|
Nebakenezzer posted:E: ^^ Yes please Don't forget the bug that put the effects of razing a city from Rome II into the effects of peacefully occupying a city.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:and some Zeppelins make history by being possibly the first Germans in recorded history who wanted to go to Liverpool. Huzzah! IM HELPING And that reminds me, I've a WW1 question. Newfoundland was actually its own nation when the Great War started. For reasons that I assume have to do with patriotism, people decided that Newfoundland should raise its own regiment. This was in many ways a bad idea, mainly due to how much it costs to equip a regiment during a war when arms are in great demand, and the cost of shipping said regiment over to the Europe. You might think it kinda odd to harp on the financial aspects of Newfoundland's involvement, but it had important repercussions down the road. Newfoundland was not a rich place (it was probably richer than the poorest nation of Europe at the time, Iceland, but that's not saying much) and it probably couldn't have afforded the costs in the first place - the 1920s were not exactly a fat time either, so when the Great depression rolled around, Newfoundland defaulted on its debt and became a British holding again, to the mild annoyance of the British. (Fun fact: the Royal Newfoundland regiment was the only North American unit to get invited to the great big party at Gallipoli.) Anyway, the Regiment is annihilated on the battle of the Somme's first day. (780 men went forward from the trenches, 68 were there for roll call the next day, a 90% casualty rate.) When I was in school growing up in Newfoundland, Teachers always gave the impression that this was the result of prejudicial action on the part of the British, who frankly didn't care for the estraz-Irish people under their command. Since then, I've grown up and learned a bit, and I've learned that the truth is actually even bleaker - it's not true that the Newfoundland regiment got the poo poo end of the stick. The story of total annihilation in that first day of the Somme was actually the rule, not the exception, and the story of a unit basically being wiped out as a fighting force happened a hundred times that day. My question is: is this correct?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Don't forget the bug that put the effects of razing a city from Rome II into the effects of peacefully occupying a city. At release I think there were actually more things in Rome II that were bugs than weren't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Newfoundland was actually its own nation when the Great War started.  I never knew that. I always assumed that the Canadian providences were all... Canadish by that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
sullat posted:For all the claim of it being a simpler age, feudalism can get downright byzantine. Yes, that's why the terms of service had to be so precise. Vassals would try all sorts of dodges. "Oh, I didn't realize I was supposed to bring my armor and horse. I'll just go get them. It'll take, um, a few days. I'll be back... soon. Don't hold up the battle for me."
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:
We're kinda Canada's Texas in that we have this history that is in part independent from the nation we're a part of now.  Newfoundland and Labrador joined Canada in 1949. It was also floated as a idea that we join the United States, which came as a surprise to the United States, I think
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Since then, I've grown up and learned a bit, and I've learned that the truth is actually even bleaker - it's not true that the Newfoundland regiment got the poo poo end of the stick. The story of total annihilation in that first day of the Somme was actually the rule, not the exception, and the story of a unit basically being wiped out as a fighting force happened a hundred times that day. My question is: is this correct? The first day on the Somme is a complete and total roulette wheel. If you're lucky, like the 17th King's Regiment, you end up as the southmost battalion in the southmost division of Fourth Army, Colonel Fairfax literally goes over the top arm-in-arm with Commandant Le Petit from the northmost French battalion, and you have a rather nice and easy time of it. The trouble with the Newfoundlanders is that they'd got themselves shoved into the 29th Division way back when to make up numbers (which is why they ended up following that dickhead Hunter-Weston around the place), and they're cut to shreds at Beaumont Hamel. One battalion gets lucky, attacks Frise, and spends the next week being extremely proud of its role in the Great Victory; another doesn't, attacks Thiepval, and the designated survivors never see their mates again. It's correct, but it also isn't the whole story. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:That's an awesome museum. Congratulations. I just want to 2nd that the Defense museum was great and  as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:47
|
|
Eej posted:Ah so you're the kind of guy who keeps EU4's budget going through DLC. Sadly I only play the games with a friend sharing a nation or friends, they seem a little too dry for me. But the art direction is fantastic, the screenshots of alt history independent 18th and 19th century native american european style armies is fantastic. Video game artists need to do that more.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:We're kinda Canada's Texas in that we have this history that is in part independent from the nation we're a part of now. Lots of states share that distinction but Alberta is your Texas and nothing will ever change that unless the place is depopulated and allowed to clean itself back up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
The local landsknecht reenactors are coming back to this year's Bay Area Renaissance Festival. I'll make sure to take some pictures and video for the thread. They do demonstrations and short classes on historical combat with incredibly large codpieces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
