|
Danann posted:I've actually found that the Admiral Hipper can apparently lose to a Somers-class destroyer in a gunfight at ~3km because apparently its superstructure has no armor. Are you talking about the battle between Admiral Hipper and HMS Glowworm here, because I can't find anything about any of the 5 Somers-Class Destroyers having a fight with Admiral Hipper?
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
RogueTM posted:Are you talking about the battle between Admiral Hipper and HMS Glowworm here, because I can't find anything about any of the 5 Somers-Class Destroyers having a fight with Admiral Hipper? It might be a typo on the destroyer type and he's relating something that happened in World of Warships.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:hey, this review calls it "playable," that's...something Based on the review, the earlier phases are available as stand alones, but the 369 month full campaign translates to 30 years 9 months. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:2. When Winston Churchill was First Sea Lord, did he insist people call him 'Sea Lord" like "Star Lord" in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie? Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. That's not the same thing as First Sea Lord. The First Lord was the civilian head of the Admiralty, the First Sea Lord was the professional head of the Admiralty. quote:3. Are there other Sea Lords lesser than the first one? Sea Lord of the Atlantic, etc. At the outbreak of the war there were four Sea Lords. They all had different bureaucratic responsibilities that I don't remember off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
You know when you've been a naval empire too long when you're top-heavy with Sea Lords.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I can move troops through other units, but it's slow and messy. This is the most terrifying theory I have heard in my now 17 years of Warhams fandom. That said, I always got an uber swole Jesus/Gilgamesh vibe from Sigmar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:can you move one formation "into" or "through" another in this game? Because that's why a tercio is a thing, the musketeers stand between the pikemen right before the cav gets there The modified Swedish wedge is what the Total War: Warhammer guys are calling a checkerboard, pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:1. Somebody mentioned a little while ago that Germany and Britain were 'spending themselves bankrupt' building their gigantic surface fleets. Are there any hard numbers as to how much naval construction was actually costing their respective economies? If you want the real, REAL hard numbers, Lord Brassey has you covered. That is some dense poo poo though. The book "Battleship Builders" has some good accessible charts and there is a decent preview up on Google books; take a look at page 235 for a nice overview of UK spending. Basically, if you take out the inflated years of the Boer War, annual defence spending was around 40% of the budget, and naval spending was around 50-60% of the defence budget in the runup years to the war. Numbers on new construction costs vary quite a bit year to year obviously but they seem to average around 30% of the annual naval budget, so somewhere between 6-8% of the annual budget was spent solely on new construction of warships. To compare it to the contemporary US, that'd be comparable to spending on housing, transportation, and education put together, or about a quarter trillion dollars. The largest procurement program in 2015 was, unsurprisingly, the F-35, which clocked in at a cool 11 billion. If I remember correctly Germany was spending a much, much larger proportion of her national budget on the military (I want to say it was north of 90%? ) but less proportionally on the navy until just prior to the outbreak of the war; that was still well behind what the UK was spending which really illustrates just how disgustingly rich and powerful late Imperial Britain was. All this had some interesting second and third order effects, especially in the UK. It represented a pretty big budgetary competition to social spending, which was a major platform piece for the Liberal Party that had become pretty powerful in the prewar years. It was hard to pay for the new social programs AND the battleships, so lots of new taxes were established. The population at large didn't like the big taxes being levied on the lower/middle classes, but they also wanted social programs AND battleships, and lots of them. So, the government really went after the rich old House of Lords types for the money, first in the form of the People's Budget, and then in the Parliament Act of 1911. In that way the Royal Navy really helped the progressive wing of British politics along, ironically enough. That said I know there are some posters here with a lot more knowledge on this stuff (particularly UK political history) so if I got anything wrong or if anyone has any further amplifying information please to post/correct me. bewbies fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
lenoon posted:You know when you've been a naval empire too long when you're top-heavy with Sea Lords. Out of curiosity, I did a quick search and this seems to be it: First Sea Lord: Chief of Staff, professional head of the Navy Second Sea Lord: personnel and training Third Sea Lord: Procurement, research & development, construction, and maintenance Fourth Sea Lord: logistics Fifth Sea Lord: naval aviation Nowadays, the Fourth and Fifth Sea Lord positions have been dissolved and the Third Sea Lord is now simply called the Chief Controller of the Navy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
