|
gradenko_2000 posted:I was reading up on bullpup-design firearms, and it occurred to me: Are there any weapons (any weapon across history, not just firearms) that are/were designed specifically for lefties? Yeah, these weapons right here  were made for this leftie mofo:  though you could argue that they were originally designed for use by a paraplegic.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Fangz posted:But at this point it's unlikely the 2 million figure will ever at this point be either debunked or confirmed. This is unlike the stuff like the holocaust casualties, because I think well documented studies *were* carried out (not least because it was politically convenient to do so), and we know pretty well that there's millions of people missing. I think it's fairly justified to be at least somewhat skeptical of the rape figure. It would not be the first time that a dodgy factoid has become commonly believed history even amongst respectable people. In such a case, I would not say that Beevor etc was lying and certainly not lying purposefully. He simply used an easily available number and (IMO) did not give it the heavy caveats it deserved. There were six million Soviet troops in the Red Army in 1945, I don't see why you're finding that figure so unbelievable? And even if it isn't accurate, Allied war crimes in WW2, even Soviet, are so undertold that it seems in really poor taste to be fighting against that. Maybe in 40 years when everybody involved is dead it'll be safer to step back from it all, but WW2 is still such an emotional subject today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
The whole discussion looks to be in pretty poor taste IMO. Do you guys arguing about potential sourcing problems even know the full historiography behind the subject?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
10 or 15 years ago you could ask your grandparents around here what happened when the Red Army came. I really have trouble to put this in the right way, but the stuff that you have a hard time to believe or have sourcing problems is told first hand in basically every family that managed to talk about it. And we're talking about a country that was officially "liberated" from the Germans, not about Germany itself. So you can take a wild guess about Berlin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
quote:There were six million Soviet troops in the Red Army in 1945, I don't see why you're finding that figure so unbelievable? And even if it isn't accurate, Allied war crimes in WW2, even Soviet, are so undertold that it seems in really poor taste to be fighting against that. Maybe in 40 years when everybody involved is dead it'll be safer to step back from it all, but WW2 is still such an emotional subject today. There were 4 million US troops in the European theatre and the accepted number of rapes there (accepted in the West, anyway) is apparently about 10k. Logistically, it is possible, for sure. But that doesn't mean the 2 million figure actually has any backing. And if people use the fact that it's allegedly 2 million to argue that there is a qualitative difference - 'rape on an industrial scale', draw conclusions about e.g. STAVKA being opposed to it or not, then the number - and where it comes from - starts to matter. JaucheCharly posted:10 or 15 years ago you could ask your grandparents around here what happened when the Red Army came. Every family that managed to talk about it? I think you need something to back up that assertion. It's very obvious that this is a touchy subject. I'm just saying that people need to be cautious. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's very obvious that this is a touchy subject. I'm just saying that people need to be cautious. Proper handling of sources is Hist101. What are you arguing against?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I'm sure the Red Army also had strict rules about consuming alcohol. Yes, anyone caught not drinking after lights out would be sent to Siberia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Proper handling of sources is Hist101. What are you arguing against? Believing in a number just because it was in a book by Beevor, and has anecdotal support? If you know more of the historiography of the subject, maybe you could share? Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:10 or 15 years ago you could ask your grandparents around here what happened when the Red Army came. This kind of long-after-the-fact oral history is not a reliable method for statistical analysis, especially for things that have such a communal or collective significance. Koesj posted:The whole discussion looks to be in pretty poor taste IMO. Do you guys arguing about potential sourcing problems even know the full historiography behind the subject? I don't think there's anything wrong with treating it carefully, soundly, and respectfully but there's an awful lot of Goon Speculation going on here which is none of those so I'm gonna ask yall to drop it. To keep things going, can someone tell me about Touissant L'Oueverture? What kind of problems did he face in combat, how did he employ his forces, and what external political difficulties did he face in prosecuting war? I know almost nothing about him so anything would be