|
Saint Celestine posted:You see, the big ship is the same ship as the little one, but its going through a time portal. It's pulling the Picard maneuver.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Dudes, there's like...a hundred thousand different varieties of German and some of them are mutually incomprehensible, and I can't speak any of them well. You're all right. Or none of you are right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
It's not completely wrong, because you can imply that you're lazy. What you want to say is: "Why go out? I feel comfortable in here." It could mean that you're lazy, but you expressed that by saying you're alright as is. Ok, gently caress the semantics. The author just wants to say "If it looks good and it's comfortable, then you're doing it right".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Dudes, there's like...a hundred thousand different varieties of German and some of them are mutually incomprehensible, and I can't speak any of them well. You're all right. Or none of you are right. Wit an attitude like that there would be no wars to talk about. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Wit an attitude like that there would be no wars to talk about. Never too late to start, brb
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:Context and all that. Do you know any martial art, where it's encouraged to act lazy? Yeah, the Finance office. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
tweekinator posted:Also, what was daily life like for a 30YW soldier/mercenary? How awesome was Wallenstein? What/who did it take to get a mercenary company up and running, and what did the companies do once the 30YW was over? Did most of them disband, or were there enough wars for them to go find employment elsewhere? ), but for the first one, you might want to take a look at my Peter Hagendorf post in the old thread.Your daily life will vary depending on your personal financial success/place on the chain of command. Step one is you travel constantly, though. A regiment has to keep moving or it will exhaust the country around it and begin to die. Looking good, feeling fresh.  (This is an officer, probably a colonel, rather that a captain as I had thought when I made the original post: the color code was a proto-uniform for regiments, not companies. He's doing pretty well for himself, too--and look at his partner; she'd never have been allowed to wear fur in civilian life unless she were a noble, but soldiers and their families are exempt from sumptuary laws.) Meanwhile...  (I love this picture--the Gemeyne at the far right may have been caught cheating, and the dude behind the noncom is about to start something, which the noncom is going to prevent. The great part of this picture is that so many people are looking at the viewer. "Consider the life choices that have led us to this place and try not to be this guy," they say. "Or any of us, really.") (Edit: It's also possible that someone has just cheated him and he has no idea why his hand is so bad. Also, look at their stockings--this is a legwarmer culture) Meanwhile.  Meanwhile. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Can I offer my services in this Thread. I am an MA student in Kings Collage London on a History of Warfare Course with A specialisation in conflict in the Middle East in particular the Arab Israeli War's I also have extensive knowledge Naval Warfare, Command(in particular that of 19th-20th Century). My Dissertation is on the history of Procurement in the UK in the last Hundred Years. I have a wide knowledge of many other areas from the World War One Logistics and weapon development(for instance I recently did a small project looking in Liddle Hart Archives on early Tank development) To the Falklands War, Colonial Conflicts, Naval Warfare, Counter insurgency and Propaganda. I feel I also have a understanding of the usage of sources and verifying and dealing with sources with the suitable scepticism. My Modules for those interested are American Civil War Middle Eastern Conflicts (from 1918-2013) History of Warfare Diss
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
Englishman alone posted:Can I offer my services in this Thread. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:The thread is always hiring. Marvellous
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
The more tank people, the better, we're highly underrepresented in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The more tank people, the better, we're highly underrepresented in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:How do you think I feel! Your stuff is by far the most interesting though
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:How do you think I feel!  I think your interests are well represented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
A bit off topic but how do you get thread stats like that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
uPen posted:
 (Actually, the eclipse of the early modern is a huge problem in my department--the last few entering cohorts didn't have any early modernists at all.) Edit: Raskolnikov38 posted:A bit off topic but how do you get thread stats like that?
