|
HEY GAL posted:if everyone held really still and waited for me, i could have gone on a mass shooting with that If We Need To Talk About Brian has taught me anything, is that you can go on a wonderful shooting with a bow gently caress that movie
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:Aircraft engines have to be not only extremely power-dense, and light, but utterly reliable. And then you put them in a tank and ... welp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, I can't source it but I remember reading years ago about how the thing the Soviets were just head over heels about (at least regarding airplanes) once lend-lease came online in a big way was American avgas. That sounds like a fair claim, American refinery capacity was insulated from the war so we were kind of able to provide a shitload of petroleum derivatives that were otherwise unavailable due to the refineries having been bombed/captured.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, I can't source it but I remember reading years ago about how the thing the Soviets were just head over heels about (at least regarding airplanes) once lend-lease came online in a big way was American avgas. The fuel was important of course but I think the bigger contributor was the gajillion gallons of TEL that they received. That boosted their domestically refined fuel from 75-80 octane to around 100 which is just a huge drat deal as you might imagine. Years ago there was yet another epic VVS vs USAAF/RAF cir 1945-46 INTERNET DEBATE and I remember some guys who seemed to be experts on such things presenting pretty compelling arguments about how severely the performance of the late war VVS hot rods (Yak-3 and La-7) would have been curtailed had the Lend-Lease TEL suddenly been removed from their fuel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The fuel was important of course but I think the bigger contributor was the gajillion gallons of TEL that they received. That boosted their domestically refined fuel from 75-80 octane to around 100 which is just a huge drat deal as you might imagine. Years ago there was yet another epic VVS vs USAAF/RAF cir 1945-46 INTERNET DEBATE and I remember some guys who seemed to be experts on such things presenting pretty compelling arguments about how severely the performance of the late war VVS hot rods (Yak-3 and La-7) would have been curtailed had the Lend-Lease TEL suddenly been removed from their fuel. That's probably what I was thinking of. ALl I remember was the soviets were basically loving around with octanes I'm used to seeing on the cheap end of the gas pump and then got access to the good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Evidence of a *big* Bronze Age battle in Germany: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle quote:“We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admit are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on the battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Evidence of a *big* Bronze Age battle in Germany: Holy poo poo! Archaeology is cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Yesterday's Paris conference continues, and Wully Robertson gets into a slanging match with the French Prime Minister. High spirits abound among the younger of Grigoris Balakian's comrades; James McConnell of the Lafayette Escadrille hears that they'll be flying the Bebe, good news for several reasons; Private Maximilian Mugge is used to fine dining rather than Army dining, but seems to be enjoying himself; and Edward Mousley's amateur generalship proves rather less accurate than his chess humour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Are there more history threads? I've got this one, the Roman/Greek/ancient one, the historical fact one, and the Medieval combat one. Am I missing any? Almost all the ones in the OP are archived.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Evidence of a *big* Bronze Age battle in Germany: This article was really cool, thanks for sharing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:And then you put them in a tank and ... welp. To be fair, there's a big difference between sticking a radial on the nose of an airplane and shoving it through cold air at 200mph at a single power setting, and sticking the same engine in an armored box on the ground, and making it go from idle to max power thirty or forty times a minute for hours on end. Airplane engines make lovely automotive engines, generally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
10 Beers posted:Are there more history threads? I've got this one, the Roman/Greek/ancient one, the historical fact one, and the Medieval combat one. Am I missing any? Almost all the ones in the OP are archived. There's always, heh, your post history 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
10 Beers posted:Are there more history threads? I've got this one, the Roman/Greek/ancient one, the historical fact one, and the Medieval combat one. Am I missing any? Almost all the ones in the OP are archived. We have a WWII one, but no one's posted in it for months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Evidence of a *big* Bronze Age battle in Germany: Finally my home state gets worldwide attention for its main defining feature: hordes of young men who can't read or write properly bashing each other's heads in! 10 Beers posted:Are there more history threads? I've got this one, the Roman/Greek/ancient one, the historical fact one, and the Medieval combat one. Am I missing any? Almost all the ones in the OP are archived. There is the AIRPOWER/COld War thread down in TFR, which is a bit more tech oriented but has plenty of crazy Soviet/Imperial German/American/Nazi engineering. When it is isn't arguing that the decision to develop the F-35B was the worst war crime in history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
WW2 Data We continue the IJN bomb inventory with another set of long-winded bomb names. Which bombs were designed and created to fill a gap in their offensive capability and why weren't they used much? Which weapon was similar to an American model, and why did they performance worse than them? Which bomb contained a mixture of thermite, kerosene, petrol, and alcohol-soap? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:We have a WWII one, but no one's posted in it for months. WWII has finally been completely discussed. There is nothing else to say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There is the AIRPOWER/COld War thread down in TFR, which is a bit more tech oriented but has plenty of crazy Soviet/Imperial German/American/Nazi engineering. When it is isn't arguing that the decision to develop the F-35B was the worst war crime in history. Welcome to close to 30K posts about crazy Cold War tech F-35 being poo poo Development and procurement woes (why is Canada buying F-35s?) Nuke Chat Museum Photos Dad literature review F-35 is still poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Welcome to close to 30K posts about Don't forget "I know but I won't say because OPSEC"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:Don't forget "I know but I won't say because OPSEC" Honestly there have been one or two OPSEC breeches that were pretty hilarious - basically because everybody immediately pointed out the violation, which would have been invisible to us non-military types For the record, apparently in the event of a war on the Korean peninsula, the US plans to fight a air war exclusively until the government collapses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Honestly there have been one or two OPSEC breeches that were pretty hilarious - basically because everybody immediately pointed out the violation, which would have been invisible to us non-military types Kim Jong Un really does read these forums, doesn't he?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Presumably the OPSEC breach was in detailing which government they were hoping to collapse
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:We have a WWII one, but no one's posted in it for months. Nobody seemed to really give a poo poo unless it was a chance to call Americans stupid for thinking the instantaneous destruction of two cities were any sort of a factor in convincing the Japanese to surrender. Their surrender was only 100% because Russia captured Manchuria not a mixture of both and a massive list of other problems, mhmm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Thanks guys! Crazy Cold War stuff could be fun to read...
