Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

gradenko_2000 posted:

As Phanatic said, spotting the fall of shot was important: you have to know by how much you missed by to know how much you need to adjust for.

This informed naval strategy in fairly broad terms. If you had two battle lines of ships exchanging fire, it was important for the lead ship of one line to shoot the lead ship of the other line, and for the second to shoot its counter-part, and so on and so forth.

If you had two ships shooting the same target, it was that much harder for either individual attacker to determine which splashes were theirs. If you have an equal number of ships on both battle lines, but one target is getting shot at by two ships, that means one ship isn't getting shot at all, which then means that that ship gets to shoot more accurately since it's not being harassed nor hit.

If I recall my WWI naval history correctly this was actually a big deal during the Battle of Dogger Bank, where two Royal Navy Battlecruisers were doubled up on a single German BC due to a miscommunication.

It also mattered in terms ship design: one of the Dreadnought's key innovations (on top of all the others it already had) was a single set of big guns that were all supposed to fire together at the same range at the same target. Prior to it, a battleship might have a mixture of 3-inch, 6-inch and 12-inch guns. If a target was in range of both your 6-inch and your 12-inch guns, and you fired them together, which splashes were which?

Finally, specific to what Phanatic said, the IJN (and I'm sure other navies also, but I don't have specifics) used dyes on their shells so ships could tell which splashes were from which ships and from which guns, especially since you couldn't count on a more "orderly" battle line as in the 1900s-1920s.

Eyewitness accounts of the Battle of Samar tell us that the sea was awash in pinks, greens, yellows and oranges.

This also led to the practice of 'chasing splashes,' where ships under fire (usually smaller one able to pull off the maneuvers) would try to put themselves right where the last enemy salvo had hit, on the assumption that the enemy, seeing the they had missed, would adjust their aim and so not hit the same spot again.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 14:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 01:51

Klaus88: Jan 23, 2011; Violence has its own economy, therefore be thoughtful and precise in your investment

MikeCrotch posted:

Real Men Wear Pink

Troper spotted.

:dogout:

# ? Jun 16, 2015 14:30

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

Klaus88 posted:

Troper spotted.

Let me tell you about my Metroid rape fanfic :tvtropes:

As for content, the further I get through A World Undone the less impressed I am by it. Meyer is best at writing about the interpersonal politics between all the major players which means the July Crisis section is pretty good. However it's obvious that a lot of the hard military and technological stuff is a lot lazier and he is clearly falling back on dubious stereotypes.

It would be a great book to start with but doesn't have much hold if you know much about the war already. I guess that's going to be the same with any generalised work.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 14:40

Tomn: Aug 23, 2007; And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands

MikeCrotch posted:

Let me tell you about my Metroid rape fanfic

As for content, the further I get through A World Undone the less impressed I am by it. Meyer is best at writing about the interpersonal politics between all the major players which means the July Crisis section is pretty good. However it's obvious that a lot of the hard military and technological stuff is a lot lazier and he is clearly falling back on dubious stereotypes.

It would be a great book to start with but doesn't have much hold if you know much about the war already. I guess that's going to be the same with any generalised work.

Yeah, as I was making my way through the book I got the increasing impression that the author's research was wide rather than deep. He also has a distinct tendency to play favorites with the various personalities, praising this one to the stars as not only an exemplary leader but an exemplary human being as well, while damning another as both a fool and a crook and an unpleasant person to take tea with to boot.

Still, it's a useful jumping off point for finding out more you want to learn about the war, I think, and it does plot out the general shape of things.

Speaking of WW1, hey Trin, now the Grey's game is over, would you happen to have time now to do that analysis of how playing the game affected your research and vice versa?

# ? Jun 16, 2015 14:54

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Tekopo posted:

Hmmm actually depending on the time period, people would have wanted the pink dye because it was tied with boys at the time. The shift occurred during the 30s/40s, cementing itself at the end of that latter decade.

Also the best color for aerial camouflage. Harder to see under all visual conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko9gSpny4-c

# ? Jun 16, 2015 14:58

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

MikeCrotch posted:

Real Men Wear Pink

Desperately seeking some evidence of that plate with a cavalry type of a Rhine Confederation German state who's uniform was pink for this thread now.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 15:02

Klaus88: Jan 23, 2011; Violence has its own economy, therefore be thoughtful and precise in your investment

Tomn posted:

Yeah, as I was making my way through the book I got the increasing impression that the author's research was wide rather than deep. He also has a distinct tendency to play favorites with the various personalities, praising this one to the stars as not only an exemplary leader but an exemplary human being as well, while damning another as both a fool and a crook and an unpleasant person to take tea with to boot.

