|
FAUXTON posted:Estimating travel time by foot using a map, and a good amount of other map poo poo in general.  Seriously, I was working of Ordinance Survey maps when I was ten. poo poo is standard here. Disinterested posted:This hasn't gone away, btw. For Guards regiments, the cost of uniforms and social bills are considerably higher, so at the junior officer's level it is highly desirable to have a second income or your entire salary will be consumed by just paying for being a guardsman. Also a lot of guardsmen are the sons, grandsons etc. of guardsmen.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:46 |
|
Arquinsiel posted:Seriously, I was working of Ordinance Survey maps when I was ten. poo poo is standard here. I know a current grenadier guardsman a very little, he won a military cross for running across a field with no cover to storm the Taliban  They have a lot of cool traditions and stories, it'd be worth asking about.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I didn't say it was true, but that's the only way of even trying to argue for it - that famine-ing a large number of people to death by destroying crops was an accepted practice. What? If we're not even going to worry about the truth, we can say whatever we want about it. It destroyed a colony of martian lizard men who were about to take over Norway. The best thing you can genuinely say about it is that it was effective at its goal. William reigned with no further opposition from the English.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:08
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:What? If we're not even going to worry about the truth, we can say whatever we want about it. It destroyed a colony of martian lizard men who were about to take over Norway. You basically made a semi-troll statemen that it was good, I tried to guess what a person might try to argue in favour of it. Turns out there aren't a lot of good arguments in favour of mass murder.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Does anyone want to go to see the great Cup tie at Stamford Bridge today? Those Turkish rotters manning the guns at Gallipoli make life hard for Queen Elizabeth, attempts to sweep the mines inside the strait fail miserably, the French continue taking heavy casualties in Champagne, and the Friendly Feldwebel has a moment to offer up a poignant note.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I know a current grenadier guardsman a very little, he won a military cross for running across a field with no cover to storm the Taliban
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:But isn't Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (Queen of England and Scotland, Defender of the Faith etc.) commander in chief of the British Army, and Colonel of several regiments? Is the US army 'the Presidential Army'?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
There's no Royal Army, but on the other hand they have Queen's Division which consists of Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and Royal Anglian Regiment. Conclusion: they are doing this on purpose just to mindfuck foreigners. gently caress the British forces, nuke them from orbit, salt the earth, convert to metric etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:I get it, but you still have to fly over a lot of enemy territory with a lot more fighter cover It's possible the Germans can shoot down some of the bombers, particularly if there's any foreknowledge of the 'nuclear carpet bombing', but it'd be extremely difficult even if they somehow managed to push the performance envelope on any sort of napkinwaffle interceptors and probably nearly impossible with the prop interceptors they had; and doubly so if the American's (with/without the RAF) manage to maintain the same long range air presence they did in 1944. Assuming the American's don't disassemble and reassemble their nuclear production lines like they historically did you're looking at something like 200-300 warheads available at 1949-1950 or so all heading to different targets, the German's do not have the ability to stop that. So even in the best possible case of wish fulfillment for a German victory in Europe they're screwed and worse off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's possible the Germans can shoot down some of the bombers, particularly if there's any foreknowledge of the 'nuclear carpet bombing', but it'd be extremely difficult even if they somehow managed to push the performance envelope on any sort of napkinwaffle interceptors and probably nearly impossible with the prop interceptors they had; and doubly so if the American's (with/without the RAF) manage to maintain the same long range air presence they did in 1944. Assuming the American's don't disassemble and reassemble their nuclear production lines like they historically did you're looking at something like 200-300 warheads available at 1949-1950 or so all heading to different targets, the German's do not have the ability to stop that. So even in the best possible case of wish fulfillment for a German victory in Europe they're screwed and worse off. This leaves out any possible developments that they were or could work on, including jet interceptors, prop aircraft or rockets. Doesn't account for radar or other detection methods. Removes any possibility of neutral or other countries from changing their current status. I guess you guys are also assuming that German winning over Russia happens in '45? I mean, any bombing campaign would've probably been a complete poo poo show if the Germans won in late 42 and had much more manpower available for day and night squads. Disregards every other front aside from Western, and even then only takes into account the air war. It's not even worth arguing at this point, since coming up with a defense of an imaginary scenario where Germany "has a chance" always ends up with an Allied win and thinking otherwise labels you as sympathetic or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Is the US army 'the Presidential Army'? You perhaps misunderstand. There have been been English royal armies, but there isn't one currently. The British Army is nominally raised under the consent of the Parliament and civil authority. Queen Elizabeth could, in some kind of existential crisis that would overturn 400 years of tradition, raise a personal army and it would be considered the Royal Army. The Royal Navy and the Royal Flying Corps (later the Royal Air Force) were constituted under Royal Warrants and serve as examples for how that would be done. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
