Hogge Wild posted:Are all Osprey books filled with lies, propaganda and pretty pictures? What quality are their books about Ancient Mediterranean and Middle East? Some pretty strong words now, but the pictures from the Ancient era stuff are actually quite nice and stuff. Not sure if 100% accurate but very easy on the eye. Osprey is really just pretty 'filler' with a few things that are wrong or have long since changed (It has been around since the seventies now) but it does the job well. It makes me want to dig really deep into a proper detailed book about the subject matter. And if I ever really geek out and get into war gaming they are great guides for painting figurines. Met a pretty awesome dude on this training course for factory work, turns out a couple times of year he does English Civil War reenactment. History is a awesome ice breaker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Chouffe posted:At the end of the 18th century, France implemented the Chappe system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_line#Chappe_system ) to gain an organizational advantage over their enemies' armies. I learned about it from this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22909590.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Are all Osprey books filled with lies, propaganda and pretty pictures? What quality are their books about Ancient Mediterranean and Middle East? Edit: about twenty years ago. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Some pretty strong words now, but the pictures from the Ancient era stuff are actually quite nice and stuff. Not sure if 100% accurate but very easy on the eye. I haven't read any of the Osprey books, but I've seen some pics from them, and they're frequently referenced online. The reason I phrased it so strongly was this excerpt from their Finnish Aces of World War 2: quote:About this book Finland isn't in Scandinavia, didn't fight three separate wars against Soviet Union and wasn't at war against them in 1945. Also 'communist hordes' is a bit loaded. I was just thinking if all their books are filled with that kind of stuff. Though their books about older stuff had so nice pics, that I'll probably buy a few of them for myself as Christmas presents  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Finland isn't in Scandinavia, didn't fight three separate wars against Soviet Union and wasn't at war against them in 1945. Also 'communist hordes' is a bit loaded. I was just thinking if all their books are filled with that kind of stuff. Though their books about older stuff had so nice pics, that I'll probably buy a few of them for myself as Christmas presents It's just lacking in detail, but essentially true(-ish. Mostly).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I was just thinking if all their books are filled with that kind of stuff. I am done defending Osprey books in this thread, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
I do have to say using the term 'communist hordes' is a pretty dumb thing I must agree with you on that.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I do have to say using the term 'communist hordes' is a pretty dumb thing I must agree with you on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Or nationalist...when we're talking about English-language books dealing with the USSR, you've probably got a heavy dose of that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
It's really odd to call it the "Continuation War" because it was basically fought for the same reasons Romania did, as though Russia was going for another try after the Winter War or something. That's mostly a Finnish nationalist thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
I think it's actually refered to as the Lapland war, and is distinct from the Continuation or Winter wars. TBH it's not the kind of thing that gets much press in the anglosphere even amongst WWII enthusiasts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
I recently reread Robert K Massie's Peter the Great, and I was reminded of a couple things that always really bothered me about the Pruth campaign. As a tiny bit of background, the Tsar had recently won an overwhelming victory at Poltava against Sweden, which terminated Swedish interference in Russia, Poland, most of the Baltic States, and Finland, the latter two not being independent countries at the time but Russian reconquests. The King of Sweden, Charles XII, was left in exile in the Ottoman Empire, at the time not yet in its "sick man of Europe" phase but still having a difficult time winning wars against western powers. At Charles' urging, the Ottomans repudiated a 30-year armistice that they had concluded with Russia in 1695, and brought an army, about 200,000 strong, north into Bessarabia to invade Russia. The Tsar pulled together a force of about 50,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry, and relying on local prices rising up to aid him, went to meet the Ottomans. It was a strategic disaster, as the princes either never rose or failed to provide enough strength to balance out the numbers. Still, there were a couple elements of the campaign that presaged the increasing difficulty the Ottomans would face over the 18th century -- while Peter didn't have enough infantry to engage the Ottomans without risking envelopment (indeed, envelopment is what happened!) his cavalry got around into the rear area of the much larger Ottoman army and began to sever their strategic supply lines and destroy their stockpiles, while the Janissaries took sharp casualties in the early fighting and were "disinclined" to attack again. All in all, if Peter had enough men to provide a stand-up fight to the Ottomans, it could have, by my reading, been a classical "underdeveloped country fields a horde, gets destroyed" military disaster for them. The two things that have always really bothered me are: 1. When Russia was actively fighting Sweden's army on the Russian western frontier, they raised an army of about 250,000 total, and refused to engage the Swedes without significant numerical superiority. This served them very well, and the combination of attrition and numerical superiority more or less won the war for Russia before Poltava even occurred. On the Pruth, however, Peter only drew on a small fraction of the forces he had just recently raised, and therefore almost ruined himself. Why? Why not pull together an army of 150,000 or so instead? They were already trained and armed, just dispersed. 