Still, it's a useful jumping off point for finding out more you want to learn about the war, I think, and it does plot out the general shape of things.

Speaking of WW1, hey Trin, now the Grey's game is over, would you happen to have time now to do that analysis of how playing the game affected your research and vice versa?

I must admit to a fair bit of :argh:

at the way the German attack floundered at the first trench.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 15:16

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

SeanBeansShako posted:

I kind of what a english subtitled version of that. Hilariously good production values considering what was going on in real life at the time.

I couldn't find one, so I'll give you the best version of Titanic, from 1943. The YouTube clip starts with trailer, the movie w/subtitles starts at 4:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvWPDG2EjCI

Some morbid trivia:

quote:

Most of the film was shot at the German-occupied Polish Baltic sea port of Gdynia (renamed Gotenhafen), on board the SS Cap Arcona, a passenger liner which eventually shared Titanic's fate; it was sunk a few days before the end of World War II by the Royal Air Force on May 3, 1945, with loss of life more than three times than that on the actual Titanic. The ship had been filled with Jewish prisoners that the Nazis had put there in hopes that the ship would be destroyed by the British.

Titanic endured many production difficulties, including a clash of egos, massive creative differences and general war-time frustrations. After one week of troubled shooting on the Cap Arcona, Herbert Selpin called a crisis meeting where he made unflattering comments about the Kriegsmarine officers, who were more concerned with molesting the female cast members rather than doing their job as marine consultants of the film.[1] His close friend and co-writer of the script, Walter Zerlett-Olfenius, reported him to the Gestapo and Selpin was promptly arrested and personally questioned by Joseph Goebbels, who was the driving force behind the Titanic project. Selpin, however, did not retract his statement�something which infuriated Goebbels since the Propaganda Minister had placed his trust in Selpin to direct his propaganda epic. Within twenty-four hours of his arrest, Herbert Selpin was found hanged in his jail cell, a development which was ruled a suicide.[2] However, in reality, Goebbels had arranged for Selpin to be hanged and his death to be misleadingly cast as a suicide.[3] The cast and crew were angry at the attempt to obfuscate Selpin's obvious murder and attempted to retaliate, but Goebbels countered them by issuing a proclamation stating that anyone who shunned Zerlett-Olfenius would answer to him personally.[4] The unfinished film, on which the production costs were spiraling wildly out of control, was in the end completed by an uncredited Werner Klingler.

The premiere was supposed to occur in early 1943, but the theatre that housed the answer print was bombed by Royal Air Force planes the night before the big event. The film went on to have a respectable premiere in Paris in November 1943 "where it was surprisingly well-received by its audience"[5] and also played well in some other capital cities of Nazi occupied Europe such as Prague. But Goebbels banned its playing in Germany altogether, stating that the German people�who were by that point going through almost nightly Allied bombing raids�were less than enthusiastic about seeing a film that portrayed mass death and panic.[6]

It seems like you can learn most everything you need to know about Nazi Germany by reading articles on films the propaganda ministry produced.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 15:17

Chillbro Baggins: Oct 8, 2004; Bad Angus! Bad!

Phanatic posted:

Frequently, they'd go off to scatter their dye-marker payload. Spotting the fall of your shells in relation to your target is crucial for adjusting your aim, and when you have a bunch of ships shooting at the same target you need to be able to tell which ones are your shells and which ones are some other ships, so different ships would have different colors of dye packed into their shells.

I think the dye was either in the ballistic cap or the tail. Either way, they didn't just "plop into the ocean" -- the bursting charge, if it went off, was nothing compared to the splash kicked up by a couple thousand pounds of steel. The bursting charge was mainly there to split the case and throw splinters, and maybe start a fire -- the last-gen 16" shells had 41 pounds of TNT in a 2700-pound AP shell, and 153 pounds of explosive in a 1900-pound "high capacity" shell. It was very much all about kinetic energy, the bursting charge was just a bonus, even for the shells meant for soft targets.

Taerkar posted:

The shells typically are not striking the water full-on, so it's not quite like concrete. Also they can pen concrete for a bit. There's only going to be so much movement underwater until the shell slows enough.

For a shell designed to punch through its own diameter of face-hardened steel, water or concrete is a gentle pillow. Also they'd skip off the surface if they weren't fired from such a range that they were coming nearly straight down.

the JJ posted:

This also led to the practice of 'chasing splashes,' where ships under fire (usually smaller one able to pull off the maneuvers) would try to put themselves right where the last enemy salvo had hit, on the assumption that the enemy, seeing the they had missed, would adjust their aim and so not hit the same spot again.

It got real fun in WWII, when battleships were doing 30+ knots and could go seven miles while the enemy shells were in the air. And the heavies never even bother shooting at the little frigates/destroyers unless the little guys shot first, because a) it'd be ungentlemanly, and b) the littles have always been too fast to hit.

