Jobbo_Fett posted:

Over the Top

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3705107 German thread
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3705109 Allied thread

Grand Prize Winner posted:

Is there a significant difference in risk of getting powder in your eyes between, say, flintlock and matchlock muskets? Did the percussion cap basically eliminate that risk?

Agean90 posted:

Muskets are not really accurate enough for small unit tactics. So volume won fights, and the blocks of dudes volley-firing was the best way to get that.

Chillyrabbit posted:

For the reason why you fired in volleys:
1. Smoke, its impossible to see if everyone is firing at different times since 1 muskets smoke can block other peoples view so its better to fire all at once before you start to lose visibility
2. match locks and flint locks threw off sparks which could touch off other peoples loads however unlikely that may be (totally anecdotal theory crafting)
3. its a lot scarier when you get hit by a thunderclap of casualties and noise vs being picked away at slowly. (and people can easily rout if hit by a volley since morale is such a huge part of this type of combat)
4. soldiers may waste a lot of ammo by firing too soon or hold their shots too late so it was better to command them to fire.

Kanine posted:

when soviet soldiers and other allied troops met at different points when the war in europe in world war 2 was over, were there any accidental (or provoked) firefights? were soviet soldiers instructed not to interact or do anything? Were soviet soldiers who did that deemed suspicious afterwards and potentially sent to gulags?

quote:

During the briefing, Skelley announced that Turret Two would participate in an experiment of his design in which D-846 powder would be used to fire 2700 lb (1224.7 kg) shells.

The powder lots of D-846 were among the oldest on board Iowa, dating back to 1943–1945, and were designed to fire 1900 lb (861.8 kg) shells. In fact, printed on each D-846 powder canister were the words, "WARNING: Do Not Use with 2,700-pound projectiles."

Bacarruda posted:

Not strictly true. Muskets can be accurate enough to hit man-sized targets out to about 100-150 yards, and can hit company-sized targets out to 200 or so yards. Obviously, accuracy declined the faster men were trying to fire and the more fouled the musket became.

Lots of musket-armed units fought as light infantry, with individual soldiers/groups of soldiers taking a degree of personal initiative. One of the best early examples of this is Roger's Rangers. Although some of Roger's men did carry long rifles, the vast majority carried Tower pattern Brown Besses or a similar smoothbore musket. As frontier raiders, light infantry fighting was the bread and butter of the Rangers. They are their muskets were more than adequate to the task.

By the Napoleonic Wars, most armies had some kind of light infantry (ex. French tirailleurs). With a handful of exceptions (British green jackets, some KGL light troops, Prussian iaegers, and some Russian jaeger units), the vast majority of these light soldiers fought with muskets. Light infantrymen were chosen for being small (the average voltiguer was only about 5'3"), agile, intelligent, and independent-mined. These traits were essential for light infantry tactics.

Light infantry* usually fought in open order, giving individual light infantrymen much more independence than their comrades in line regiments. The smallest element of a light infantry company was the two-man pair. One man loaded with the other man fired. This allowed a light infantry unit to keep up a steady, rolling fire and made sure that one man could always cover his partner's advance or retreat. So small unit tactics were very much a thing during the 18th century, if only amongst somewhat specialized units.

*line infantry units, most notably Russian Fusilier regiments could also fight as light infantry as needed, although this wasn't their primary mission.


All more or less true.

#2 happened on one occasion. During one of Clive's battles in India, a stray spark from a musket allegedly ignited one sepoy's cartridge box, starting a chain reaction that caused every other soldier's open cartridge box to explode!

#3 is supported by several examples. One or two successful volleys could completely destroy an unfortunate regiment. In one volley at Fontenoy in 1745, the British Guards brigade killed 500+ French guardsmen, routing an entire regiment and forcing the French brigade to retire. Two British volleys at Quebec in 1759 shattered French troops on the plains of Abraham (evidently Wolfe had ordered British soldiers to double-shot their muskets)

Luigi Thirty posted:

I don't understand any of this, at all. Just: USS Iowa, 1989, what the gently caress?

Frostwerks posted:

Double shot = 2 musket balls, double charge? Or what

Grand Prize Winner posted:

A Reenactor Guy Who Seemed to Know His poo poo once told me that they'd use a less than a double charge to fire a musket loaded with two balls. All that powder with all that weight of lead in front of it could exert a shitton of force on the barrel, so they'd use 2 balls and 1.25-1.75 loads of powder. That'd reduce the effective range but reduce chances of gun going boom in hands. No idea if he actually knew his poo poo, but he seemed confident.

Bacarruda posted:

Tomn posted:

Am I seeing that right? Is that American soldier showing off his presumably captured katana? That's kinda amazing.

Tomn posted:

Am I seeing that right? Is that American soldier showing off his presumably captured katana? That's kinda amazing.

Frostwerks posted:

Double shot = 2 musket balls, double charge? Or what

brozozo posted:

I'm reading A People's History of Sports in the United States by Dave Zirin, and there's a tiny military history component to the book. It's written in the mold of Howard Zinn, and Zirin briefly covers American mutinies and fragging during the Vietnam War. While I'm familiar with the topic, it's only on the most superficial level. Can anyone recommend some good books on soldiers' disobedience during the war?

IM_DA_DECIDER posted:

So turns out the third Ki61 still owns, it really just needed a couple upgrades. Semper Ki

IM_DA_DECIDER posted:

So turns out the third Ki61 still owns, it really just needed a couple upgrades. Semper Ki

Luigi Thirty posted:

So I'm reading about the USS Iowa disaster on Wiki.


How did someone get away with performing unauthorized gunnery experiments for months on a battleship? Who was this guy?

E: oh I read the rest of the article and I don't understand any of this, at all. Just: USS Iowa, 1989, what the gently caress?

Disinterested posted:

If homosexuals cause freak explosions the battle of Jutland has a good alt-history.

Disinterested posted:

If homosexuals cause freak explosions the battle of Jutland has a good alt-history.

Kaal posted:

Haha don't worry about it too much. Between Spring Break and Grey Hunter's WWI game, I think that a lot of the folks who post in this thread have a lot of competition for their time this week.

Eej posted:

Don't forget Pillars of Eternity, a fantasy RPG game featuring psychics running around with arquebuses.

e: also one of the most fun party setups is pike and shot, except everyone is carrying pikes AND the shot

Rocko Bonaparte posted:

Wow that is some crazy stuff. So according to the Navy, gay people cause turrets to explode?

Rocko Bonaparte posted:

Wow that is some crazy stuff. So according to the Navy, gay people cause turrets to explode?

Eej posted:

Don't forget Pillars of Eternity, a fantasy RPG game featuring psychics running around with arquebuses.

e: also one of the most fun party setups is pike and shot, except everyone is carrying pikes AND the shot

Rhymenoserous posted:

Does it come as a shock that a gay man can make a large hard thing blow? Check your CIS navy privilege.

Fangz posted:

If gay black Hitler was in charge of the High Seas Fleet.......