|
Disinterested posted:Is your era your favourite hat era
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
Hazzard posted:A friend told me after reading into it he thought the CSA had a better government set up for a civilian who wanted a government to represent him. I'm hoping I'm explaining myself right. Take the Government design for the CSA, compare it to the USA and the CSA would apparently be better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:02
|
|
HEY GAL posted:they're big, but they're not particularly elaborate, so i'm conflicted Surely you can spice it up with some big feathers though I think the 19th century hat game in toto is probably better though
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:see, the thing is, that when you study literally any other organization as well, they're all amazingly bad HEY GAL posted:i think we're just comparing most of them (not talking about the ACW era US, etc) to ideals that don't actually exist. failing your way to something like success has always been the norm. corruption, avarice, terrible decisions, graft Doctor Who got it perfectly right: "The army wouldn't just leave a prototype secret weapon" "You're new to the military aren't you son?" T___A posted:Both the Confederate and Union constitution are substantially the same. The main differences result in the Confederate one ending ambiguities surrounding slavery. The only major non-slavery differences are a one term six year presidency after which he is unable to be reelected, presidential line item veto, bills having to deal with one subject, and a restriction on waterway improvements. I think he meant it in the sense of you compare the structure of the British political establishment and American one for example. You might prefer an unelected upper house or for your elected head of government to have more or less legislative and executive authority. Nothing to do with policy, like slavery would be. I'll ask him about it next time I see him. Hazzard fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think one of the greatest feats militaries have accomplished is convincing people they are in any way organised just because they can march in lines and wear tidy uniforms. A lot of that comes from the civilian oversight/direction of military non-combat stuff, like the F-35 and all that Halliburton poo poo back in the day. Occasionally you get an Eisenhower in there whose entire military career was spent solving and improving logistics poo poo but that's rare as hell. Typically the people you end up with get tunnel vision and focus on really dumb poo poo so that what the guys in the field end up dealing with is 40 tons of bullets and 0 ounces of water because the guys up the chain expected everything to go perfectly and never planned any contingencies for "what if there's no potable water where you think it is" and "what if this doesn't work out in the expected timeframe." That isn't to say the whole machine is well-oiled if it weren't for the Rumsfelds of the world, but a lot of the big clusterfuck stuff is bad planning or straight up graft. There's the micro-level fuckups like being bad at reading maps or not arriving on time, but those always get overlooked because well the military is basically the only decent paying racket in town for a lot of rural areas and so you have NCOs who would otherwise be flipping burgers for 30 years until diabetes puts them on disability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:"I think the size of this hole tells me a broadsword was used to kill the victim. Who owns a broadsword?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:07
|
|
FAUXTON posted:A lot of that comes from the civilian oversight/direction of military non-combat stuff, like the F-35 and all that Halliburton poo poo back in the day. Occasionally you get an Eisenhower in there whose entire military career was spent solving and improving logistics poo poo but that's rare as hell. Yeah I mean I'm mostly going on anecdotes of people I know in the military who basically just tell me every day there's some new cock-up in need of patching up and that people have no idea how chaotic it is.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:Talks I've had with an ex-British officer tells me that the only way to get anything important is to acquire an "Officer's Requisition Form" and wave it in the face of a member of the Commissariat until they pay attention.  Stores are for storing, my lad, not for issuing. If they were for issuing, then they'd be called "Issues", wouldn't they?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
T___A posted:Both the Confederate and Union constitution are substantially the same. The main differences result in the Confederate one ending ambiguities surrounding slavery. The only major non-slavery differences are a one term six year presidency after which he is unable to be reelected, presidential line item veto, bills having to deal with one subject, and a restriction on waterway improvements. Pretty sure the commerce clause is changed, which is a loving massive change given the powers the Supreme Court interpreted it as giving to the federal government. Disinterested posted:Yeah I mean I'm mostly going on anecdotes of people I know in the military who basically just tell me every day there's some new cock-up in need of patching up and that people have no idea how chaotic it is. Although I will say there's some absolutely mind-blowing poo poo you see in major businesses as well. People just aren't good at organizing things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