In an English Civil War II between the British army and the RN/RAF, who would win?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:This leaves out any possible developments that they were or could work on, including jet interceptors, prop aircraft or rockets. Doesn't account for radar or other detection methods. Removes any possibility of neutral or other countries from changing their current status. I guess you guys are also assuming that German winning over Russia happens in '45? I mean, any bombing campaign would've probably been a complete poo poo show if the Germans won in late 42 and had much more manpower available for day and night squads. Disregards every other front aside from Western, and even then only takes into account the air war. Nuclear weapons change everything. Even if against escorted superforts or peacemakers coming in north of 40k feet up, both of which are massively more capable relative to the interceptors Germany could have than early forts against 1943 Germany they somehow turn in a great performance and give the US a bloodying like Schweinfurt, that's the day Germany ends, because something on the order of tens of nukes just got through (and as far as tactics go, operating in groups to protect the nuke carriers makes this an optimistic estimate). Even if they only use a few devices on a raid the question is changed to did a bomber get through. Good luck Nazi Germany and your wildly overhyped interceptors!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:31
|
|
Fangz posted:In an English Civil War II between the British army and the RN/RAF, who would win? Neither due to recent defensive cutbacks. They'll just slag each other off and then go drink at the nearest Legion pub, where gay black Cromwell buys all the rounds.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In an English Civil War II between the British army and the RN/RAF, who would win? The Royal Navy would beat the chavs in a land slide by blockading their own island, but then Prince Harry and Emma Watson would deliver an impassioned plea about the need for true Britons to maintain a stiff upper lip in the face of adversity, and the Navy Admirals would surrender to their extreme Britishness and exceptional hair. The Royal Air Force would try hard but never succeed at leaving their hangars. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Don't talk about X, it'll just go into gay black hitler territory! *talks about X* Content: does anyone know about the tactical/strategic details of the current Ukranian conflict? I don't really keep up with the news and was pretty surprised to see pictures of destroyed columns of tanks and stuff a couple of weeks ago; I didn't realise it had escalated to the point of armour being seriously involved on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In an English Civil War II between the British army and the RN/RAF, who would win? The second lot, but only because they've got the Fleet Air Arm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:ITT I learned that the US School system doesn't teach you this poo poo I learned about only the most basic aspects of large-scale map use (where the equator is, poles, a few basic legend items like scale distance) but it was all Mercator projection political maps and some basic globes. Topography/plotting was never addressed with the exception of "find the tallest mountain on this continent" and "track this hurricane" stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The second lot, but only because they've got the Fleet Air Arm. The same fleet air arm that has no planes (and when they do they're be f35s  ) to launch off their crappy carrier?  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The same fleet air arm that has no planes (and when they do they're be f35s Expendable personnel
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
I was going to make a joke about them using the QE's catapult to hurl rocks at the army from off shore. But then I remembered it doesn't have one 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Kaal posted:You perhaps misunderstand. There have been been English royal armies, but there isn't one currently. The British Army is nominally raised under the consent of the Parliament and civil authority. Queen Elizabeth could, in some kind of existential crisis that would overturn 400 years of tradition, raise a personal army and it would be considered the Royal Army. The Royal Navy and the Royal Flying Corps (later the Royal Air Force) were constituted under Royal Warrants and serve as examples for how that would be done. I love this. Are there ever any parliamentary/political slapfights that occur when a new branch of government needs to be set up over whether it should be Royal or not? Like, say, the British space program, whatever it's called - were there any arguments there about whether the Queen should raise it or not? For that matter, why was it decided to make the Air Force a "Royal" branch instead of a, I dunno, Parliamentary branch?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In an English Civil War II between the British army and the RN/RAF, who would win? The RN are the ones with the nukes, so... On the other hand there's no such thing as honorary captaincies of warships, so that's one method of getting support from superrich goobers not open to the Navy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The same fleet air arm that has no planes (and when they do they're be f35s Pretty sure 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:19
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The same fleet air arm that has no planes (and when they do they're be f35s I wouldn't call the QE crappy. Also, this owns: quote:Queen Elizabeth was named at Rosyth on 4 July 2014 by Elizabeth II, who said that the warship "marks a new phase in our naval history". Instead of smashing the traditional bottle of champagne on the hull, she smashed a bottle of whisky from the Bowmore distillery on the Scottish island of Islay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