2. Why not sortie the fleet from Azov, while they're at it, force the straits of Kerch, and bombard Constantinople to set it on fire? People of the time knew of the dangers of great fires in cities, and Constantinople was (by what I've read) mostly made out of wood at the time. Why not inflict a serious moral and strategic blow that way? If a Russian fleet controlled the Sea of Marmara there wouldn't be any opportunity to reinforce the Grand Vizier's army in the Balkans. The Pruth campaign has always bothered me rather a lot, simply because it seems to me that it could have been a crushing defeat for the Ottomans, and a Russian army at the gates of Constantinople in 1711 would change, well, most of the course of European history since 1700. Imagine no Crimean war, no angry Serbians gunning for the Archduke in 1914, and possibly no Balkan wars in general after the Russian victory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:It's really odd to call it the "Continuation War" because it was basically fought for the same reasons Romania did, as though Russia was going for another try after the Winter War or something. It was a revanche war. Romania didn't go to war over Bessarabia in 1940 but for Finnish public opinion the war of 1941-44 was a continuation of the 1939-40 war with slightly better odds (the odds being influenced by factors such as 'having shells for artillery'). Also, Russia was totes going for another try after the Winter War, but then Hitler remembered all that 'bensraum in the east poo poo and went all "gently caress you Stalin, I'm gonna include Finland in my sphere of turd!" crazy and Stalin was like "okay, you're the boss! don't punch me pls" Btw. Winter War is just a Finnish nationalist thing. Soviet publications referred to it as "the Finnish border conflict" akin to Khalkin Gol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:20
|
|
Lamadrid posted:How was the modern era targeting with artillery ? You know where your guns are, you know where the observer is and you know where your target is. Its simple math from there. The guys firing the guns aren't the ones observing the rounds. The biggest change, as EnsignExpendable noted, was the technology used to observe the target and precisely identify the location of your guns, observer and target.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I haven't read any of the Osprey books, but I've seen some pics from them, and they're frequently referenced online. The reason I phrased it so strongly was this excerpt from their Finnish Aces of World War 2: Northern Finland still is part of the Scandinavian Peninsula and some people count not even Finland, but also Iceland, Faröer and Greenland to Scandinavia. That said, making a distinction between Scandinavia as a political entity and Scandinavia the peninsula is pretty stupid, so I simply go with what I learned in school: Finland is part of Scandinavia, case closed.  (And to be fair, the first war against the Sowjetunion 1939 - 1940 was a bit of a disorganized affair. I could see them dehumanize their enemies to just "hordes" in that context. The other conflicts should have taught them otherwise, though.) Edit: If we have to be super correct, we'll soon have to count Estland to the Nordic Countries, too. (They even want to join the Nordic Council in the near future.) Libluini fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway, Sweden The Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden The end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:1: depends who you ask. 2: were at war against Germany as part of the terms of the Continuation War ending. 3: From 1944-1945. Well, to be fair, Nazi Germany, that regime well known for its Bolshevism? If they did mean that it's pretty badly phrased.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:Does anybody? For how important it was politically and given how it was the origin of the British Army as we know it today not a whole lot of people seem to actually be all that interested in it for some reason. I do, but then I'm more interested in the political aspect. The only time England's been a Republic after all 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway, Sweden P.S. Fennoscandia: Scandinavia, Finland, Karelia and Kola 1sometimes also including Estonia, Latvia and/or Lithuania, for political/historical/whatever reasons (they are observers in the Nordic Council) All in all, the terms are politicized and muddled and useless, unless one wants to talk about geography. Eg. Denmark hasn't been part of Scandinavia after they lost all of southern Sweden and Norway, but apparently that doesn't matter. Nor did the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal cut Denmark from Europe. You just can't get rid of the Danes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Well, to be fair, Nazi Germany, that regime well known for its Bolshevism? If they did mean that it's pretty badly phrased.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway, Sweden But Denmark has its own peninsula...
