|
spectralent posted:I remember it was kind of the case that war got more localised; the infrastructure required to support actual legions required proper empires, so when you back to warlords and dukes of little spaces you lost the huge scale of military operations. I expect there was about the same amount of warring though. What he said: Rome was huge and centralized and stuff. Feodalism - not so much!
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Good morning all Somebody photoshop a sixth finger on Count Rugen there to the left of Mr. Orange & this is basically perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Why did Cold War tanks include HEAT rounds into their ammo racks? Zaloga writes that T-55s had 17 HE, 15 APFSDS and 6 HEAT rounds in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
the entire century was a great age for facial hair the early 17th century was OK for mens' hairstyles, the mid 17th century was OK, but nobody looked good in the chin-length chop dudes wore in the late 20s / early-to-mid 30s except maybe Richelieu womens' hairstyles were OK throughout, in my opinion, except for frizzed false curls, which just look unhealthy HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Why did Cold War tanks include HEAT rounds into their ammo racks? Zaloga writes that T-55s had 17 HE, 15 APFSDS and 6 HEAT rounds in the 80s. To shoot through stuff? HEAT is good at defeating lots of conventional armour, but not as good at defeating composite armour. APFSDS is the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
When Galleys would fight at sea, would the rowers be unshackled to aid in the fight against boarders or no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
HEAT is also still great against fortifications, and basically any vehicle on the battlefield that isn't a Main Battle Tank. I'd imagine that even a WWII era 85mm HEAT around from a T-34 would royally gently caress a Bradley's day up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm talking about a man named Alexander P. de Seversky. De Seversky, like de Gaulle. There are exceptions if you go farther back, I remember a teacher who always took care to remind me that Leonardo da Vinci is never "da Vinci" or "Vinci", because while the idea is the same, in Leonardo's time it hadn't been turned into a surname yet. She must have been very vexed when a certain Dan Brown book became popular.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:To shoot through stuff? HEAT is good at defeating lots of conventional armour, but not as good at defeating composite armour. APFSDS is the opposite. And HEAT also has some anti-personnel effectiveness so it's dual use. For a long while Abrams tanks only carried Sabot and HEAT ammo for the main gun. I presume it's also more lethal against many lightly armoured targets where APFSDS would only make a clean hole whereas HEAT is more likely to kill crew/passengers and start fires - so ideal against IFVs and APCs. MrYenko posted:HEAT is also still great against fortifications, and basically any vehicle on the battlefield that isn't a Main Battle Tank. I'd imagine that even a WWII era 85mm HEAT around from a T-34 would royally gently caress a Bradley's day up. Did T-34/85 have HEAT ammo? My understanding is HEAT needs larger caliber to be really effective, so 85mm high velocity AP would be much more effective than same caliber HEAT (extreme ranges excepted). Nenonen fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Found one of the articles about the plans for US chemical warfare against the Home Islands in WW2. This is briefer than the one I read a few months ago, but it addresses the report. This is an article by the dude from Institute for Historical Review- you know, the Holocaust denial group? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weber
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:And HEAT also has some anti-personnel effectiveness so it's dual use. For a long while Abrams tanks only carried Sabot and HEAT ammo for the main gun. I presume it's also more lethal against many lightly armoured targets where APFSDS would only make a clean hole whereas HEAT is more likely to kill crew/passengers and start fires - so ideal against IFVs and APCs. The Panzerfaust had something like an 88mm warhead, so you can absolutely hurt something with it. And while penetration scales with diameter, it also scales with better materials. Where a WWII HEAT warhead might penetrate twice its own diameter in armor, a modern HEAT warhead can apparently punch through six or seven times its diameter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Did T-34/85 have HEAT ammo? My understanding is HEAT needs larger caliber to be really effective, so 85mm high velocity AP would be much more effective than same caliber HEAT (extreme ranges excepted). It definitely didn't in WWII. After that, there was a HEAT shell capable of defeating 150 mm of armour, but I don't know if it was ever used in T-34-85s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Just absolutely LOL if you aren't taking your dates to the Tank Museum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:This is an article by the dude from Institute for Historical Review- you know, the Holocaust denial group? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weber Oh. Didn't make that connection, I hadn't heard the dude's name before. It's not the only place I've seen the report mentioned, but fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Oh. Didn't make that connection, I hadn't heard the dude's name before. It's not the only place I've seen the report mentioned, but fair enough. Sure, I don't doubt that there was a plan drawn up, but he's clearly interested in it as a means of minimizing Nazi poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:When Galleys would fight at sea, would the rowers be unshackled to aid in the fight against boarders or no? The big thing here is that not all galley rowers are slaves - in fact, the Athenians in particular used free citizens exclusively to man their warships, and where in other Greek cities serving as a hoplite was a mark of status, in Athens serving as a galley rower was just as much a source of civic pride. So yeah, you probably need to be a bit more specific about who you're talking about since the question of whether or not slave rowers are used and whether or not warships used slave rowers varied based on time and place. The use of slaves as rowers was by no means universal. I can't be much more specific than that, though, aside from Athens I have only a vague memory of a thing I read somewhere suggesting that galley slaves weren't actually all that common until relatively recently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:When Galleys would fight at sea, would the rowers be unshackled to aid in the fight against boarders or no? they were paid in shekels not shackles