In other news, Dad's reply to the "six" issue is, as I expected, useless because he was a snake-eater and therefore played fast and loose with protocol:

Sgt. McGee, MOS 18E circa 1970 posted:

Must be after my time. When I was playing army men and run through the jungle the senior man with the callsign was "01 actual and second was 02. but that was just for talking to FACs and Guns and HQ. Out in INJUN country it was military sounding poo poo like BillyBadAss and Cheroot and Heathen...sorry I can't help

I copypaste it verbatim because I find his style of writing hilarious. Ironically, when he's using a pen, he prints in neat block capitals, presumably because of his training in transcribing Morse code. Also snake is pretty good if you boil the hell out of it to get the oil out.

I wish I could get him to tell his war stories in front of a video camera, but he refuses, so I have to make do with posting them in text and embellishing them to make up for the text medium lacking his enthusiasm. I made a thread of his war stories once, anybody with archives want to repost 'em here? "The first five minutes of Patton" is pretty fuckin' hilarious, and my massaging of the prose doesn't even begin to get close to how he tells it in person.

Also military history includes pictures of historical soldiers, right? Here's my pa in-country; the kit hanging on the wall is his, the regular M16 leaning on the chair belongs to the photographer:

TFR Goons have a nerdgasm over that CAR-15 (properly XM177E1 or some poo poo) every time I post that pic.

And here he is 15 years ago coaching my brother's Little League Team:

Since then he's gone all white in the hair and shrugged off weird bone cancer and a triple bypass, though he has lost a lot of weight. Sill smokes a pack of Camel Lights every day.

And his name is Bill.

Also pretty sure his guys could drink HEY GAL's guys under the table. At one point he was in a B-team camp that could get one resupply a week -- they got two pallets of beer and one of ammo. War, despite what Ron Perlman says, might change, but mercenaries don't, apparently. Dad is a teetotaler now, because of an incident involving jumping out of a second-story window

# ? Jun 16, 2015 15:43

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

I'd read the poo poo out of your dad's war stories written in that Hunter S Thompson stream of conciousness style.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 16:38

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Agreed. I'm finishing The Boys of '67 and that's gotten me in a Vietnam mood.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 17:46

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B8F4IfA35g

lol what a clusterfuck

# ? Jun 16, 2015 19:01

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Kanine posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B8F4IfA35g

lol what a clusterfuck

This is a cool channel that I drop by and watch every now and then, but what does it mean when they say "sporterize"?

# ? Jun 16, 2015 19:46

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

gradenko_2000 posted:

This is a cool channel that I drop by and watch every now and then, but what does it mean when they say "sporterize"?

Sporterizing is taking a military rifle and modifying it for sporting use. Things like removing the fore-end of the stock to save weight, re-profiling the grip and stock to fit the shooter, adding new sights, drilling the receiver for a scope mount, or converting the weapon to fire a more commonly available cartridge.

All of this generally reduces the weapon's value as a collector's item.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 20:03

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

MikeCrotch posted:

I'd read the poo poo out of your dad's war stories written in that Hunter S Thompson stream of conciousness style.

Seriously. If he won't do camera, try and get him to write his memoires. Or just a collection of warstories that may or may not have actually happened (he can't tell you because it's all still classified, you understand).

# ? Jun 16, 2015 20:14

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Sporterizing is taking a military rifle and modifying it for sporting use. Things like removing the fore-end of the stock to save weight, re-profiling the grip and stock to fit the shooter, adding new sights, drilling the receiver for a scope mount, or converting the weapon to fire a more commonly available cartridge.

All of this generally reduces the weapon's value as a collector's item.

Yes. I have a K98 that was manufactured under license by Fabrique Nationale in Belgium, which was one of a batch that was sold to the Colombian army, and then rechambered to .30-06 sometime during the 1950s when the Colombian army found itself the recipient of a huge amount of that ammo from the US.

And at some point after that, one of my father's patients chopped the forestock off to turn it into a hunting rifle. Dammit.

Phanatic fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 16, 2015

# ? Jun 16, 2015 20:16

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

ArchangeI posted:

Seriously. If he won't do camera, try and get him to write his memoires. Or just a collection of warstories that may or may not have actually happened (he can't tell you because it's all still classified, you understand).

This should be done not just for goons but because people and their recollections are not immortal, and we want to have as much recorded history about things like that as possible.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 20:59

Tomn: Aug 23, 2007; And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands

FAUXTON posted:

This should be done not just for goons but because people and their recollections are not immortal, and we want to have as much recorded history about things like that as possible.