I've a question about HE rounds and tank armor. There is obviously a very large variety of shells, and I have a rough grasp of the upper end - if your HE round is powerful enough, you will do very nasty things to tanks. (I've seen some of the unfortunate tanks on Archive Awareness.) Now, I know more powerful rounds can cause spalling and other nastiness even if they fail to penetrate, but is there a spectrum for this? Do less powerful rounds cause increasingly less internal damage until they fall off completely, or is there a rough line of "you either do damage or nothing at all"? If there is a drop off point, is there a rough guide for what that point is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Thanks for the medieval post! Though I wonder where I got the number of 40 fighting days per year (rest is peasant stuff) from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:I've a question about HE rounds and tank armor. There is obviously a very large variety of shells, and I have a rough grasp of the upper end - if your HE round is powerful enough, you will do very nasty things to tanks. (I've seen some of the unfortunate tanks on Archive Awareness.) Now, I know more powerful rounds can cause spalling and other nastiness even if they fail to penetrate, but is there a spectrum for this? Do less powerful rounds cause increasingly less internal damage until they fall off completely, or is there a rough line of "you either do damage or nothing at all"? If there is a drop off point, is there a rough guide for what that point is? It would probably be a rough spectrum more than anything. The damage not only depends on the size of the shell, but also the thickness and composition of the armor (the Germans in WW2 had poorly hardened armor that tended to crack and used rivets early on rather than welds, which increased their chance of spalling or cracking from any kind of hit) and exactly where the shell hits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:I've a question about HE rounds and tank armor. There is obviously a very large variety of shells, and I have a rough grasp of the upper end - if your HE round is powerful enough, you will do very nasty things to tanks. (I've seen some of the unfortunate tanks on Archive Awareness.) Now, I know more powerful rounds can cause spalling and other nastiness even if they fail to penetrate, but is there a spectrum for this? Do less powerful rounds cause increasingly less internal damage until they fall off completely, or is there a rough line of "you either do damage or nothing at all"? Sooorta in between. Consider this picture, which resulted from when a piece of aluminium is struck by a high velocity aluminium ball (depicted). The impact was slow enough that there's no *visible* spalling flying out the other side. But it's clear that *something* has happened. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Thanks for the medieval post! Though I wonder where I got the number of 40 fighting days per year (rest is peasant stuff) from. It's probably something you picked up in general reading, assuming you've done a fair amount of research on the subject yourself already. I know that the Normans required 40 days of knight-service, and any days beyond that the lord would have the pay for their service. In addition to the 40 days of armed service, knights would also be required to spend a certain amount of time at their direct lord's castle, and depending on the barony you're talking about, royal castles may have been garrisoned by knights as well. Another obligation of knight-service, which isn't directly related to the fighting days you're referring to, is that knights were basically obligated to pay a fee to maintain their status as knights as well. Being a knight meant taking on certain obligations, like the ones I outlined above. You have instances throughout the middle ages when a man-at-arms proves himself in battle but finds a way to (politely) decline being knighted. Some people think it's so they could avoid all those extra obligations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:I've a question about HE rounds and tank armor. There is obviously a very large variety of shells, and I have a rough grasp of the upper end - if your HE round is powerful enough, you will do very nasty things to tanks. (I've seen some of the unfortunate tanks on Archive Awareness.) Now, I know more powerful rounds can cause spalling and other nastiness even if they fail to penetrate, but is there a spectrum for this? Do less powerful rounds cause increasingly less internal damage until they fall off completely, or is there a rough line of "you either do damage or nothing at all"? If there is a drop off point, is there a rough guide for what that point is? There's a spectrum. You can have no damage on the other side, a bump, a bump with a crack, and after that you're going to start having pieces fly off. As for a rough guideline, good luck, this greatly depends on the composition of the armour and the caliber overmatch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Sooorta in between. Consider this picture, which resulted from when a piece of aluminium is struck by a high velocity aluminium ball (depicted). The impact was slow enough that there's no *visible* spalling flying out the other side. But it's clear that *something* has happened. I looked up that picture and it's from a space debris test. Here's the image with the relevant measurements.  For comparison, an ISU-152 assault gun was calculated by someone at 10,000,000 joules. I wouldn't want to be behind aluminum armor of that thickness if it were hit by a 152mm cannon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:For comparison, an ISU-152 assault gun was calculated by someone at 10,000,000 joules. I wouldn't want to be behind aluminum armor of that thickness if it were hit by a 152mm cannon. That's not armor in that case, it's a source of splintering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The trouble with the Newfoundlanders is that they'd got themselves shoved into the 29th Division way back when to make up numbers (which is why they ended up following that dickhead Hunter-Weston around the place), and they're cut to shreds at Beaumont Hamel. Wait, so what aspects of lovely leadership got the Newfoundlanders killed, aside from "lets fight in WWI?