helpful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Believing in a number just because it was in a book by Beevor, and has anecdotal support? Ivan's War describes a number of tens of thousands as "undoubtedly" and notes that it "may well have reached" hundreds of thousands. Cites are to Barbara Johr's work, Norman Naimark's Russians in Germany, Helker Sander, 'Remembering/Forgetting', October, 72, spring 1995, p. 21, and NKVD statistics on venereal disease just after the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Aren't there a few service rifles that eject shells straight forward/down? Yes. The FN P90 is the classic example (mostly because Stargate), which ejects spent cartridges downwards, and is designed to be fully ambidextrous without modification (magazine release and the charging handle are on both sides, firing selector in the grip). Similar story with its sort-of successor, the F2000, which ejects cartridges upwards and to the right, and is again fully ambidextrous. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:58
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Yes. The FN P90 is the classic example (mostly because Stargate), which ejects spent cartridges downwards, and is designed to be fully ambidextrous without modification (all the switches and bolt assist are on both sides). Similar story with its sort-of successor, the F2000, which ejects cartridges upwards and to the right, and is again fully ambidextrous. there's also the Kel-Tec RFB which, though not a service rifle, ejects cartridges forward. It's badly made though (because lol keltec) and really I think it's not a very good idea anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
No, I would think the P90 downwards ejection would be the way to go, especially because if you could have it ejecting behind centre of mass it might counteract muzzle rise a little bit. But I know very little about guns, so that might be super difficult to engineer (on top of the already screwy top loading mechanism), and I could see hot brass being dropped on to your boots/ground right next to your hands if prone being super annoying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:There were 4 million US troops in the European theatre and the accepted number of rapes there (accepted in the West, anyway) is apparently about 10k. Logistically, it is possible, for sure. But that doesn't mean the 2 million figure actually has any backing. And if people use the fact that it's allegedly 2 million to argue that there is a qualitative difference - 'rape on an industrial scale', draw conclusions about e.g. STAVKA being opposed to it or not, then the number - and where it comes from - starts to matter. Carefully read again what I wrote: JaucheCharly posted:...basically every family that managed to talk about it. The emphasis is on "managed". If you're really interested in a number or where it came from, then you can lend out the titles that were mentioned. There is a whole complex of books that probably are only available in German. At the library of my uni, there are numerous books about the occupation here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
So we all know the depressing fate of the Soviet POW captured by Nazi Germany in the 2nd World War, but what was the fate of the Russians who surrendered in the First World War? How many returned to Russia? how much emigrated else where or settled in Germany/Eastern Europe? how much went right into the Russian Civil War?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:No, I would think the P90 downwards ejection would be the way to go, especially because if you could have it ejecting behind centre of mass it might counteract muzzle rise a little bit. center-of-mass isn't really the term you want but i know what you mean, and any influence that would have on muzzle rise would be marginal at best. quote:But I know very little about guns, so that might be super difficult to engineer (on top of the already screwy top loading mechanism), and I could see hot brass being dropped on to your boots/ground right next to your hands if prone being super annoying. The RFB is a bottom-loader that pushes the spent cartridge cases up into a tube above the barrel and relies on other spent casings to push these out the front of the rifle, though they will fall out normally if you tilt the rifle downward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:center-of-mass isn't really the term you want but i know what you mean, I'm pretty sure that it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass quote:and any influence that would have on muzzle rise would be marginal at best. This is almost certainly true though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Yeah, but that's a helicopter and they're good at standing in place as a stable firing platform. A harrier or an F35 sounds like a terrible idea for pulling this off. Grand Prize Winner posted:How comparatively hard would it be to train up the smallest operational unit of AQ or the IRA? What is that unit anyway? I'm assuming a 4-10 man squad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I thought the Harrier kinda filled an important strategic niche for Britain nu? Its not like they could afford super carriers. Britain's baby-carriers