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Englishman alone posted:Can I offer my services in this Thread. I am an MA student in Kings Collage London on a History of Warfare Course with A specialisation in conflict in the Middle East in particular the Arab Israeli War's I also have extensive knowledge Naval Warfare, Command(in particular that of 19th-20th Century). My Dissertation is on the history of Procurement in the UK in the last Hundred Years. I have a wide knowledge of many other areas from the World War One Logistics and weapon development(for instance I recently did a small project looking in Liddle Hart Archives on early Tank development) To the Falklands War, Colonial Conflicts, Naval Warfare, Counter insurgency and Propaganda. I feel I also have a understanding of the usage of sources and verifying and dealing with sources with the suitable scepticism. How true is the claim(s) that the IDF was actually incredibly incompetent during the various A-I wars and only won because the Arabs were worse? (Off the top of my head they apparently lost track of one of their boomer's) Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:How true is the claim(s) that the IDF was actually incredibly incompetent during the various A-I wars and only won because the Arabs were worse? Well, from one perspective this is true for every organized war ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:A bit off topic but how do you get thread stats like that? Click on the number of replies when viewing the forum topic list or your bookmarks in the user control panel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Well, from one perspective this is true for every organized war ever. To a degree but obviously not to the extent claimed that prompted the question. For example we know the Prussian's won fairly handedly thanks to a load of factors during 1870 but they also made some mistakes; but clearly they operated 'fairly well'. If I recall correctly I believe it was claimed/implied that the IDF had consistent systemic problems with competence only to win because the opposing belligerents were worse. I think winning despite systemic incompetence would be quite the rare feat, such as Chiang Kai-Shek winning the 1949 war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
This is probably a typo, but on the off-chance it's not, I'd love to hear more about the history of insults in warfare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The more tank people, the better, we're highly underrepresented in this thread. I actually just finished writing a paper on the Sherman for a history class I'm taking, but of course every time it comes up it's when I haven't checked the thread for three days. Edit: I will take the chance to post this goofy monstrosity, though.  Meet the Demolition Tank T31. Armed with two 7.92 inch rocket launchers loaded via a revolving five round drum, 3 .30 caliber machine guns, 1 .50 caliber machine gun mounted on the top of the turret, a flamethrower, and for some reason, a dummy 105mm howitzer. First prototype was completed in August of '45, and the program was canceled in '46 for obvious reasons. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Ah, the Sherman. Big turret ring, sturdy suspension, great for platform sticking dumb poo poo on. The Yugoslavians put the 122 mm gun from the ISU-122 on it for some reason. Apparently the result wasn't actually very useful to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I actually just finished writing a paper on the Sherman for a history class I'm taking, but of course every time it comes up it's when I haven't checked the thread for three days. I swear I've seen mechwarrior heavy mechs with that loadout.... I should do some kind of effort post on the T34 at some point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
 BIG ROCKET! The Soviets built one of these things and tested it. Then someone asked "what if the enemy shoots at the rockets?", at which point everyone shuffled around awkwardly for a bit and the project was cancelled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Englishman alone posted:Can I offer my services in this Thread. I am an MA student in Kings Collage London on a History of Warfare Course Getting your degree from a school art project, even a king's, is not very impressive. Joking aside, do you know Tim Bird?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Then someone asked "what if the enemy shoots at the rockets?", at which point everyone shuffled around awkwardly for a bit and the project was cancelled. Didn't stop the Germans from doing it... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Didn't stop the Germans from doing it... Yeah but that's an artillery vehicle, essentially, that isn't really meant to be shot at, whereas a tank that can't withstand small arms fire is pretty much retarded, since then what's the point of putting the rockets on a tank instead of just a truck or half track?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Same idea, dirt cheap indirect fire artillery. Except that the whole point of a BT tank is to get into situations where there will be neither fortifications for this artillery to destroy, nor forward observers to walk that artillery on target.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Yeah but that's an artillery vehicle, essentially, that isn't really meant to be shot at, whereas a tank that can't withstand small arms fire is pretty much retarded, since then what's the point of putting the rockets on a tank instead of just a truck or half track?