|
I wonder how long a truck like that can sustain both a gun and a radar, which presumably require a fair bit of power. Is it more designed to be just mobile in the sense of moving from one built up base area to another?
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I wonder how long a truck like that can sustain both a gun and a radar, which presumably require a fair bit of power. Is it more designed to be just mobile in the sense of moving from one built up base area to another? There's an on-board generator set.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Here's your generator set
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Danann posted:On the other hand, you're more likely to flat out die as a rifleman so... Are you? I mean, yes any kind of actual hit on you has a good chance of offing you, but unless you're in a German May 1945 situation you've got pretty good odds of spending the duration guarding a fuel depot in Tulsa for the duration or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Are you? I mean, yes any kind of actual hit on you has a good chance of offing you, but unless you're in a German May 1945 situation you've got pretty good odds of spending the duration guarding a fuel depot in Tulsa for the duration or some poo poo. The German would have the better end of the bargain there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Are you? I mean, yes any kind of actual hit on you has a good chance of offing you, but unless you're in a German May 1945 situation you've got pretty good odds of spending the duration guarding a fuel depot in Tulsa for the duration or some poo poo. IIRC it worked out pretty much the same, with the big difference being tankers were more slightly likely to all die at once or all survive. But, I'm fairly sure in terms of the war overall, being infantry versus tank crew was six of one, half a dozen of the other in terms of survival odds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
From my limited reading into the post-first crusade settlement of Palestine by the Franks, there seems to have been little in the way of a racial barrier between incoming settlers and residents of the area. There's more than a few accounts of what we'd now consider, I guess, mixed race marriages, along with conversions to and from the myriad local religious variations, bastard and non bastard children being sent home, mercenaries, traders etc etc. I suppose the dominant classification form was on religious grounds, skin colour probably significantly less important than are you a muslim: yes/no. I'd presume the same kind of thing operated until much later, when a more explicitly colour based categorisation developed in the 18/19th centuries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
OK, maybe this is because the Mideast thread over in D&D is depressing me (also I can't sleep because I took my morning meds at 1030 at night when I meant to take my night meds, anti-whee....), but maybe someone can answer this for me: Since the signature of the First Geneva Convention in 1864, have the Geneva Conventions ever been observed in full (as applicable at the time) by both sides/all sides in any major conflict? Ever? (To give even the slimmest chance of a yes answer, let us for the moment exclude the Additional Protocols from the definition of "in full"...) I'm suspecting the answer is no. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:OK, maybe this is because the Mideast thread over in D&D is depressing me (also I can't sleep because I took my morning meds at 1030 at night when I meant to take my night meds, anti-whee....), but maybe someone can answer this for me: Almost definitely not
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Ends up being a complicated question - the Geneva conventions themselves are enormous. If we take just the Fourth - protection of non-combatants and prisoners during wartime, I'd be hard pressed to find a single war where it was adhered to by a single side let alone both. Britain is a pretty good example, key signatory to the fourth convention and signatory to all conventions, amendments and additions (unlike the US). Since 1948 we've embarked on.... 6? wars that could be described as part of the decolonisation process as we dug our fingers into the decaying remnants of empire, and each one was marked by deliberate and accidental targeting of civilian populations. Kenya, probably our greatest post ww2 moment of infamy, was a guerrilla war that we fought almost entirely by torture and arbitrary detention and almost entirely against civilians. Post decolonisation, we've had the Falklands, A few UN operations, Iraq 1 and 2 and, Libya: the revengening, Afghanistan part 3: this time we're going to do even less than we did last time, and I lenoon fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:My first thought was I hope the Dutch don't start reading history books or they'll rebuild it. Gypsies stole the wire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Splode posted:Almost definitely not The ACW might have come close even though hostilities predated the convention, and you've got things like Fort Pillow and Andersonville to think of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
