feedmegin posted:

Encryption is a thing.

Also, you think that as a random teenager you have more expertise than the people in the US army whose literal paid job is to figure out how to deal with hostile drones? Please.

feedmegin posted:

Encryption is a thing.

Also, you think that as a random teenager you have more expertise than the people in the US army whose literal paid job is to figure out how to deal with hostile drones? Please.

The Lone Badger posted:

Could you reverse-calculate someone's time and place of birth via closely observing their fortunes?

The Lone Badger posted:

Could you reverse-calculate someone's time and place of birth via closely observing their fortunes?

quote:

Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, Fire is dominant in your natal chart and endows you with intuition, energy, courage, self-confidence, and enthusiasm! You are inclined to be passionate, you assert your willpower, you move forward, and come hell or high water, you achieve your dreams and your goals. The relative weakness of this element is the difficulty to step back or a kind of boldness that may prompt you to do foolish things.

quote:

Albrecht Von Wallenstein, the nocturnal North-eastern quadrant, consisting of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd houses, prevails in your chart: this sector favours self-assertion and material security to the detriment of your perception of others. You consider self-transformation to be a hazardous adventure. You are inclined to seek stability and you tend to protect yourself with your actions. Possession, acquisition but also communication, without opening up too much, are part of your deep motivations. You are rather autonomous and constant, however it is important that you pay more attention to others, so that you can improve your outcomes.

Fangz posted:

Do a relationship horoscope between him and the Holy Roman Empire please.

HEY GAL posted:

i got these from the internet; i have no idea how to calculate this poo poo myself and i'm not about to pay for it.

i suppose i could learn, though. i guess the HRE begins when charlemagne was crowned, which is Christmas 800 old calendar.

quote:

Best at : Parent-Child Worst at : Work

Natural feelings and attitudes predominate in this free and easy relationship. In many ways liberating, the Virgo-Libra-Capricorn I matchup can powerfully influence both partners in their search for meaning in life, and also in their self-development. Thus Virgo-Libras learn a great deal from their Capricorn I partners, who, in turn, benefit tremendously from the aesthetic influences of Virgo-Libras, which can open up whole new worlds for them.

Romance is possible between these two; it will seldom be of the wilder sort, yet it will be more uninhibited than either partner is used to. Capricorn Is will be enchanted by their Virgo-Libra partners but, unfortunately, will also regard them as possessions. Virgo-Libras can only be flattered to a point, and will back off if they feel claimed or controlled. In marriage, they benefit from Capricorn 1 practicality and common sense. They will not be dissatisfied with playing a supporting role, but must beware that their own personalities are not swallowed up by the relationship.

As friends, these two enjoy taking courses together that lead to mutual self-improvement, whether commercial, physical or artistic. A common hobby often emerges that unites the pair and becomes the basis of the relationship. Virgo-Libras should not be surprised at Capricorn I thriftiness but should edge the relationship away from a stingy attitude that can limit its possibilities and inhibit creativity.

Parent-child relationships can be extremely favorable, with both partners sharing, learning and growing together Artistic and spiritual bonds may be formed here that continue into adult life. In the work sphere, Capricorn Is tend to think they are omniscient, a trail that, if encountered on a daily basis, will grate on the nerves of Virgo-Libras. These two relate best as independent colleagues or freelancers who touch base occasionally to share their thoughts and observations.

Advice
Learn from each other, but maintain your independence--beware of claiming attitudes. Cultivate artistic and spiritual pursuits.

Tomn posted:

Say, question about cavalry here.

I know that during the Early Modern era heavy cavalry began experimenting with the idea of heavily armored cavalry armed with pistols who'd fire at the point of contact in a charge. Is there a reason why heavy cavalry dropped the pistols by the Napoleonic period, though? Did pistols prove to be just too inaccurate on a galloping horse to be worthwhile no matter the circumstances?

