|
I'm reading this great post about the MiG-25 and something got my attention. The name for the prototype was Ye-155, but for record setting they used the false designation Ye-266. Why would they do this? In case spies found stuff regarding a Ye-155 and didn't relate one to the other or something?  I mean, I know it's normal to assign codenames. But just changing the numbers?
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
Koramei posted:The Theodosian walls hold a longer record; erected in the 5th century, breached for the first time in the 15th. Assuming you don't count the 12th crusade, and they basically cheated. And the Ottomans kept them all the way until the Industrial Revolution but I dunno if Constantinople ever came under threat again? There is no 12th Crusade. Do you perhaps mean the 4th? Constantinople was not besieged after 1453 but it probably would have been in 1878 had the Russians not been stopped by British intervention in the Russo-Turkish War.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Constantinople was not besieged after 1453 but it probably would have been in 1878 had the Russians not been stopped by British intervention in the Russo-Turkish War. That post reminded me of something that really bothers me about the study of military history. So, after you mentioned the Russo-Turkish war and that the British stopped the Russians from reaching Istanbul (at Balaclava?) I actually found myself disappointed, thinking "Gosh, I wonder how the city would have held up, I wish the British hadn't intervened." Then I thought about that for five seconds and remembered that 'massive civilian casualties' is more than just a set of words. It's the girl in class next to you with the weird wheeze. The guy at the subway that sometimes smiles at you. Your rear end in a top hat neighbors who play music too loud on a school night. And they're dead. We've made a hobby (or even a profession) of studying man's inhumanity to man. How do you reconcile that with your morals? How can I? Apologies if this is more philosophy than history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Tragedy + time = humor? No in truth it makes me feel very strange as well when I try to visualize the human element on an individual scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How do you reconcile that with your morals? Summing up this thread: Asperger's mixed with overboarding interest in warmachines/weapons/spread sheets/fortifications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Let's try an unironic answer. All atrocities need to be investigated and faithfully preserved in memory, those who remember them are much less likely to repeat them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
It isn't the practice he's talking about, it's the enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
It's basically like a horror movie. A dose of horror, a dose of good set design and costumes, plus a bunch of distance. Unlike fiction, history does not have to follow the constraints of conventional storytelling, this enables surprising and interesting stories. Is it moral? Well, while historic events aren't fiction, barring the invention of time machines, they pretty much are the equivalent of fiction for us. The question of whether Hitler could have won WWII will never translate into real world action, because unless you are a total ignorant fool, those circumstances will never recur. Thus, I don't think it is profoundly different to wonder whether the Mongols could have beaten Tank Destroyers, or whether Batman could beat Superman. No harm is done. It's consumed narrative. The question is what lessons you draw from history, and military history. This might be 'war is awesome fun, let's have another one', in which case, gently caress you. But maybe you are drawing the opposite lesson.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Let's try an unironic answer. Or repeat atrocities in retaliation. Long memories have played a role in the perpetuation of many conflicts (see how the 1389 Battle fo Kosovo is still a driving force in the Serbian national conscience). Memory isn't enough, it's how you utilize memory that matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Or repeat atrocities in retaliation. Long memories have played a role in the perpetuation of many conflicts (see how the 1389 Battle fo Kosovo is still a driving force in the Serbian national conscience). Dude, I'm Serbian. I think I'd know. . . E: After some thought I decided to expand on this. The Battle of Kosovo which has such a central role in Serbian ethnic mythologizing has almost nothing to do with the historical account of the battle. The modern narrative, pushed by nationalists, is almost entirely cribbed from the Kosovo cycle of Serbian epic poetry. This leads to anomalies like Vuk Branković being considered a traitor even though actual historians agree he participated in the battle while Marko Kraljević is considered a Serbian hero even though he fought as a Turkish vassal in the Battle of Kosovo. An accurate and authoritative account of the battle would actually dispel