So....why does anybody bother with them, or the Laws of Armed Conflict in general, at all, then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:So....why does anybody bother with them, or the Laws of Armed Conflict in general, at all, then? It's a good thing to aspire to? I mean, if you and the people you're fighting are at least trying to adhere to them then your pows don't get hosed too bad or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
So you can point out when your opponent is breaking them for PR points. Edit: glad we both got the cynical and optimistic answer here 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:So....why does anybody bother with them, or the Laws of Armed Conflict in general, at all, then? Some belligerents following some of the rules some of the time is a SHITLOAD better than the alternative. It also helps in peace time. It's easy to justify war crimes during war, it's harder to justify weapons that are explicitly against the rules when you're not even fighting anyone
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
spectralent posted:IIRC it worked out pretty much the same, with the big difference being tankers were more slightly likely to all die at once or all survive. But, I'm fairly sure in terms of the war overall, being infantry versus tank crew was six of one, half a dozen of the other in terms of survival odds. Unless you were an infantry NCO or junior officer, in which case the odds of you becoming a casualty just skyrocketed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Edit: forgot about the non-combatant status of the belgrano after if left the maritime engagement zone Where exactly in the Geneva conventions does it say that an armed warship is a non-combatant if it's not that close to the battle? It's not like the Belgrano was flying a white flag and had tossed all its ammo overboard. The Maritime Exclusion zone was more meant to tell civilian shipping to stay away from the area where missiles would soon be flying. If the Belgrano was a non-combatant, then the Atlantic Conveyor sure as hell was, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
lenoon posted:
you can't be serious about this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Gypsies stole the wire. My grandparents' dacha was without power for a while because someone stole the power lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Aviation pioneer Louis Bleriot has something to say about the state of French military aviation; it's been published by Georges Clemenceau's poo poo-stirring organ L'homme enchaine, so you can probably guess what the tone of his piece is. The Russians begin an attack up the Black Sea coast towards Trebizond; Lt-Col Fraser-Tytler makes an entry in the Understatement Stakes for 1916 as he describes the sound of his guns firing; and Louis Barthas claims to be "of a generous mind". lenoon posted:Edit: forgot about the non-combatant status of the belgrano after if left the maritime engagement zone How do you square this with the repeated statements by the admiral in charge of the Belgrano group and the Belgrano's captain that the ship was a legitimate target?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Truckchat: when I was still on a WW1 dig in 2014 (holy poo poo Trin Tragula you have been doing this for a while now) one of the things that stood out to me was German trucks that had to run on steel wheels because Germany didn't have any more rubber to make wheels with. How did that work? What did that look like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Behold, a masterpiece of literature http://www.amazon.com/Tanks-History-tanks-Alan-MOUHLI-ebook/dp/B01BGT5QWK/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1454687177&sr=1-1 Sadly it's not available in my country, so someone please download the free sample and share the greatness with me. gradenko_2000 posted:Truckchat: when I was still on a WW1 dig in 2014 (holy poo poo Trin Tragula you have been doing this for a while now) one of the things that stood out to me was German trucks that had to run on steel wheels because Germany didn't have any more rubber to make wheels with. Tanks had the same thing. It's not that there is no rubber, but instead of putting the rubber around the rim, you put it around the axle. I'm phoneposting right now, but if you look through my post history, I posted a blueprint of a KV tank roadwheel that uses this design. Edit: found it. Man, I sure do post a lot. The rubber bit is that cross hatched part in the center. 
Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Language: English Bull poo poo it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
spectralent posted:IIRC it worked out pretty much the same, with the big difference being tankers were more slightly likely to all die at once or all survive. But, I'm fairly sure in terms of the war overall, being infantry versus tank crew was six of one, half a dozen of the other in terms of survival odds. There's no reason an entire tank crew would die in one engagement. The average casualties for each penetrating hit was like 1.3.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
I can't look it up now but there's a pretty comprehensive study of injury by MOS in the ETO out there somewhere. If I remember it correctly, infantry were far more likely to suffer injuries which is not a surprise, but the severity of injuries and KIA versus WIA rate for tankers was far higher. I feel like that passes the "makes sense" test at least. Also this reminds me of how ridiculous the casualty rates were for U-boat crews and RAF bomber crews. That poo poo was freaking nuts. bewbies fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
I seem to recall that on the Eastern Front, the lifespan of infantry was definitely a lot shorter than tankers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I seem to recall that on the Eastern Front, the lifespan of infantry was definitely a lot shorter than tankers. Infantry called tankers "double salary, triple death", so at least the general opinion wasn't so. Although that included literally everyone in infantry units, from the guy bayoneting nazis to the guy baking bread, so the former group would probably have more casualties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:It's a good thing to aspire to? I mean, if you and the people you're fighting are at least trying to adhere to them then your pows don't get hosed too bad or something. It helps tone things down a bit for the big democracies that have to worry about public opinion. Also note that our modern conception of war crimes and what's not permissible, while grounded in a bunch of 19th century treaties, is very much a creature of the post-WW2 world. Having it generally out there that machine gunning villagers because you're frustrated that some of your guys stepped on landmines is Not OK helps curtail that kind of bullshit a bit. The US Army has done plenty of things that it isn't proud of, but things like Mai Lai are much less the norm than, say, the Germans on the East Front or the Soviets in Afghanistan or any modern era civil war you care to name. Still, note that civilians are not 100% off limits nor have they ever been. Strategic bombing is still an accepted doctrine and there's no loving way you're deploying nuclear weapons without flatly accepting that large population centers are legitimate targets. It's also a really handy way for big countries to put the screws to the leaders of small countries. You can see this in a generous or condemning light. On the one hand it gives some leverage when the international community says that Supreme Leader of the People's Republic of Central Nowhere really shouldn't genocide that rebelling ethnic minority. If everyone starts shouting about crimes against humanity or even war crimes people in that situation have to think about hte possibility of international intervention or at least a criminal prosecution a few decades down the road. If you're less generous you can read it as rich, first world nations meddling in the internal affairs of weaker, poorer countries without ever subjecting their own political or military leadership to the same scrutiny. It should also be noted that this kind of international intervention is really a creature of the post-Cold War years. Before that the USSR used to block human rights proceedings for political reasons. Most of the big international tribunals (setting aside the post-WW2 ones) happened in the 90s and 00s. This is noteworthy because Putin is increasingly using Russia's security council position to gently caress with the UN declaring a lot of what Assad is doing as not kosher. I forget the exact details, but I was just reading about how there are certain steps that have to be taken before international courts can look at what's going on, and those steps are getting squashed by Russia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago You know, whenever I see "Armenian Genocide" at the bottom of your posts under "Actions in Progress," I wonder whether there's ever any new developments going on with that, but...jeez. Makes the rest of the war seem peppy and upbeat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I can't look it up now but there's a pretty comprehensive study of injury by MOS in the ETO out there somewhere. If I remember it correctly, infantry were far more likely to suffer injuries which is not a surprise, but the severity of injuries and KIA versus WIA rate for tankers was far higher. I feel like that passes the "makes sense" test at least. Makes sense that an MOS that is mostly getting hurt by things that can punch through armor or getting hit in the head would skew towards nasty injuries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:How do you square this with the repeated statements by the admiral in charge of the Belgrano group and the Belgrano's captain that the ship was a legitimate target? Because Margaret Thatcher.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:There's no reason an entire tank crew would die in one engagement. The average casualties for each penetrating hit was like 1.3. Not every penetration would be into the figthing compartment. But then there is the chance for a catastrophic loss as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Because Margaret Thatcher. I love the bit in The Dead Hand where Thatcher finds out that Reagan actually wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons, and her reaction is just  Also how her Letter of Last Resort allegedly just said 'AVENGE US' Margaret Thatcher was loving nuts, yo
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Not every penetration would be into the figthing compartment. But then there is the chance for a catastrophic loss as well. The really interesting ones would be the mode and median, with the mean probably being the least useful for this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Because Margaret Thatcher. Its kinda funny cause if you want to poo poo on the royal navy see how one of their destroyers got wrecked by a skyhawk with unguided bombs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Also how her Letter of Last Resort allegedly just said 'AVENGE US' False, it actually instructed the commander to target Liverpool, Birmingham and Hull.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Nuclear hellfire would still be quite an improvement to Hull.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Its kinda funny cause if you want to poo poo on the royal navy see how one of their destroyers got wrecked by a skyhawk with unguided bombs. If you're talking about Sheffield, I'm pretty sure that was a S. Etendard-fired Exocet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Tias posted:If you're talking about Sheffield, I'm pretty sure that was a S. Etendard-fired Exocet. No, it's a reference to HMS Coventry, which was sunk by Skyhawks on the 25th May. I can't think of any other destroyers lost by the RN in the Falklands War.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:14
|
|
