|
Wikipedia posted:Cold War II or The New Cold War (February 2014 - Present) is the renewed ongoing tension, hostility and rivalry between the Galactic Republic against the Trade Federation led by Viceroy Nute Gunray. The conflict follows 23 years after the first Cold War ended, which was fought between the Galactic Republic and the Mandalorians and took place throughout the majority of the 20th Century, finally ending in 1991 following the defeat of Mandalore.[1][2][3] As these tensions have gradually escalated, Relations between the Galactic Republic and the Outer Rim are commented to have deteriorated to a point "beyond repair",[4] with the Trade Federation attempting to counterbalance the Galactic Republic through the creation of a new droid army.[5]
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
^^^^ The revision page for this is going to be classic reading over the next couple of years. I love the pictures of "Putin" that keep changing. Raskolnikov38 posted:Newt Gingrich... grain of salt. Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Hitler as Putin 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I hope this is more interesting than the time I spent three months reading muster rolls to find out that the average age of a bunch of guys with different ages was 30. Also, Hesse? I hope you didn't have to live in Cassel, that place is a hole. Nah, I was working out of the state archives in Wiesbaden so it barely even counted as being "in Hessen." We were actually living in Mainz at that time due mostly to finding a really cheap apartment in a nice section of the city, so I just took the train in every day. There was a regional monthly pass that made it work out pretty well. Bacarruda posted:That actually sounds really interesting. Were you looking mostly at the place of birth/origins of the children? No, it was an internal, informal survey done by the military occupation government in one district of a single nearby school just to try to get a gauge on the general quality of life and material needs of the children outside of their classrooms. One mid-ranking officer was trying to make an argument for increased material support for the kids via the local school system - increased hot lunches and shoes were the big ones as I recall - so he just popped his head into a class at random and conducted a quick survey to help make his case. It was unscientific as all hell, so you can't really use it to make any statistical claims about what percentage of German kids weren't getting their nutritional needs met in 1946 etc., but it did provide an interesting snap shot of what the situation on the ground was like at that moment. The survey made the claim that the conditions, social standings, etc of this class were representative of the school as a whole and other schools in the city. Anyways, I'll spare you the naval gazing about how useful this info is, I did enough of that for the chapter it got used in. edit: it was a first grade classroom. quote:51 kids in the classroom I found it pretty interesting, and it meshes well with what we know from other sources about the general condition that the school aged population of Germany was in immediately after the war. The breakdown that they had really helped get a sense of just what kind of unfulfilled needs they had and what kind of aid would be useful, however. edit: the school was in Wiesbaden, which got off pretty light in the wartime bombing and fighting, hence the high numbers of refugees and the relatively low proportion of kids living in damaged structures. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Libluini posted:It's just that I've grown up with East Germany slowly breaking apart and then with it being reunited with the rest and then with the aftermath of trying to build up the ruins, so it's hard to see the wall as successful. It just prevented a clean death and turned into agonizing decades of misery. At least in my opinion, that is. You need to be able to evaluate something independently against its actual objectives rather than your subjective ~feelings~ about how it was bad. Was the Berlin Wall incredibly divisive and contributed to even more issues with reunification? Sure. Was the Berlin Wall a success in accomplishing the DDR's objectives at the time? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Hitler as Putin  Putin's new look is uhhh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Doesn't Newt Gingrich hold the opinion that the Cold War and its proxies was World War 3 and the War on Terror™ is world war 4? What would that make this, World War 5? Personally I don't consider it a World War until Germany violates Belgian neutrality. Get on it, Merkel!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
