like Russia found out the hard way. However for moving shit around far behind your own lines they have a ton of advantages. The idea of strapping a few AA guns to the train is quite simple. Should some random enemy attack aircraft show up you have a decent defence. The idea is the same as for organic unit AA, your mission isnt to shoot down the enemy aircraft, but rather to fill the sky with tracers in his general direction, wich will make the enmy pilot shit his pants and hopefully miss or abort the attack.
They won’t be, I don’t think. A lot of the armament would be to deal with drones and loitering munitions and the like? But how effective have machine guns been against those?
I dunno, maybe a train could hold better targeting radar.
Then you can’t transport anything by land, regardless of whether you use trains, trucks or something else
>it's also stupidly easy to rerail a train and repair the track.
Pretty much this. Humanity was using trains and tracks for centuries. We got pretty good at reparing them with that much experience.
Trains are surprisingly hard to derail.
>and in non-burger countries connect most major urban centers
I'm pretty sure the USA has real into all their urban centers, just with no passenger service and not enough capacity to handle all their commercial traffic.
The US actually has the largest rail network in the world by track length. It is primarily used for freight, but passenger service does exist between many large cities.
The distance between US cities is just so large (especially in the west) that passenger service is really not practical most of the time when compared to flying. It's a 22 hour $200 train ride from Chicago to Dallas roundtrip or a 2 and half hour $150 flight roundtrip.
Even for freight aircraft are used extensively in the US due to the distance and time. The tonnage of air freight in the US is more than double the 2nd highest in the world: China.
Also, even if the train between Dallas and Chicago was a high-speed rail line with the fastest Chinese trains it would still take 5 ish hours.
>they are basically motorized wagons
they are literally motorized wagons, a bunch wagons with a motor on a track. that's a train.
>still no pallets
>they’re basically motorized wagons
Wait until you find out what a truck is.
We went all "highway 'steaduh rail" cuz it was sofukin easy to cripple the Germans in theater by harassing the shit outta them two parallel iron bars on the ground. (see: lemay starve the reich of coal!)
>I mean sure we used trains to beat the Indians, but they were cavemen!
Post war we took a good long look at what them Nazis dun right, and the autobahn was a damn fine idea! Ike became pres and made sure the US highway system was made AWESOME! Trucks, tanks, planes, it can all move on and over roads. Its a flexible non-centralized system.
>also made us cripplingly dependent on gasoline, but what war machine isnt?
If the commies start falling outta the sky during history class and you gotta run to the mountains and start an insurgency, You Don't Have Time to wait for the FUKIN TRAIN to get you up in those hills. Gotta Hop in a pickup, rob a sporting goods store and get on the road!!!
They were probably useful in WW1 before anti-tank technology became a thing. I think the Soviets and germans still had a couple of them during ww2 for some reason, with humble results. The only reason Russia is using the armored trains is for soviet nostalgia.
Because both sides want to use the rail lines.
someone post that WWII US training film about detailing trains. it's not as easy as you might think OP.
>Pretty difficult to actually derail a train
>Ohio somehow keeps succeeding
What the fuck is wrong with the Midwest.
isn't that something to do with unsafe breaks so they come off the track on corners at high speeds
good job, me. brakes. you get what I mean
Partially yeah. The trump admin eliminated certain regulations surrounding the brakes on trains, the for the knockout punch the Biden admin came and didn't listen to striking railroad workers who were staying this would happen and forced em back to work without resolving their issues. What do you know, the people closest to the problem knew it best.
Lack of funding for actual infrastructure.
By the look of things, it seems the main factor to whether a train derails or not depends on how heavily loaded it is when it hits a bump or if it loses contact with the rails going around a corner.
Maybe they've just been overloading the wagons?
It's trivially easy to derail a fast-moving train (most post-50s civilian trains)
It's very hard to derail a very slow-moving train.
Oh shit a train torpedo
They should sent a platform with an array of lasers pointing everywhere behind the lines just to fuck with the Russians' heads
>Seriously what’s the point of using trains besides for supply’s and transporting? in war
It's exactly that. They can protect the supplies they're carrying, at least better than unarmed/armored trains.