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
JcDent posted:If We Need To Talk About Brian has taught me anything, is that you can go on a wonderful shooting with a bow
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Dumb sorta serious history question: I've been doing a info dump for the AI thread, and have been using an account of a disaster. I've just found, though, a radio documentary from the 60s that actually interviews the survivors, and their accounts are somewhat different than what I've read thus far. Is there any sort of rule about what account carries more weight? I got to admit, the first person accounts are better at explaining what the hell happened, if a smudge more spectacular.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dumb sorta serious history question: Using first hand accounts is more of an art. When doing so you have to take a whole ton of factors into account. Basically you have to have a really solid grasp of all the other evidence about the event and you have to have an eye for where people are exaggerating, simply mistaken, lying because it benefits them (this may not be obvious), etc. It really helps if you have a ton of accounts to cross reference. If the official documents say one thing and one guy says something different you might lean on him being incorrect. If, on the other hand, five people have a pretty consistent alternative to what is in the documents it's worth giving a long hard look at, if only to figure out why that other account is so prevalent. To give you an idea, you find accounts from Holocaust survivors that include things that could not possibly be true. We're talking major issues like taking a train to a place that didn't have train tracks or being at a location months before it was built. THere are hosts of reasons why this is true and if you're really interested I can do a bit of a write-up on some of the issues with memory, how it gets changed, and why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:Don't forget "I know but I won't say because OPSEC" You also forgot Groverlasers, and Groverlasers on the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Has anyone here ever said no to effort posting? Especially from you, Cyrano? Here, you officially have the Xiahou Dun Seal of Approval To Always and Forever Effort Post. Go forth and 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Using first hand accounts is more of an art. When doing so you have to take a whole ton of factors into account. Basically you have to have a really solid grasp of all the other evidence about the event and you have to have an eye for where people are exaggerating, simply mistaken, lying because it benefits them (this may not be obvious), etc. It really helps if you have a ton of accounts to cross reference. If the official documents say one thing and one guy says something different you might lean on him being incorrect. If, on the other hand, five people have a pretty consistent alternative to what is in the documents it's worth giving a long hard look at, if only to figure out why that other account is so prevalent. I'd love to hear more about this both for obvious reasons and because I know this is a thing in air-crash investigation. Apparently, you always take eyewitness accounts with a large grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
I have to comb through firsthand accounts of stuff that's happened in the last decade and I'm consistently surprised at just how...questionable? most of it is. Similarly, I have next to no confidence in my own ability to accurately describe the handful of relatively intense things I've experienced. Now almost a decade removed it is more like...a series of colors and noises rather than a discrete memory. That's why historians so value the firsthand sources that we can be relatively sure are reliable. Eric Brown (RIP) is one of my absolute favorites...his accounts are so dry and dissociated, and his range of experiences so broad, it makes his writing practically infallible. Gems like him are very few and far between though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dumb sorta serious history question: Like Cyrano said, it's mixed. On the armored warfare side of the Western Front of WW2, it seemed like every US crewman ran into Tigers, when American units had something like three recorded engagements with Tiger tanks in Europe. Unfortunately, every tank looks like a formless blob at 500m+, and "Tiger/Panther" is easier to remember and carries more weight than Panzer 3/4 or the myriad of self-propelled guns (never mind an understandable lack of education ib the many vehicle types). And if their tank was hit, then what their own country gave them was a gigantic death trap because it got set on fire, never mind that most of the vehicles that they defeated probably brewed up. On the other hand, they can be useful for descriptions of events if they line up with reality. Guys like Dimitry Loza are important in armored warfare accounts because they're trustworthy, but he also gives accounts of things like how Soviet troops came to use Lend-Lease equipment in day-to-day work at the lowest end of the chain. And even the descriptions of day-to-day life in Belton Cooper's godawful opus are pretty valuable in seeing the life of things that he actually did. tl;dr personal accounts aren't great for analyzation (with exceptions), but they can be helpful for adding context.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Also, not everyone who provided information was someone qualified to talk about it. Accounts of the supposed invincibility of Panthers and Tigers and the shittiness of Shermans came from people who didn't actually fight in them, like infantry. Death Traps, if I remember, was predominately written and/or sourced from a mechanic who took the fact that he saw a lot of damaged and destroyed Shermans as evidence that they must have been awful (much like how a field hospital is evidence that soldiers are awful at fighting because the only soldiers you see are wounded ones!).