I've always disliked the narrative of WWI and II as one conflict because I think it makes the second one sound like it was going to happen. This is an offshoot of my absolute disdain for people who think that the hyperinflation and immediate post-Versailles chaos caused the Nazi takeover of Germany. It was the Depression! That's it! Thinking of the two as one conflict ignores the peaceful-ish late 1920's where a second world war did not seem in any way on the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I've always disliked the narrative of WWI and II as one conflict because I think it makes the second one sound like it was going to happen. This is an offshoot of my absolute disdain for people who think that the hyperinflation and immediate post-Versailles chaos caused the Nazi takeover of Germany. It was the Depression! That's it! Thinking of the two as one conflict ignores the peaceful-ish late 1920's where a second world war did not seem in any way on the horizon. Claiming a mono causal explanation for the NSDAP where the depression leads to the collapse of the Weimar grossly over simplifies things and completely ignores German parliamentary politics among numerous other things. Ww2 is also about more than just nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Newt Gingrich is also of the opinion that the Belgian colonial occupation of the Congo was beneficial to the Congolese so take that with a grain of salt. C'mon, it really gave their fledgling economy a hand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
What was there, in terms of conflicts, ongoing in the late 30's runup to the Nazi invasion of Poland? You had the Sino-Japanese war from the early 30's alongside the Chinese Civil war, Germany was involved there with the right-wing part of the KMT in an anti-communist/anti-Japanese capacity, originally Stalin was supporting both Chinese belligerents. Total loving mess of alliances and support and poo poo. You had the Spanish Civil war and their communist/fascist belligerents, you had Italy doing its thing, there were a bunch of smaller wars going on before the big one. Anyone basically shackling the scope of it to fit between the Anschluss and Nukes is a tremendous waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Claiming a mono causal explanation for the NSDAP where the depression leads to the collapse of the Weimar grossly over simplifies things and completely ignores German parliamentary politics among numerous other things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:What was there, in terms of conflicts, ongoing in the late 30's runup to the Nazi invasion of Poland? You had the Sino-Japanese war from the early 30's alongside the Chinese Civil war, Germany was involved there with the right-wing part of the KMT in an anti-communist/anti-Japanese capacity, originally Stalin was supporting both Chinese belligerents. Total loving mess of alliances and support and poo poo. You had the Spanish Civil war and their communist/fascist belligerents, you had Italy doing its thing, there were a bunch of smaller wars going on before the big one. Anyone basically shackling the scope of it to fit between the Anschluss and Nukes is a tremendous waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Chaco War was some bad stuff. Not really related to the broader worldwide state of affairs. Although, you did have Prussians sdvising the Bolivians and White Russians advising the Paraguayans, so there was an international presence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Neat how a lot of those conflicts were basically plutocrat/oligarch/fascist reprisal against Communist sentiment/Comintern cooperation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Libluini posted:A sharp drop is still not stopping it, sorry. And you disagreeing with that minor point made you post all this? Well, at least it's informative, I'll give you that. It certainly ain't "slightly slowed down" either
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Edit: I read 30s as 20s. Ignore me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
100 Years Ago: On land, everything that's been happening, continues to happen. At sea, the first major naval action of the war occurs in the Heligoland Bight; a detachment of the Grand Fleet conducts a successful ambush on a number of High Seas Fleet vessels, sinking three cruisers and one destroyer, and damaging three more cruisers, in exchange for one cruiser and three destroyers damaged. Again, not a thing I know a great deal about, and I'm especially wary of talking about naval affairs because I know we've got some people in here who seriously know their poo poo on that score. So here's something else. Cards on the table time. I absolutely despise military history (or to be fair, any history) when it's presented as the story of feuding old men, the relationships between politicians and generals. I don't care if Loos was the fault of Haig or French for positioning the reserves improperly, or Haking's for not understanding that his men might be needed quickly, or all of them for agreeing to participate in a major offensive while the artillery's ammunition supplies consisted of three working shells, six duds, the battalion tea-urn, and a sack of rotten apples scrumped from Dead Cow Farm. What I'm most interested in is that someone at GHQ made some decisions, and some other people had some Good Ideas, and the practical upshot of all this is that now several hundred ordinary blokes are taking a tour of interesting shell-holes in No Man's Land, trying not to piss themselves and trying to remember if they filled out the "Last Will and Testament" section of their pay-books. Who are they? What are they doing there? What's the daily reality of life up the line, and out of the line? How do they get fed and watered? On a day-to-day practical level, how do they not die? And who exactly was Mademoiselle from Armentieres, anyway? So, here's something on conditions during the long retreat for anyone who ranked below