|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:So how long have you been waiting to use the phrase "As someone who owns a MG-34, I..."? It was the best moment of my life. If only I had been wearing my camouflage parka 
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
While we're on rates of fire, I have a question. Is there a point where it becomes pointless? This was spurred by ARMA, where a helicopter had a minigun firing at either 300 or 600 rounds a minute. As far as I know, the gun was real, but wouldn't anything more than say 180 be redundant?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Since I mentioned denazification above and it's kind of one of my things I'll mention a little more about it: You know that common wisdom that the Soviets were massively better at denazification, if only because they hated the loving fascist pigs so much they would never let them back in? How the West was so shameful in comparison for just letting the old criminals go back to work in the 50s? Yeah, it's kinda bullshit. Not 100% bullshit, but you still probably don't want to touch it with bare hands. In 1945 everyone kicked all Nazis out. It was a giant loving headache and is a bit part of why German civil services didn't really get going again until '46 or so. They had more or less an entire year where the kids just didn't go to school (well, some did, but it was small pockets as opposed to a large, nation-wide school system) and one of the major factors was a lack of teachers who the Allied Control Council were comfortable putting in front of kids. Then denazification comes along and they start sorting out the serious fuckheads from the people who just wanted to be a teacher, or plumber, or whatever and needed that party card to get hired in 1937. In the 60s, when the post-war generation was raising hell because of what shitbirds their parents were and how a lot of them were still running things, it became common in the West to make unflattering comparisons to how anti-fascist the East was. In some regards this was true. Most of the higher offices that most notoriously were still staffed by Nazis (the Judiciary is a major, embarrassing example) were relatively clean in the east. The problem is that that is a relatively tiny level of government administration. Frankly, you don't need that many judges. What's more, if you look at the middle ranks of government administrators the West was pretty loving good at getting rid of Nazis as well. I'm most familiar with public school administrators, but they did a good job of purging anyone with serious Nazi connections. Of course you also have all the stories of Mr. Schmidt the biology teacher who people find out in the 60s was pretty gross in the 40s. The problem is that that level wasn't denazified in the East any better than it was in the West. The vast, vast majority of teachers fired in the late 40s for their past political activities were right back at work in the mid 50s, both in the East and the West. There are some good studies of the schools in Brandenburg that show that the turnover was almost entirely due to retirements. The reason is the same as why the ended up back in work in the West: there was a massive teacher shortage after the war and they needed all hands on deck. Give them approved textbooks and make it clear very loudly to everyone that teaching the old poo poo won't be tolerated. Most people move on with their lives and don't try to teach 10 year old racial hygiene if it's going to get them poo poo-canned or, worse, lead to a conversation with the Stasi. Speaking of the Stasi, they also had a huge role in coopting old Nazis to work for the new regime. They basically blackmailed them into being informers, and part of that was getting them jobs. I'm not talking petty criminals either, two that I've read about were notorious for burning synagogues in France and massacring Jews in Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
You need a certain volume of fire to be a usefull source of suppression, which is one of the main roles of a MG. And for some weapons they combine a higher RoF with a restricted burst length, such as the M61 vulcan (100 rounds, I believe?) and maybe the GAU-8. It both prevents an unwanted expenditure of ammo and puts enough rounds (hopefully) on target to have an effect. Also they are moving firing platforms so more volume = better chance of hits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:While we're on rates of fire, I have a question. Is there a point where it becomes pointless? This was spurred by ARMA, where a helicopter had a minigun firing at either 300 or 600 rounds a minute. As far as I know, the gun was real, but wouldn't anything more than say 180 be redundant? It depends on what you are using it for. If you're shooting at a guy who is 50 yards away, yeah. That said, a higher ROF can spit a fuckload of lead out that, at distances where dispersion becomes a thing, creates a large beaten zone where things die in large numbers. A gun with a high ROF shooting at a couple of guys running perpendicular to the axis of fire a couple hundred yards out essentially functions like a shotgun shooting clays. If you're talking about something like an air-mounted weapon that becomes all the more important. Aircraft are, compared to the nice, firm, stable ground, lovely gun emplacements. They jerk all over the place, they are moving fast, etc. Being able to lay down a ton of lead on "that 20 square yards of ground over there" is more or less how you are going to hit something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Also good for anti-air where your target is moving very fast...eg the M163 did up to 3k rpm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