Just think! Some day, one of HEY GAL's long distant descendants might stumble across your father's memoirs and thank his/her lucky stars that someone actually bothered to write that poo poo down!

# ? Jun 16, 2015 21:15

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Delivery McGee posted:

For a shell designed to punch through its own diameter of face-hardened steel, water or concrete is a gentle pillow. Also they'd skip off the surface if they weren't fired from such a range that they were coming nearly straight down.

Those projectiles would penetrate concrete a lot better than steel, but not for more than a couple of dozen of yards before they either break apart or come to a stop (or the fuse detonates the round). The more they go through the more they're moving out of the way and the less overall inertia they have. They're also not really all that likely to 'skip' if the nose of the projectile makes contact with the water before the side of it.

quote:

It got real fun in WWII, when battleships were doing 30+ knots and could go seven miles while the enemy shells were in the air.

Uhh... what? How slow do you think the projectiles were? At extreme ranges the target might move a mile or so but no one would be flinging shells at each other at that long of a range anyways.

# ? Jun 16, 2015 22:23

Teriyaki Hairpiece: Dec 29, 2006; I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.

Delivery McGee posted:

Also military history includes pictures of historical soldiers, right? Here's my pa in-country; the kit hanging on the wall is his, the regular M16 leaning on the chair belongs to the photographer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnTU4dKpoB8

# ? Jun 17, 2015 01:11

Rocko Bonaparte: Mar 12, 2002; Every day is Friday!

I feel better reading that. I thought that was crazy too.

Assuming:
Shells moving at 1800 mph (rough muzzle velocity of USS Iowa class)
Fired from 24 miles away (rough range of USS Iowa Class)
30 knots being about 36 mph

I get something like 48 seconds of air time. I think the target would move a little under half a mile or so. Actually, that's still pretty crazy, regardless.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 01:14

Keldoclock: Jan 5, 2014; by zen death robot

Phanatic posted:

And at some point after that, one of my father's patients chopped the forestock off to turn it into a hunting rifle. Dammit.

I think you mean "awesome, I have a disposable hunting rifle chambered in a versatile and readily available cartridge." Not that it would be difficult to find an original stock, or make one yourself to resemble your desired appearance.

Historical gun collectors of the thread, how would you feel if I drilled and tapped a M1903? What if I put a period-accurate scope on it? Would that increase the value of the rifle by more than the cost of the scope, or reduce it?

Sometimes you just gotta shoot things man. Sometimes you have less than $500 and need to transmute it into a gun that isn't utter poo poo. That's when you bust out the hundred-year-old gun.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 01:31

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Keldoclock posted:

I think you mean "awesome, I have a disposable hunting rifle chambered in a versatile and readily available cartridge." Not that it would be difficult to find an original stock, or make one yourself to resemble your desired appearance.

Historical gun collectors of the thread, how would you feel if I drilled and tapped a M1903? What if I put a period-accurate scope on it? Would that increase the value of the rifle by more than the cost of the scope, or reduce it?

Sometimes you just gotta shoot things man. Sometimes you have less than $500 and need to transmute it into a gun that isn't utter poo poo. That's when you bust out the hundred-year-old gun.

From what I understand of historical gun collecting, the value is in the preservation rather than the cool factor. Original Mosin-Nagant sniper rifles from World War II are several times as valuable as a standard 91/30 with iron sights, but they're also more valuable than a regular $100 rifle that had a turned-down bolt and PU scope thrown on because it's a historical artifact rather than a later copy of it. The guns are technically identical, but only one is a historical weapon used by a Soviet sniper.

Drilling and tapping an M1903 today will decrease the value of the gun itself, but a World War II Unertl scope in perfect condition can go from $10,000 to $20,000 by itself. It's cool and all, but the scope is way more valuable than the gun itself even before you gently caress up the collector value of it unless you've got something like a rifle used by Alvin York.

chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Jun 17, 2015

# ? Jun 17, 2015 01:43

Keldoclock: Jan 5, 2014; by zen death robot

chitoryu12 posted:

World War II Unertl

Oh god no dude i mean like an Lyman Alaska. The U.S. military had those scopes (although they called them the M81 and M82 scopes) and put some of them on 1903s at some point.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 01:51

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Keldoclock posted:

Oh god no dude i mean like an Lyman Alaska. The U.S. military had those scopes (although they called them the M81 and M82 scopes) and put some of them on 1903s at some point.

Either way you're loving the value of the gun. It will be worth less than the sum of the parts (rifle, scope mount, scope) before you drilled them together.

A good condition m1903 is a $700-1000 rifle today, depending on collector bullshit. After doing all that the base gun is essentially worthless (maybe $200 as a functioning rifle) and you're down to the value of the scope and the mount.