were certainly better than nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that powered-lift is dumb and dangerous, and single-engine powered-lift is borderline suicidal. Besides, CATOBAR carriers don't HAVE to be a thousand feet long, and weight a hundred thousand tons. We simply choose to build them that way, to fulfill our specific needs. France built a perfectly serviceable ~40,000 ton nuclear carrier. Can it do all the things a Nimitz can do? No, but it's light years ahead of an Invincible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Britain's baby-carriers were certainly better than nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that powered-lift is dumb and dangerous, and single-engine powered-lift is borderline suicidal. Which makes me wonder why the British went with a Skijump design for the QEs. The whole thing ties them to the success of the F-35B to an unreasonable degree. If they had gone CATOBAR they would have had the option of running Rafales (and France would probably throw in a years supply of tea for every sailor on the ship, too) or F-18s. If they really want a stealth-ish fighter to fly off their carrier, they could still get the F-35C.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Speaking of baby carriers, one of the hypothetical scenarios for War in the Pacific has this: It's called a "flight cruiser", carries 40 aircraft, is "only" 16 000 tons (compared to the 25 000 USS Enterprise), but also packs four 7.5 inch guns. Was there a real-but-never-built design of this concept, or was the modder just making something up wholesale?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Speaking of baby carriers, one of the hypothetical scenarios for War in the Pacific has this: Reminds me of the initial configuration of the HMS Furious, a battlecruiser the British built during the First World War. When the ship was mostly complete they removed the forward guns and added a small flight deck, making it one of the first dedicated aircraft carriers. Unfortunately, while taking off wasn't particularly difficult, landing was neigh-suicidal, as aircraft had to fly through the turbulent exhaust and then slip in front of the ship's superstructure for landing. As this setup ended up killing multiple pilots, they eventually removed the rear turrets as well to put in a rear flight deck, though landing was still difficult due to the turbulence caused by the ship's superstructure and exhaust. Given the Furious's difficulties, I can't even imagine anyone wanting to repeat that experience. Just look at that mutant. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Behold Imperial Japanese Navy carrier battleship Ise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Behold Imperial Japanese Navy carrier battleship Ise. Amusingly I've been somewhat convinced that that was an actual upgrade because WWI battleship guns weren't as useful to the IJN as another place to put planes, especially scout planes in the air from. Very goofy looking though, and the concrete to replace the weight of the turrets never fails to amuse me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Amusingly I've been somewhat convinced that that was an actual upgrade because WWI battleship guns weren't as useful to the IJN as another place to put planes, especially scout planes in the air from. Very goofy looking though, and the concrete to replace the weight of the turrets never fails to amuse me. They instead had floats, and were expected to land in the water and be craned aboard; the ship would do a hard turn, creating a calm spot in its lee for them to land in. But the Japanese ran out of planes, and even if they had managed to build enough, they didn't have any pilots, so it was all fruitless. US did similar, mounting a pair of seaplane catapults on the fantail of the Iowa class, though Iowa's aircraft were for spotting not attack. grover fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
I've recently heard Dan Carlin's mongols podcast and it seems that Europe was saved because Genghis Khan's successor Ögedei drank shitload of booze and it shortened his lifespan significantly. That ended in 5 years long interregnum and later on Mongols seemed more interested in fighting each other than subduing rest of Europe. Are there any other instances where world history was dramatically shifted because of booze?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
alex314 posted:I've recently heard Dan Carlin's mongols podcast and it seems that Europe was saved because Genghis Khan's successor Ögedei drank shitload of booze and it shortened his lifespan significantly. That ended in 5 years long interregnum and later on Mongols seemed more interested in fighting each other than subduing rest of Europe. Are there any other instances where world history was dramatically shifted because of booze? Alexander the Great died after a crazy binge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