You have to consider engagement time for anything to make sense. You may only get a half second of accurate fire out, so being able to squeeze more bullets into that window has several advantages. That's by far the biggest reason aircraft weapons tend to have extremely high ROF. That being said, yes, most practical LMGs don't have crazy high ROF because that's not always great for the kind of sustained suppressive fire LMGs are often used for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Not the mention the issue of ammo concerns. 6000 rpm on the vulcan? Maybe 1000 rounds carried.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Someone said earlier that ammo usage of the MG42 didn't matter because the Germans didn't run out of ammo, and I just can't agree with that. Doubling the rate of fire means you effectively double the weight of ammo you need for any given length of engagement. Which means you double the ammo load your soldiers need to carry, double the number of trains you need, the horses you need, the workers you need and so on. Considering all the research that has gone into caseless ammo just to reduce the weight of ammunition, making completely the opposite trade-off is not a brilliant one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Someone said earlier that ammo usage of the MG42 didn't matter because the Germans didn't run out of ammo, and I just can't agree with that. Doubling the rate of fire means you effectively double the weight of ammo you need for any given length of engagement. Which means you double the ammo load your soldiers need to carry, double the number of trains you need, the horses you need, the workers you need and so on. Squad LMGs aren't used to constantly spray a stream of bullets into the forever advancing communist hordes. You are firing bursts at targets. Those targets are never single men, either, but groups of men in the open where you can kill them or in cover where you can fix them in place to be killed by flankers. When I said they never ran out of ammo before I was talking on an operational level, since it seemed to be part of the conversation about industrial capacity. I'm sure individual guns ran out of ammo. That said, it's no less of a concern than for automatic weapons in general. You employ a high ROF gun with a relatively high dispersion differently than you do a low ROF gun that's functioning more like an automatic rifle. It's not as simple as lower ROF = more time firing = more effective weapon. The lower ROF gun is also going to have a problem killing that squad you just caught out in the open, for starters. It's not as much of a 1:1 comparison as you're thinking. edit: the fact that just about every modern military has gone over to something that performs more like a MG-42 than a m1919 or a Vickers should also point in this direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:You need a certain volume of fire to be a usefull source of suppression, which is one of the main roles of a MG. And for some weapons they combine a higher RoF with a restricted burst length, such as the M61 vulcan (100 rounds, I believe?) and maybe the GAU-8. It both prevents an unwanted expenditure of ammo and puts enough rounds (hopefully) on target to have an effect. GAU-8 is not restricted on the burst length, but can only manage ~10 seconds before running out of ammo. Interviews with pilots have them saying that they could just hold down the trigger and empty out the magazine in one go, but that's not exactly a productive use of over 1000 rounds of 30mm DU ammunition and it wears out the barrels in short order, so it's kind of frowned upon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm lazy so i"m not going to nest a bunch of quotes: Is there truth to the argument that the Allied bombing campaign could have achieved much more had they focused on things like electricity production, rather than industry itself?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:29
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Speaking of the Stasi, they also had a huge role in coopting old Nazis to work for the new regime. They basically blackmailed them into being informers, and part of that was getting them jobs. I'm not talking petty criminals either, two that I've read about were notorious for burning synagogues in France and massacring Jews in Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The Lake Naroch Offensive ends in another embarrassing Russian defeat; the Germans prepare another push at Verdun because REASONS; Louis Barthas finds out whether or not he's going there; Grigoris Balakian negotiates in Sis for a day of rest; E.S. Thompson has the trots again; someone Edward Mousley knew in hospital has just died; and Maximilian Mugge has a hard time trying to process the Quarter-bloke's argot and learn the proper Army way of putting on puttees at the same time. It's so nice to meet someone from 1916 who understands that puttees are a