some of the nationalist mythologizing. Next time pick your examples more carefully. SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:It isn't the practice he's talking about, it's the enthusiasm. War seems such a condition outside of the norm that we're used to in the western world. We've had numerous wars since WW2, but go and ask somebody which ones. We go to work every day, sit at our desks and take it for granted that it's like this everywhere. Water comes out of your faucet and you can drink it (at least here in Europe) or flush down your poo poo with the same water. You'll probably just grab some food if you're hungry or go for a walk in the park. People have no concept of war, unless they touch it. How many people in this thread fought in a warzone, were shot at, or were in a brawl where they feared for their life? Ok, some people long for extreme situations or emotions, but it is revolting and perverse. You often hear bomb this or shoot up that, but those words are light if you don't have to live with the conseqences. You don't show people in the evening news how war looks like, because it's poo poo, torn up bodies and rotten flesh. Utter waste of life and material. You don't show how the fallen look like or how the people that make it out alive have to live with what they've been through for the rest of their life. It's not easy to connect if you're so far removed, but we're no different people than our grandparents, and it's still the same world. I like to remember that, because every one of us will be drafted if industrialized nations ever again decide to go to war with each other. This "normal" state that we're in is fragile, and it can be over just like that if some rear end in a top hat decides that he can't back down. I live a few 100km away from the Ukraine, most of the males of my family fought there just 70 years ago. I don't want to join them. Fangz posted:It's basically like a horror movie. A dose of horror, a dose of good set design and costumes, plus a bunch of distance. Unlike fiction, history does not have to follow the constraints of conventional storytelling, this enables surprising and interesting stories. The older I get, the less fictional history becomes for me. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Dude, I'm Serbian. I think I'd know. . . I don't disagree with you on that point. Inaccurately remembering controversial events like the Battle of Kosovo can lead to further conflict. Hence why historians should strive to build narratives that reflect actual events as much as knowably possible. I do disagree with you that accurately remembering atrocities necessarily stops them from occurring in the future. If anything, recalling events accurately can fuel a desire for retaliation with just as much passion. In World War II, US GIs remembered the Malmedy Massacre quite clearly, which is why they started shooting surrendering SS troopers on sight. Memories of one war crime provoked another war crime. As the Battle of Kosovo shows, the truthfulness of historiography certainly influences how we behave. But even if the truth is told, anger and humiliation can lead victims to use that truthful history to energize retaliation. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
You should be very careful how you use the word truth in that context, if ever at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:War seems such a condition outside of the norm that we're used to in the western world. We've had numerous wars since WW2, but go and ask somebody which ones. We go to work every day, sit at our desks and take it for granted that it's like this everywhere. Water comes out of your faucet and you can drink it (at least here in Europe) or flush down your poo poo with the same water. You'll probably just grab some food if you're hungry or go for a walk in the park. People have no concept of war, unless they touch it. How many people in this thread fought in a warzone, were shot at, or were in a brawl where they feared for their life? Ok, some people long for extreme situations or emotions, but it is revolting and perverse. This guy gets it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:There is no 12th Crusade. Do you perhaps mean the 4th? Twelve hundreds = twelth crusade duh, what else would they be named for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You should be very careful how you use the word truth in that context, if ever at all. To be sure. But writing "the closest possible narrative we can build relative to actual events given the evidence we have on hand at the present moment" is a bit cumbersome. So I was using "truth" as an expedient, if admittedly imperfect shorthand. Do you have a better synonym or phrase in mind? If so, I'll use that. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:How many people in this thread fought in a warzone, were shot at, or were in a brawl where they feared for their life?