|
It is also funny how they saw the Landspeeder in Star Wars, and then put a Land Speeder into the game. But you see, it isn't a speeder that speeds over land. No, no, a guy named Land found the plans for it once.
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
FrancisFukyomama posted:my fav gauss gun is the necron one from 40k that has zero resemblance to what a gauss gun is and was clearly named by some 80s writer who thought gauss guns were just a fictional sci-fi term and not a real thing But... Gauss is also named after Mr Gauss
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 05:44
|
|
|
See also: the Chainsword, named for it's inventor, Derek Chain.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 14:59
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The sound design was so goddamn satisfying. amen the firing sound is half the joy of using that thing
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Drawing depicting 'prank' performed by Australian Defence Force personnel shortlisted for Napier Waller Prizequote:The work, titled The Impossible sit-up challenge, explores what artist Steven Bostock describes as the "blurry line of camaraderie and the abuse culture, which exist in the army".
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Drawing depicting 'prank' performed by Australian Defence Force personnel shortlisted for Napier Waller Prize
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:FF is this true C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
What would Australian FF's gimmick be
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
Our hazing ritual was way tamer, all you had to do was hang upside down on a tree like a koala for a long time. It was called koalafying (pronounced like qualifying). Hell a koala is from Australia, someone figure out what the hell is going on "down under" and shut it down!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:What would Australian FF's gimmick be Submarine specialist
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:What would Australian FF's gimmick be artillery is about blasting out hot stuff from the front of a phallic object, so a down under-ff would probably be all about rocketry since that's basically the reverse
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
also a hardcore prod and prussia enthusiast
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
A 10,000 word post on the historical reasons why australians say "no" like assholes
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
Oh man, I remember this prank being referred to as "The Russian Sit-Up" among USAF troops back in the 1980s.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:also a hardcore prod and prussia enthusiast I swear I've met someone like this who worked for the RNZAF.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
bizarro FF still uses his original account but no one refers to him by it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 22:53
|
|
|
NAFO is truly spiralling off into all directions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX-O6dXwWDA Russia's ability to use rotary wing aviation is bad, actually.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
that guy is ok and even funny sometimes when i watch him play flight sims but yeah once the politics starts its straight nato talking points
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 23:53
|
|
|
Many such cases.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 00:22
|
|
|
CN CREW-VESSEL posted:NAFO is truly spiralling off into all directions It's very funny how the majority of the video is just "because they understand that helicopters are good"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:26
|
|
|
tl;dr
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:27
|
|
|
I am the "I just want to see Elon Musk sell the rope to hang Washington with" tankie.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:28
|
|
|
FF have you done any research into pre gunpowder artillery like roman tormenta et al. and the doctrine for their deployment? no band of barbari are going to sit there 300 meters away or whatever the kill range was at the start of a pitched battle the while the romans carefully deploy an intricate carpentry project that kills men by the score. so beyond having the luxury of a trapped enemy in a siege, a fortified defensive deployment, or a naval platform, were there rolls for this sort of heavy artillery on the battlefield? feel free to post answer in the prehistory thread i just figure this is the artillery guy zone.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:34
|
|
|
I loved the classic tankies when I was a kid but they totally ran out of ideas and the new ones are like “ice cream cone tankie” and “the tankie that’s literally just a ring of keys”
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
i'm the "used adblock to get rid of the giant annoying image" tankie
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:39
|
|
|
Half of those tankies are just Saber in a different outfit.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
that’s a lot of tankies
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:42
|
|
|
Mandel Brotset posted:that’s a lot of tankies tankie division
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
Disappointing to see the “Stalin was dead when Khrushchev sent in the tanks” tankie missing from that list.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
Palladium posted:tl;dr at no point is communism mentioned
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 02:13
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:FF have you done any research into pre gunpowder artillery like roman tormenta et al. and the doctrine for their deployment? I can't say I know anything about it, but I remember one of my professors suggested I pretend this was a relevant field of inquiry to the Canadian taxpayer so I could get a PhD in Classics paid for instead of a defence related field. I chickened out, I'm not sure if it would have worked. I know AD Lee discusses it in his book War in Late Antiquity, and I know that it's mentioned in the book on sieges and logistics in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, as well as some of the books on fortifications. Generally, pre-gunpowder artillery appears in books on logistics, engineering and siege, not battles. The relevant part from what I remember is that it's a problem of physics. The primary issue with deploying heavy artillery like the tormenta on the battlefield stems from the nature of the energy storage and transfer mechanisms they utilized. Pre-gunpowder artillery relied on mechanical means to store and release energy—be it torsion (twisting fibers), counterweights, or human muscle power. These methods, while effective to a certain extent, were significantly less efficient compared to the chemical energy storage found in gunpowder. The core of the problem lies in the physics of energy storage. Mechanical systems such as torsion-powered tormenta can store a considerable amount of energy, but they require substantial space and robust construction. For instance, a ballista or a catapult needs to be carefully calibrated and set up, which is a time-consuming process not conducive to a battlefield. Gunpowder, on the other hand, revolutionized