If you really want a 1903 lookalike there are companies out there who put them together using guns that were already salvage grade. They put new barrels on them, put new stocks on them, refinish the receiver, and all in all make a good looking replica that shoots better than a homebrew is going to. Here's a well known company selling them for a touch over $1000. More than I'd personally pay for one, but it's essentially a new rifle. http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F3NA1903A4&name=US+M1903A4+Springfield+30.06+Rifle&groupid=12 . They put some damned good barrels on them though, I know a couple people who own them and they like them as shooters.

If you really just want a rifle for $500 sell your 1903 and buy a budget grade hunting rifle. Even the cheapest modern hunting rifles are generally more accurate than a 75+ year old one, mostly because of better (and unworn) barrels.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 02:04

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Keldoclock posted:

Oh god no dude i mean like an Lyman Alaska. The U.S. military had those scopes (although they called them the M81 and M82 scopes) and put some of them on 1903s at some point.

Well, the value of that scope would depend on exactly which individual scope you're talking about. Wartime relics can have values of hundreds of dollars greater than their actual value as an item purely because of the history behind them; I've seen scraps of cloth from the Viet Cong that ordinarily wouldn't be worth more than a dollar selling for $200+ just because of the historical value.

A modern Lyman Alaska is a good $400. A World War II scope could be over $1000; this M1903A4 with a Lyman Alaska scope went for $3000 despite being arsenal refurbished, and I'm willing to bet that a good chunk of that was just the vintage glass topping it. A sporterized Springfield M1903 can go for anywhere from $375 to $800 from some cursory Googling, so just swapping the stock and tapping for a commercial scope can really gently caress the value up.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 02:04

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Nenonen posted:

I couldn't find one, so I'll give you the best version of Titanic, from 1943. The YouTube clip starts with trailer, the movie w/subtitles starts at 4:30.

Some morbid trivia:

It seems like you can learn most everything you need to know about Nazi Germany by reading articles on films the propaganda ministry produced.

I wonder then what Les Enfants du Paradis says about wartime France...

quote:

Film critic Pauline Kael wrote that, allegedly, "the starving extras made away with some of the banquets before they could be photographed".[13] Many of the 1,800 extras were Resistance agents using the film as daytime cover, who, until the Liberation, had to mingle with some collaborators or Vichy sympathisers who were imposed on the production by the authorities.[14] Alexandre Trauner, who designed the sets, and Joseph Kosma, who composed the music, were Jewish and had to work in secrecy throughout the production. Trauner lived (under an assumed name) with Carn� and Pr�vert during the six months it took them to prepare the script. Maurice Thiriet, Kosma's orchestrator, acted as his front.[15]
...
Production was delayed again after the Allies landed in Normandy, perhaps intentionally stalled so that it would only be completed after the French Liberation. When Paris was liberated in August 1944, the actor Robert Le Vigan, cast in the role of informer-thief J�richo, was sentenced to death by the Resistance for collaborating with the Nazis, and had to flee, along with the author C�line, to Sigmaringen. He was replaced at a moment�s notice by Pierre Renoir, older brother of French filmmaker Jean Renoir and son of the famous painter, and most of the scenes had to be redone.[10] Le Vigan was tried and convicted as a Nazi collaborator in 1946

# ? Jun 17, 2015 02:11

Chillbro Baggins: Oct 8, 2004; Bad Angus! Bad!

MikeCrotch posted:

I'd read the poo poo out of your dad's war stories written in that Hunter S Thompson stream of conciousness style.

If you have archives, I made a thread or two some years ago. Feel free to copypaste it here if you can find it.

ArchangeI posted:

Seriously. If he won't do camera, try and get him to write his memoires. Or just a collection of warstories that may or may not have actually happened (he can't tell you because it's all still classified, you understand).

I asked him to retell them when I made the thread -- so as to get it better than my faded memories of when he told me the stories when I was a small child -- but he ain't talking. And yeah, most of that poo poo probably didn't happen, but it's a fun story. I love rereading Humper Monkey/50 Foot Ant's poo poo -- it's obviously fiction, or at least enhanced, but it's better than anything Tom Clancy or Stephen King wrote later in their careers.

Also, funny that you mention "still classified": Dad's oldest brother was a Major in SF at the same time Dad was a sergeant; my uncle hinted at, but was not allowed to say, what he may or may not have done in Laos and Cambodia in the late '60s. Said uncle died in the '80s before his exploits were declassified, sadly.

cheerfullydrab posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnTU4dKpoB8

Yep. Also dad much preferred the M14 he had in basic over the sawed-off M16. At least you can beat a guy to death with the M14 when it craps out on you. The Mattel rifle, not so much.