If you like having helicopters and vtol I guess. Shame about the AEW capability and other fun stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:If you like having helicopters and vtol I guess. Shame about the AEW capability and other fun stuff. That's not the fault of the carrier herself, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Ships which drink scotch are inherently better than ships which drink champagne, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:That's not the fault of the carrier herself, though. Weird how CATOBAR ships can do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Weird how CATOBAR ships can do it. CATOBAR is how God intended the aircraft carrier to work, yes, but that's the fault of the people who designed the QE, not the ship herself. Even so, she'll probably be the most effective aircraft carrier outside the US Navy once she gets an air wing worth a drat. Of course, since they went for the TFX Mk. 2 (aka the F-35) that'll take a while. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I learned about only the most basic aspects of large-scale map use (where the equator is, poles, a few basic legend items like scale distance) but it was all Mercator projection political maps and some basic globes. Topography/plotting was never addressed with the exception of "find the tallest mountain on this continent" and "track this hurricane" stuff. I literally never learned how to read a map in public school outside of telling people how to use the provided scale for distance, as well as the most basic stuff like equator and the difference between latitude and longitude. Any military topographic map would be completely baffling to the average high school senior. I'm firmly of the opinion that social connections and some of my elective/after-school stuff were the only valuable things I got out of high school that are relevant in my adult life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I literally never learned how to read a map in public school outside of telling people how to use the provided scale for distance, as well as the most basic stuff like equator and the difference between latitude and longitude. Any military topographic map would be completely baffling to the average high school senior. This has me wondering whether other countries had youth organizations like the boy scouts that had kids learning about that kind of stuff early. I'd say I'd be decent officer material by the time I started into high school had I stayed in the scouts, but by the time I was 11 I knew a bunch of poo poo like using a topo map/orienteering/cleaning game/ first aid/marksmanship - basically a primer on survival skills with maybe some basic group leadership experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:CATOBAR is how God intended the aircraft carrier to work, yes, but that's the fault of the people who designed the QE, not the ship herself. All I'm saying is unless she gets a nose job to get rid of that unsightly and not very functional bulge up there she's the Princess Vespa to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
I spent almost a decade as an army officer and outside of actual land nav training I think I read a proper map like maybe twice. My opinion: things like basic vehicle maintenance (which I still know absolutely nothing about) or basic computer skills or being able to write better than the average European high school student or knowing A SECOND loving LANGUAGE are way, way, way more important skills than orienteering and gunshooting for a modern officer. Note here that the US army still demands rifle marksmanship and land nav and pushups from its officers while functional literacy is entirely negotiable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:AWPD-1 and/or 4. B-36 in case Britain falls early. He meant glassed literally, look how tightly packed the Ruhrplex is. It's not? As a whole it's a pretty loose conurbation actually, although I'd grant you the point that there'd have been loads of worthwhile aimpoints in the area. I'd like to think that, doctrinally, the US would have gone for more centralized big cities as atomic targets though, and possibly with a more direct link to the political-military nexus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Koesj posted:It's not? As a whole it's a pretty loose conurbation actually, although I'd grant you the point that there'd have been loads of worthwhile aimpoints in the area. In the very earliest days of the "Atomic Age" it seems like military planners thought of Fat Man et al as just a larger bomb with some nasty side effects, so there would still be Mighty Eighth-style massed bomber attacks on targets, except all the bombers would be carrying nukes. The full ramifications of all-out nuclear warfare didn't sink in for a few years. Then again I might be conflating public opinions on the A-Bomb with what people who actually knew poo poo about it thought. I always remember an anecdote I read about some farmer writing Los Alamos or Oak Ridge shortly after Hiroshima and Nagasaki asking for a small A-Bomb to clear out some stumps on his property. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Koesj posted:It's not? As a whole it's a pretty loose conurbation actually, although I'd grant you the point that there'd have been loads of worthwhile aimpoints in the area. I seem to recall it gets pretty well covered if you start drawing circles centered on the targets from the plans and figure they'd start substituting devices for raids. And in the total worst case that I was giving for point of example, I think a raid to hit all those targets at once would seem mighty tempting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I seem to recall it gets pretty well covered if you start drawing circles centered on the targets from the plans and figure they'd start substituting devices for raids. And in the total worst case that I was giving for point of example, I think a raid to hit all those targets at once would seem mighty tempting. Well have a look: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?t=dafc67f42c03cf80f620693e814f8fff
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:In the very earliest days of the "Atomic Age" it seems like military planners thought of Fat Man et al as just a larger bomb with some nasty side effects, so there would still be Mighty Eighth-style massed bomber attacks on targets, except all the bombers would be carrying nukes. The full ramifications of all-out nuclear warfare didn't sink in for a few years. Did they just not understand radiation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Did they just not understand radiation? They weren't thinking of 20 years in the future when lots of people had atomic bombs, they were looking to end the war they were in as quickly as possible. It was just another tool of war, like artillery or submarines. It wasn't until after the war that they started thinking about the long term implications of nuclear proliferation. There wasn't a lot of residual radiation at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The bombs were air-burst and most of the radioactive debris got swept up and dissipated in the mushroom cloud.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 05:11
|
|