Brigadier. (Sure, it's not possible to understand things properly without some wider grasp of tactics and strategy, but I'm happy with enough to gain a broad understanding of where any individual bunch of blokes are and what, in theory, they're supposed to be doing.) Above all else, the word is "chaos". If you're good, or lucky, or both, then you end up with relatively organised chaos. If you're not, that's when retreat turns into rout, which is one thing that the retreat from Mons categorically never did. The chaos remained relatively organised from start to finish and the BEF remained able to watch its own back; fight simple, directed rearguard actions when required; and in so doing allowed almost none of its guns to fall into enemy hands. That's about as much as you can expect from an army undertaking the third-longest retreat in its history (Corunna was slightly further, and both of them are of course dwarfed by the truly epic withdrawal from Burma in 1942). Of course there was a whole cavalcade of small, individual gently caress-ups, but they never combined into an omnishambles. But chaos it was. To begin with, the average Tommy marched to battle with fifty-odd pounds' worth of equipment on his back and about his person. This of course was discarded as soon as it became apparent that the retirement might go on for some time, if it hadn't already been left behind in the course of fighting. Some lucky or resourceful officers commandeered lorries, carts and wagons of all kinds, piling them high with their men's baggage and coats. Mindful that "shamefully casting away arms" was a capital offence on active service, and also driven by basic soldierly pride, most men retained their rifles and ammunition, or obtained new ones when their previous owners didn't need them any more. More importantly, there was a vast contingent of stragglers, and each traffic jam, each halt, each rearguard action added to their numbers. When ordered to retire, staying with one's unit was always considered secondary to actually getting the gently caress out of it (in any case, they were often in such dire straits that the actual order was accompanied by "every man for himself!"), and this was planned for; officers or NCOs who became separated from the body of their unit would gather stragglers at every halt, and ensure that they didn't turn into deserters or casualties. They could rejoin their proper units later, once the retreat ended and everyone had a moment to breathe. In the meantime, the stragglers had someone to take orders from and now could be useful for something other than retreating. Here's Bill Holbrook, 4th Royal Fusiliers; he was a runner at Mons who was away from his company with a message when the retirement began, and was forced to start going back with whoever he could find: quote:It was days before I saw any of my lot again! I just kept following the crowd, and there were so many stragglers they didn't notice me. It's a blank, really, most of it is. For the first few hours, anyway. After a bit, I came up with another bunch. There was an officer at the side of the road, rounding up stragglers and gathering them together, so I thought I might as well join up with them. They were all sorts. There was about fifty of us altogether, I suppose, and I don't believe there were two men from the same unit. It's not difficult to imagine the havoc and panic that even a small cavalry patrol could have caused among a disorganised mass of rag, tag and bobtail; but as long as there was someone who was able to think and give orders, rearguard stands could be organised and the situation could not break down entirely. And then there was the traffic. The retreat was naturally going down roads which were mostly already packed with fleeing civilian refugees before the Army came along. Carts full of the contents of houses, teetering and falling. Entire extended families shuffling backwards, all over the roads. Most could not cut across country because they couldn't find their way without a road to guide them. And in 1914, even the most modern of tarmac main roads were barely country lanes by today's standards; a wide road was one with room for two cars to pass in opposite directions without either having to pull over. Tarmac itself was rare enough; even cobbled roads could be a luxury, and there were many sections of road to march over that were merely dirt tracks, with predictable consequences once rain and feet and horseshoes and wagon wheels had all taken their toll. And then there were the livestock owners, driving animals of all kinds before them. Some mobile refugees abandoned their carts when faced with delays, with predictable results. At some points the traffic became so bad that individual soldiers literally had to push their way through the crush of people. Animals were knocked down and trampled, and men already exhausted by days upon days of marching had to look sharp to avoid meeting the same end. Communications never quite became impossible, but getting any kind of message to anyone who you couldn't directly see required a great deal of effort and luck, and orders in any other than the most general terms quickly became out of date and useless. Fortunately, at the time, "keep retiring thataway" generally sufficed... Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That is indeed some serious poo poo. It's a proto-flintlock! I don't know if they're faster to fire as well--I've talked to a musketeer who said that he can get three shots a minute with a matchlock, which sounds like what you can get from a later flintlock (??? I don't actually know very much about this). (That guy has been doing this for decades, though, which not everyone would have.) I do know, though, that they're handier to fire, especially from cover, since you don't have to worry about ashing on yourself or setting your own charges on fire, and they misfire less often; roughly, three out of every ten shots with a matchlock will fail to go off at first. (It's fun to count this when there are musketeers standing next to us.) You can also sneak up on people with a non-matchlock weapon. You can see the burning match at night, and also smell it--it smells almost, but not quite, like gunpowder since it's soaked in a saltpeter solution during manufacture. A very nice smell, but also highly distinctive. Although, the visibility of burning match is also useful--I've read about people covering retreats at night by tying lengths of match to tree branches, or stringing a rope between two trees and tying lengths of match to the rope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
What do you do when your gun misfires in such a situation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Oh yeah--and this response is late, but the reason these guys are freaking out in this situation is probably that many of the peasants' guns are rifled. So not only have they gotten target shooting practice that an average soldier might not have (depending on his background), the guns themselves are going to be more accurate. Not to mention that they're probably more likely to be used to taking care with their shots, while it's a perennial complaint that musketeers don't wad even though they should. Yeah as I understand it (although I'm not a TFR goon, one can correct me if I'm wrong!) per-rifled firearms were so inaccurate that deliberately hitting a target at anything other then close range is impossible. That's why they fired in volleys. There are semi confirmed rifle hits at 700-1000 yards in the Civil War. The advantage rifled weapons had was enormous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:You need to be able to evaluate something independently against its actual objectives rather than your subjective ~feelings~ about how it was bad. Was the Berlin Wall incredibly divisive and contributed to even more issues with reunification? Sure. Was the Berlin Wall a success in accomplishing the DDR's objectives at the time? Yes. That's true. I guess since East German politicians couldn't predict the future, it would be unfair to say they went the wrong way. I mean I'm pretty sure those leaders didn't want East Germany to collapse in just a few years, so almost stopping the brain drain by people fleeing the country was a good success. Me saying a fast collapse would have been better is just my personal opinion, but I know this alternative history would probably hosed everything up somewhere else. The first example which comes to mind: A collapse of the DDR just before 1968 would have been a victory completely overshadowing (or neutralizing) the revolution of 1968, making our world a significantly worse place. OK, thinking it through like this, my opinion really sounds stupid. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Yeah as I understand it (although I'm not a TFR goon, one can correct me if I'm wrong!) per-rifled firearms were so inaccurate that deliberately hitting a target at anything other then close range is impossible. That's why they fired in volleys. There are semi confirmed rifle hits at 700-1000 yards in the Civil War. The advantage rifled weapons had was enormous. I think it's often overstated how inaccurate they are. There are a few smooth bore accuracy videos on youtube but as usual you can make what you want of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Yeah as I understand it (although I'm not a TFR goon, one can correct me if I'm wrong!) per-rifled firearms were so inaccurate that deliberately hitting a target at anything other then close range is impossible. That's why they fired in volleys. There are semi confirmed rifle hits at 700-1000 yards in the Civil War. The advantage rifled weapons had was enormous. That's correct. Prior to the invention of the rifled musket the effective range of firearms was maybe 150-250 yards. The invention of the rifled musket and the Minie ball tripled that. What's interesting though is that even after it had been accepted that troops did not need to move in close-order formation anymore just to be able to deliver accurate fire at range, factors such as battlefield communications still being limited to shouts, visibility issues from terrain and smoke-producing gunpowder and the overall professionalism of the armies involved meant that commanders had to stick to close-order formations anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Yeah as I understand it (although I'm not a TFR goon, one can correct me if I'm wrong!) per-rifled firearms were so inaccurate that deliberately hitting a target at anything other then close range is impossible. That's why they fired in volleys. There are semi confirmed rifle hits at 700-1000 yards in the Civil War. The advantage rifled weapons had was enormous. While rifled guns were a significant advantage in terms of accuracy, a lot of the accuracy issues involved with smoothbore muskets had to do with low quality weapons, drills that did not allow for aiming, and the lack of sight aperatures on the weapons. Men taking aimed shots even with smoothbore muskets could hit targets with some degree of accuracy. This is why the French use of light infantry worked in the Napoleonic Wars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Yes, there was the article a while back about how the first volley (where everyone has properly taken aim) was by far more effectively lethal than subsequent fire (where everyone is just trying to expend ammunition as quickly as possible).