Taerkar posted:

Those projectiles would penetrate concrete a lot better than steel, but not for more than a couple of dozen of yards before they either break apart or come to a stop (or the fuse detonates the round). The more they go through the more they're moving out of the way and the less overall inertia they have. They're also not really all that likely to 'skip' if the nose of the projectile makes contact with the water before the side of it.

Not more than a couple dozen yards through concrete. Think about that. Also, re: skipping off the water: a) that was my point, and b) you've never actually shot a gun into water. It pretty much has to be going straight in to go down. Shot bouncing off the water and holing the enemy above the waterline is a well-attested thing in the age of sail and both World Wars.

Taerkar posted:

Uhh... what? How slow do you think the projectiles were? At extreme ranges the target might move a mile or so but no one would be flinging shells at each other at that long of a range anyways.

I admit I massively hosed up the math. A shell moves at almost exactly a kilometer a second (~2700 feet/second muzzle velocity, and they started shooting 15 miles away, to quote Johnny Horton), so that's 24-ish seconds flight time at long range for WWII battleship guns, and the ships they're shooting at doing 30 knots and not going in a straight line. You work it out with a calculator.

Rocko Bonaparte posted:

I feel better reading that. I thought that was crazy too.

Assuming:
Shells moving at 1800 mph (rough muzzle velocity of USS Iowa class)
Fired from 24 miles away (rough range of USS Iowa Class)
30 knots being about 36 mph

I get something like 48 seconds of air time. I think the target would move a little under half a mile or so. Actually, that's still pretty crazy, regardless.

Yeah, I hosed up at several points doing the math in my head (mainly converting knots to ... whatever unit I used), but still, plenty of time to dodge.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 07:31

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Delivery McGee posted:

Yep. Also dad much preferred the M14 he had in basic over the sawed-off M16. At least you can beat a guy to death with the M14 when it craps out on you. The Mattel rifle, not so much.

Aren't AR-15 stocks even from the 1960s still solid enough to be used to club a guy around the head? It's not exactly like in Green Berets where you just whack the gun against a tree and it shatters.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 07:45

Keldoclock: Jan 5, 2014; by zen death robot

chitoryu12 posted:

Aren't AR-15 stocks even from the 1960s still solid enough to be used to club a guy around the head? It's not exactly like in Green Berets where you just whack the gun against a tree and it shatters.

They make wood stocks for the AR-15 series too. But if the debate is between a 7 lb solid piece of plastic with some steel bits, some of which are fragile in it, and a longer and more club-shaped 11lb hunk of wood with firmly bedded steel parts, obviously that wins. But even when you look at old weapons, its pretty common to damage something when using the firearm as a club. Better to just carry a club, no? Have expandable batons ever been issued to a modern force? What about wooden clubs? Is there anything in the articles of war preventing me from whittling something from a treebranch and using it to merc dudes?

# ? Jun 17, 2015 07:55

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Militaries are usually very large about letting troops carry unregimented melee weapons, as long as it's not something impractical or blatantly painful. I read about a dude in the US army who got a permit to carry ninja swords around, so even in strictly rule-bound troops you can pull that sort of thing off.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 08:08

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Keldoclock posted:

They make wood stocks for the AR-15 series too. But if the debate is between a 7 lb solid piece of plastic with some steel bits, some of which are fragile in it, and a longer and more club-shaped 11lb hunk of wood with firmly bedded steel parts, obviously that wins. But even when you look at old weapons, its pretty common to damage something when using the firearm as a club. Better to just carry a club, no? Have expandable batons ever been issued to a modern force? What about wooden clubs? Is there anything in the articles of war preventing me from whittling something from a treebranch and using it to merc dudes?

Well, you'd be much more inclined in a modern military to just whip out your M9 bayonet and stab the dude instead of carrying around an improvised wooden club. If anything, you'd get yelled at for being completely ridiculous if you tried to whittle a local branch into a beating stick when you have a perfectly good combat knife already on your gear.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 08:10

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Keldoclock posted:

They make wood stocks for the AR-15 series too. But if the debate is between a 7 lb solid piece of plastic with some steel bits, some of which are fragile in it, and a longer and more club-shaped 11lb hunk of wood with firmly bedded steel parts, obviously that wins. But even when you look at old weapons, its pretty common to damage something when using the firearm as a club. Better to just carry a club, no? Have expandable batons ever been issued to a modern force? What about wooden clubs? Is there anything in the articles of war preventing me from whittling something from a treebranch and using it to merc dudes?