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It would probably be a rough spectrum more than anything. The damage not only depends on the size of the shell, but also the thickness and composition of the armor (the Germans in WW2 had poorly hardened armor that tended to crack and used rivets early on rather than welds, which increased their chance of spalling or cracking from any kind of hit) and exactly where the shell hits. The armor issue only occured after they ran out of source material to produce the higher-quality steel. I think that issue started in mid-1944? I'd have to check on that again. Don't know what you're talking about with rivets though, as the riveted tanks they used were captured/foreign such as the Panzer 35 and 38(t). Oh and gently caress hitler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I looked up that picture and it's from a space debris test. Here's the image with the relevant measurements. Link? That 10,000,000 number sounds extremely dubious, if only because I cannot believe that a shaped penetrator is moving at orbital velocities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 08:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Link? That 10,000,000 number sounds extremely dubious, if only because I cannot believe that a shaped penetrator is moving at orbital velocities. Someone on the Wikipedia page for orders of magnitude of energy left his calculation in the footnotes. For a comparison, a .50 BMG round tested by ammoguide.com out of a 45 inch barrel (the barrel length of an M2 heavy machine gun) makes 18,000 to 20,000 joules at the muzzle. Jobbo_Fett posted:The armor issue only occured after they ran out of source material to produce the higher-quality steel. I think that issue started in mid-1944? I'd have to check on that again. Ensign Expendable found documents of a Panzer III being tested on two different occasions by the Soviets before Operation Barbarossa and in 1942, and in both tests the armor cracked. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Ensign Expendable found documents of a Panzer III being tested on two different occasions by the Soviets before Operation Barbarossa and in 1942, and in both tests the armor cracked. Any idea which manufacturer those two Panzer III's came from, or which model Ausf. variant they tested? I'm curious if there's any similarities between the two tanks tested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Someone on the Wikipedia page for orders of magnitude of energy left his calculation in the footnotes. For a comparison, a .50 BMG round tested by ammoguide.com out of a 45 inch barrel (the barrel length of an M2 heavy machine gun) makes 18,000 to 20,000 joules at the muzzle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_howitzer-gun_M1937_(ML-20) Weight of HE shell: 48.8kg Muzzle velocity of HE shell: 600m/s KE = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity^2, correct? X = 0.5 * 48.8kg * 600m/s2 X = 0.5 * 48.8 * 360000 X = 24.4 * 360000 X = 8,784,000 joules Unless I got my math wrong? Edit: Keep in mind this is the energy as it leaves the barrel, not on impact Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Colonel Fairfax literally goes over the top arm-in-arm with Commandant Le Petit from the northmost French battalion This is a very odd mental image 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The armor issue only occured after they ran out of source material to produce the higher-quality steel. I think that issue started in mid-1944? I'd have to check on that again. The Germans were having raw materials issues from before the start of the war, thanks to defaulting on international loans and reparations repayments and an enormous trade deficit that meant getting iron ore and such was a total pain in the arse. Hence why they were so reliant on things like iron ore shipment from Sweden to keep heavy industry going and never had enough rare metals for alloying from the start, since they had no trade partners and no money to buy it with anyway. One of the major benefits of the invasion of France and the Low Countries was a new source of credit that the Germans could wring dry to get just enough extra raw materials from whatever allies the Germans had left to keep their industry going. This was a hugely contentious point after the war was over, since the Dutch in particular wanted Germany to pay back all the money (money that Germany obviously didn't have) that they had effectively extorted from the Netherlands by racking up a trade deficit at gunpoint and then never making good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The Germans were having raw materials issues from before the start of the war, thanks to defaulting on international loans and reparations repayments and an enormous trade deficit that meant getting iron ore and such was a total pain in the arse. Hence why they were so reliant on things like iron ore shipment from Sweden to keep heavy industry going and never had enough rare metals for alloying from the start, since they had no trade partners and no money to buy it with anyway. I think it really brings to light how there doesn't seem to be much discussion on Germany's economy pre-, during, and post-world war 2. Or maybe I've never noticed the posts before?  Interesting nonetheless, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Tooze's Wages of Destruction has both been recommended a ton and discussed a fair bit, so I think you missed out somewhere. Incidentally, I should finish that last third, but reading about the economics of mass murder wasn't exactly fun compared to pew pew space opera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Tooze's Wages of Destruction has both been recommended a ton and discussed a fair bit, so I think you missed out somewhere. Added to my wishlist, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The Germans were having raw materials issues from before the start of the war, thanks to defaulting on international loans and reparations repayments and an enormous trade deficit that meant getting iron ore and such was a total pain in the arse. Hence why they were so reliant on things like iron ore shipment from Sweden to keep heavy industry going and never had enough rare metals for alloying from the start, since they had no trade partners and no money to buy it with anyway. I also recall there being something about the British buying up a whole bunch of rare additives for above market prices before the war to keep the Nazis from getting them. Perhaps from Spain?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