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:The Panzerfaust had something like an 88mm warhead, so you can absolutely hurt something with it. And while penetration scales with diameter, it also scales with better materials. Where a WWII HEAT warhead might penetrate twice its own diameter in armor, a modern HEAT warhead can apparently punch through six or seven times its diameter. Panzerschreck was 88mm, but one had a muzzle velocity of 792-1050 m/s, the other 110 m/s. Panzerfaust had a 149mm warhead but even smaller muzzle velocity and range. Muzzle velocity matters if you want to put a solid shot or some variant thereof through a metal plate. It's true that HEAT shells and missiles have improved over time, but so have tank guns and their armour piercing rounds. Just compare IS-2 or Jagdtiger to modern MBTs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
It's a puff piece in mid-1942, but Oregon militia to defend forest from Jap invasion
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:14
|
|
MrYenko posted:HEAT is also still great against fortifications, and basically any vehicle on the battlefield that isn't a Main Battle Tank. I'd imagine that even a WWII era 85mm HEAT around from a T-34 would royally gently caress a Bradley's day up. the t34 would have to be able to see the bradley before it got spotted itself.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's a puff piece in mid-1942, but Oregon militia to defend forest from Jap invasion I just visited Tilamook, Oregon, as part of my tenth wedding anniversary last weekend. They had a big WWII blimp ASW airfield there. These days they have Tilamook Dairy with squeaky cheese and ice cream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
People ITT are very much understating the possibilities that a different outcome at Jutland would have had on the war. A decent British victory opens the Baltic and possibly opens a new front against Germany in Denmark (apparently the Germans were so terrified of a British naval force entering the Baltic they were prepared to invade Denmark if it happened). If the Brits are in the Baltic in force, even without trying for an assault on Pomerania they can severely constrict the Scandinavian iron trade. That would be crippling to the Central Powers. EDIT: And on a personal note, after spending two days at a Greenwich conference on WW1, why oh why must Andrew Gordon consistently live down to my most uncharitable opinions of him? He's not stupid but he's careless and lazy and definitely getting by on his reputation from Rules of the Game. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:
Welp, knew there was something I was supposed to be doing this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Welp, knew there was something I was supposed to be doing this weekend. There's another one happening at Hull on the 11th that I highly recommend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Back in '42 or so it would have been "deal destroyer" as americans preferred to gently caress up dates with a specialized loving-up platform instead of just building pedant capabilities into their regular units. SquadronROE posted:When Galleys would fight at sea, would the rowers be unshackled to aid in the fight against boarders or no? From what I understand, galley slaves were more a thing in the early modern period (primarily in the Baltic and Mediterranean seas) than in the times of Rome or ancient Greece, and I think (someone please correct me) that by that time galleys relied more on cannon than boarding, so it was probably a non-issue. Secondarily, not a lot of people knew how to swim back then so if you're away from port you probably don't have to worry about escape attempts. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
 today i learned that everyone i talk about may have had a slushie at some point in their life, if they had wanted one http://www.historicfood.com/Georgian%20Ices.htm http://gizmodo.com/how-did-they-make-ice-cream-in-the-17th-century-1749823474 http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodicecream.html HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
If the king of Sweden wanted some ice cream, he'd just ask for cream. because it's so cold in the north (castles in particular, holy poo poo how could people live in such cold damp places)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
I was all excited for the muscadine ice in the first link, but then the whole recipe fails to include ANY muscadine grapes. Disappoint. Well, time to innovate, the South will soon be green and purple with all the darn grapes that grow on the roadside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:People ITT are very much understating the possibilities that a different outcome at Jutland would have had on the war. A decent British victory opens the Baltic and possibly opens a new front against Germany in Denmark (apparently the Germans were so terrified of a British naval force entering the Baltic they were prepared to invade Denmark if it happened). If the Brits are in the Baltic in force, even without trying for an assault on Pomerania they can severely constrict the Scandinavian iron trade. That would be crippling to the Central Powers. Did the German naval strategists ever consider going directly after the blockading ships? It seems like sinking a bunch of the cruisers enforcing the blockade might have done more for them, strategically, than shelling seaside towns could have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:by that time galleys relied more on cannon than boarding, so it was probably a non-issue. Random aside about that - firing grapeshot (clusters of musket balls fired out of a cannon like giant shotgun pellets) into a galley could have pretty horrific results, since galleys are generally tightly packed and don't have hulls as thick as those of sailing ships. Much better than boarding a galley, if you can swing it. That being said, I'm not sure if galleys tended to rely more on cannons than boarding. Since they have to deal with