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:How many people in this thread fought in a warzone, were shot at, or were in a brawl where they feared for their life? Well, I live in a country that was bombed by NATO, and have also experienced circumstances in which I feared for my life even outside of the mentioned bombing. Also, my father is a war veteran, and I have friends who live(d) in Bosnia and Kosovo, so I got to hear several first hand accounts of what things are/were like. None of the stuff I experienced or heard makes me want to participate in a war, or be within a thousand miles from one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:The older I get, the less fictional history becomes for me. That's a really great line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:So, after you mentioned the Russo-Turkish war and that the British stopped the Russians from reaching Istanbul (at Balaclava?)... If I might side step the more complicated question in this post, I just wanted to expound on this a little bit. Balaclava was mostly unrelated to this; it was a battle in the Crimean War (1853-56), which was relatively minor in terms of actual fighting, but did see a French, British, and Ottoman deployment to the Crimean Peninsula, hence the name. The war was particularly rough on Russia, who's losses in pitched battles were relatively light, but many thousands of her troops died to disease, she had lost control of her main naval base on the Black Sea at Sevastopol, and was financially strained from having to defend against the global reach of the British Empire. The allied powers here also had a host of supply and disease issues, and Florence Nightingale was famously a British nurse during the conflict. There's also a lot of interesting diplomatic stuff involved; Russia was furious that Austria had failed to back her up after Russia had proved instrumental in suppressing unrest in Hungary in '48. But to step away from Crimea a little bit, the general outcome was that Russia had been forced to leave the Ottomans alone for a few decades, and Britain and France had guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. So time passes, and there's lots of unrest in the Balkans, which leads to the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 (there have been a lot of Russo-Turkish wars). Soon the Russians are making lots of headway, and advancing towards Constantinople. At this the British start making good on their guarantee, dispatch a fleet to Constantinople as a show of force, and generally tell the Russians to cut it out. The Russians decide to back down rather than fight with the western European powers again, and instead of fighting everybody goes to the Congress of Berlin, where the European bits of the Ottoman Empire are dismembered and reorganized, with the goal of stabilizing the Balkans. As we all know, this failed pretty miserably; Russian and Austrian rivalry in the region effectively sets off WWI, and things are not all that much better even today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Nobody quoted Robert E Lee talking about how much war sucks yet? We got a quota to fill people! The stuff I am mostly interested in is hilariously obsolete and out of date. So unless I have a time machine and a strange wish to visit a time without electricity, health care or basic human rights I'm safe. I'm pretty terrified/horrified of real modern war and the consequences of it and I really am hoping recent events with Russia and NATO don't get anymore ubstable now. You are a terrible person if you think WAR IS AWESOME WE SHOULD HAVE MORE if you get into Military History.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
my dad posted:Well, I live in a country that was bombed by NATO, and have also experienced circumstances in which I feared for my life even outside of the mentioned bombing. Ditto. During the cluster bombing of Niš two separate cluster bombs fell in front of both my grandparents' houses (on the opposite ends of the city), both facades looked like Swiss cheese in the aftermath. Every day I went to school I crossed over a bridge which was half functional half gaping maw of twisted steel and fractured concrete looking down into the river. Years later when I heard an air raid siren test the memories short-circuited any rational thinking and I sprinted downstairs to grab my little bro and and stuff him in the basement thinking "Oh poo poo, not again", my brain only caught up with my reflexes three flights of stairs later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Oh I guess as a child, the shopping centre we used to go to was blown up by the IRA, so that was fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Battlecruiser time again ! We've already seen the pocket battleships and the battlecruisers the French built in response. The Germans didn't stop there, their next capital units were the very effective Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Now I say battlecruiser, but they can be considered fast battleships. 38,000 tons, 31 knots, 14 inch belt, 2" deck adds up to a powerful ship, but they only had 8 11" guns in 4 twin turrets. That's a very light armament for the period. Those guns would cost them range and hitting power against battleships.  