|
The Third Man posted:I've always wanted to know more about the Napoleonic wars, is there such a thing as a definitive book on the subject? The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France: 1789-1815 by Robert Harvey I enjoyed that book and its a really good overview. It hits all the important points all over even though it says it focuses on Britain and France.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
DasReich posted:drat, I'm inferring from the article that as late as 1943 the Brits still hadn't switched to fuel injection. Was there a reason for this? You're speaking of pressure carburetors, not fuel injection as most people know it. Mechanical fuel injection, like Hilborn injection, and Chevy's mid-fifties mechanical injection is derived from aircraft pressure carburertors. Some German wartime aircraft engines used direct mechanical fuel injection, but I don't know of any major post-war uses of it, past auto racing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:I think you have that the wrong way round; Ju-88 losses were brutal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:You're speaking of pressure carburetors, not fuel injection as most people know it. Mechanical fuel injection, like Hilborn injection, and Chevy's mid-fifties mechanical injection is derived from aircraft pressure carburertors. Out of interest, what did the Americans do to the Merlin engine they used in the Mustang to make it so much better? The Mustang was a far better fighter than the spitfire by all accounts, but they shared the same engine. Or were late war spits and mustangs much of a likeness?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
ClemenSalad posted:The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France: 1789-1815 by Robert Harvey Seconding this recommendation. It was an excellent book, covering not only Napoleon's early life (and why he became the way he did) but what happened after the war as well, including how one of Napoleon's marshals became the heir to the Swedish throne (whose family is still the monarchs of Sweden today).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
ClemenSalad posted:The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France: 1789-1815 by Robert Harvey Nice, a lot of books on the subject just cover the period after the breakdown of the Peace of Amiens. I'll be checking this out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I wrote a little vignette about the 109E vs the Spitfire I a while back but I can't find it. The Hurricane and Spitfire can out turn a 109, but only on the Horizontal. The 109 will outperform the Hurricane very eaisly by turning in the vertical much better...assuming your 109 pilot is good and thinks about instead of just chasing the Hurricane around in a flat circle. The Spitfire is amazing for holding energy, so while the 109 could technically outmanoeuvre it, the Spitfire would be able to hang around longer when the 109 would stall. I always thought the 109's tiny cockpit never helped it either. Essentially the 109 and Spitfire were pretty balanced...which means if you're fighting over hostile space with radar and tied down to protecting bombers doing escort duty, you can't really win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:I can't see how the Germans tactics were inferior seeing how the British copied them, their strategy was pretty poor though. The only thing the UK had to do to improve on the German strategy was shoot down the bombers. Which they did, so by copying german tactics for invading a hostile airspace they won. That was the key difference- the raf were creating a hostile air space. General China fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
General China posted:Out of interest, what did the Americans do to the Merlin engine they used in the Mustang to make it so much better? The Mustang was a far better fighter than the spitfire by all accounts, but they shared the same engine. I don't know how late war Spitfires and Mustangs compared, other than that the Mustang obviously had much better range, but the later marks of the Spitfire were vastly improved on the earlier ones, pretty much like the Bf 109.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
General China posted:The only thing the UK had to do to improve on the German strategy was shoot down the bombers. Which they did, so by copying german tactics for invading a hostile airspace they won. That was the key difference- the raf were creating a hostile air space. As far as bombing goes, the British and the Americans really definitely developing their own tactics after the failure of the Blitz. "Hit them with thousands of bombers" seems to have been the basic conclusion, which is something the Germans weren't able to come up with given their industrial limitations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
SpaceViking posted:I don't know if "definitive" is the right word, but I've been enjoying "Napoleon's Wars" by Charles Esdaile. I've learned a lot from it. David Chandler is quite good and accessible on the wars while also being a legitimate historian as well. If you want to get your  on, Charles Oman is good on the Peninsular war in particular, though some of his thinking has been challenged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
ClemenSalad posted:The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France: 1789-1815 by Robert Harvey A lot of reviews paint this book as British propoganda, David Chandler seems quite respected however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