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Guess what time it is! Yes, it's time for extra credit's final episode on the Battle of Kursk! It's just the same tired rehashing of the event pop culture always does that it doesn't even feel like I'm trolling anyone at this point. Much too short too, like the money ran out or something, so they cramped three videos worth of stuff, even by their standards into one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQlFi9s_e2s
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Hello thread, I need your best and funniest milhist anecdotes. Like the one about the US losing the T95 or the one about the Dutch submarine sinking the German sub on Australian waters or whatever it was. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Sorry to throw more tankchat on you guys, but are there any sources that'd break down M60s versus contemporary T-64s and T-72s? I've run into someone who I generally consider saavy on this sort of thing who's painted that the T-72 is a significantly inferior vehicle to the M60, and has pointed to the Battle of Kuwait Airport in Gulf War 1 as proof that the M60 is a vastly superior specimen to the T-72. This feels distinctly off to me; while I can appreciate the disadvantages of the autoloader and the fact that many soviet tanks are ergonomically uncharitable, I can't find any source on me or the internet that doesn't suggest that the T-72 is faster, better (and meaningfully) armoured*, and has higher penetration characteristics. I'm aware that that's not everything, but I'm also unaware of a source that suggests the ergonomics of the T-72 are so horrible as to outweigh everything, nor of any horrific reliability issue that also neuters it. Did I miss something big? *I've got the T-72 "Ural" as the lowest-bound 310mm RHA equiv vs APDS and 435 RHA equiv vs HEAT, versus 300mm at 500m APDS and 425mm HEAT respectively from the M60A1, so I'm not seeing a case of "is technically better armoured, but not so much that it actually changes anything".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Azran posted:Hello thread, I need your best and funniest milhist anecdotes. Like the one about the US losing the T95 or the one about the Dutch submarine sinking the German sub on Australian waters or whatever it was. Leo Polk getting sniped by a 3" gun
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Sorry to throw more tankchat on you guys, but are there any sources that'd break down M60s versus contemporary T-64s and T-72s? I've run into someone who I generally consider saavy on this sort of thing who's painted that the T-72 is a significantly inferior vehicle to the M60, and has pointed to the Battle of Kuwait Airport in Gulf War 1 as proof that the M60 is a vastly superior specimen to the T-72. This feels distinctly off to me; while I can appreciate the disadvantages of the autoloader and the fact that many soviet tanks are ergonomically uncharitable, I can't find any source on me or the internet that doesn't suggest that the T-72 is faster, better (and meaningfully) armoured*, and has higher penetration characteristics. I'm aware that that's not everything, but I'm also unaware of a source that suggests the ergonomics of the T-72 are so horrible as to outweigh everything, nor of any horrific reliability issue that also neuters it. Did I miss something big? All of this depends on whether or not you pulled your stats from a tank game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Sorry to throw more tankchat on you guys, but are there any sources that'd break down M60s versus contemporary T-64s and T-72s? I've run into someone who I generally consider saavy on this sort of thing who's painted that the T-72 is a significantly inferior vehicle to the M60, and has pointed to the Battle of Kuwait Airport in Gulf War 1 as proof that the M60 is a vastly superior specimen to the T-72. This feels distinctly off to me; while I can appreciate the disadvantages of the autoloader and the fact that many soviet tanks are ergonomically uncharitable, I can't find any source on me or the internet that doesn't suggest that the T-72 is faster, better (and meaningfully) armoured*, and has higher penetration characteristics. I'm aware that that's not everything, but I'm also unaware of a source that suggests the ergonomics of the T-72 are so horrible as to outweigh everything, nor of any horrific reliability issue that also neuters it. Did I miss something big? Tanks are a weapons system that includes a crew. Kuwait Airport is a well trained US combined arms force going up against piecemeal Iraqi units, so it's hard to compare one of the tanks on one side to one of the tanks on the other and that's before getting into crew quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Battle of Kuwait Airport in Gulf War 1 as proof that the M60 is a vastly superior specimen to the T-72.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Honestly there have been one or two OPSEC breeches that were pretty hilarious - basically because everybody immediately pointed out the violation, which would have been invisible to us non-military types Yes, there have been. And I understand the need for OPSEC. But the thread has always struck me as funny because you've got a lot of what I assume are Air Force guys talking, using acronyms that I have to keep a separate Google tab open just to translate, at least a half-dozen times per page, with people constantly saying stuff like OPSEC, or I don't know but if I did know I couldn't say. Also they don't talk nearly enough about the greatest aeroplanes in the greatest conflict of the history of the world, which is a big strike against. Just my opinion though. I do read the thread all the time regardless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 03:50
|
|