That's why the Mosin-Nagant M91/30 had a hard steel buttplate. When you crush fascist skulls their fascist teeth and bone fragments might ding the steel but the tool of the soviet war worker is not so fragile as to be damaged doing its most basic duty.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 08:23

Chillbro Baggins: Oct 8, 2004; Bad Angus! Bad!

chitoryu12 posted:

Aren't AR-15 stocks even from the 1960s still solid enough to be used to club a guy around the head? It's not exactly like in Green Berets where you just whack the gun against a tree and it shatters.

The OG CAR-15 stock will totally bust heads in a pinch, but it feels flimsy as opposed to the half-a-tree attached to a .30-cal rifle.

In other news, I'm working on an email to try to convince that government-sponsored murderer what spawned me to let me interview him on video or at least talk him into writing a book. Hey, HEY GAL, are your boys medieval? I'm trying to sell him on the importance of being a primary source with "I know a person who's working on her doctorate, and their war stories we have from 400 years ago are pretty much just like yours."

It's actually kinda funny how war, war never changes. HEY GAL's guys and my pappy would get along quite well, I think. All complaining about their officers over a pitcher of whiskey.

chitoryu12 posted:

Well, you'd be much more inclined in a modern military to just whip out your M9 bayonet and stab the dude instead of carrying around an improvised wooden club. If anything, you'd get yelled at for being completely ridiculous if you tried to whittle a local branch into a beating stick when you have a perfectly good combat knife already on your gear.

Bayonets: an excuse to give the soldiers a bigass knife. When was the last time bayonets were used in combat attached to a rifle (outside SF, of course). In 1968, the US Army was taught to swing that M14 like Davy Crockett at the Alamo. Buttstroke, stab, shoot the poor bastard off the blade is how Dad was trained.

Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Jun 17, 2015

# ? Jun 17, 2015 08:35

Chillbro Baggins: Oct 8, 2004; Bad Angus! Bad!

Teaser of dad's war stories:
The First Five Minutes of Patton
Vargas takes one in the chest and whines about it

Edit: somebody please find the thread, I didn't save the text.

Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Jun 17, 2015

# ? Jun 17, 2015 08:50

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

Delivery McGee posted:

Bayonets: an excuse to give the soldiers a bigass knife. When was the last time bayonets were used in combat attached to a rifle (outside SF, of course). In 1968, the US Army was taught to swing that M14 like Davy Crockett at the Alamo. Buttstroke, stab, shoot the poor bastard off the blade is how Dad was trained.

Bayonet charges still happen, usually after running out of ammo. A couple of military crosses were given out to Brits in Afghanistan for leading bayonet charges:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8252974.stm

quote:

A British army officer who, after running out of ammunition, used his bayonet to charge a Taliban fighter has been awarded the Military Cross.

Lt James Adamson, who is 24 and serves with the Royal Regiment of Scotland, was given the medal for his "supreme physical courage".

His actions while on tour in Afghanistan saved the lives of soldiers in his platoon.

He said he ran out of ammunition after killing one man, so charged the second.

Lt Adamson, who is from the Isle of Man, and part of the 5th Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, said: "To be honest it was pretty terrifying.

"I think more so after the event - as it was going on there was fractions of a second between the first guy and the second guy.
Military Cross
The Military Cross is awarded in recognition of exemplary gallantry

"By the time I realised the danger was there, it was already gone.

"It was the kind of the two or three minutes after that, where myself and Corporal Hamilton were still on our own - just waiting for the reserve section to echelon through and pick us up - that we were pretty convinced that if there were two there, there could have been more.

"So we were there waiting for the rest to turn up and I think that was probably the longest two minutes of my life."

The citation for Lt Adamson's award - as detailed on the MoD website - reads: "Adamson' supreme physical courage, combined with the calm leadership he continued to display after a very close encounter with the Taliban, were of the very highest order.

"His actions also neutralised an enemy flanking attack which could have resulted in casualties for his platoon."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-19755107

quote:

A soldier who led a bayonet charge across 80m (260ft) of open ground through Taliban gunfire in Afghanistan has been given the Military Cross.

Lance Corporal Sean Jones, 25, of 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Regiment, and his patrol were ambushed in Kakaran village, Helmand.

L/Cpl Jones, of Market Drayton, "reversed a potentially dire situation" in October 2011.

The patrol was trying to draw out insurgents laying homemade bombs.

As they moved through an open field, the patrol came under heavy and accurate small-arms fire.
Well-planned ambush

The father of two who was second-in-command, said they were crossing a ditch, preparing to return to a checkpoint, when the shooting started.

Cpl Jones said: "I was just coming out of the ditch and most of the fire was coming at me. I hit the deck immediately.

"I have been shot at quite a few times and could tell the enemy was close. Gravel and dirt were flying up all around me from the bullets."

The soldiers withdrew to the water-filled ditch to return fire, but were trapped as the insurgents moved in to try to overwhelm their position.

