|
hogmartin posted:The Spitfire did have an issue with fuel starvation in negative G. The carburetor wouldn't function properly which is why when you see them diving, they roll inverted first and then 'pull up' into a dive. This was addressed with Miss Shilling's Orifice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling%27s_orifice My favourite thing about this is that it's left a lasting effect on fictional dogfighting to the point you can tell who's meant to be the good plane/spaceship or bad plane/spaceship or whatever by whether or not they roll into dives like good, heroic allied planes or if they just pitch down straight into a dive like evil axis planes.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Good thing we had nukes, which kept things extremely polite, since we would definitely have lost a ground war against the soviets Based on what, the rifles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:33
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:They probably confused him with Max Hastings, noted self-important cocksucker. Weird. Their names don't sound at all alike. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
remember when i was talking about people holding lit matches a little too close to powder, or peoples' flasks going off? i just found this on imgur. http://imgur.com/gallery/WA4Y3IF if you ever shoot black powder firearms, don't do this
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
There goes the skin of his under arms.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
i think people forget that the smoke also has pieces of stuff that's on fire in it
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:remember when i was talking about people holding lit matches a little too close to powder, or peoples' flasks going off? i just found this on imgur. BritishBattlecruisersAtJutland.gif
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I've only read one of his books now (Stalingrad) and never really heard of why people keeping saying mean things about him. Well, I know Michael Jones doesn't care too much for him: most of his Stalingrad book seems to be looking to correct Beevor. I haven't read Beevor, but I love Jones' Stalingrad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:BritishBattlecruisersAtJutland.gif We've finally solved the problem of what was wrong with the bloody ships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 07:11
|
|
FAUXTON posted:We've finally solved the problem of what was wrong with the bloody ships. Closing the doors to prevent fires from getting into the turret magazines? gently caress that mate, if we shoot shells faster we'll kill them quicker!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Reenactor/LARPing friend of mine once shot himself in the face with a cannon (without shot, fortunately). I sometimes wonder how we survive as a species.Patrick Spens posted:He's quite engaging (and seemed reasonably accurate) about early nationalism/industrialization. But he's just embarrassing on communism/ anything related to communism he's just embarrassing. Hell his section on The Terror is just lovely apologetics. I'm not surprised, but I haven't even read any of that. My gripe is how he pretends anarchism and other forms of libertarian communism were non-existent in workers struggles in the period where they were actually the dominant current (1850-1920s)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Closing the doors to prevent fires from getting into the turret magazines? gently caress that mate, if we shoot shells faster we'll kill them quicker! We need to blow them up before we blow us up
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
We had to glass the planet in order to save the planet 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
History should be looked at through the lens of my ideology!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
As someone who mostly lurks this thread, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate this post and the effort put into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
I mostly shout at Anthony Beevor because I quoted him in this thread once and got dogpiled for it  Therefore he sucksI actually like what i've read by him but I think he has the popular historian of not checking all his quotes and sources (like Cyrano was saying about Ambrose and the cowardly coxswain in D-Day), so his books end up with a few clunkers in them. I do like the fact that he emphasises just how miserable war is for everyone involved but I do wonder how much knowledge he can have about all the different subjects he writes about. Max Hastings still sucks tho
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
What did Hastings do? I'm probably kicking a pandora's box here, but what popular misconceptions about milhist grind your gears? limit 2 per period and the obscurer, the better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What did Hastings do? He's a real tory shithead and has bad opinions on a lot of stuff, mainly anyone who is different to the British  . His history writing is totally average, he doesn't really have anything notable or interesting to say on any subject. Instead he mostly gets by on writing terrible op-eds for British newspapers and making himself a household name that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Baracula posted:History should be looked at through the lens of my ideology!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:The 303. Fighter Squadron, which may or may not have been the single highest-scoring RAF squadron in the Battle of Britain, flew exclusively Hurricanes until January 1941. It definitely was more than just barely good enough. hurricanes are poo poo planes for remtards on free dinners. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGp4DvFEgh8
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 15:53
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
JcDent posted:I'm probably kicking a pandora's box here, but what popular misconceptions about milhist grind your gears? limit 2 per period and the obscurer, the better. 1: 'Haha, look at those old dead people fighting war like that. Stupid old dead dudes, clearly we modern dudes are superior and know how to fight and we'll do better than these guys!' 2: People who say the bad guys only look good. All uniforms and armour look pretty good, gently caress off.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:2: People who say the bad guys only look good. All uniforms and armour look pretty good, gently caress off. Even Napoleonic Russians?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:1: 'Haha, look at those old dead people fighting war like that. Stupid old dead dudes, clearly we modern dudes are superior and know how to fight and we'll do better than these guys!' This is one of my favorites, particularly regarding the American Revolution. Clever American rebels with precision rifles hiding behind cover and sniping big dumb British in their stupid bright red coats with muskets that can't hit anything past 10 feet is such an enduring legend that I don't think it will ever die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Even Napoleonic Russians? partisans 4life hogmartin posted:This is one of my favorites, particularly regarding the American Revolution. Clever American rebels with precision rifles hiding behind cover and sniping big dumb British in their stupid bright red coats with muskets that can't hit anything past 10 feet is such an enduring legend that I don't think it will ever die. Isn't it even still taught in schools?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:45