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Okay maybe not "major" but I remember it was one of a few strikes against Boeing's entry This is the honey boo-boo of fighter jets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Shade2142 posted:This is the honey boo-boo of fighter jets. Beats being the Christopher Reeve of fighter jets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Shade2142 posted:The honey boo-boo of fighter jets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Okay maybe not "major" but I remember it was one of a few strikes against Boeing's entry What a happy looking plane 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Was the X-32 really that bad compared to the X-35? Because it really seems like they hosed up pretty bad right now anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Eej posted:Was the X-32 really that bad compared to the X-35? Because it really seems like they hosed up pretty bad right now anyway. From what I understand, the X-32 somehow managed to solve the problems facing the JSF even worse than the F-35. Like "failed hovering tests"-worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:Does anybody? For how important it was politically and given how it was the origin of the British Army as we know it today not a whole lot of people seem to actually be all that interested in it for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Eej posted:Was the X-32 really that bad compared to the X-35? Because it really seems like they hosed up pretty bad right now anyway. The F-35 isn't as badly hosed up as people think. It hasn't been an especially well-run or well-managed programs (DoD, LockMart, and Congress all share some blame for this) and per units costs have risen substantially partly because of this. And the F-35's "jack of all trades" approach has meant that there have had to be some design tradeoffs. But the F-35As and Cs are promising aircraft (the F-35B is a loving dumb idea and V/STOL should never have been a design requirement in the first place). Most of the problems encountered so far with the program have been solvable (e.g. problems with the helmet-mounted queuing system) give time and energy. The narrative we hear is "the F-35 is broken! The F-35 is broken! We'll never fix it" when in reality virtually all of the problems encountered with the aircraft are fixable. It's also important to talk about what's right with the F-35. It's got good radar-defeat capabilities. It has a state-of-the-art AESA radar. It's got the EODAS system which is going greatly increase situation awareness for the pilot. It's getting a more advanced and secure data link. It's not a perfect aircraft, but it has some promising features that are going to add a lot of capability. All that said, the US could probably get away with F-22s, Block 52+/60 F-16s, stealthy UCAVs, and more Super Hornets, instead of buying F-35s. But in for a dime, in for a a dollar I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:P.S. Fennoscandia: Scandinavia, Finland, Karelia and Kola As you well know the term "Scandinavia" is infrequently used here anyway, except when talking about geography ("the Scandinavian peninsula") or linguistics (the Scandinavian languages). Everyone uses "the North" or "the Nordic countries", the domestic terms being "Norden" (in Swedish/Danish/Norwegian) or "Pohjola" (in Finnish). This always refers to the five countries I enumerated above, plus their dependent territories (Greenland and the Faroese Islands etc). Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Say what? The term "Scandinavia" is what loving everybody calls those countries. Nordic is only an occasional thing and "the North" is what people say if they're taking the piss. Geopolitics and regionalism and whatever are about as up for debate as topics possibly get; maybe the term had an incredibly literal definition when it was first introduced, but that is not at all the case today. Acting like you know the definitive answer (or that there is a definitive answer) is incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Say what? The term "Scandinavia" is what loving everybody calls those countries. Nordic is only an occasional thing and "the North" is what people say if they're taking the piss. Geopolitics and regionalism and whatever are about as up for debate as topics possibly get; maybe the term had an incredibly literal definition when it was first introduced, but that is not at all the case today. Acting like you know the definitive answer (or that there is a definitive answer) is incredibly stupid. If you actually read my post you'll see I'm talking about what the people actually living here are calling it. It's also a much better term since it's unambiguous. Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Good old history thread 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It was a revanche war. Romania didn't go to war over Bessarabia in 1940 but for Finnish public opinion the war of 1941-44 was a continuation of the 1939-40 war with slightly better odds (the odds being influenced by factors such as 'having shells for artillery'). Planning for another Winter War? Is that why they axed all of the heavy bunker-buster projects that started specifically as a result of the first one?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