Both ships of this class would be in commission by the start of WW2. Their first action was a sortie into the North Atlantic to help ease the pressure on the Graf Spee. On this raid they met and quickly sank the armed merchant cruiser Rawalpindi. In response, the Allies deployed 3 British and one French capital battlecruisers. The Germans wisely returned to port. In the Norway campaign they were the most successful element of the Kriegsmarine. They fought an inconclusive duel with the Renown in which the Gneisenau lost a turret. They managed to escape, probably due to being better sea boats than the Renown, which had a higher speed on paper. Being a WW1 design, the Renown was very lightly armored, only a 4" belt, but well armed with 6 15" guns. I don't blame the German commander for running. The Scharnhorst's fire control radar was out and the Renown was already hitting at long range with bigger guns. 16 guns on one side against 6 on the other makes this a good matchup on paper, but it was 6 to 6 early on in the engagement. After repairs they returned to the Norway campaign. Teamed up with a heavy cruiser (Admiral Hipper) and some destroyers to operate against British supply lines. They caught a tanker and a passenger ship before hitting the jackpot: the HMS Glorious an aircraft carrier. One of Fisher's Follies, she had started life as a Large Light Cruiser with 4 15" guns. Converted to an aircraft carrier she had no chance to survive within range of actual capital ships. The two destroyers escorting her put up a hell of a fight, working with smokescreens and torpedoes to do what they could. Both the Acasta and the Ardent were sunk of course. The Scharnhost was hit by a torpedo from the Acasta and forced to put in to a Norwegian port for repairs. While there she was subjected to several bombing raids to little effect, establishing a pattern that the RAF and Kriegsmarine would follow for the rest of the war.  HMS Glorious c.1917 The Glorious' third escort was the immortal Glowworm. Detached from the carrier she was intercepted by the Admiral Hipper. Caught in gun range by a heavier ship the captain, Commander Roope, did the only thing he could. He attacked with torpedoes and then rammed the cruiser. His Victoria Cross was awarded based on testimony from the captain of the Hipper, passed on through the Red Cross. Here's a copy of his award: http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/victoria-cross-heroes-gerard-roope-vc/  After the Norway campaign both ships prepared for a raid into the Atlantic convoy routes. Storm damage delayed Operation Berlin until January 22, 1941. During the raid, the battlecruisers sank about 10 ships from three convoys, twice refusing action against battleships escorting convoys. That's fair, a 15 inch gunned battleship can do terrible things to any ship that comes in range of it, and the German BCs had a comparatively limited range due to their 11" guns. They were well protected for battlecruisers, but they couldn't stand up to heavy shells. A 12" belt is good, but not that good, and a 2 inch deck dooms them against long range fire, 3 inch or more is necessary against 14 and 15 inch shells. Look at all the armor (colored in in black) that isn't on the belt or turrets. That's a protection scheme that is more concerned about 8" guns on cruisers than on the 14-16" guns carried by capital ships. For that, either you only armor belt, guns, magazines, and deck (the all-or-nothing scheme pioneered by the Americans); or you go thicker when you do spread it out. After the raid both ships ended up in France, harried by air raids whenever the RAF felt like trying their luck. Some damage was done, but there's not much profit in bombing a ship home ported in a major repair facility. Eventually though, the RAF would get lucky, and the Kriegsmarine knew it. Repair work kept Scharnhorst from being available during Bismark's sortie. Enough was enough. They fixed up the ships, gathered a large force of torpedo craft (seagoing and motor varieties), and executed Operation Cerberus. What Operation Cerberus (11 February, 1942) was, was the poster child for "never make assumptions in warfare". The English Channel is at points as narrow as 22 miles. On the other side of it is an active enemy. You have an air force, a Coastal Command with ships, torpedo boats, and airplanes. The Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau raised steam, raised anchor, steamed out, and made a daylight transit of the English Channel. The British threw what little was actually available to strike targets daring to sail within a few miles of their coast in broad daylight. This turned to to be exactly gently caress all. A handful of obsolete biplanes with torpedoes, motor torpedo boats designed to hunt at night, all did nothing against a strong escort screen on the surface and heavy fighter cover in the skies. Both battlecruisers hit mines and had real trouble, but they both made it back to Germany If you're assuming that it would be stupid for the enemy to do something, make sure you have the forces in place to punish their mistake. The Gneisenau was damaged in an air raid while at