rows of rowers and oars in the way, they can't really mount broadside cannons and so have much less firepower than an equivalent sailing ship, assuming both were designed for war. Taking advantage of bad wind conditions to take potshots at an enemy sailing ship from an angle where they can't retaliate could work, but it'd take a while and depends on the wind conditions holding steady, so I don't know if that was the main galley tactic used. If you have the manpower for it, charging in to board while firing a close-range frontal salvo directly before contact would be much faster. In any event, the Barbary pirates in particular (noted galley users) would have wanted to board often regardless, in order to take their ships and cargoes as intact as possible for later resale. Edit: To answer part of the initial question, though, Christian galley slaves in particular probably don't get unshackled to help out in a boarding action against a Christian ship with Christian crews very often, and come to think of it arming slaves who probably outnumber you and who you've been sentencing to involuntary hard manual labor for a good long time under poor conditions strikes me as a terrible idea regardless of who you're fighting anyways. Like, what incentive would they have exactly to fight the enemy and not you? Tomn fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Did the German naval strategists ever consider going directly after the blockading ships? It seems like sinking a bunch of the cruisers enforcing the blockade might have done more for them, strategically, than shelling seaside towns could have. Going through the Channel would be a difficult proposition, and either way it's a one way trip. The Grand Fleet materializes to cut you off from home and things go bad very, very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Did the German naval strategists ever consider going directly after the blockading ships? It seems like sinking a bunch of the cruisers enforcing the blockade might have done more for them, strategically, than shelling seaside towns could have. The british naval blockade isn't an unbroken line of ships blocking access. It's more of a promise that the Royal Navy is gonna come gently caress you up. Sinking a few of the converted civilian ships that physically patrolled the blockade is going to make little difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
And the blockade when enforced wasn't done by a line of ships off the German coast, it was done at the entrance to the Channel and North Sea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:01
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
On the subject of Jutland, one of the first non-textbook history books I read and remembered was To Rule the Waves, which painted a pretty fascinating and entertaining narrative about how the Royal Navy helped shepherd the rise of the British Empire. That being said, even back then I kinda raised my eyebrows a bit when he described Admiral Scheer as looking upon the Grand Fleet and seeing not the ships, but rather the sheer moral prestige of a centuries-long tradition of naval victory which ultimately caused him to decide to decline battle. He was also in retrospect oddly laudatory about the Falklands and how it represented that the Royal Navy still had a role in upholding Britain's international prestige and influence. I should really see if I can find that book again and give it a read to see how it holds up nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Tomn posted:On the subject of Jutland, one of the first non-textbook history books I read and remembered was To Rule the Waves, which painted a pretty fascinating and entertaining narrative about how the Royal Navy helped shepherd the rise of the British Empire. That being said, even back then I kinda raised my eyebrows a bit when he described Admiral Scheer as looking upon the Grand Fleet and seeing not the ships, but rather the sheer moral prestige of a centuries-long tradition of naval victory which ultimately caused him to decide to decline battle. I liked that book a lot, I still have it on my shelf. There are a lot of factual errors as I recall and he REALLY likes to extrapolate what-ifs (did you hear THAT, MH thread!!?!) but he writes really well and especially the early stuff is great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
Yeah sherbets etc have been around forever but anything connecting Marco Polo to bringing food such as pasta back from the east is reckoned to be apocryphal nowadays. Not impossible but e.g pasta like products have been known in Italy for ages before the polo expeditions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I liked that book a lot, I still have it on my shelf. There are a lot of factual errors as I recall and he REALLY likes to extrapolate what-ifs (did you hear THAT, MH thread!!?!) but he writes really well and especially the early stuff is great. Yeah, whatever the accuracy of his statements or conclusions I remember it was a really fun read. Still, declaring that Jutland turned out the way it did because Scheer saw that his sea-boner was smaller than Jellicoe's is fun for entirely different reasons. (It might be asking a bit much, but if you have the book on hand you wouldn't happen to be willing to find the relevant passage in the book, would you?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
I'm out of town until tomorrow but I can look when I get back. re Scheer, if I remember right he was more saying that Scheer had kind of a 50/50 choice to make (engage, or not) and that the historical outcomes of those who challenged the RN in pitched battles tended not to favor the RN's opponents. Which is fairly true, but I kind of doubt that's what was really on Scheer's mind (more likely it was the 15" guns) bewbies fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
If you need to explain the basics of strategic bombing to someone, I did a thing with the help of Walt Disney.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
bewbies posted:I'm out of town until tomorrow but I can look when I get back. Also, you know, the Grand Fleet arrayed in perfect position to smash the HSF division by division as it tried to deploy into battle line. Other things Jellicoe just doesn't get enough credit for: even with Beatty totally failing in his role he still reasons out the correct decisions to take to bring the HSF to battle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:27
|
|