How did the myth about Nazi Germany being this unstoppable, perfectly organized well-oiled machine of industrialized doom get started, anyway? I get that some of it is propaganda somehow still being repeated to this day, but is that the whole explanation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I also recall there being something about the British buying up a whole bunch of rare additives for above market prices before the war to keep the Nazis from getting them. I dunno about that, but my favourite fact about WW2 britain is that in 1942 their men were averaging over half a litre of tea a day, and to supply that insane demand for the stuff the british government bought the entire world market tea crop of that year. So, if the additive is tea, totally true  Comrade Koba posted:How did the myth about Nazi Germany being this unstoppable, perfectly organized well-oiled machine of industrialized doom get started, anyway? I get that some of it is propaganda somehow still being repeated to this day, but is that the whole explanation? Probably partly their propoganda and partly rear end-covering after their early success. Nobody wants to admit that the other side were also chucklefucks who were just slightly less chucklefucky than you; you were clearly beaten by the merciless industrial might of a superior enemy and it couldn't have been helped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
It's kinda the subtext behind the British propaganda during the Battle of Britain, but more generally was probably in place around WWI.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The armor issue only occured after they ran out of source material to produce the higher-quality steel. I think that issue started in mid-1944? I'd have to check on that again. Czech armour actually performed better than German armour of comparable thickness in Soviet trials (25+25 mm riveted Czech armour compared to 22+22 riveted and 30+30 riveted German).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:How did the myth about Nazi Germany being this unstoppable, perfectly organized well-oiled machine of industrialized doom get started, anyway? I get that some of it is propaganda somehow still being repeated to this day, but is that the whole explanation? Iirc the tldr version is that they fixed the massive unemployment by taking a huge amount of loans (that they weren't planning on paying back) and increasing government spending with them and by lowering the real wages. And a large part of the increased government spending was spent on the re-armament. It might have looked like an economic miracle but Nazi Germany's economy would have crashed in few years even without the war. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:How did the myth about Nazi Germany being this unstoppable, perfectly organized well-oiled machine of industrialized doom get started, anyway? I get that some of it is propaganda somehow still being repeated to this day, but is that the whole explanation? Before the war they had a legitimately well organized, effective army. This is one of those things that happens when you pump insane amounts of money and manpower into a rapidly expanding military for six years during peacetime. Think of the US military in 1938 and how much better it got between then and 1941 just due to Roosevelt realizing poo poo was coming and starting a modest buildup. Now think of how much it improved between 1941 and 1944. Same deal, except done over six years and without a war happening. France, England, etc. started a military buildup when poo poo started getting really dicy, but that was very late in the game (think '37-38). There was also a lot of innovative thinking going on and some legitimately well orchestrated and organized operations. There are good reasons why the whole world was dumbfounded when they pulled Eben Emal off. Part of it was also luck, but that's true of any war. There was also some major gently caress ups among the allies, and after the war no one wanted to own up to screwing the pooch that badly. Painting your opponent as a nearly superhuman force of nature that you were lucky to fend off and then valiantly beat into submission plays a lot better for post-war politicians than serious soul searching about how much of a cluster gently caress the first half of the war was. Even for the US, part of it is cultural. In the 1950s it is a lot more fun to make movies about plucky GIs defeating Prussian military geniuses than it would be to show inevitable victory after American industry comes online and German resources are drawn into the East in ever greater numbers. It's worth observing that after the war John Wayne and Captain America are the heroic myths of the American military, not Rosie the Riveter. Finally, it also helps that we were rehabilitating the W. Germans into NATO allies at that time. Skilled warriors defeated by the sheer pressure of Asiatic hordes is a line you want to play up when you're trying to get the Bundeswehr re-equiped and permission to use a whole poo poo ton of guys who served in Russia as its new body of officers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Also, racist people like going "why didn't the british and the americans join with the nazis in stomping down the filthy commies and jews?" Well, the reason for that was because the nazis were lunatics invading and robbing and extorting everyone else who wasn't a filthy commie or jew.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Not-so-WW2 Data The 2nd part to the Communist China portion of the Russian "Satellites". How bad was the Chinese marking system? Which mortar rounds were interchangeable with US-made weapons? What modification could be made to a 60mm mortar round to give it more firepower? All that and more at the blog! I forgot to take shots of the packaging data, so those will be edited in tomorrow. My apologies for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Now think of how much it improved between 1941 and 1944. Same deal, except done over six years and without a war happening. Well - sort of. They learned quite a bit in the Spanish Civil War, both through sending the Condor Legion (a volunteer force recruited from the Luftwaffe) over there to fight and having observers on the ground. (Not that participation in that necessarily helped prepare for World War 2 - the Italians sent a bunch of actual ground troops to Spain and still got creamed).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 15:58
|
|