Kiel, badly enough that she was put in dockyard hands for repairs and a refit including conversion to 15" guns. This would have turned her into a threat almost as severe as the Tirpitz. Her 11" turrets were mounted as coast defence guns. Work was cancelled in 1943, after the Battle of the Barents Sea (and another VC for a British destroyer captain facing overwhelming force, Sherbrooke won his battle). While the Gneisenau languished in the dock, the Scharnhorst joined the Tirpitz in Norway. Even with 11" guns she'd be more than a match for the close escort and covering force of any convoy, with the Tirpitz the convoy escort would have to have at least two battleships to hope to survive. Luckily for the British, Hitler would lay down orders requiring extreme caution from the heavy ships. This would keep the German heavy ships from running any risk of facing an even force. One operation that the Scharnhorst did carry out was a raid on the island of Spitzbergen on 6 September 1943. This was intended to destroy the weather station that provided important information to the allies. That would be the last success by the German surface fleet. Just days after the raid the Tirptz was immobilized by British X-craft mini submarines, leaving the Scharnhost as the heaviest unit remaining. That would last until Christmas. Late in December convoy JW55B was detected heading for Russia. Witht he army in dire straits on the Eastern Front, the decision was made to risk their last battlecruiser in an attempt to disrupt the convoy. The Battle of North Cape was on. In a classic display of the use of signals intelligence, the admirals set a trap. Adm. Burnett with three heavy cruisers set up between the convoy and the Scharnhorst. Adm. Fraser in the Duke of York would cut off the Scharnhorst's escape route. The cruisers did their job and more. Not only did they turn Scharnhorst away from the convoy, the Belfast knocked out her primary fire control with a lucky 8" hit. Adm. Bey turned the Scharnhorst to work around the cruisers and get at the convoy. He skirmished with the cruisers and ultimately turned for home, unable to make contact with his primary target. Duke of York intercepted her on the way home and shot out most of her main and secondary armament. Still able to make full speed, the Scharnhorst was actually pulling away from the Duke of York. But not the destroyers accompanying her. Hit by four torpedoes, she sank at 19:45 on December 26th. Only 36 of her crew of almost 2000 survived.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
my dad posted:Well, I live in a country that was bombed by NATO, and have also experienced circumstances in which I feared for my life even outside of the mentioned bombing. See, that's what I meant. That stuff happened just on our doorstep and people hardly noticed. A coworker that I like is from Kosovo. Casually, he showed me a pic of him and his parents standing on a heap of rubble out on the countryside. He told me that it's what's left of their house. And: "Somebody else owns these grounds now". It's weird, but people that are traumatized sometimes say the worst things just like sidenotes. Like that he was there when his best childhood friend was shot dead by a bunch of guys. Or that grown men regularly would beat him and other children up just for fun. SeanBeansShako posted:Nobody quoted Robert E Lee talking about how much war sucks yet? We got a quota to fill people! Shoot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:
Sort of have to nitpick an otherwise awesome post. They had nine in three triple turrets. The Bismarck class and heavy cruisers had the twin guns in twin turrets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Why did the Germans use the 11" gun on their battlecruisers? It doesn't seem like a good weapon against enemy merchant ships (could be more efficiently destroyed with something lighter), cruisers (same), or capital ships (whose armor can withstand 11" fire and which the battlecruiser must flee anyway).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Why did the Germans use the 11" gun on their battlecruisers? It doesn't seem like a good weapon against enemy merchant ships (could be more efficiently destroyed with something lighter), cruisers (same), or capital ships (whose armor can withstand 11" fire and which the battlecruiser must flee anyway). Treaty limitations. They were actually designed so that the triple turrets could be replaced by twin 15" turrets later. The Japanese did this too. They designed a class of their cruisers (I forget which ones), with 6 inchers, that could be upgraded to 8 inchers. Edit: The Mogamis- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogami-class_cruiser Built with 6 inch main battery, but could be refit to 8. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Why did the Germans use the 11" gun on their battlecruisers? It doesn't seem like a good weapon against enemy merchant ships (could be more efficiently destroyed with something lighter), cruisers (same), or capital ships (whose armor can withstand 11" fire and which the battlecruiser must flee anyway). Treaty limitations as said before, but the 11" guns were actually pretty good ones that could punch above their caliber, but only against older guns. Bigger caliber still generally meant larger shell (almost always) and better ballistic performance, though this isn't always true. The US 16" on the Iowas, for example, were pretty comparable to the 18.1" guns on the Yamato and were possibly better under certain circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Nothing beats the British BL 15 inch Mark 1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15_inch_Mk_I_naval_gun \/ That was a joke. I believe it was the most widely used though. Also it was pretty impressive how they ordered it straight from the drawing board. They kept swapping guns and turrets around from the first QE to Vanguard. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Technically, there weren't treaty limitations on Germany with respect to warship armament. There's a number of reasons the Panzerschiffe had 11"s: they, strictly speaking, were replacements for pre-dreads that had 11"s of their own; politically, when it came to prestige, they were capital ships, even if they were technically armored cruisers; the Reichsmarine had substantial experience with the 11" caliber; they were meant to outrun all but battlecruisers, and, frankly, 11" on WWI BC deck armor is probably going to penetrate, and kick the hell out of the poor excuse for protection the Countys, for instance, had; and you're really pushing your luck trying to get six of anything larger onto something you have to at least claim is 10,000 tons. I'm sure I'm neglecting something. It's true that the Scharnhorsts were supposed to be upgraded to 15", things having evolved by the time they were being designed, but I believe the mount design wasn't ready in time. Gneisenau was going to take the refit in '43, but reality intervened (as mllaneza mentions). e: Saint Celestine posted:Nothing beats the British BL 15 inch Mark 1. A fair few do until the mounts have their max elevation increased in refit (or supercharges are developed). e2: Yeah, fair enough. The whole 20 degree max elevation on the QEs was a thing, though. I'd have to look up if the Rs ever had it done. I'd guess no. e3: Saint Celestine posted:They kept swapping guns and turrets around from the first QE to Vanguard. I always wondered if the irony in Vanguard's name was intentional. The Merry Marauder fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I live a few 100km away from the Ukraine, most of the males of my family fought there just 70 years ago. I don't want to join them. The stuff we study is insanely screwed up, as a way of living. It's also what people spent most of my period doing. There's not a lot of years of peace in early modern Europe. That was also where a bunch of the really smartest people worked--imagine figuring out everything they figured out about artillery and fortification with their level of technology. It humbles me. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/the_art_of_war/ Holy poo poo dude. The idea of the IDF consulting Cyclonopedia to kill insurgents better is extremely heavy to me 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Speaking of why war is hosed up: Bomb-damaged books from Admont Abbey in Austria, now stored in France. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465776/Shhh-Worlds-stunning-libraries-captured-new-book-leave-lost-words.html swamp waste posted:Holy poo poo dude. The idea of the IDF consulting Cyclonopedia to kill insurgents better is extremely heavy to me Is "the IDF reads Thousand Plateaus" the LF-est thing that ever happened? Edit: It's nothing new, though, look at the impact of Hegel on the 19th century or Humanism on the Early Modern. Venice got a classics professor to design a trireme for it at one point, which is probably the only time one made any money, and I've read a drill book that gave the commands in (among other languages) Latin. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Nothing beats the British BL 15 inch Mark 1. If it's good enough for Warspite, then it's good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:If it's good enough for Warspite, then it's good enough for me. Bitter shame she was scrapped. The grand old lady deserved better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Bitter shame she was scrapped. The grand old lady deserved better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Or it means "turned into an enormously expensive floating museum."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:She was wrecked before that could happen. Still though, for a warship "better" sort of means "boom". The decision had already been made to scrap her though. She was on her way to the breakers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Oh I guess as a child, the shopping centre we used to go to was blown up by the IRA, so that was fun. A suicide bomber blew himself up outside the hardware store I was in, and me and my girlfriend had to leave out the front (where he was).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:58
|
|