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Also good for anti-air where your target is moving very fast...eg the M163 did up to 3k rpm. What? Machine guns against planes went the way of the dinosaur back in 51, old boy! It's all about missiles, now! Why, I bet by 1967 we won't see a single gun on a plane!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:It's so nice to meet someone from 1916 who understands that puttees are a those are some goodlooking reenactors and it's always more impressive to see lots of reenactors at once
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:what are puttees for, what is their purpose? Keeping mud and snow and debris from getting into your boots. Protecting your shins (to a degree). Ankle support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Since I mentioned denazification above and it's kind of one of my things I'll mention a little more about it: The thing with the first wave of denazification of post 1945 is, that is was mainly driven by the allies and had no broad public support whatsoever. The internal forces that these new political systems found pushing and pulling had a vested interest in resolving the issue of denazification as quickly as possible. If you take Austria as an example of how things were when the allies used less pressure, you have the whole political leadership directly coming from concentration camps into power, so naturally you'd assume that they'd have an interest to drive this to the end. It doesn't happen. The process of denazification starts out with elan and some death sentences, etc, but within a year or two, it ebbs off and barely anyone is sentenced anymore, some processes going on for more than a decade. Barely anything that would count as a high profile case gets handled after 1947. There's 3 main reasons for this: cold war is starting to pick up pace and the allies with exception of the russian side lose interest in denazification completely, also with regard to re-integrating experts of administrative, techincal and military fields. Second: Shutdown of the bureaucracy by workload of the process of denazification (the numbers of cases to be handled are impossible to meet, even with an apparatus of 10x the size) and third, the political class is already planning ahead of how to integrate a sizeable chunk of ex-NSDAP members (around 700k) into their electorate, which was banned from voting until 1949. I've got some excerpts of parliament speeches from 1947 or 48 of the top guys who were in the concentration camps as inmates who overflow with sappy nazi apologia, it's really incredible. Every party (ironically even the communists to an extent) fell head over heel to court these people. If we move to the issue of how they dealt with the victims, the definition of victimhood was expanded in such a fashion, that any bill that explicitely benefited jewish victims had a clause that wrote in benefits for former WM soldiers. There's not a single one that doesn't include these parallel measures. Take the issue of the time that one spent as a prisoner and how that counted towards your pension insurance time. You had war criminals of the worst sort enjoying all their time in the WM and as a POW counted towards their pension insurance time, while somebody being in a concentration camp could write off these years and ended up with a substantially lower pension, and also not to speak of state-support that would be applicable for any sort of disability that stemmed from imprisonment and torture. Certain groups of victims were only recognized decades later. E.g. homosexuals or Roma and Sinti. There's some really ugly decisions about restitution, where it was solely the pressure of the former allies and meanwhile international partners that brought about a somewhat decent solution in such matters. Naturally, they all fell short and there's some really disgusting backdoors in these early bills that only got resolved in a humane fashion in the decades past the 80s. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Squad LMGs aren't used to constantly spray a stream of bullets into the forever advancing communist hordes. You are firing bursts at targets. Those targets are never single men, either, but groups of men in the open where you can kill them or in cover where you can fix them in place to be killed by flankers. Further to this, imagine an M1919A4 and an MG42. The MG42 will cycle at 2-3 times the rate of the M1919A4, but speaking in practical terms they will fire a similar number of rounds per minute for the same mission. If you think about it mechanically, it's the barrel that is the point of failure during sustained fire, and air-cooled machine gun barrels don't differ that dramatically in their endurance. There is variation in terms of guns that have easily swapped barrels, or heavier barrels to improve heat dissipation, but both the MG42 and M1919A4 would be looking at something like 100-150 rounds per minute, with a short sprint possible if in a really hairy situation. If you go much faster than that for very long at all, the MG42 will have to swap barrels, and the Browning will have to lay off or risk failure. If you were looking to see which machine guns have the practical ability to