Also they can carry the materials and tools to lay down or repair tracks with them
off the top of my head the only time armored trains were intentionally brought to the battlefield as rail battleships was in China
At best you can use it as an AA platform but that's still just protecting the supplying and transporting carts. Might be easier to have men camp the roofs with MANPADs.
What happens when this train carriage meets a tunnel ?
What happens when the train meets a Wile E. Coyote painted tunnel on the side of a rock wall?
If you're lucky you stop the train, dismount the turret, and then get going again. If you're not? Crunch, no more turret.
It would be very painful.
The same that happens with every train. You choose your rout depending on which tunnels you can fit through.
Even Russians should have that figured out, since rail is the only thing they are borderline competent with.
The Germans equipped a bunch of captured French scout tank with rail wheels and tried using them as really fast reconnaissance vehicles. Doesn't look like it was very successful.
Why would you bind a scout car to train tracks?
That doesn't sound particularly helpful.
they didn't use them as scouts but as anti partizan and rail security vehicles
partizans rarely had any anti armor capability and these vehicles where therefore very hard to deal with and could patrol large distances of rail line
They tried to do the same with PzKpfw III too.
I think it was a part of a security section crew for a high ranked officials on a long distance trip. Think of it as a rail version presidents cavalcade.
Ofc it has a fucking license plate.
Never change Germany, never change.
Those are radio antenna
why american allergy to trains so much?
look at you know.
>using a car
get robbed by morons
some morons chimp out in plane, not to mention new DEI programs in US aviation ensure a terrible accidents by woman and morons.
then what, you americans gonna ride horse to everywhere now?
The Americans seem to have a good freight train network, just next to nothing when it comes to passenger trains.
Why they can't run then along to same track or build one next to the existing lines so they can share the pre-existing infrastructure, I don't know.
Trains are turbo slow and high speed rail isn't compatible with freight rail. By the time I could take a train Flint to Chicago I could have driven there and be halfway back and spent about the same $.
We hate being around other unknown people in close proximity and would prefer owning a private vehicle to using public transport, mostly because that public transport is invariably filled with the poor and drug addicted and nobody has the time or money to deal with a court case for shooting some nodding heroin zombie.
Why would you shoot someone nodding off. I couldn't think of a less threatening person unless they were actually dead.
literally saw a crackhead with a zombie leg in the metro yesterday
shit was completely necrotic except for two huge open sores, calf atrophied down to the size of a thin baguette
I still don't get how
>he was alive
>didn't stink of rotten flesh
>was able to shamble his way around
>he was alive
There's plenty of heavily utilized metro-rail systems in the US. The US though is gigantic with a low population density as compared to Europe or East Asia. For example, Chicago to Seattle is on the order of the same distance as Paris to Moscow. Do you really want to ride a train that far or just get on an airplane? Further, Amtrak is the intercity train entity and it has to (usually) move on freight rails. The freight rail lines are all privately owned and Amtrak has secondary priority on those lines in favor of freight. This all adds up to intercity passenger rail travel being a little more niche than in other countries.
> Why they can't run then along to same track or build one next to the existing lines so they can share the pre-existing infrastructure
They could do a lot of things but airplanes and cars already have the market share.
>t. seething bus rider yuropoors
I have 3 cars and an airplane, I'll let you enjoy your coperail.
They do this literally because it looks good to Russian boomers that don't know any better.
>wow an armored train!
>now supplies are guaranteed to get to our boys. based putin!
Russia has never had the wealth, skill or resources to build an interstate network, only rails.
>Russia has never had the wealth, skill or resources to build an interstate network
put the secret police to work in asphalt mines and road construction, they seem to have the spare time
Armored trains were used in Ww1 and ww2 to great effect. Surely no one who faced one never thought about that once.
I hate nü K chuds so much.
> Armored trains were used in Ww1 and ww2 to great effect.
If by great effect you mean massive waste of resources for absolutely 0 impact, then yes.
what he meant to say they work inside russia against unarmed peasants
armord trains are great for and mainly intended for securing your train born logistics
and in areas that are very sparse road wise rail lines are your only logistics option they can be used for indirect and on occasion direct fire
Sounds like you're a little salty, Ivan.