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:While rifled guns were a significant advantage in terms of accuracy, a lot of the accuracy issues involved with smoothbore muskets had to do with low quality weapons, drills that did not allow for aiming, and the lack of sight aperatures on the weapons. Men taking aimed shots even with smoothbore muskets could hit targets with some degree of accuracy. This is why the French use of light infantry worked in the Napoleonic Wars. You're still limited to maybe 150 yds at best for aimed fire for an excellent marksman. The muskets issued to Light Companies and Voltigeurs were standard issue, so that's not a driver of success for open order skirmishing. It helps if you consider those troops the relative elite of the infantry, even more so than the Guards. Skirmishers were expected to operate independently at the partner level, responding to overall commands but with significant independence in execution. I also question the uniqueness of French light infantry use. The theory was not special, they just used open-order skirmishers at a battalion level rather than detached companies from individual battalions. "The drills that did not allow for aiming" were a function of the reality of the battlefield. People forget, in general, how god drat smoky a Napoleonic battlefield was. After the first few shots in calm or light winds, your position is so obscured by smoke that you can't see poo poo that's 40 yds away. Why would you train your average line infantryman to take the time to aim his firearm at a specific target? And why would you build smoothbore weapons with tighter tolerances that could lead to increased accuracy at extreme ranges when it will lower your rate of fire?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes, there was the article a while back about how the first volley (where everyone has properly taken aim) was by far more effectively lethal than subsequent fire (where everyone is just trying to expend ammunition as quickly as possible). While to a degree this is true, I think the "I can't see loving poo poo" portion is a bigger driver of subsequent ineffectiveness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:While to a degree this is true, I think the "I can't see loving poo poo" portion is a bigger driver of subsequent ineffectiveness. They feed into each other. As you yourself noted the "I can't see loving poo poo" factor means that you might as well make guns that emphasize reliability and repeated fire over accuracy, and it also means that you can cut down on the over-all cost of the individual infantryman, both in terms of equipment and training. It's also worth noting the role that fouling played in all this. Blackpowder firearms get dirty unbelievably fast, especially when using low quality powders. Even today with relatively (read: still loving filthy by even the nastiest smokeless standards) clean blackpowder substitutes you'll see BP shooters cleaning their guns fairly often. military guns also generally had ammunition that was, by design, under-caliber for the bore. Two or four shots before cleaning is just fine for a civilian hunting gun, but for a weapon that might see prolonged battlefield use it's important to be able to keep loading your weapon without stopping to service it mid-battle. Hell, I've even read that they issued special smaller caliber bullets when poo poo got really prolonged, although I've never found a good example of that in print or in person so. . . 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Wouldn't there also be an issue with inconsistencies in the overall shot as well? The musket ball may be a bit misshapen, there's a good chance the amount of powder poured into the barrel was off as well, the variable nature of the soldier ramming the shot in, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Wouldn't there also be an issue with inconsistencies in the overall shot as well? The musket ball may be a bit misshapen, there's a good chance the amount of powder poured into the barrel was off as well, the variable nature of the soldier ramming the shot in, and so on. There's enough accounts of soldiers ramming 4-5 rounds into their musket and not realizing that it had misfired and accidentally firing off their ramrod and so on and so forth to be fairly confident in saying that being in the firing line in a pitched battle was an absolutely terrifying experience and anything less that elite troops would rapidly see command and control and weapon drill rapidly disintegrate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Wouldn't there also be an issue with inconsistencies in the overall shot as well? The musket ball may be a bit misshapen, there's a good