|
Frostwerks posted:So perfect for deep space marine boarding actions? Fun fact about guns, they work in space because the gunpowder has enough oxygen for the explosion. Morholt posted:Also also phoneposting but I skimmed through this http://www.historiskamedia.se/bok/hastens-tid/ a while back. It focuses on the nobility's horses. In that case, yes, they were hella trained at all kinds of fancy battle maneuvers. In the opinion of the author this training detracted from their performance at galloping straight forward which is why it was abandoned. Does the book have stuff about the rusthålls farm horses or just nobility's horses? Does it make comparisons between different horse breeds in the Swedish Realm? I was procrastinating and found a funny thing:  It's from The Later Thirty Years War: From the Battle of Wittstock to the Treaty of Westphalia 2003 by William P. Guthrie. The quip is funny, but looks like that Guthrie thinks that the Swedish cavalrymen were conscripts, when in fact they were also all volunteers. But then again, the author is an "independent scholar". From a review of the book from h-net.org: "... Guthrie has made a major contribution to the English-language literature on the Thirty Years' War. That contribution, however, is significantly compromised by errors of fact, omission, and above all structure." Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Nov 6, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
Last I read about the subjects, the Swedes preferred to use their own nationals to man forts and garrisons because they were seen as more reliable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
And here's one of the Gerichtsbuecher for the Mansfeld Regiment from '26 to '27 (there are at least three out there). This is the one that the Schutze/Steter case was in.  It's a little more jacked up than the muster roll I posted yesterday--there's mud on some of the pages. But because Matthew Steiner, the Regimental Secretary who compiled this thing, was a conscientious person, everything is copied out neatly. He even included a tabbed index of names! Edit: there's a bug squashed between the pages of one of the Gerichtsbuecher, not this one. Edit 2: The color's washed out because it's technically impossible for dyed silk to be colorfast and because they're almost 400 years old, but those ribbons are pink. All the Gerichtsbuecher for this regiment have pink ribbons. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, a bit of googling tells me there's apparently some sort of high velocity munition the G36 was developed for which can reach the necessary speed to kill people with nerve shocks. And the use of this ammunition is forbidden by the Geneva convention. On the other hand, for every source saying yes, this is how it works, I got a source claiming this is just a Bundeswehr-myth. So decide for yourself. What they must be referring to is known more broadly as hydrostatic shock. It's a real phenomenon that works based on the principle of fluid dynamics, but generally it is believed that the effects of hydrostatic shock are overstated and unpredictable, and should be given secondary consideration when considering bullet munitions. As far as I know, there is no Geneva convention governing the use of high-speed rounds, and those rumors are probably just the same kind of barracks wisdom that says that .50 Cal weapons can't be used on people (So target their belt buckle! hyuck hyuck hyuck). High velocity rounds are great in many ways (particularly in that they have a great effective range and require less windage adjustment for distant targets) but their major drawback is that they can cause pretty serious wear on the barrel. Currently the fastest production cartridge is the .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum, with a velocity of 4,600 feet per second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Winchester_Super_Short_Magnum), but most gun systems adhere to a general standard of 3,000 feet per second. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Russian and Turkish ground forces collide with each other in strength in Anatolia. The Germans are about to attack again at Ypres; before they do, I'm looking at the conditions that are already developing in the trenches and shell-holes that currently make up the British line, in the words of the blokes who lived in them. Spoilers: they aren't very clement. Men are having to choose whether they prefer to live in the company of rats, or the company of corpses. HEY GAL posted:Edit 2: The color's washed out because it's technically impossible for dyed silk to be colorfast and because they're almost 400 years old, but those ribbons are pink. All the Gerichtsbuecher for this regiment have pink ribbons. I know the cultural context of the colour pink has changed a million ways since then, but I still can't stop myself wanting to just go  awwwww that's so cute!
Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I know the cultural context of the colour pink has changed a million ways since then, but I still can't stop myself wanting to just go  Note that the muster roll I posted earlier, which is Saxon, was tied shut with black and yellow ribbons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
vuk83 posted:TLDR: Killing is always better. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
vuk83 posted:
Medics are armed and they will participate in a firefight. Even our poo poo military has them armed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Medics are armed and they will participate in a firefight. Even our poo poo military has them armed. So was i when i was a medic. But technically i was only supposed to use my weapon to defend myself, my patient and my medical equipment/installation. That in recent low intensity conflict with lots of ambushes, yeah the medic are going to use their weapons in defense, but nobody is going to plan to use your medics to kick in the door, or use the medevac chopper to move forward a squad. The assets are allready there and not tasked with other poo poo. TLDR medics are armed for selfdefense, but not armed to assault a trench.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That's curious, I've always heard that the 5,56 mm ammo was specifically developed to injure instead of kill (and also be lighter so more rounds could be carried etc.). Something about the old ammo being so slow that it would bleed most of its energy into the body and cause giant wounds that were almost certainly fatal, while the smaller and faster 5,56 would punch straight through the body and do less damage so long as it didn't hit anything absolutely vital. The result being that the enemy's medical services would be overwhelmed by casualties, which reduces morale. This is all pure myth. The argument goes that if you kill a guy, he stops fighting. But if you wound a guy, he stops fighting, and his two buddies who need to carry him off the line stop fighting, and then the other side needs to burn gas to get him to a field hospital, and antibiotics to stop infection, and etc etc. But first, his buddies aren't going to stop fighting. Second, unless you kill him outright there's a good chance he'll be back on the line before too long. Third, what happens when you win and take possession of the battlefield? Now all those wounded guys are your responsibility and you need to burn gas to get them to a field hospital and take care of their wounds etc. In addition, guns aren't magic wands, there's a continuum of effect; you can take a weapon "designed to kill" and the vagaries of the real world mean you might only wound a guy with it. So if you start with a weapon "designed to wound" what assurance do you have that those wounds will be significant? Now consider the morale-reducing effects of your troops knowing that, while the enemy's weapons are designed to kill, theirs are only designed to wound. They're going to be "losing" their weapons and using scavenged ones at the first opportunity. A modern bullet wants to travel base-first, it's a more stable configuration. The spin from the rifling stops this from happening. When the bullet hits a target, it begins to yaw to result in that base-first attitude. So it begins to tumble within the guy it hits. 5.56mm NATO, if it hits with sufficient velocity, tends to fracture at the cannelure when that tumble begins, so instead of a single large bullet tumbling within the target, you have two or three pieces of a bullet caroming around and each carving out their own wound channel. It will kill you dead. Stories from, say, Mogadishu of "I shot him center-mass and he just kept coming" have simpler explanations than "the bullet was designed to go right through without doing as much damage": people are hard to kill, and soldiers miss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Not only is the practicality of 'shooting/designing to wound instead of kill' questionable at best, there are many times where a person can be mortally wounded but is still able to fight back until they die. Someone who's not fatally wounded is going to be even more likely to be able to fight until he's removed from the battlefield, which means that your side is likely to take more casualties as well. It's bad logic based upon 'bigger = better'
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Also all of this mythology has no evidential basis whatsoever in the actual design/procurement process, which is more concerned with the actual differences between the rounds, such as 'how much recoil does it produce? How accurate is it? How heavy is a battle-load of ammo?' It doesn't take a Napoleon to realise that you might want one weapon for close-quarters urban warfare and another for plinking at a bunch of guys the next hill over and it has nothing to do with whether the round is more likely to kill or wound.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Stories from, say, Mogadishu of "I shot him center-mass and he just kept coming" have simpler explanations than "the bullet was designed to go right through without doing as much damage": people are hard to kill, and soldiers miss. Yeah, I always chuckle when I see people shown on TV or in movies falling over dead instantly from being shot. It happens, of course (General Reynolds at Gettysburg is one example that springs to mind), but most often gunshot wounds are messy and take some time to kill the poor bastard who's been shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It doesn't take a Napoleon to realise that you might want one weapon for close-quarters urban warfare and another for plinking at a bunch of guys the next hill over God, you say that, but the number of times that design and procurement processes have been hosed up by some guy or group of guys with shoulder-boards and braids dreaming the impossible dream of the one-size-fits-all smallarm that's able to work as a PDW, assault rifle, LMG, and sniper rifle is really loving significant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Simplified logistics must be really tempting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:God, you say that, but the number of times that design and procurement processes have been hosed up by some guy or group of guys with shoulder-boards and braids dreaming the impossible dream of the one-size-fits-all smallarm that's able to work as a PDW, assault rifle, LMG, and sniper rifle is really loving significant. It's the inevitable result of design specs being drawn up by people in offices instead of people in trenches. Corbeau posted:Simplified logistics must be really tempting. It's an absolute beau ideal. It's also really loving difficult, which is why things like the Jerrycan or the standardized shipping container are loving amazing. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:God, you say that, but the number of times that design and procurement processes have been hosed up by some guy or group of guys with shoulder-boards and braids dreaming the impossible dream of the one-size-fits-all smallarm that's able to work as a PDW, assault rifle, LMG, and sniper rifle is really loving significant. I said it doesn't take a Napoleon. I make no promises for the McClellan's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I said it doesn't take a Napoleon. I make no promises for the McClellan's. Don't mention him, you're triggering me. (Seriously, just got to Antietam in Foote's Narrative of the Civil War and I had always read semi-sympathetic treatments that went along the lines of 'well it would have been difficult to pursue Lee because he was so chewed up'. Imagine my surprise when I found out not only did he effectively destroy the enemy's center, then pulled back instead of blocking the opponents only line of retreat, but that the whole time he had reserves amounting to half the enemies total strength that he never touched. What the gently caress? At least Pope just straight up got his rear end kicked instead of snatching defeat from the jaws of total victory in the most bizarre way imaginable.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:All the Gerichtsbuecher for this regiment have pink ribbons. Please tell me they somehow ended up in a certain military port on the Breton coast of France.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Don't mention him, you're triggering me. Just tossing this in here because I see it sometimes, but the last narrative you read is not always the best one. If you'd read Foote first and then a more sympathetic treatment you might be reversing the two opinions. Balance your secondaries against the historiography and the primaries they have,and the arguements they make.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It's the inevitable result of design specs being drawn up by people in offices instead of people in trenches. Plus a bunch of war profiteers trying to squeeze as much blood from a stone c.f. the F-35
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
He really is one of the most frustrating generals of all time to read about. Constantly sure of his own prowess while overestimating enemy capabilities to a ludicrous degree. Not to mention the fact that some of his actions bordered on near cowardice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Just tossing this in here because I see it sometimes, but the last narrative you read is not always the best one. If you'd read Foote first and then a more sympathetic treatment you might be reversing the two opinions. Balance your secondaries against the historiography and the primaries they have,and the arguements they make. Lee bottled up the army of northern Virginia in a bend of the Potomac, just from knowing the numbers and looking at a map of the battlefield makes it obvious that Lee should have been destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It's the inevitable result of design specs being drawn up by people in offices instead of people in trenches. Here's a design drawn up by a dude in trenches.  You can tell by the quality of the drawing that this isn't some peasant conscript's doodle, this is a fairly educated person that put some thought into his design based on his experience on the battlefield. It's also terrible and no one sane would ever field it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Here's a design drawn up by a dude in trenches. It also looks like a super fat Dalek playing a Trombone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Just tossing this in here because I see it sometimes, but the last narrative you read is not always the best one. If you'd read Foote first and then a more sympathetic treatment you might be reversing the two opinions. Balance your secondaries against the historiography and the primaries they have,and the arguements they make. The more I consider Lee as a General the overrated I think he is. He's a professional and competent general when on the defensive and with the advantage of superior intelligence, even accounting for the utter incompetence of his opponents, but both times he goes on the offensive (each time for indiscernible strategic objectives) his judgement is suspect and he's lucky to extract his army back to Virginia intact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It's the inevitable result of design specs being drawn up by people in offices instead of people in trenches. The vast majority of the people doing concept and requirements work, at least in the US over the last half century, have spent plenty of time "in the trenches". This doesn't make them necessarily learned or correct but this characterization is pretty wrong and annoys me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The vast majority of the people doing concept and requirements work, at least in the US over the last half century, have spent plenty of time "in the trenches". This doesn't make them necessarily learned or correct but this characterization is pretty wrong and annoys me. Case in point, the Bradley.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Case in point, the Bradley. What's that you say? An excuse to post Pentagon Wars? Well if you insist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