grover posted:US did similar, mounting a pair of seaplane catapults on the fantail of the Iowa class, though Iowa's aircraft were for spotting not attack. Not just the Iowas, pretty much all WW2 era ships of light-cruiser size or bigger had aviation facilities for 2-4 floatplanes. They were used for local anti-submarine patrol, scouting, spotting fall of shot during bombardments, and later in the war for rescuing pilots downed at sea. They also very occasionally got involved in dogfights. One of the very first air-to-air combats in the Pacific was between a Zero returning from Pearl Harbor and a pair of SOC Seagulls from the cruiser Northampton (all 3 survived with damage). Much later in the war an OS2U Kingfisher rear gunner actually claimed a Zero shot down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
But you see history is deterministic because... I think I'd can call Grant's more productive boozing a pretty similar case, though that's actually a pretty deterministic scenario... There's at least a few battles won or lost due to general alcoholery on various sides. e: Sorry this is related to the boozing, not the battleships. E: HEY ACTUAL ACEDEMIGOONS, since this is still sorta an A/T, what are your thoughts on Carlin? I've not stuck through him in depth but he seems to embody pop hist pretty well; not deep on theory or historiography but certainly accessible and able to cover a great breadth of topics. the JJ fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
alex314 posted:I've recently heard Dan Carlin's mongols podcast and it seems that Europe was saved because Genghis Khan's successor Ögedei drank shitload of booze and it shortened his lifespan significantly. That ended in 5 years long interregnum and later on Mongols seemed more interested in fighting each other than subduing rest of Europe. Are there any other instances where world history was dramatically shifted because of booze?  http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/how-booze-built-america
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
grover posted:You obviously missed the "How Booze Built America" series. I'll check it out, thanks. I'm doing some reading on alcohol, I've lately finished a book about drinking in WW2. I guess I'll try with other eras later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
I had to do a report on "The Alcoholic Republic" when I was at bote school, it blew my mind how people were basically permanently plastered. Prohibition makes so much more sense once you know just how drunk everyone was. TL;DR American farmers were growing poo poo-heaps of corn on the frontier and had no good way to get it to market before it spoiled so they made whiskey which would keep. This is before widespread use of railroads so your only options were wagons or barges on the Mississippi. So whiskey was cheaper than water and probably had less feces in it so people drank like fishes. The whiskey rebellion didn't really make sense until I learned this. That tax was hitting them right in the profits! We also have whiskey to thank for the glorious sport of NASCAR via bootleggers outrunning the revenuers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Yeah, as bad as people made the late 19th century/early 20th sound with regard to alcohol consumption in the US, we drank a fuckload of booze at all times and it wasn't like things suddenly got so awful the Volstead Act was needed. Master of Documentaries Ken Burns made a doc series on Prohibition, and there's some background on how alcohol was produced/consumed during the colonial era. Military officers were probably permanently shitfaced since colonels were issued something like a liter of rum a week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Eh, only 20~27 shots, depending on size, so less than twice the amount a RNLN cadet mate of mine is allowed to have daily when underway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Yeah, 20 shots is called just friday in Finland.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Well I didn't mean literally every waking hour but if you're an 18th century US continental army officer you probably need at least that much hooch. In their defense everyone was doing it, Britain had been tapering off for a while but they didn't stop rationing rum to the royal navy until July 31, 1970. No Mo' Yo-Ho 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
It was pretty common for manual laborers, soldiers and sailors to drink 4 to 8 liters of beer per day. It was small beer, so it had about a quarter or half of normal modern day beer's alcohol content in it. So they weren't shitfaced, but had a small buzz all day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Military officers were probably permanently shitfaced since colonels were issued something like a liter of rum a week. Or the expectation is he'd turn around and sell the extra. Edit: Wait, a week? Never mind, that's not a lot of alcohol at all in a demographic that drinks wine by the pint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me about the development of air warfare before and during World War I?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:Edit: Wait, a week? Never mind, that's not a lot of alcohol at all in a demographic that drinks wine by the pint. Yeah, that's 5 ounces a day; enough to get pretty drunk if you jammed them all up into every evening, but otherwise not unreasonable. I think their rum was weaker than ours is today as well? I'm not sure why I think that but I think I've heard as such somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:18
|
|