chance the amount of powder poured into the barrel was off as well, the variable nature of the soldier ramming the shot in, and so on. Compared to anything we're familiar with from more modern firearms? Sure. I imagine even the most hilariously irregular stalinist-era factory line mechanical powder throw or super-budget TulAmmo plinking grade is orders of magnitude more precisely measured than what was going on with even pre-measured paper cartridges back than. Even so, it's one of those things where I strongly suspect that any deviation caused by ammo quality is going to be utterly swallowed by the deviation caused by using sub-caliber ammo. Think of it this way: if you accidentally throw a 9mm in a .40 handgun the resulting inaccuracy is going to be relatively huge regardless of whether you're using match-grade handloads or the cheapest training ammo you can find. Another example: a few years ago a company was making semi-auto clones of the polish AK74 variant built up on imported parts kits. Only they hosed the pooch and accidentally used 5.56 barrel blanks rather than the appropriate 5.45. The resulting guns were hilariously inaccurate. We're talking barely on paper and north of 50% keyholes at 50 yards and less. You could feed one of those match ammo or cheap poo poo and not really notice any appreciable difference in grouping. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
True. That was one of the big improvements with the Minie ball and its predecessors, right? The ability of the round to be loaded normally but then spread out inside the barrel to come out straight and fast. (Oversimplifying things, I'm sure)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Pissing in the barrel was supposedly a relatively popular/expedient way of unfouling your firearm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Reloading a modern assault rifle is a really simple process and people have a tough time doing it under fire...I can't imagine how poor the "successful firearm operation rate" wasa amongst conscript armies using weapons that had a 12 step long reload process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:True. That was one of the big improvements with the Minie ball and its predecessors, right? The ability of the round to be loaded normally but then spread out inside the barrel to come out straight and fast. (Oversimplifying things, I'm sure) Pretty much, yeah. It wasn't that the Minie ball allowed for accurate firearms, it was more that it allowed for accurate firearms that could be loaded with the speed of a traditional smooth bore. As a counter-point, take the Brunswick rifle, a design from the early 19th century. Probably about as accurate as a civil-war era rifle. Problem? Check this ammo and barrel design out:  Two groove barrel with ammo that was specially belted and had to be inserted in the proper orientation. Not only that, but your bullet is a tighter fit for the barrel, which means actually pushing it down with the ramrod, rather than just using the ramrod to ensure that everything is nicely packed down at the bottom. Result? Fairly slow rate of fire. With an expanding base round like the mine ball you get all the advantages of sub-caliber munitions with all of the advantages of very slight over-caliber munitions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
I remember hearing about that attempt. It's one of those things that makes you go 'Of course, why didn't we think of that first?' until you actually try it.bewbies posted:Reloading a modern assault rifle is a really simple process and people have a tough time doing it under fire...I can't imagine how poor the "successful firearm operation rate" wasa amongst conscript armies using weapons that had a 12 step long reload process. That's why drills were such a big component on training. But as said before, multiple charges loaded, rods left in, etc. Doesn't help that with all of the noise around you and everything you probably wouldn't really notice if your gun didn't fire, even with how much those things probably kicked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:That's why drills were such a big component on training. But as said before, multiple charges loaded, rods left in, etc. Doesn't help that with all of the noise around you and everything you probably wouldn't really notice if your gun didn't fire, even with how much those things probably kicked. But without live ammunition because god drat son that shits expensive and the King needs some new bling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 16:03
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:But without live ammunition because god drat son that shits expensive and the King needs some new bling. It still boggles my mind that the Russian Napoleonic era soldier was alloted only five rounds a year to practice with.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It still boggles my mind that the Russian Napoleonic era soldier was alloted only five rounds a year to practice with. poo poo, wasn't just the Russians. I saw a video just yesterday with an interview with a guy who got drafted into the English army in the early-middle of WW1 who complained about doing a lot of rifle parade drill but only firing 5 rounds of live fire and never even seeing a grenade or MG before he hit the trenches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 16:23
|
|