That sequence never gets any less amusing.quote:"Amphibious? The Bradley is supposed to swim?" And thus an idea was borne... PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Here's a design drawn up by a dude in trenches. What's so terrible about this design? It's got angled armor, which is more than you could say for a lot of pre-wWII designs. The tracks are wide enough for a tank that size. It's not obscenely tall. It looks like it has torsion bar suspension, which is fine for designs of its era. It's front-engined, which isn't great for AFVs, but not a dealbreaker. No cupola so button-up visibility wouldn't have been that good I'm guessing its Achilles' Heel has to do with that weird tiny turret. Is it supposed to be some kind of piston-activated disappearing design? Turret ring is small as gently caress, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:What's so terrible about this design? It's got angled armor, which is more than you could say for a lot of pre-wWII designs. The tracks are wide enough for a tank that size. It's not obscenely tall. It looks like it has torsion bar suspension, which is fine for designs of its era. It's front-engined, which isn't great for AFVs, but not a dealbreaker. No cupola so button-up visibility wouldn't have been that good It would be pretty good for sitting there and getting shot at. Anything fighting related would be bad. It looks like it'd have bad frontal visibility for driving, bad visibility and the commander would have to do everything so he'd be wildly overloaded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:What's so terrible about this design? It's got angled armor, which is more than you could say for a lot of pre-wWII designs. The tracks are wide enough for a tank that size. It's not obscenely tall. It looks like it has torsion bar suspension, which is fine for designs of its era. It's front-engined, which isn't great for AFVs, but not a dealbreaker. No cupola so button-up visibility wouldn't have been that good Yeah, most of the problems (aside from the hull shape that has a ton of useless space) are in the turret. The vehicle was supposed to be armed with an SMG, an anti-tank rifle, and an 82 mm mortar (all in the turret!), but there's no way in hell the commander's head would actually fit into that thing. Add to the fact that there have been no provisions made for an ammunition rack, fuel storage, radios, or hatches, you can tell this is a bunch of features the guy has heard of and wanted combined into a completely nonviable vehicle. xthetenth posted:It would be pretty good for sitting there and getting shot at. Anything fighting related would be bad. It looks like it'd have bad frontal visibility for driving, bad visibility and the commander would have to do everything so he'd be wildly overloaded. Not everything, there's a gunner, who presumably aims the anti-tank rifle with his nose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:It would be pretty good for sitting there and getting shot at. Anything fighting related would be bad. It looks like it'd have bad frontal visibility for driving, bad visibility and the commander would have to do everything so he'd be wildly overloaded. Like I said, it's not a perfect design. But it has some good features. With a few modifications (vision blocks, better cooling for the engine, some modifications to the turret), it would be a perfectly-serviceable tank or tankette design c. 1920.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Not everything, there's a gunner, who presumably aims the anti-tank rifle with his nose. Then clearly the problem is that the gunner and the commander are actually siamese twins and thus in short supply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Just tossing this in here because I see it sometimes, but the last narrative you read is not always the best one. If you'd read Foote first and then a more sympathetic treatment you might be reversing the two opinions. Balance your secondaries against the historiography and the primaries they have,and the arguements they make. Well I agree that after the day was over and Lee withdrew McClellan was too chewed up to begin a pursuit, but that point neglects the fact that there shouldn't have been a need for a pursuit. Lee had exhausted both wings, had his center collapse, McClellan had 8,000 chewed up men in the center with a commander that wanted to press forward to block Lee's only line of retreat and 20,000 untouched men in reserve that he could have called up to exploit this opportunity. Instead he pulled back because he feared the Confederates were marshaling 100,000 men on the opposite bank. It's loving bonkers, no matter what perspective you view it with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:God, you say that, but the number of times that design and procurement processes have been hosed up by some guy or group of guys with shoulder-boards and braids dreaming the impossible dream of the one-size-fits-all smallarm that's able to work as a PDW, assault rifle, LMG, and sniper rifle is really loving significant. It seems to have been a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:He really is one of the most frustrating generals of all time to read about. Constantly sure of his own prowess while overestimating enemy capabilities to a ludicrous degree. Not to mention the fact that some of his actions bordered on near cowardice. It's unfortunate the man had a name that doesn't lend itself to becoming a pejorative. "McClellan" should be a term for always imagining the enemy has more than twice the men he actually does, and then blundering accordingly. The man could have surrounded Richmond in the summer of 1862.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Simplified logistics must be really tempting. Edit: Was it Lee who said McClellan was his favorite Confederate general? Someone said that, and it is true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Can I interest you in The Way The Early Modern Does Things? Isn't the early modern just BYOB? Umm, does that second B stand for bullets or bottle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:37
|
|