waste the most ammunition in a given length of time without failing, you're actually talking about something like the Vickers. It has a slow cyclic rate, yes, but the barrel is water-cooled and so the gun as a whole system can fire many more rounds in a minute, at the cost of extreme additional weight. Also, with respect to suppression, a very high rate of fire can be beneficial because it is more intimidating. The US Army actually had a propaganda film that was purely to prepare soldiers for encountering MG42 fire, which focused on convincing them that it wasn't as dangerous as it sounded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:what are puttees for, what is their purpose? Puttees (or their mildly less stupid cousin, gaiters) mean you can cheap out by only issuing ankle boots to your men; the puttee is wrapped round the top of the boot and then up the leg over the trousers, to provide waterproofing, grot-proofing, and ankle support in literally the most ridiculous way possible. Fun fact: the British Army wore puttees until IIRC the 1930s, tried gaiters for the next 25-odd years, and then decided that they didn't quite look silly enough and mostly went back to shorter puttees until 1984. The Falklands War was won by blokes with bits of wool wrapped round their legs and a gallon of water inside each boot. Say what you want about American military procurement, but (spoilers) at least they didn't try to bring ankle boots into the trenches in 1917. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm lazy so i"m not going to nest a bunch of quotes: IMO the general inefficiencies of the German industry, esp large scale manufacture, allowed for a buffer tip absorb damage from bombings. The greatest positive effects were on targets vulnerable to bombs (refineries) and logistical disruption near the front lines as well as manpower requirements, though the last one is diminished by the ability to use lower quality and otherwise invalid troops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Further to this, imagine an M1919A4 and an MG42. The MG42 will cycle at 2-3 times the rate of the M1919A4, but speaking in practical terms they will fire a similar number of rounds per minute for the same mission. If you think about it mechanically, it's the barrel that is the point of failure during sustained fire, and air-cooled machine gun barrels don't differ that dramatically in their endurance. There is variation in terms of guns that have easily swapped barrels, or heavier barrels to improve heat dissipation, but both the MG42 and M1919A4 would be looking at something like 100-150 rounds per minute, with a short sprint possible if in a really hairy situation. If you go much faster than that for very long at all, the MG42 will have to swap barrels, and the Browning will have to lay off or risk failure. Very high rate of fire is akin to firing a shotgun - the gunner has a few seconds or less to hit a target, so the more lead his MG can put out within that time frame the better the chance of hitting the other guy. Water cooled machineguns could also be used for indirect fire to deny areas beyond sight or hit trenches with plunging fire. It cannot have been an efficient use of ammunition, but then WW1 shell shortages... WP posted:The Vickers gun could sustain fire for long durations of time exceeding the recommended 10,000 rounds an hour due to the water-cooled barrel and hourly barrel swaps. One account states a Vickers fired just under 5 million rounds in a week as a test in 1963 at Strensall Barracks and was still operable.[
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Puttees (or their mildly less stupid cousin, gaiters) mean you can cheap out by only issuing ankle boots to your men; the puttee is wrapped round the top of the boot and then up the leg over the trousers, to provide waterproofing, grot-proofing, and ankle support in literally the most ridiculous way possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
I know someone mentioned a WW2 thread that hadn't been posted in for a while Is that still around?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Is there truth to the argument that the Allied bombing campaign could have achieved much more had they focused on things like electricity production, rather than industry itself? I really don't know, i've never looked into it. Asking whether any kind of counter-factual is true is always getting into muddy waters because it's impossible to prove or disprove. I suspect the real place to look for that would be to look at the dams that the brits blew up. Those had some limited hydroelectric capacity iirc. The other question would be how distributed power generation was. Are we talking blowing up one or two major power plants per city, or are we hunting hundreds of the loving things all over the place. If you have to send out five bombing raids to blow up five generating facilities that a factory can draw power from is it more or less effective than just blowing up the factory? How much redundancy was there? Could they just cut off power to non-essential things like residences if a fraction of their power generating capability was gutted? I don't know, these are just some thoughts. Flipswitch posted:Can you recommend any good books on the Stasi? They're something I'm interested in