When I was in Estonia they had nice little signs in their museum ensuring the visitors that they were in fact part of Scandinavia, complete with lengthy justification. The desperation was slightly amusing but I mostly just felt bad for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Say what? The term "Scandinavia" is what loving everybody calls those countries. Nordic is only an occasional thing and "the North" is what people say if they're taking the piss. Geopolitics and regionalism and whatever are about as up for debate as topics possibly get; maybe the term had an incredibly literal definition when it was first introduced, but that is not at all the case today. Acting like you know the definitive answer (or that there is a definitive answer) is incredibly stupid. Hahaha! Nope, Alekanderu has it right. Stop getting mad at internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Oh yeah clearly, my mistake.Alekanderu posted:If you actually read my post you'll see I'm talking about what the people actually living here are calling it. It's also a much better term since it's unambiguous. There are no unambiguous terms in geopolitics! It's all well and interesting to hear a local perspective but that doesn't mean it's correct, so marching in wanting to shut everybody up with your truth is still stupid!  Incidentally I'm guessin' you're both Finns; is there a particular reason Finns don't want to be seen as part of Scandinavia? also I'm not mad!!
Koramei fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
What's the idea behind helicopter-based Anti-Sub warfare? Is it 'lol there's no ship attached to this active sonar device so the only one suddenly exposed is you' or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Oh yeah clearly, my mistake. He's a Swede I'm a Finn, and Scandinavia isn't some kind of mystical Atlantis you aspire to be part of, it's just a historical/cultural/geographical area that Finland isn't part of. 'Nordic countries' is a different term, and Nordic Council is an intergovernmental organization, that has lost most of its importance with EU. And Estonia really wants to be part of it, probably for image reasons, because the only thing I can think of that they would get out of it, is that Estonians could get work permits easier to Norway. I will end geography chat on my part on this post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
VanSandman posted:What's the idea behind helicopter-based Anti-Sub warfare? Is it 'lol there's no ship attached to this active sonar device so the only one suddenly exposed is you' or what? I'm not a helo ASW guy, just an ex submarine sonarman, but I imagine being able to drop passive buoys a few nautical miles apart in a neat little pattern makes the job of tracking a submerged contact a whole lot easier than performing relatively slow ranging maneuvers to get enough lines of bearing for a solution. Imagine a submarine doodling along underwater. Another submarine (or ship) trying to get a solution on it really only knows the bearing to the contact. Knowing your own course and speed, and making some assumptions about his, you can put together a decent solution by running a few courses at different headings to get a feel for how his bearing changes. However, this takes time and you're still making some assumptions. Usually the result is within 'minute-of-ADCAP', but it's slow and never really precise. Now consider dropping just two passive sonobuoys within range of him, which a helo can do much faster - maybe 5-10 times faster. It can just drop those buoys (which, being passive, are basically undetectable) and listen. The helo knows where the buoys are. If one gets a strong signal on bearing x and the other has one on bearing y, just draw the lines - the intersection is your contact. Congratulations, you've just done the same work as a $2B submarine with 130 guys in less time with three or four guys and a helo plus some throwaway buoys. Long story short, helos can cover way more ocean in much less time, and they don't have to physically be at a point to be listening from that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 03:01
|
|