T___A posted:Both the Confederate and Union constitution are substantially the same. The main differences result in the Confederate one ending ambiguities surrounding slavery. The only major non-slavery differences are a one term six year presidency after which he is unable to be reelected, presidential line item veto, bills having to deal with one subject, and a restriction on waterway improvements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:21
|
|
xthetenth posted:Pretty sure the commerce clause is changed, which is a loving massive change given the powers the Supreme Court interpreted it as giving to the federal government. But people don't idolise private industry as being perfectly organis- 
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:I think he meant it in the sense of you compare the structure of the British political establishment and American one for example. You might prefer an unelected upper house or for your elected head of government to have more or less legislative and executive authority. Nothing to do with policy, like slavery would be. I'll ask him about it next time I see him. The Senate in 1862 wasn't (directly) elected, either; senators were selected by the state legislatures. It was pretty much intended to be the US version of the House of Lords just as the President was the US version of an (18th century) British king. Per James Madison - 'In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, the people ought to have permanency and stability'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:
Not sure if you are but quoting the federalist papers is a good way to make me look at modern politics and get suddenly furious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:there was one case where a dude died suddenly in his sleep; he had fought with another soldier two weeks before and the latter had hit him on the head. so they opened him up to see if that could have contributed to his death. In their opinion it had not, the would was very minor and had been healing, so the guy he had fought with was not tried for murder. That's awesome. Wasn't Pappenheim killed in battle though, in presumably non-suspicious circumstances? Or was fragging a concern in those days as well?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:55
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:That's awesome. unlike gustavus adolphus, who disappeared into the smoke and nobody saw him again, an entire wing of cav saw it happen, and promptly flipped their poo poo and folded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Siivola posted:In the days of the smallsword there also existed a wild array of backswords (that is, swords with only one edge), but those were generally more of a military thing while the smallsword was the civilian gentleman's weapon of choice. Cavalry sabers and broadswords and spadroons and oh my. What was the sword equivalent of a tactiloled AR-15?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:What was the sword equivalent of a tactiloled AR-15? The lantern shield:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantern_shield
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
E: or that  what the gently caress, it looks like someone threw the Staffordshire hoard into the teleportation chamber from The Fly.(E: I know they're from two different periods and areas, it just looks like some dunning-kruger version of Archimedes came up with "the last weapon your infantry will ever need.") The Lone Badger posted:What was the sword equivalent of a tactiloled AR-15? A katana FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
revolversword
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:revolversword Ugh a literal gunblade. I wonder if they need to pressurewash the waxy handprints of japanophile neckbeards off on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
flintlock revolversword too, because spain invented something very like the modern flintlock in the late 1500s. for some reason, when i think "completely insane but also very well made sword thing" spain is the first culture that comes to mind
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
If I recall right the Metropolitan has a gunmachete, I have pictures of it at home but someone is probably gonna beat me to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Found out a neat tidbit today. I always wondered why the KV-1 was named after a person, since no other Soviet tank was up until that point and it more or less ended in the same design bureau with the IS. Turns out Josef Kotin, the lead designer, named it after his father in law (Who just so happened to be a member of the Central Committee, what a coincidence)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:revolversword So what stops this shattering into a bunch of pieces when you try to use it as a sword?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Found out a neat tidbit today. I always wondered why the KV-1 was named after a person, since no other Soviet tank was up until that point and it more or less ended in the same design bureau with the IS. Turns out Josef Kotin, the lead designer, named it after his father in law (Who just so happened to be a member of the Central Committee, what a coincidence) Yeah. Now consider the significance of the KV series being renamed to the IS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
I know about the IS, also a Kotin design (And how he very quickly switched back to the T as soon as Stalin died), but the gall of directly calling attention to the fact that 'Yeah my father in law is in the Central Committee and has a very direct say in tank production, what of it' is fairly amusing. You could expect most of everyone in the Party to kiss rear end to Stalin.