Endman posted:

Considering Serbians shot down the F117 with crappy Cold War AAA, I'm reasonably sure the US wouldn't have instantaneous air superiority.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Most heavy cavalry still carried pistols, but the pistol is a one-shot deal. Still useful for mixed work, but not so much in a charge because generally, it was thought of as more advantageous to charge home in a large mass with arme blanche only. A Napoleonic era pistol has an effective range of maybe 30-40yd on the ground. Add the fact that you are riding a horse, on a battlefield, and the likelihood of hits is very low. Then you drop the pistol and draw the sabre, but you're already on top of the guys you're charging and you can't pick your targets all that well because of all the goddamn smoke in your eyes so the charge is disrupted.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

and the English flailed around like morons

Throatwarbler posted:

what im getting at is that the russian backed seperatist drone directed artillery is operating under aparticular set of circumstances where neither side is operating with a lot of airpower, so if all you have are rifles then shooting down artillery spotting drones is a big deal but against an american formation those mlrs will have been spotted by and interdicted from the air before the drones come into play, so i dont see the lack of anti drone weapons to be a big blindspot for the us.

Endman posted:

Considering Serbians shot down the F117 with crappy Cold War AAA, I'm reasonably sure the US wouldn't have instantaneous air superiority.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

the English flailed around like morons because their cavalry was all rich people.

Hogge Wild posted:

It wasn't that simple. The AA officer was drat good at what he did and he had disciplined troops who didn't take anything for granted while the Americans had grown complacent and lazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

my dad posted:

Also, intel. Between Aviano having zero security and us having spies in NATO (I think only one of them got caught, some French dude), Dani knew exactly where to look for the aircraft.

It's also how we know that the targeting of civillian structures wasn't accidental.

HEY GAL posted:

this is a bunch of their wars tbh

Slavvy posted:

What about allied equipment that's perceived as being really fantastic but is actually pretty crap? Is there such a thing?

FAUXTON posted:

Patton.

feedmegin posted:

Encryption is a thing.

Also, you think that as a random teenager you have more expertise than the people in the US army whose literal paid job is to figure out how to deal with hostile drones? Please.

JcDent posted:

Well, lets us not forget that Iraqis could catch Predator cam feed with their TVs

my dad posted:

F117 shaped cake

Keldoclock posted:

Yes, as a random teenager who builds UAS I have more expertise on UAS than a grunt.

Cyrano4747 posted:

And loving if you think your hobby gives you serious insight into the military equipment, how it is operated, and its vulnerabilities.

Fangz posted:

The British didn't produce any world conquering geniuses but I don't think any particular leader was outright moronic either. For a very long period the British navy was by a significant margin the best in the world so 'mostly good' is kinda underselling it.

Keldoclock posted:

Devlan Mud posted:

gently caress off Keldoclock.

Seriously, just gently caress off and take your meds.

Keldoclock posted:

if you understand the current state of UAS and think it doesn't.

Throatwarbler posted:

Yes but if the ukrainians had the kind of air superiority that the us enjoys, how will those mlrs be able to run amok to begin with?

what im getting at is that the russian backed seperatist drone directed artillery is operating under aparticular set of circumstances where neither side is operating with a lot of airpower, so if all you have are rifles then shooting down artillery spotting drones is a big deal but against an american formation those mlrs will have been spotted by and interdicted from the air before the drones come into play, so i dont see the lack of anti drone weapons to be a big blindspot for the us.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

An Evaluation of English Military Capability, 1066-Present:

Boats: Good mostly
Infantry: Good mostly
Artillery: tolerable
Cavalry: l m a o
Leadership:

Koesj posted:

Are you going to plan for having absolute air superiority? A number of 20th century conflicts showed severe deficiencies in previously held assumptions about the effectiveness of air power: terror bombing for total victory in the interwar/ww2 years, the viability of late prop aircraft against early jets in Korea, the institutional rot when you almost exclusively train for nuclear missions but have to fight a different kind of conflict in Vietnam, the vulnerability of the flightline in '67, the danger of medium range SAM systems in '73, the danger of man portable missiles against close air support in 1980s Afghanistan, etc.

In the end the artillery is going to be there, on the battlefield, as it has been for hundreds of years, just like the dude with the gun who can hold ground and influence poo poo directly. What kind of see-sawing shenanigans are we going see that'll make the general set of circumstances regarding ground forces absolutely non-viable through airpower??? Also, I can't stress this enough: large guns or dudes with guns should be considered an inherent loving factor on the battlefield. Whether or not you can mitigate against it through air power is the thing that is going to be beholden to particulars, not the other way around!

P-Mack posted:

The British were generally competent and well organized during the Arrow War. It was right after Crimea so everyone was like, "This time, maybe let's pay attention to things like food and basic medical care?"

P-Mack posted:

The British were generally competent and well organized during the Arrow War. It was right after Crimea so everyone was like, "This time, maybe let's pay attention to things like food and basic medical care?"