General China posted:The only thing the UK had to do to improve on the German strategy was shoot down the bombers. Which they did, so by copying german tactics for invading a hostile airspace they won. That was the key difference- the raf were creating a hostile air space. Most of it isn't engine based, rather airframe based. Wingtips are a good example of this. The artificially lengthened wings of the Spitfire series allowed it to have better lift at lower speeds which resulted in a tighter horizontal turning radius and retained energy. The "clipped" wingtips of the mustang in addition to the altered profile let the mustang perform better in a dive. Making it a "Boom and Zoom" fighter that didn't turn as well, but performed rather well when it came to speed. Typically the spitfire is a "turn and burn" whereas the 109 was "boom and zoom". More often than not, German planes that started higher won their fights, as the tactic being that you dive on your opponent, strike, and "zoom" away before they can react. Well also chalk it up to having 6 .50 cal machine guns to adding to the weight of the mustang, also adding to its dive specs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
The later clipped wing Spitfires were very popular and had some great performance, but IIRC they were fairly dangerous to fly. The Spitfire is one of my favorite planes, if nothing else because they built so many different variants of them. Also, the aircraft that helped develop the Spitfire, the Supermarine S.6B, might have been one of the sexiest seaplanes ever built.  It set the air speed record at 407.5mph in 1929, which is pretty astounding when you think about it. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The later clipped wing Spitfires were very popular and had some great performance, but IIRC they were fairly dangerous to fly. Jesus, look at the prop pitch on that thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:It set the air speed record at 407.5mph in 1929, which is pretty astounding when you think about it. I can't imagine the pontoons were helping with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I can't imagine the pontoons were helping with that. They're called floats. Pontoons are something you put bridges and houses on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Actually, I'm kind of surprised they didn't shoehorn a Griffon into a Mustang.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I can't imagine the pontoons were helping with that. That's what makes it so amazing. I mean, it's very aerodynamic for what it is, just look at how the support struts are tapered. Jesus, though, it's only 1929. 26 years removed from the first powered flight, and an ungainly yet beautiful machine like that goes 407mph. Then it goes on to become one of the best fighter planes in WWII.  e- Just look at it. More footage from the 1929 Schneider Trophy. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
General China posted:Out of interest, what did the Americans do to the Merlin engine they used in the Mustang to make it so much better? The Mustang was a far better fighter than the spitfire by all accounts, but they shared the same engine. Ok this one I kinda know since I like engines. They changed some of the alloys used to make internal components and added an impressive 2 stage supercharger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:Actually, I'm kind of surprised they didn't shoehorn a Griffon into a Mustang. I loving love Australians. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-15
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
General China posted:Out of interest, what did the Americans do to the Merlin engine they used in the Mustang to make it so much better? The Mustang was a far better fighter than the spitfire by all accounts, but they shared the same engine. Wright 2 stage supercharger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
General China posted:Out of interest, what did the Americans do to the Merlin engine they used in the Mustang to make it so much better? The Mustang was a far better fighter than the spitfire by all accounts, but they shared the same engine. Late war Spitfires were faster than Mustangs, had a higher service ceiling, better armament and a faster rate of climb. Even so, comparing two "fighters" which were designed for completely different purposes is folly. The Spitfire was a short-range interceptor which could be adapted for ground attack roles; the Mustang was a long-range bomber escort which could also be adapted for ground attack roles. The Mustang was not better, it just did a different job. It did it very well, but it would have been terrible at doing the job of the Spitfire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
How did swords and other melee weapons change in response to armor, and vice-versa?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:How did swords and other melee weapons change in response to armor, and vice-versa? A lack of uniformity in medieval equipment or development and the massive scope of the time period makes this a difficult question to answer (at least, for a non-expert like me), but the short-and-slightly-wrong version is: Swords get bigger and heavier. As plate armour starts to become more common you start to see people preferring blunt weapons such as Maces. When gunpowder arrives and most armour disappears then swords get a lot lighter and things like axes make a comeback.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
One response to the heavier armor was towards a lighter thrusting sword to poke the gaps in the plates, another was fuckoff big two-handed ones that could break bones underneath armor with a good swing, another was stand off weapons like the Halberd that could poke, hack and hook from a distance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The later clipped wing Spitfires were very popular and had some great performance, but IIRC they were fairly dangerous to fly. It's neat lookin but I am definitely a partisan of the Macchi MC.72.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