Maybe if you weren't retarded, you could have protected your trains from the JU87s and ME110s.
Because it's a system of convenience compared to their lack of logistical capability. It survives only because the Ukrainians have nothing capable of targeting it.
A 2000lb+ PGM would make a mess of the track even the rail crews would have a hard time fixing, or better yet just atomize the rail car itself.
>Seriously what’s the point of using trains besides for supply’s and transporting? in war
Armored trains make a lot more sense when the enemy is also reliant on the same rails as you are and can't damage them (see the Russian Civil War,) or else you've failed so bad that you just can't stop your trains from being attacked and so you need to give them at least some form of protection. They can also be used as semi-mobile artillery/fires support if you strap a decently sized gun to them.
Only the former soviet union use fucking armored trains. It's something that should have gone into the pages of history during the russian civil war but they kept up with it. It's a concept stuck in the 1920's alongside red-leather wearing red guards and Leon Trotsky.
>rail is the backbone of your logistics
>you can repair blow tracks within hours
>trains can be driven back onto tracks with wooden blocks
I made a lot of sense before PGMs could hit moving targets.
it with bomb
that didn't happen ONCE within a year of this war despite the thousands of ukrainian guerillas crawling all over the place and blowing up vatkins as they sleep in their beds
EXCEPT for that one report PrepHoleope central was screeching about which turned out to be fake and is archived on tbharchive
Does anyone remember the start of invasion when they used a WW2 train for transportation
estonians did really well with armored trains
What are the advantages of the Aerowagon?
Deer strikes are a non issue, panhandlers won't rush the vehicle for handouts at lights.
You can't hear the kids screaming or the wife nagging long road trips.
>fire a handful of shells at the traintracks
>put gravel back in the hole and add some more as needed.
>place a few new sleepers
>put in two rails
Takes less than half an hour with an experienced crew
The trick is to blow the tracks while the train is moving at high speed
>military trains never move at high speeds
So give it a reason to
yank: what's the point of using trains
america is such a shithole
Isn't that footage shot with a lens that compresses the distance, with sped up video?
It's sped up because the train has to travel so slowly. The rails are part of the Napoleon, Defiance & Western Railway.
Pic is of the same location. Also, another video on it: https://youtu.be/aB758Jb-aYc?t=702
it with bomb
retard plz. this is non-trivial.
please list how many times this did happen in the Ukraine war.
i dont see why defending a train is even a thing
if you have access to the railway (which is long af and impossible to effectively guard all the time) you can put thermite on it (which is used in rail welding anyway) or just use a thermal lance to cut it
even if you dont derail it you can in one minute cause damage that takes a long ass time to fix and you can do it very cheap and on any point on the rail that you can access
i bet someone thought of specialized anti railway bombs/missiles at this point. a seeker tuned to some resonant frequency typical to rails
fixing rails takes like a day at most.
you normally go after railroad bridges which take longer to fix but you need lots of tnt.
russian cruise missiles are not accurate enough tho, so they stopped trying.
a day without a major logistical artery is massive
give me an hour with a thermal lance and i can damage the rails to the point where you cant safely go on them in like 10 points
Russia has never managed to build and maintain a proper road network.
Rail is how things get moved in that place.
This guy gets it. Russia is huge. Even smaller and wealthier countries have trouble building and maintaining proper road infrastructure due to the costs involved. Doing so in Russia, with the permafrost and poverty is not going to happen. If WW1 and WW2 hadn't happened and they had a capitalist parliamentary system that provided them with a moderately efficient economy it might have been possible, but, as it stands, they're basically regressing developmentally.
Unless sanctions get removed and they start reintegrating with the world economy, they'll probably just devolve into a series of small pockets of economic efficiency centered around resource extraction. These pockets will be forced to subsidize their bloated military, endless corruption, and weak social programs as their population ages into oblivion.
>Even smaller and wealthier countries have trouble building and maintaining proper road infrastructure due to the costs involved.
put the secret police to work in asphalt mines
How many of those trains does Russia even have?