Kafouille fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:revolversword According to a museum plaque I read once by a similar sword/gun, it was a hunting weapon, the idea being that after sticking the bear/pig/hippo/whatever that your dogs ran down, you would then pull the trigger and finish it off at point blank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:I know about the IS, also a Kotin design (And how he very quickly switched back to the T as soon as Stalin died), but the gall of directly calling attention to the fact that 'Yeah my father in law is in the Central Committee and has a very direct say in tank production, what of it' is fairly amusing. You could expect most of everyone in the Party to kiss rear end to Stalin. Well the point was that Klimet Voroshilov was very popular with Stalin for a while, despite his fuckups during the Winter War and in the defence of Leningrad. And then in 1943 he embarrassed Stalin in front of the allies by dropping the Sword of Stalingrad on his foot, and it became politically a bad idea to name tanks after him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well the point was that Klimet Voroshilov was very popular with Stalin for a while, despite his fuckups during the Winter War and in the defence of Leningrad. I still find puzzling how he lasted that long given how hard he failed in 40/41. Dude was present during the Kitchen Debate for gently caress sake (He's the old guy in the pimpin' white suit).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Found out a neat tidbit today. I always wondered why the KV-1 was named after a person, since no other Soviet tank was up until that point and it more or less ended in the same design bureau with the IS. Turns out Josef Kotin, the lead designer, named it after his father in law (Who just so happened to be a member of the Central Committee, what a coincidence) Not so. The KV was the budget version of another previously developed tank, the SMK (Sergei Mironovich Kirov). There were also the BT-SV (Stalin-Voroshilov), a land cruiser monstrosity called Lenin-Stalin, and of course Freedom Fighter Comrade Lenin, although that was a proper name rather than a model number. Interestingly enough, when Stalin tried a go at designing a tank, it retained its platform index (KV-7). Also he admitted that it wasn't any good and it was never mass produced, although work on it significantly contributed to the development of the KV-14, more commonly known as SU-152. Beria also had things named after him, but just high power guns (BL-7, 8, 9, 10), developed by the NKVD's private design bureau made up of imprisoned scientists. Interestingly enough, the most effective output of that bureau, the 45 mm AT gun model 1942, received the boring index "M-42" instead of Beria's name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well the point was that Klimet Voroshilov was very popular with Stalin for a while, despite his fuckups during the Winter War and in the defence of Leningrad. I would challenge that conclusion. The KV-13 offshoots were named IS-1 and IS-2 before then, plus Voroshilov himself wasn't booted off the GKO until 1944, so he clearly enjoyed a significant degree of favour at least until then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:The lantern shield: This linked me to something even more bizarre: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%87_(%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%82) It's like a shield, but you stick your whole arm through the hole where the boss should be and then it ends in a gauntlet. EE, what the gently caress is going on here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Not so. The KV was the budget version of another previously developed tank, the SMK (Sergei Mironovich Kirov). There were also the BT-SV (Stalin-Voroshilov), a land cruiser monstrosity called Lenin-Stalin, and of course Freedom Fighter Comrade Lenin, although that was a proper name rather than a model number.  ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
That looks like the ugly hybrid of an IS-3, a KV-2, and a Brummbar. A Brummbleplex, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
That's obviously a T-34 chassis. Interestingly, a T-34 chassis lengthened to six road wheels existed, and was meant for the SU-2-122, an SPG with two 122 mm guns. The more conventional SU-122 won out in the end, shockingly enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Interestingly enough, when Stalin tried a go at designing a tank, it retained its platform index (KV-7). Also he admitted that it wasn't any good and it was never mass produced, although work on it significantly contributed to the development of the KV-14, more commonly known as SU-152. I'm amused and impressed Stalin 1) actually would attempt such a thing and 2) he'd be all "don't bother with this guys, it isn't any good"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm amused and impressed Stalin 1) actually would attempt such a thing and 2) he'd be all "don't bother with this guys, it isn't any good" It sounds like something Stalin would do, if you ask me. First, nobody was going to say no to the guy. Second, it humanizes him in that weird heroic way all the poo poo surrounding him points to - he's a Georgian everyman of the people, all that armor and engineering poo poo is for the really smart guys in the defense ministry, but he graciously accepted the opportunity those geniuses gave him and gave it his best shot. It turned out to be awful and he's like "EYYYYYYYY"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:The lantern shield: HEY GAL posted:revolversword Remember the old saying: don't bring a lantern shield to a sword revolver fight. Grand Prize Winner posted:It's like a shield, but you stick your whole arm through the hole where the boss should be and then it ends in a gauntlet. This is brilliant:  Its like everyone around the dude with the tharch can't believe he actually wore a tharch to the battle. Guy on the horse is like "CHAAAR- holy crap, is that a shield-glove?!" The guys he's beating on are completely discombobulated. And the old guy with the big mustache and the fez? He could stop himself getting axed but damned if he's gonna live on an earth where a man rocks up to a battle with a tharch. Its just not early modern Russian cricket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:The lantern shield: I think you made a mistake, this is clearly a picture of a snail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It sounds like something Stalin would do, if you ask me. First, nobody was going to say no to the guy. Second, it humanizes him in that weird heroic way all the poo poo surrounding him points to - he's a Georgian everyman of the people, all that armor and engineering poo poo is for the really smart guys in the defense ministry, but he graciously accepted the opportunity those geniuses gave him and gave it his best shot. It turned out to be awful and he's like "EYYYYYYYY" "I knew I employed you guys for a reason. ...seriously, if my tank had been better than yours I'd have had you all shot."
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 04:12
|
|