reading about but am unsure where to start. Nothing specific. I'm sure there is a decent general history out there though if you search Amazon. JaucheCharly posted:The thing with the first wave of denazification of post 1945 is, that is was mainly driven by the allies and had no broad public support whatsoever. The internal forces that these new political systems found pushing and pulling had a vested interest in resolving the issue of denazification as quickly as possible. Yeah, I've got a ton of letters from people in towns in Hesse and Thuringen in '46 bitching about the local teacher who everyone loves so much getting fired because he was a Nazi. Some of them are guys who would get reinstated later, some of them are people who joined up in '32 and their personnel files are a giant "LOL NOPE." One in particular I remember got nixed because he spent most of '33-34 publishing poetry about how awesome Hitler was. That said, Austria can be its own weird thing. Everyone after the war on just about every conceivable side was really eager to emphasize how Austria was the first victim of Hitler's aggression rather than an equal participant in the ugly poo poo that happened later, It's always seemed to me that this lead to some pretty toxic attitudes later due mostly to the country being able to shed its Nazi past far, far quicker than Germany was and without the attendant reflection on just what had happened. That said, I concentrate on Germany so I'm not going to fight and die over my interpretation of Austria's post war. Taerkar posted:IMO the general inefficiencies of the German industry, esp large scale manufacture, allowed for a buffer tip absorb damage from bombings. I really think the inefficiencies in German industry get over-played in here, mostly because this thread is half by volume talking about the biggest, most egregious tank-shaped wastes of resources. Looking at small arms manufacture, for example, they did a pretty loving good job of churning out reasonable quality guns in high volumes with little disruption until the absolute last days of the war when supply chains just became insane. Remember: this is a country that managed to go toe-to-toe with the industrial might of what amounted to the entire rest of the world and took five years to get worn down. I'm also not sure how industrial inefficiencies would buffer you from the effects of strategic bombing. Being inefficient doesn't mean you just have a shitload of excess capacity, it just means that you're engaging in work that doesn't result in what it could. If your tank line only produces 50 vehicles when it could be producing 70 blowing it up so it's half as effective doesn't net 35 tanks because of what the theoretical cap is, you're still making only 25. At the end of the day strategic bombing was just a questionable idea that was much better directed at resource bottlenecks than production. The real benefit of it was probably killing off the Luftwaffe so interdiction strikes could range freely behind the German frontlines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
10 Beers posted:I know someone mentioned a WW2 thread that hadn't been posted in for a while Is that still around? Yes, it was also in A/T.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:
The movie in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_2UxfIFg-c No worries guys, the Germans couldn't hit an Elephant at this distance with their silly Em Gee 42!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:44
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Puttees (or their mildly less stupid cousin, gaiters) mean you can cheap out by only issuing ankle boots to your men; the puttee is wrapped round the top of the boot and then up the leg over the trousers, to provide waterproofing, grot-proofing, and ankle support in literally the most ridiculous way possible. I love both of them, they have at least some vague use despite being silly. Not like neck stocks.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Yes, it was also in A/T. Happen to have a link? All of my bookmarks are rapidly running dry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
A bit specious for the claims of "copied" I've seen, but the feed system seemed to be the closest thing from the few pics I had. 10 Beers posted:Happen to have a link? All of my bookmarks are rapidly running dry. I don't have the A/T, but here's the semi-recent D&D one. It's 90% atomic bomb debate: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3754268&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 Cyrano4747 posted:I really think the inefficiencies in German industry get over-played in here, mostly because this thread is half by volume talking about the biggest, most egregious tank-shaped wastes of resources. Looking at small arms manufacture, for example, they did a pretty loving good job of churning out reasonable quality guns in high volumes with little disruption until the absolute last days of the war when supply chains just became insane. Remember: this is a country that managed to go toe-to-toe with the industrial might of what amounted to the entire rest of the world and took five years to get worn down. I can agree with this, but it wasn't the biggest tanks that were the biggest offenses, it was their whole system for armor