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Yeah but that's an artillery vehicle, essentially, that isn't really meant to be shot at, whereas a tank that can't withstand small arms fire is pretty much retarded, since then what's the point of putting the rockets on a tank instead of just a truck or half track? The Americans did it too, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:Context and all that. Do you know any martial art, where it's encouraged to act lazy? Pornographic Memory posted:Yeah but that's an artillery vehicle, essentially, that isn't really meant to be shot at, whereas a tank that can't withstand small arms fire is pretty much retarded, since then what's the point of putting the rockets on a tank instead of just a truck or half track? But to be fair, they also had mad poo poo on the allied side like the Shermans mounting Tulip and Calliope rockets, and the Matilda Hedgehog which is just precious. And by "mad" I mean  as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I wonder how much thrust you'd need to get one of those little BT series tanks airborne. I don't think there were any rocket based attempts to launch a BT into the air. Just ramps and propellers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Maybe it's worthwhile if you have more tanks than trucks, but in the long run something like the Katyusha is much cheaper to make and use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
How bad was Britain's finances in the wake of WWI? EDIT: Or other countries too, although I'm curious about the UK in particular because it was top-dog before the war. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I only really remember it being mentioned in regard to Macedonian pikemen, the hedge of pikes helps to deflect incoming arrows, causing them to lose energy and become largely harmless. As an interesting side note, perhaps this shows a difference in archery from the classical period to the early modern. Long range archery (arcing shots) could have been an effective strategy in the classical period, but becomes less and less useful as time went on and armour improved. Crossbow bolts are not as aerodynamic as proper arrows, they tend to lose energy a lot sooner and become less effective at range. So the crossbowmen/archers of the day might not have bothered with any long range shots at all, meaning there was no eye witnesses around to comment on the fact that long range bolts/arrows can clatter harmlessly off a hedge of presented pike shafts. I've been reading quite a bit about close range archery in the medieval period recently so please forgive my wild conclusion jumping. We have documentary and pictorial evidence showing that high-angle shots were done with crossbows, so this theory doesn't hold water. Furthermore, if they were deflected off of pikes, they could still strike people in the face and put eyes out, pierce noses, and otherwise make one's day decidedly unpleasant. I could see it providing some protection but fairly little. These missiles still carry a lot of momentum even on a deflection. I also seem to recall that claim about the phalanx coming from only one classical source, but my googling doesn't seem to be turning up any primary sources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
How good protection did the shields give? Could javelins or arrows shot from close range penetrate shield and wound unarmoured man severely? Could shields be hacked to pieces with several strokes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
The Sherman had a whole bunch of rocket-launcher prototypes, including the Calliope and the... thing I posted above. Other contestants include:  7.2 inch T105 rocket launcher mounted in the turret of an M4A1. (See if you can fool gullible friends and relatives into thinking it's a prototype railgun)  (Sorry for the awful picture quality for this picture and the next two, I couldn't find an image online so I used my cell phone to copy this from Hunnicutt's Sherman, which is a huge book.) T99 rocket launcher intended for the M26 Pershing, attached to an unfortunate M4A3 for testing. The rockets are 4.5 inch M16s, the same type used in the Calliope.   One of the first attempts to mount the 7.2 inch rocket onto the Sherman, this poor first attempt was dubbed the "Cowcatcher" and was quickly replaced by a roof-rack version similar to the Calliope, which saw service in Southern France and Italy. Bonus hilarity:  The T10 Mine Exploder, it's effectively a tank crossed with a monster truck, with the minor downside that it could reach a top speed of about 7 miles per hour on roads. Not exactly bus-jumping speed.  Another mine-clearing vehicle, the T12 Mine Exploder was effectively 25 60mm spigot mortars stuck on top of a turretless Sherman. Three prototypes were built, but the project was canceled in favor of less ridiculous alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:
Holy poo poo, are those Hedgehog launchers? Because, if so that's goddamn insane. I want to kill a u-boat with a tank now...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
This thread. You can't even go on vacation without people posting behind your back.AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Who wins in a fight, a single M1 or 16 Shermans? quote:a whole lot of replies I don't really care for the silly what-if, but you guys missed a couple of salient points with regard to human, technical, and interface factors in modern tanks when they have to tackle a substantially uneven matchup:
The post-WWII one sided tank slaughters (Sinai passes in '73 or Desert Storm for example) that I know of were not only influenced by a number of important technical edges, but also by giant disparities in crew training, lack of combined arms support on the receiving side, almost total situational awareness on the other side, etc. Conversely, an unsupported M1 platoon coming up against, say, even a reservist NVA T-54 MRR battalion (4 vs 40) in daylight close terrain circa ~1980-1987 might not come out on top.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 08:19
|
|