artillery because it is much more efficient in storing and transferring energy. When gunpowder ignites, it rapidly converts chemical energy into kinetic energy, propelling projectiles with greater force and over longer distances than mechanical systems. In terms of ballistics, pre-gunpowder artillery faced significant challenges.The projectiles from a torsion-powered tormenta or a counterweight trebuchet were subject to variations in tension and mechanical wear, leading to inconsistencies in range and accuracy. A cannon, even the primitive guns of the Hundred Years War, is much more predictable in consistently propelling objects downrange without having a highly specialized engineer constantly tinkering with it. As you mentioned, nobody would obligingly remain within range while intricate devices were set up, which often required all sorts of tinkering with elaborate mechanisms. This confined artillery to roles in sieges, defensive fortifications, or naval engagements, where the conditions allowed for the time and stability necessary to set up and operate machines effectively. e: This is explained in Their Arrows Will Darken the Sun: “In chapter 1 we saw how the potential-energy weapons of bygone ages converted stored gravitational energy or the elastic energy of stretched sinews into the kinetic energy of a projectile. Over millennia, these weapons evolved and became impressive machines—impressive for their clever design as well as for their destructive power. Beginning in the Middle Ages, however, a new kind of stored energy began to be used. The chemical energy stored in gunpowder came to dominate projectile weapons. The process was a slow one, as we will see, because new technology had to be developed, and an understanding (initially empirical; theoretical knowledge arrived later) of the propellant properties of gunpowder needed to be acquired before gunpowder weapons changed the course of battles and therefore of history. But I am getting ahead of myself; first we need to see where gunpowder came from and how it led to—and powered—weapons of war for 600 years.” “The Mongols spread the use of black powder across Asia to the Arabs of the Middle East, and from there it quickly found a home in Europe. Initially, Europeans exploited black powder for bombs and mines but soon concentrated on cannons. Black powder had a greater influence on European history than on Chinese or Indian history because Europeans learned quite early to apply the stuff primarily as a propellant rather than as an explosive. Black powder works better as a propellant than it does as an explosive although, confusingly, it is generally considered to be an explosive. (I will unpack the properties of black powder and dispel this confusion soon enough.)” “For loose powder in open air, the volume of gas produced is about three hundred times the original volume of powder; for compacted powder in a confined space, the volume increase is much higher. This is what makes black powder a good propellant: a small volume of solid material becomes gaseous within a few milliseconds, and this gas expands rapidly to its natural volume. Black powder can be made from saltpeter and charcoal alone, but it is stronger if sulfur is present. Sulfur does not directly contribute to the explosive force but, by uniting with potassium, generates a lot of heat—it raises the temperature over 2,000°C—which in turn increases pressure. (Interestingly, charcoal burning on its own will release more energy than black powder of the same weight, but this energy is released much more slowly.)” ... “The onager was obsolete by the Middle Ages for a number of reasons: • The sinew or rope spring that provided power had a limited lifetime and was susceptible to degradation in damp weather. • The spring could be made to work only for small and medium-sized engines; large projectiles required a different mechanism. • The kick stressed the machine, limiting its lifetime. • Most important of all, the recoil kick meant that the position of the onager had to be reset after every shot. This reduced accuracy (especially important in that siege engines were often required to aim at the same section of wall or tower with many consecutive shots) and also reduced the rate of fire.” CN CREW-VESSEL has issued a correction as of 02:32 on May 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 02:24
|
|
|
ok but at night do you lay there dreaming of a creeping line of trebuchets advancing their way forward across a warren of anti boulder trenches to support chariot mounted bolt thrower charges?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 02:41
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:ok but at night do you lay there dreaming of a creeping line of trebuchets advancing their way forward across a warren of anti boulder trenches to support chariot mounted bolt thrower charges? I mean, that would be pretty cool. Iirc in Asia, pre-gunpowder siege weapons were literally human powered, as in trebuchets worked by having a bunch of guys pull on a rope. That's pretty neat. e:
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 02:43
|
|
|
i love that the most iconic roman battle in modern film from the opening of gladiator is literally a pitched battle with onagers that i described as preposterous in my question
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 02:46
|
|
|
I like the fact the evidence he brings includes the Hostromel airport, which was still a generally a success,....and Oryx numbers, which include random helicopter crashes that didn't even occur near the battlefield. At least he is more honest than Perun and admits that actually there is plenty of thought and utility in their doctrine. Also, to be honest, the Russians have flexibility, then clearly have learned the utility of drones, but they also have their traditional assets as well, and helicopters have shown be as potentially as useful as a defensive as offensive tool. If the Ukrainians had actually massed their forces to a "big arrow" attack, they would have been cut down by swarms of attack helicopters. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 09:07 on May 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 08:30
|
|
|
Palladium posted:tl;dr
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 09:35
|
|
|
CN CREW-VESSEL posted:I mean, that would be pretty cool. Human powered, or traction, trebuchets eventually made it to Europe and weight powered, or counterweight, trebuchets eventually made it back to China. I'm sure some parallels could be drawn with the modern American military relying on technological superiority
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 10:01
|
|
|
talk about a tug of war, right?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:If the Ukrainians had actually massed their forces to a "big arrow" attack, they would have been cut down by swarms of attack helicopters. That did happen - most of the Abrams and Leos were lost to ATGMs and attack helicopters rather than the glorious 73 Eastings NAFO was fantasizing over. Unless you mean the Ukrainians didn't mass for the counteroffensive, which is also worth mentioning. They broke off the armoured attack after 2 or 3 days and just fed infantry into the grinder for two more months.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 21:30
|
|