Cpl Jones said that it was "obviously a well-planned ambush" and they had to "react quickly."

Firing a rocket at one of the insurgent positions, he ordered three of his men to fix bayonets before breaking cover and leading them across the open ground.
Occupied buildings

Cpl Jones said: "I asked them if they were happy. They were all quite young lads and the adrenalin was racing.

"I realised I'd left them behind a bit so had to slow down and was engaged again, so I organised my guys who started attacking the enemy firing points."

As two of the soldiers provided fire support, Cpl Jones prepared a hand grenade for the final assault, racing towards an alley.

He was about to throw the grenade, but said he realised that the buildings were occupied so put the grenade away, but this caused the insurgents to fall back.

Sporadic enemy fire continued and they were to launch another assault, but were joined by the platoon commander and the rest of the platoon, who had been suppressing the other enemy position.

"Before this, the locals were wary of us, but this showed they could trust us to protect them from the enemy and that we wouldn't endanger them while doing it," Cpl Jones said.

The soldier's citation states that he demonstrated "unflinching courage and extraordinary leadership in the face of extreme and tangible danger".

He "epitomised the best qualities of the British infantry: gritty determination, controlled aggression, tactical cunning and complete disregard for his own safety".

# ? Jun 17, 2015 10:59

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

FAUXTON posted:

That's why the Mosin-Nagant M91/30 had a hard steel buttplate. When you crush fascist skulls their fascist teeth and bone fragments might ding the steel but the tool of the soviet war worker is not so fragile as to be damaged doing its most basic duty.

Nope, that's not why rifles of that era have steel buttplates. It's to protect the end-grain of the stock from chipping and propagating cracks down the length of it in normal use. They used steel for the most part because that was a durable, cheap material in an age when plastics were relatively fragile and prone to shattering and rubber was prone to cracking and falling apart in extreme heat or cold.

That said, there were some non-steel buttplates used in miltiary arms, mostly as a cost measure. The latter Japanes T99s had a wooden buttplate, for example, and the late WW2 carbine variant of the Enfield had a rubber one.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 14:25

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Cyrano4747 posted:

Nope, that's not why rifles of that era have steel buttplates. It's to protect the end-grain of the stock from chipping and propagating cracks down the length of it in normal use. They used steel for the most part because that was a durable, cheap material in an age when plastics were relatively fragile and prone to shattering and rubber was prone to cracking and falling apart in extreme heat or cold.

That said, there were some non-steel buttplates used in miltiary arms, mostly as a cost measure. The latter Japanes T99s had a wooden buttplate, for example, and the late WW2 carbine variant of the Enfield had a rubber one.

well I prefer the imagery of RKKA weapon designers going "the uncapped stock cracked, on average, after knocking the teeth out of five nazis. Putting a steel plate on the butt of the stock left the wood intact after we ended testing with the teeth of seven hundred fifty nazis scattered on the floor."

I mean normal use might include that type of behavior too but it also includes cranking bolt like mad man while ejecting shell casing the size of beer can.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 14:47

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Keldoclock posted:

I think you mean "awesome, I have a disposable hunting rifle chambered in a versatile and readily available cartridge."

To go with the other ~20-odd ones I have. It's still a neat piece but it'd be neater with the original stock.

quote:

Sometimes you just gotta shoot things man.

Yep. First thing I did with my grandfather's 1914 Luger after he died. Well, second, I stripped and cleaned it up first.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Nope, that's not why rifles of that era have steel buttplates. It's to protect the end-grain of the stock from chipping and propagating cracks down the length of it in normal use.

Or from abnormal use:

Probably hammering in tent pegs.

# ? Jun 17, 2015 14:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 01:51

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

Ugh, finally had to give up on A World Undone during the Somme chapter. It's a shame, because it's so well written in terms of prose, but so often falls back on the laziest WWI stereotypes that my eyes starting rolling out of my head. In particular he has such a hateboner for Haig that he basically tries to blame everything that went wrong on Haig and the high command personally without any regard as to why those decisions were made or how situations forced their hand.

One of my biggest pet peeves with any kind of military history is when a writer is unable to see past the fact that we are omniscient relative to the decision makers at the time, and act as if they were making decisions with all the information we know now, instead of being stuck in a field somewhere and relying on unreliable runners/horses/motorbike couriers/radios, surrounded by potentially incompetent or corrupt subordinates and probably tired out of their loving skulls.

It definitely seems like WWI generals get hit with the above stick the most, though it seems like Grant and Sherman get slammed with it quite often as well. Any other events people can think of where historians seem to have unreasonably high standards for the actors involved?

# ? Jun 17, 2015 15:01

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »