|
Jaguars! posted:I'd be willing to bet that the ceremony started out as some dudes standing to attention while the flags got lowered - the sort of thing that happens in every military that has pre-20th century traditions. It then would have built up in a kind of ceremonial arms race. Apparently, it's been going on since 1959, which is plenty of time for bored garrison troops to slowly compound all sorts of new stuff into the ceremony. I've got a mental image of a time lapse of a formal gate-closing slowly growing pomp while Anything You Can Do plays in the background.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Bringing the subject to feeding an army, I just ate my first MRE. Got a pair off eBay, so I brought the chili with beans to my night shift at work for dinner. I can see why they're such an improvement over the past. The package isn't exactly small or super light, but it's worlds ahead of canned rations in bulk and weight. The Flameless Ration Heater is wonderful as long as you get it into the carton quickly after pouring the water in and don't burn yourself, but it lets off a bad smell kinda like burnt metal and you don't want an open flame near hydrogen gas vapors. The food quality itself is basically that of cheap pre-packaged food, like canned beans and grocery store beef and Cheese Whiz-like cheese spread on not very salty crackers. At the same time, I can also see why assault rations like the First Strike were made. The theoretical calorie content is based on a soldier eating literally every bite. You need to not only finish the entree and side dishes, but also drain the packet of cheese spread and down your dairy shake and instant coffee. It's really easy for a soldier who can't stomach one or two parts of his ration and isn't able to trade up to only eat 400-500 calories out of the intended 1200-1300.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Bringing the subject to feeding an army, I just ate my first MRE. Got a pair off eBay, so I brought the chili with beans to my night shift at work for dinner. Congratulations on the coming constipation. Unless you ate the gum, in which case you're going to get a monster case of the shits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Congratulations on the coming constipation. Unless you ate the gum, in which case you're going to get a monster case of the shits. I'll probably be fine. I very rarely suffer digestion issues from foods, even the worst New York street carts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:56
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Congratulations on the coming constipation. Unless you ate the gum, in which case you're going to get a monster case of the shits. MRE gum is as much a laxative as Trident gum.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The Taku forts from the second opium war, iirc. There it is. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:MRE gum is as much a laxative as Trident gum. Actually it's rather funny, because that myth has been around for a long, long time (the gum was actually there to help maintain healthy teeth), but recent MRE gum development over the last decade has actually led to that old yarn becoming somewhat true. They're incorporating cinnamon-flavored caffeinated gum into many of the new kits - and the caffeine will act as a mild laxative (in the same way that cigarettes and coffee will). But the sad reality is that IBS seems to hit most soldiers eventually (mostly due to stress and travel exposure) regardless of whether or not they finish off their accessory packets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:09
|
|
Kaal posted:Actually it's rather funny, because that myth has been around for a long, long time (the gum was actually there to help maintain healthy teeth), but recent MRE gum development over the last decade has actually led to that old yarn becoming somewhat true. They're incorporating cinnamon-flavored caffeinated gum into many of the new kits - and the caffeine will act as a mild laxative (in the same way that cigarettes and coffee will). But the sad reality is that IBS seems to hit most soldiers eventually (mostly due to stress and travel exposure) regardless of whether or not they finish off their accessory packets. The cinnamon caffeine gum comes in First Strikes. It is legit as gently caress at keeping you awake but tastes terrible. More people will poo poo their pants in Iraq/Afghanistan from workout supplements and a steady diet of protein shakes than anything else.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
The model 1886 infantry uniform and model 1895 cavalry uniform are both still in use.  Well, ceremonial use. The royal life guard use the m/1895 (dragoons - they also use the model 1894 Mauser carbine) and m/1886 (foot) in ceremonies such as changing of the guard at the royal palace. The rest of the army uses modern dress uniforms and assault rifles for such occasions. The army marching band also uses the m/1886 when performing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvLJazubihE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo1ARCpvebA TheFluff fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
Can someone tell me a little about WWII AA? Like how did they acquire targets before radar, how did they manage to shoot them from the ground, and so on? The subject has mystified me ever since I unlocked the slow firing cannon on the back of a Maultier truck version of it on WarThunder. And if anyone want to sperg out about armoring WWII fighters, I'd also be thankful. Up until a few days ago in Grey's War in the Pacific LP, I though that only planes like IL-2 or A-10 were significantly armored, to lure in people who couldn't decide between signing for tanks and signing up for air force, and for funny comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Can someone tell me a little about WWII AA? Like how did they acquire targets before radar, how did they manage to shoot them from the ground, and so on? The Wikipedia article on AA is rather comprehensive. This video is a pretty cool look at the basics of the other point of view: not getting hit by flak.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
That video is a classic. How exactly did the germans compensate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:That video is a classic. How exactly did the germans compensate? By losing the goddamn war. E: To be more clear, by gradually abandoning strategic bombing in favor of tactical bombing operations, which rapidly became moot with allied forces gaining air superiority over the theater airspace. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Can someone tell me a little about WWII AA? Like how did they acquire targets before radar, how did they manage to shoot them from the ground, and so on? The armor is on a very different scale. Most planes got armor to resist rifle caliber machine gun because most everyone had a decent number of the things on their fighters. The Russians and Germans liked to keep their guns in the nose so the wings would be light and roll rates high which often meant two cowl rifle calibers and a spindle mount cannon. Early war the British loaded their wings down with tons of .303 Brownings. The Japanese had two cannon with very little ammo and two cowl mount rifle calibers on the Zero. They're pretty popular guns because they're light and shoot a lot of bullets, and there's a lot of stuff in a fighter like cooling, the pilot and so on that really only needs a hit to kill the plane. Rifle caliber machine guns are an easy way to roll a lot of dice. So planes get light armor so a heavy caliber is needed, and that adds a lot of weight, and a lot of smaller planes don't have enough room for heavy machine guns in every spot so they soldier on with now much less effective guns or make sacrifices to fit them (such as the bulges on 109 late models or spitfire wings). You'll notice I didn't mention the Americans, who had a fondness for six or eight wing mounted HMGs. Well when the war was starting, their preferred loadout was two cowl mounted rifle caliber guns and two wing mounted HMGs. The wing batteries to get a similar riddling effect and often destroy structure are a reaction to early war experience from the British. This is partly because the US didn't have a particularly good cannon (they had a very unreliable version of one of the best in the war), so they couldn't easily just load up on cannon to easily destroy structure with hits, but they could put a lot of weight on their planes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:The model 1886 infantry uniform and model 1895 cavalry uniform are both still in use. The dudes on guard duty around the palace have the old timey uniforms on but are rocking the modern assault rifles with bayonets fixed, which I always found funny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Well those days of seeing those dudes out the front of your nations palaces and government buildings are over, thanks to those stupid lone wolf jerk attacks that have become the rage with crazy jerks now. They are going to look even more awkward behind a modern defensive peremeter blast and bullet proof fence.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
In time, perhaps. For now, our royal family here in Denmark is still guarded by dorky dudes in tall bearskin caps and rocking bayonet assault rifles 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
From the terrible Danes, lord preserve us. The weirdest ceremonial guards have gotta be the ones the Greeks have. They got little pompoms on their shoes!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:From the terrible Danes, lord preserve us. Agreed: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Agreed: At first I thought that guy in the background relief had the weirdest schlong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:It increases unit cohesion by giving soldiers a shared identity. Granted, this works a lot better if you're in the Queen's Own Light Buckfortshire Rifle Dragoon Guards, which has an unbroken line of tradition and battle honors going back to the 16th century than if you are in Reserve-Panzerbattalion 322, which was formed in 1956 and never deployed anywhere. Canadian regiments get tradition too  Makes you think about those PLA units that either fought with distinction in the Korean War or been doing constant disaster relief probably have accumulated a nice tradition by now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Oh, you don't have to have an "unbroken" line of tradition to have a claim for tradition going back to the day our ancestors came down from trees. My unit which was founded in the post-WW2 era had a "tradition unit" from the pre-war era that was stationed near the pre-war border. And our "tradition battle" was the Glorious Battle of Narva in 1700 which is the last time when Sweden got a strategic victory over Russia (for the time being). But understandably Finnish training stresses more on our WW2 history than some pike and mustard and ketchup era battles under Sweden's rule that nobody remembers anymore. Anyway military tradition is just another name for hazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:But understandably Finnish training stresses more on our WW2 history than some pike and mustard and ketchup era battles under Sweden's rule that nobody remembers anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I remember... One time a doctor was stitching me up and he quizzed me about history. One of the questions was what is the traditional battle of Finnish dragoons (Breitenfeld). It was a weird experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Unit Tradition is defined as whatever mementos are on the walls of your garrison bar. No-one ever wants to be the one to throw that poo poo out, so it goes to whatever unit has been reconstituted or amalgamated beyond all recognition but happens to be in the local area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Hello thread, I bring you a gift. http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/ Tell me what you think. JcDent posted:Can someone tell me a little about WWII AA? Like how did they acquire targets before radar, how did they manage to shoot them from the ground, and so on? Bewbies linked this a thread ago IIRC. http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-ar.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Azran posted:Hello thread, I bring you a gift. This isn't even getting into how iffy casualty counts are, regarding the Eastern Front. The page accurately describes some mechanical issues with the T-34
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Azran posted:Hello thread, I bring you a gift. Hoo boy. This veers very close to "the opposite reading is true!" territory. I'm not at all shocked his work is based on his career in computer/tabletop games. All those statistics he waves around are pretty much worthless and derived from nothing at all that relates to actual operational analysis of Eastern Front tank warfare. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah, the idea that the crappy combat performance of the T-34 vs other tanks when there's no indication that they actually were disabled by other tanks and not AT guns or planes (which is strongly implied in the article) somehow means that Germany could have won WWII if the USA had stayed out and the RAF stayed defensive is... poor logic at best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Glad you guys enjoyed the gift Anyways, I thought this would be the case. I tend to be extremely leery of any article like this one, but sometimes I just need a reality check to verify it's not just me going all anti-wehraboo on these topics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Hoo boy. This veers very close to "the opposite reading is true!" territory. I'm not at all shocked his work is based on his career in computer/tabletop games. It completely misses the need the T-34 was (re-)designed around after Barbarossa. They simplified the gently caress out of the tank to basically put as many guns on tracks as possible. It was made into an emergency stopgap and refined later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Yeah, the guy takes K:D ratios from Honourable Tank Duels (tm) that may or may not have actually happened, and then pretends that the T-34 was somehow an identical tank throughout the war. A pre-war 1941 T-34, 1942 T-34, and 1943 T-34, let alone a 1945 T-34-85 were almost completely different tanks, and the army that employed them was hardly at all the same army.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Yeah, the guy takes K:D ratios from Honourable Tank Duels (tm) that may or may not have actually happened, and then pretends that the T-34 was somehow an identical tank throughout the war. A pre-war 1941 T-34, 1942 T-34, and 1943 T-34, let alone a 1945 T-34-85 were almost completely different tanks, and the army that employed them was hardly at all the same army. It doesn't help that during the worst of the retreat period, the factories were at the front, basically staffed with children and the elderly/invalid, and cranking out several tanks a day and driving them right from the gate to combat without paint or anything. It's like comparing seasoned veterans to whatever was left in Berlin in the spring of '45. Now imagine what you would say about kids and old men with panzerfausts if they'd managed to push the allies back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Has that been updated so it isn't using absolute losses versus tank kills to argue against the T-34, a metric which suggests the optimal way to use a German tank is to leave it in the factory parking lot so losses to AT guns and mines and other things mean the T-34 has a kdr of 0 and is thus literally useless? Performance metrics which lead to farce when optimized generally aren't useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Has that been updated so it isn't using absolute losses versus tank kills to argue against the T-34, a metric which suggests the optimal way to use a German tank is to leave it in the factory parking lot so losses to AT guns and mines and other things mean the T-34 has a kdr of 0 and is thus literally useless? Performance metrics which lead to farce when optimized generally aren't useful. It's the kind of thinking that comes from someone who measures victory in shovels of ash and dental gold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's the kind of thinking that comes from someone who measures victory in shovels of ash and dental gold. Its probably more the kind of thinking that comes from someone who thinks war is fought by optimizing your stack on each hex and cleverly allocating industrial production points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:Its probably more the kind of thinking that comes from someone who thinks war is fought by optimizing your stack on each hex and cleverly allocating industrial production points. They're often the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's the kind of thinking that comes from someone who measures victory in shovels of ash and dental gold.  out about turret baskets in a preview of his ridiculous book.A_Bluenoser posted:Its probably more the kind of thinking that comes from someone who thinks war is fought by optimizing your stack on each hex and cleverly allocating industrial production points. quote:In 1944 the Soviets still managed to lose 23 700 fully tracked AFVs of which only 2 200 were light tanks: the highest number of AFV losses in a single year by any country in history.  This is some seriously amateur stats 101 level poo poo right here. You would think that someone with such a boner for ratios would give losses as a % of tanks produced/deployed.Shocking how a country that built massive amounts of tanks and then used them continuously in offensive operations across a massive front for a year suffered large losses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:And turret baskets. Saw like 7 pages of I can't even imagine where a turret basket would make significant differences since you're training the crew without one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
TBH the only really useful information in the article is the clear distinction between tactical and strategic utility, which even though made with a poor example and explained terribly, does illustrated the point pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 07:53
|
|