|
Mr Enderby posted:Than Great Britain? Definitely not, at least as far as military hierarchy went. Until the Crimean War, the usual method of advancement in the British army was to purchase your commission. Even after that was removed, life as an officer in a combat regiment required a standard of living which was much more expensive than the wages allowed for. Actually The Cardwell Reforms were all about addressing that. Sure there was a huge social gulf between the officer class and the enlisted class, but the British Army spend the time between 1870 and 1914 consciously adjusting to the idea of being a professional army where the officers were supposed to know their jobs and an enlisted soldier was worth more if he knew how to fight and was being fed and paid enough to be motivated to do so. e: again, while the UK response to 1870 was to professionalise like crazy, the French who had had their 'professional' (but in practice terrible) army comprehensively defeated by the Prussian conscript system and so moved in that direction. It really can't be emphasised enough how pivotal the war of 1870 was in setting the course of military policy in Europe for the next 40 years, and the countries in question went in very different directions because of it. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 15, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
ulmont posted:Union army, US Civil War. You could literally buy your way out of the draft. We are coming Father Abraham Three hundred dollars more We're rich enough to stay at home Let them go out that's poor
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Actually The Cardwell Reforms were all about addressing that. I have to say, I'm curious how the US military reacted to the War of 1870 (especially since they'd had a proper modern war themselves not 5 years earlier). Did it cause any doctrinal changes? (Granted, the 19th century US army was generally more geared up for 'let's oppress some native Americans' or 'let's grab someone else's colonies' rather than an all-out land war with a Great Power)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I have to say, I'm curious how the US military reacted to the War of 1870 (especially since they'd had a proper modern war themselves not 5 years earlier). Did it cause any doctrinal changes? I'm really not sure. Sheridan was sent as an observer embedded in the Prussian army and got a front-row view of several battles, so the US military was certainly paying close attention to events. But post civil-war the US army mostly just disarmed. To quote wikipedia on the Spanish-American war: "In the spring of 1898, the strength of the Regular U.S. Army was just 28,000 men." Straight after the Spanish-American war the US Staff College gets set up (but the size of the army contracts again) so it seems that really had more impact on US thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I have to say, I'm curious how the US military reacted to the War of 1870 (especially since they'd had a proper modern war themselves not 5 years earlier). Did it cause any doctrinal changes? As far as I know the US military hardly lifted an eyebrow to any of it, but the public/political reaction to the birth of the Third Republic was enormous and really interesting. Basically, we'd just finished our own civil war which had, after a time, evolved into a massive struggle for republicanism and populism that had sort of culminated in the Radical Republicans and the Grant presidency. Thus there was serious interest in the emergence of a new republican government in a European power, especially as they were fighting against an old-timey European imperial power who had a king and all that. I'd go so far as to say the US might have even intervened on the side of France had they lasted a bit longer, or had the war occurred a few years later than it did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
As usual I'm late to the party, but I figured I'd write a few words on women in the military in Sweden since it should hopefully give a bit of a different view of the issue since people who talk about this only ever tend to cite the US and Israel as examples. Here, women were given access to officer training in 1980, and to all combat positions in 1989. They were never conscripted for real, but they could, uh, volunteer for conscription, so to speak, and in that case were given the same treatment as any other conscript. These days it's all volunteers, and today, 12% of privates and noncoms in all branches are women, as well as 5% of all officers and 38% of all civilian employees. There are no attempts to concentrate women in certain units - some companies can have one or a few women, while others are well over the mean. Full numbers are here. From the very beginning it was decided that for practical reasons it made no sense to try to separate men and women, especially not in the field, so they usually share bathrooms, showers, tents etc etc. In some (not all) barracks there are separate shower rooms and bathrooms these days - most have shower screens between stalls, though. In the field (and on ships, especially submarines) everyone always shares facilities for practical reasons. Recently this has been changing in the barracks though, which has led to protests from some women as well as a lot of complaining on Twitter (both links in Swedish) - the general consensus is that with gender segregation, unit cohesion suffers and that you ought to do in the barracks as you do in the field. Even today you see people (usually ones who aren't actually in the military) hurfing a durf about  but as far as I know the only units women haven't gotten into yet are the ranger ones (this info is a bit dated though, might have changed). The physical requirements for that are extremely tough - most men who want in don't pass even the first set of tests. There's been a few women who passed the acceptance tests and started the training but had to quit, AFAIK because of injuries. For ordinary infantry, there's no shortage of women fit enough to pass the both the entry requirements (which are obviously the same for both genders) and the training.In general the experience here is that if you don't make it a huge deal, it won't become a huge deal. Establish the expectation from the very start that a soldier's a soldier with the same responsibilities no matter what gender, and the rest will follow. Sorry for the derail but I figured it could be of interest. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
speaking of naked people, did you know that at least some East Germans are fine with getting naked in front of other people? i have seen so much  since i started my PhD