|
|
JcDent posted:Even Napoleonic Russians? Hell yes, the taller the shako the better THE FEAR. Especially the Partisans who look like they are a century early to start some over throwing.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I'm probably kicking a pandora's box here, but what popular misconceptions about milhist grind your gears? limit 2 per period and the obscurer, the better. 'French military defeats'
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Also an extra for the hell of it before somebody else posts it because I'm a knob. Inflexible plate armour that needs crane based assistance in putting it on.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Soviet hordes bullshit in WW2
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:'French military defeats' In general the idea of a national proficiency at war, especially one that persists unchanged through dramatic shifts in the state and military.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Isn't it even still taught in schools? I haven't been in a high school in about 20 years but I don't think you have to even teach it in the US, it is like accepted knowledge that comes out of the groundwater or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
FishFood posted:Well, I know Michael Jones doesn't care too much for him: most of his Stalingrad book seems to be looking to correct Beevor. That is just historians being historians. The entire profession is basically a huge argument and one dude saying his interpretation is superior doesn't make the other guys poo poo. Note that you CAN write shot history but it's far less common than this thread would have you think. For a good example of this see Goldhagen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I'm probably kicking a pandora's box here, but what popular misconceptions about milhist grind your gears? limit 2 per period and the obscurer, the better. "X just stole and copied it", with regard to either technology, an idea, or both. As if following up on military innovations done by an original 'owner' isn't fair, and doesn't require some amount of institutional and/or productive effort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Koesj posted:"X just stole and copied it", with regard to either technology, an idea, or both. Also, the "copier" frequently improves on the original idea in some respect that is then "copied" right back. For a WW2 example that does not involve tanks, look at the evolution of the carrier's role in warfare. Britain invented it, Japan turned it into a serious instrument of war, and the US developed it into the defining weapon of the Pacific War.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Stealing from my Ambrose bit, but the notion that German soldiers were somehow bound by authority and unable to exercise personal initiative. This is particularly egregious because the exact opposite is true. After that probably the notion that any individual piece of equipment or technology - unless it is absolutely transformative and fundamental or there is an entire era's worth of differences between two forces - means anything at all in the grand scheme of things. Give Germans the M1 Garand and the US K98ks in WW2 and the western front still happens exactly like it did. Give the Soviets SKSs in 1941 and you just end up with a lot of Germans using captured SKSs in 1942. Short of fighting dudes armed with muzzle loaders with repeating firearms you just don't have enough of an advantage to outweigh the other, larger factors like training, generalship, logistics, and economic factors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
"Bah, military history doesn't matter we can gloss over it" or the converse "why should I care about cultural/economic affairs, those don't matter to warriors."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I'm probably kicking a pandora's box here, but what popular misconceptions about milhist grind your gears? limit 2 per period and the obscurer, the better. The French contribution to WW1 was Verdun, mutiny, and providing the playing field.  And the "ground gained" section of that scoreboard, which is not only completely wrong but also forms the bedrock of most every revisionist argument to have come along in the last 30 years about how the war was anything other than the continuation of ridiculous imperial pissing contests by other means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
the JJ posted:"Bah, military history doesn't matter we can gloss over it" or the converse "why should I care about cultural/economic affairs, those don't matter to warriors." I can't imagine how far up their own rear end a soldier would have to be to think that they were bad-asses without the logistical support that goes all the way back home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:I can't imagine how far up their own rear end a soldier would have to be to think that they were bad-asses without the logistical support that goes all the way back home. Oh, do not ever underestimate what a monstrous idiot a soldier (or sailor or marine) can be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Also an extra for the hell of it before somebody else posts it because I'm a knob. I think the crane thing was for lifting knights onto their horses. On a related note, the idea that firearms instantaneously made armor and arrow-based weapons obsolete as soon as they showed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
JcDent posted:What did Hastings do? My biggest one is the "Infantry revolution" which posits that infantry played little or no role in medieval war between Hastings and basically Courtrai. Not only is this not true but its resulting conclusions about the evolution of war from the 14th-17th centuries predicates itself almost exclusively on tactical and limited logistical developments rather than the massive socio-political changes of those eras. Even in the tactical sphere it often ignores gunpowder in favor of pikes and longbows, neither of which were new developments. Another is that the First Crusade was fought for economic reasons. This is just nonsense, and the list of people who profited from the venture is like 10 names long (I'm exaggerating for effect). The only myths that really relate to my actual area (11th and 12th century Britain and France) are either widely discredited (the white ship disaster was an assassination) or no longer really held (the Norman yoke). Though tbh the utopianism I see a lot of people feel toward pre-Christian Europe is pretty hosed up. It is worse among neo-pagans, and is often just white nationalism with window dressing. Very disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:57
|
|