procurement and production. Inefficiencies in production were mostly on the armor side (detailed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ). There they were depending on skilled craftsmanship in a really weird setup not conducive to producing anything in large numbers, and the political interferences certainly didn't help. As far as I can tell, the only equipment really affected by strategic bombing was the Maus project and truck engines, but that's because we bombed the poo poo out of what supposed to be a Panther production line that was converted to truck engines sometime in 1944. Plan Z fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I really think the inefficiencies in German industry get over-played in here, mostly because this thread is half by volume talking about the biggest, most egregious tank-shaped wastes of resources. Looking at small arms manufacture, for example, they did a pretty loving good job of churning out reasonable quality guns in high volumes with little disruption until the absolute last days of the war when supply chains just became insane. Remember: this is a country that managed to go toe-to-toe with the industrial might of what amounted to the entire rest of the world and took five years to get worn down. Strategic Bombing is definitely a muddy topic to evaluate. With regard to tank production they did have a few standout successes (The plant that built King Tigers got utterly flattened and took a significant chunk of the year's production with it), but their biggest effect was on the production of spare parts. Like it's been said, German industry was fairly diversified and disruptions or even the loss of individual plants due to bombing didn't do a whole lot to disturb the overall supply chain. While the Germans had the excess capacity to ensure the tanks could keep rolling off the line, however, this came at a pretty significant cost to components that would have otherwise been set aside as spares-engines, transmissions, that kind of thing. This gave the Germans major problems, since even the most well-built tank, truck, or plane is going to need repairs every once in a while, and by cannibalizing their production of spare parts it was that much more difficult for Germany to keep their vehicles active in the field. That's why so many of their tanks ended up abandoned when they broke down-they simply didn't have the resources to fix them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Silly name drop: Hercules Brabazon Brabazon Also speaking of silly, did you know that people have proposed multiple times 1) making a full-size replica of the Titanic, and naming it the Titanic II?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Silly name drop: People have poor pattern recognition skills, news at 11.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:
Threads like that are what kept me out of this one for years. People in TFR kept saying I should check out the mil hist thread and I kept saying "nope, I've seen that mess, I don't want to argue with highschoolers about atomic bombs and that stupid polish bear."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Threads like that are what kept me out of this one for years. People in TFR kept saying I should check out the mil hist thread and I kept saying "nope, I've seen that mess, I don't want to argue with highschoolers about atomic bombs and that stupid polish bear."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Threads like that are what kept me out of this one for years. People in TFR kept saying I should check out the mil hist thread and I kept saying "nope, I've seen that mess, I don't want to argue with highschoolers about atomic bombs and that stupid polish bear." Yeah.... I was hoping for one with less arguing/debate, and more historical info and facts about battles, people, events, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:turns out it's arguing with me about pike squares Yeah, but pike squares and the people associated with them are awesome, while tweens insisting the US committed war crimes on par with the Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust dropping the bombs is just tiring. 10 Beers posted:Yeah.... Just ask some questions or post some cool poo poo in this thread. People will talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
When I asked about fortresses, nobody wanted to talk about fortresses. I even posted pics of a really cool one near me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
my dad posted:When I asked about fortresses, nobody wanted to talk about fortresses. edit: Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, but pike squares and the people associated with them are awesome... HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i will talk about fortresses, my friend, what do you want to talk about Here: my dad posted:This thread talks way too little about fortifications. So, can someone tell me about how defensive fortifications evolved through history? What were the early priorities, how did people start building huge fuckoff walls, and what would be considered a functional defensive fortification today? Seriously, I think fortifications of all kinds are cool as poo poo, and would like to know more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:04
|
|