How accurate were German bombers during the Battle of Britain, anyway? It occurred to me that if USAAF and RAF Bomber Command had such (relatively) bad accuracy during their own strategic bombing campaigns, what was it like for the Luftwaffe who had to be that much more accurate since they were (at least to start with) targeting airfields and radar stations? On a related note, did the USAAF come up with innovations for their daylight bombing raids on the same scale as the British getting creative with radar, radio, "Oboe", Mosquito pathfinders, etc? Off-hand, the only improvements I can recall for the USAAF were improved airframes such as the B-17G, longer-legged escorts like the P-51 and modifications to the combat box formation, but it doesn't seem like they ever strayed far from using the same Norden bombsight from 1943 to the end, at least from anything I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
They did comparatively well IIRC due to a mixture of flying lower and their entire doctrine, equipment and training being about hitting targets smaller than a city block, which is kinda a necessity if you want to provide useful tactical air support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
Did they ever manage to drop that bomb in a pickle barrel?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Did they ever manage to drop that bomb in a pickle barrel? Yes, though it took three missions of 400 plane formations to pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Speaking of Napoleon: We've been over how Hitler managed to conquer most of Europe, what allowed him to do it and why it ultimately failed. However, how did Napoleon manage to pull a similar trick 130 years earlier? How did revolutionary France end up at war with everyone, and how the hell did Napoleon salvage that clusterfuck? I have a very rudimentary knowledge of the Napoleonic wars. Is there anyone who feels up to an effort post?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 09:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Did they ever manage to drop that bomb in a pickle barrel? Nope. Although really that was more propaganda/advertising than anyone's expectations for the Norden sight's effectiveness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Speaking of Napoleon: Not an effortpost (what you really want is a book recommendation) a) France had the largest population in Europe at the time and mobilised a huge portion of their manpower in comparison to the other powers. b) This was an era when decisive battles really could decide wars and Napoleon was a really good general c) The anti-French coalitions were poorly co-ordinated and often allowed Napoleon to strike them one by one. d) Napoleon didn't try to annex most of Europe. He mostly just knocked off rulers and set up subservient puppet states which often survived on a wave of republican populism. We're talking about a time when a modern sense of nationalism is just starting to emerge as a serious force, so he was able to get away with replacing the guy in charge and changing administrations so that they were fairer to the population.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
Revolutionary France ended up at war with everybody because they dared to curtail the power of their absolutist monarch. This made other absolutist monarchs in Austria, Prussia and Russia very uncomfortable because they feared that this might give their people ideas. There was also a strain of revolutionary fevor in France itself, with the revolutionaries wanting to spread the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood all over Europe, so they happily declared war on the vile oppressors they shared a continent with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
And as a side-effect from that revolutionary fervour, France was able to implement a mass mobilisation while the european monarchs were mostly stuck with small professional armies that took quite a bit longer to train than a gigantic mass of zealous volunteers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 15:51
|
|
Magni posted:And as a side-effect from that revolutionary fervour, France was able to implement a mass mobilisation while the european monarchs were mostly stuck with small professional armies that took quite a bit longer to train than a gigantic mass of zealous volunteers. Technically, some of the Prussian and Russian Armies used good old fashioned serfdom powered forced levvies instead of conscription but these were the days without trains or any kind of automotive transportation outside a horse and cart where most armies also lived off the land (translation: take the food from the foreigners and hunt jerks) instead of having a supply chain and in general campaign progress was slow. Also, on the why and how Napoleon kept it up for over twenty years? he pretty much was the father of European Nationalism, Ideals and the inherited Cult Of Personality from the now dead Revolutionary leaders. Ironically the same thing Hitler and the Nazis made very unpopular with the whole horrible mechanised warfare and genocide in the 20th century.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Napoleon killed the revolution by assuming power. But by doing this he gave the nation a single focus, war, and made them bloody good at it. Nobility under Napoleon was a gift to his best soldiers rather than a straight hereditary rank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
In Germany and Austria, is it considered to be a bad form to discuss publically the membership of Hitler Jugend during the war? Given how stigmatizing it can be, and how this is about children who generally neither possessed a full understanding of the Nazi politics nor had many options even if they found the NSDAP to be repulsive, it would seem kind of logical for a society not dwell too much over what some kids did during the war. On the other hand, Joseph Ratzinger's HJ service, even if nominal, made some headlines when he became the Pope. If it's not a taboo, who other later famous people were members of the Hitler Jugend/Bund Deutcher Mädel?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Nope. Although really that was more propaganda/advertising than anyone's expectations for the Norden sight's effectiveness. So how did the Norden stack up by the standards of the times? I know high altitude bombing was relatively inaccurate anyway, but did other nations do any better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:37
|
|