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:speaking of naked people, did you know that at least some East Germans are fine with getting naked in front of other people? i have seen so much I believe americans in general are incredibly much more concerned about naked people than europeans (especially scandinavians and germans) are
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I believe americans in general are incredibly much more concerned about naked people than europeans (especially scandinavians and germans) are but at least this means we don't shower outside in the front yard, which is where the showerhead belonging to the guesthouse i almost rented was! what i was supposed to do after the weather turned cold was not explained to me
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I believe americans in general are incredibly much more concerned about naked people than europeans (especially scandinavians and germans) are Americans are incredibly prudish in weird ways. It's a country where you can throw up half-naked men and women on billboards and the guys on Walmart underwear packaging have visible bulges the size of a fist, but breastfeeding a baby is considered shameful and sexualized.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Americans are incredibly prudish in weird ways. It's a country where you can throw up half-naked men and women on billboards and the guys on Walmart underwear packaging have visible bulges the size of a fist, but breastfeeding a baby is considered shameful and sexualized.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:if you think that we assume all nakedness is sexual, it becomes internally consistent. children in my reenactment group will run around naked on hot days and i feel like i'm going to be put on some sort of list for being in the same camp with them, but the germans are all fine. and why shouldn't they be? it's their custom, i'm the foreigner and need to deal with it But like, the specific thing is a few individual body parts. Like female nipples themselves are considered too sexual to view, not breasts themselves. So public advertisements can have women who are totally naked except for a hand bra in extremely suggestive poses, but the moment a nipple is seen it becomes forbidden. And female nipples in non-sexual contexts are also sexual....but men's nipples aren't. The consistency falls apart when you think too hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
It's not just an American thing really. In many ways America is both more and less crazy about nudity than Ireland or the UK, just in niche specific ways. We're basically as likely to deal with it badly as each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:But like, the specific thing is a few individual body parts. Like female nipples themselves are considered too sexual to view, not breasts themselves. So public advertisements can have women who are totally naked except for a hand bra in extremely suggestive poses, but the moment a nipple is seen it becomes forbidden. And female nipples in non-sexual contexts are also sexual....but men's nipples aren't. The consistency falls apart when you think too hard. Nah it's pretty consistent when you look at it in the context of subjugating women and objectifying them. The moment you show a nipple they're suddenly humanized whereas before they were just some nip-less barbie doll to ogle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Nah it's pretty consistent when you look at it in the context of subjugating women and objectifying them. The moment you show a nipple they're suddenly humanized whereas before they were just some nip-less barbie doll to ogle. I don't think that's it at all, actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:entry requirements (which are obviously the same for both genders) Are they graded on the same scale, ie. does everyone eg. have to do as many pushups to get max points? In most units in FDF women have to do about 20% fewer repetitions. Paratroopers are one of the exceptions, but there might be some other exceptions too. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Ask Us About
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
i just want to go to a reenactment without seeing central european dong! is that too much to ask i mean, they've seen me naked too, but they don't care HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Are they graded on the same scale, ie. does everyone eg. have to do as many pushups to get max points? In FDF women have to do about 20% less in most units. Paratroopers are one of the exceptions, but there might be some other exceptions too. Yes, I'm pretty sure that's how it works. I haven't seen any statistics newer than 2008, but that year (the last before they deactivated conscription and the mustering) the highest female score for pure muscular strength was a 7 on a scale from 1 to 9 (of course, there were only about a thousand women mustered compared to about 24,000 men). Mean values for men were a muscular strength of 743 Newton and an effective power output of 294 Watt. For women the same numbers were 519 N and 230 W respectively. Mean general mental aptitude and leadership assessment scores were about the same. Source I think the required scores for getting into most position were/are the same but I can't swear on it. I also believe they could make exceptions on a case to case basis but again I can't swear on this. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:we are Reminds me of the student housing I lived in during my masters course in England. There was just a bathtub, no shower, not even an attachment for a flexible showerhead on a hose deal. And the loving thing wasn't even big enough to relax in when it was full. Also it was built in the Asbestos and Cinderblock Era of tower block building, and it leaked heat in the winter like crazy because of the single-pane windows. The crowning joy was the elevators: there were two, one each at opposite ends of the building, and they each served half the floors in the building. Of all the cost-cutting measures possible, this one still loving baffles me. HEY GAL posted:i mean, they've seen me naked too, but they don't care I can't figure out if this would be good or bad for my self-esteem if I was in that situation around a bunch of Central European women. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I can't figure out if this would be good or bad for my self-esteem if I was in that situation around a bunch of Central European women. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I can't figure out if this would be good or bad for my self-esteem if I was in that situation around a bunch of Central European women. HEY GAL posted:the only people we see naked with any regularity are our lovers or in porn. we assume everyone who's worthwhile is hot except for us  but somebody, somewhere, is finding that hot enough to pay for it. People are into what they're into I guess.
Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:When I went out with an East German girl she regularly commented on the fact that she found it weird that I was just happy to see her naked and didn't need any fancy lingerie or costumes or fetish gear or whatever to be ready to go. She was super confused and was all "it's like... no fetish IS your fetish" and the whole thing was massively confusing to her because apparently it just wasn't a thing anyone she knew from back home had ever been like. I was never sure how I should take that. This is so goddamned German.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
I was trawling boredly for national conflicts and I found this and holy poo poo this is the most ludicrous poo poo I've seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster_Warquote:On 6 July 1966, the Administrative Tribunal of Rennes summarized the French government claims that lobsters are like fish, that is, that they swim about in the open sea and therefore, could not be considered part of the continental shelf. Brazil claimed that lobsters are like oysters that they cling to the bottom of the ocean and therefore, were part of the continental shelf.[14] Admiral Paulo Moreira da Silva, Brazil's Navy expert in the field of oceanography who had been sent to assist the diplomatic committee during the general discussions,[15] argued that for Brazil to accept the French scientific thesis that a lobster would be considered a fish when it "leaps" on the seafloor, then they would have in the same manner to accept the Brazilian premise that when a kangaroo "hops" it would be considered a bird.[15]
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:I was trawling boredly for national conflicts and I found this and holy poo poo this is the most ludicrous poo poo I've seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster_War Ha, reminds me of the Cod Wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Not mentioned there but there was a carnaval song about that during the time that went "Você pensa que lagosta é peixe? Lagosta não é peixe, não! Peixe é bicho que nada, crustáceo não nada, não!" which is translated to "Do you think lobster is a fish? Lobster ain't no fish! Fish is an animal that swims, crustaceans don't swim no!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:I was trawling boredly for national conflicts and I found this and holy poo poo this is the most ludicrous poo poo I've seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster_War This sounds like something from Alice in Wonderland, or an ancient thought exercise. "An elephant is like a tree...."
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:This sounds like something from Alice in Wonderland, or an ancient thought exercise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
speaking of different cultures, early modern europeans were more prudish than we are about some things, and far less prudish in others. a difference of religion is enough to ruin all of europe over, but talking about sex with children? no big the child is the future louis xiii. now imagine the lives of his poorer subjects, who live all crammed together in a single room. edit: and of loving course henry iv would teach his baby son to swear, that's so him
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
 This is some hosed up poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Have there been any naval battle involving an Emperor other than Dan-no-ura and the Battle of the Masts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
my dad posted:
how they turned into us is the topic of this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process which everyone should read edit: i don't think anyone wants to gently caress the future louis xiii, i think their attitude towards bodily stuff is very different from ours, one of the most different things about them. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Have there been any naval battle involving an Emperor other than Dan-no-ura and the Battle of the Masts? What constitutes an "emperor"? You also have Salamis, Actium, Red Cliff, probably others. At least in eras where emperors led their forces personally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Wouldn't Actium be a battle involving two Triumvirs rather than involving an Emperor?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
sullat posted:What constitutes an "emperor"? You also have Salamis, Actium, Red Cliff, probably others. At least in eras where emperors led their forces personally. The future "emperors" at Red Cliff hadn't proclaimed themselves emperor at the time of the battle, though. Same deal for the battle of Lake Poyang, the Ming dynasty didn't officially start until 5 years later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Just quotin' from the cold war thread because I forgot to re-post it here before:mlmp08 posted:Crossposting this awesome link from AI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Saving this for later. That's really interesting! I wonder if the war had been over quicker if all anti-tank weapons were this complicated to make.. quote:The LittleJohn adapter, used on the Tetrarch, worked on the same principle. I tried to write "era"  Chiefly concerned with 1930-1946 because of the many strange inventions mothered by the ongoing conflict.MikeCrotch posted:HBO had to intentionally tone down John Basilone's antics in The Pacific because audiences would have gone, "Naaaaaaah, that's bullshit" Audie Murphy too. Dude was PLAYING HIMSELF on TV, and had to insist a lot of his crazier stunts be edited out, because the public shouldn't feel like they were being lied to. Tias fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Is the squeeze-bore principle at all related to the idea of the explosively-formed penetrator? To an outsider's eye they seem... vaguely related.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
Doesn't seem that way. The squeeze-bore increases velocity of the shell, an EFP is a type of on-the-go shaped charge that 'kills' with the changing shape of it's projectile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i just want to go to a reenactment without seeing central european dong! is that too much to ask Maybe your fake moustache and cod piece are extremely convincing? I've seen enough bodies on the internet not to harbor any illusions about the beauty of the human body, so I'm happy not to see naked-people-who-are-not-my-girlfirend that often I wonder how hosed up would be we look to early moderns, and how hosed up will we be to folks 300 years from now. By the by, I was reading cold war/airpower thread yesterday (major backlog) and there was a link to Harrier crashes and holy poo poo  why did they keep it for so long when it seems to crash into birds/mountains/ground for no reason and lose control in clouds? It seems that it ate about three USCM pilots a year in 70s and 80s (wiki doesn't say much about British casualties), so why did they keep it? And what the hell is wrong with it, if most crashes had nothing to do with VTOL?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 10:16
|
|