bewbies posted:If you want the real, REAL hard numbers, Lord Brassey has you covered. That is some dense poo poo though. Broadly, yes, though bear in mind that turn-of-the-20th-century governments spent very little on social programmes or housing or education at all - that's what the Liberals were bringing in, the first attempt at a welfare state in Britain. The central government did a lot less things that weren't 'have a military', so having that percentage of revenue being spent on the military isn't as hair-raising as you might think. (This is also true if you look at spending by e.g. Early Modern governments, btw)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Out of curiosity, I did a quick search and this seems to be it: Imagine five Sea Lords on the edge of cliff in Dover. The third Sea Lord pushes the fourth and fifth Sea Lords off the cliff and assumes their roles. Time Lords work the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Imagine five Sea Lords on the edge of cliff in Dover. The third Sea Lord pushes the fourth and fifth Sea Lords off the cliff and assumes their roles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Imagine five Sea Lords on the edge of cliff in Dover. The third Sea Lord pushes the fourth and fifth Sea Lords off the cliff and assumes their roles. I wish this could be the new thread title. Mine's had a good run but this is a work of art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wish this could be the new thread title. Mine's had a good run but this is a work of art. I thought we were supposed to be having a new thread around 58 pages ago Nebakenezzer posted:World War 1 questions: An important note to this is that by the actual outbreak of WWI the Germans had all but admitted defeat in the naval arms race and were no longer attempting to match the UK in terms of ships, hence why they had to go for convoluted plans to take out small chunks of the Grand Fleet at a time until they could get the whole thing down to a manageable size.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
I'm trying to figuire out how to explain the different between a snaphance, a doglock and a flintlock in as few words as possible. All I can come up with really is the phrase 'a gradual decrease of complicated machined parts.'
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I'm trying to figuire out how to explain the different between a snaphance, a doglock and a flintlock in as few words as possible. Getting a bigger bang for the buck? (sorry)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wish this could be the new thread title. Mine's had a good run but this is a work of art. Ask About Military History: Five Sea Lords on the Edge of a Cliff
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
The Zumwalt Dock (yea yea not even a Royal Navy ship... shut up)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
This, Darling, is the Pangbourne Dock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Ask About Military History: Five Sea Lords on the Edge of a Cliff Close enough for the underwater burst to cause hydraulic shock damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Close enough for the underwater burst to cause hydraulic shock damage. I don't know about this "underwater hydromlic shack" but it sounds bladdy unsporting old chap  Now, back to blasting the hun off the decks of their ships with 14" shells, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Broadly, yes, though bear in mind that turn-of-the-20th-century governments spent very little on social programmes or housing or education at all - that's what the Liberals were bringing in, the first attempt at a welfare state in Britain. The central government did a lot less things that weren't 'have a military', so having that percentage of revenue being spent on the military isn't as hair-raising as you might think. Interesting. When it comes to military spending, I only understand it as a percentage of GDP, like in the Cold War. The US was spending 5% of its GDP on the military in the 1980s. It was suspected that the Soviets were spending more as a GDP percentage...and was confirmed by some economics experts who defected to Britain in the 1980s. The Soviet Econ people floored MI5 debriefers when they were all "the Soviet Union spends 50% of its GDP on military stuff, you guys seriously."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Interesting. When it comes to military spending, I only understand it as a percentage of GDP, like in the Cold War. The US was spending 5% of its GDP on the military in the 1980s. It was suspected that the Soviets were spending more as a GDP percentage...and was confirmed by some economics experts who defected to Britain in the 1980s. The Soviet Econ people floored MI5 debriefers when they were all "the Soviet Union spends 50% of its GDP on military stuff, you guys seriously." In terms of percentage of GDP you are talking similar figures to the USA, around 5-6% for the major combatants. Austria-Hungary was a outlier at around 2.5% due to the fact that Hungary could veto any raises in military spending, which they did. Regularly. Hence the Austro-Hungarian empire having no money at the outbreak of the war for things like artillery made in the current century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:OK, as long as the world avoids tipping sideways for a few weeks, we are now genuinely and honestly on course to be back up to date and day by day as of tomorrow. Time for the dash to the first day on the Somme... Was Mugge maybe being a bit Francophile? In French lunch is also "Diner".
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I don't know about this "underwater hydromlic shack" but it sounds bladdy unsporting old chap nah it's actually really cool, check out this motherfucker called a torpedo
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:In terms of percentage of GDP you are talking similar figures to the USA, around 5-6% for the major combatants. Austria-Hungary was a outlier at around 2.5% due to the fact that Hungary could veto any raises in military spending, which they did. Regularly. Hence the Austro-Hungarian empire having no money at the outbreak of the war for things like artillery made in the current century. I was just reading about this, and holy poo poo, bronze forged barrels in the 20th century? That's something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:nah it's actually really cool, check out this motherfucker called a torpedo Like the submarine, it's just one of your toys Jackie Fisher. Not a proper weapon of civilized war between gentlemen. Now if you'll excuse me I've got three ancient battleships to post to the Broad Fourteens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
(armored cruisers)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Is there a reason stirrups were not widespread for mounted combat thousands of years before they became standard?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Animal posted:Is there a reason stirrups were not widespread for mounted combat thousands of years before they became standard? Horses had only gotten big enough for people to ride on top of them relatively recently, and nobody had thought of stirrups yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I don't know about this "underwater hydromlic shack" but it sounds bladdy unsporting old chap Probably bally not bladdy, the latter sounds more Australian  And I was taught French lunch is dejeuner... feedmegin fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
100 Years Ago 9 June: Further developments on the Eastern Front; we may just have a general retreat on our hands. There's another in the endless series of Anglo-French conferences, this one in London; General Currie has a very clever and sneaky plan to retake Mont Sorrel; E.S. Thompson watches the aeroplanes flying; Emilio Lussu has a long and hilarious discussion about booze; and Robert Pelissier loses eleven of his friends to enemy shelling. 10 June: Alessandro Salandra, the man who did so much to get Italy involved in this shitshow of a war, has been comprehensively outflanked by General Cadorna. A vote of no confidence will soon follow and he'll be replaced with a non-entity. In the Middle East, the Arab Revolt gets underway to an uncertain start; the Greek government rolls over for the Entente; Commandant de Bugger bombs the Goetzen and its new wooden gun; Henri Desagneaux is ordered to Verdun; Oskar Teichman meets some Egyptian flamingos; Malcolm White tries to take his mind off the Big Push with some thoughts about after the war; we meet new correspondent Alan Bott, who will be giving us the perspective of an aeroplane observer (not a pilot, the guy who sits in the other seat); and Maximilian Mugge gives us some thoughts on linguistics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Huh. The Mugge who appears in your latest posts seems a lot different than that same Mugge I got glimpses of from checking out that book he wrote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Horses had only gotten big enough for people to ride on top of them relatively recently, and nobody had thought of stirrups yet. 'Reletively' in the galactic sense? The saddle had been invented a thousand years before the stirrup. And people had probably been riding bareback years before the first historical evidence of a saddle. Animal, your question is one many people share. No one can really figure it out. One can imagine a horseman scientist of the day puzzling how to support his heavy rear end in combat. "If only I could bring stairs with me as I ride!" It also might have been the supremacy of chariots in early 'mounted' combat delaying the invention. But that makes no sense because Europeans were nearly dead last in the 'stirrup' thing, and Europe's not a charioteering culture. One can imagine how early non-stirrup wearing riders reacted to the introduction. "Oh poo poo, really? More straps? And you just like, stand in them? How do you not get dragged to death when you fall off though? Oohh, you fall off way less with these. Yeah, that makes sense. Dang." Suspect Bucket fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Broadly, yes, though bear in mind that turn-of-the-20th-century governments spent very little on social programmes or housing or education at all Eh not really. Germany was guns ho on social programs under Bismarck. It was a really successful attempt to co opt the agendas of the social democrats to forestall real social change. As far as education goes it had been on the national governments radar in Prussia as far back as Frederick the great and a major reform issue on the post Napoleon shake up. France also had good public education at least by the 1880s = I want to say earlier but I don't know French educational history that well What you're talking about holds true for the US and Russia but those are both developing nations at that point. Even in the US it's VERY regional. Out west and in the south it's pretty dire but in the northeast and Midwest you have a pelretty ok network of public schools up through the end of primary education.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Eh not really. Germany was guns ho on social programs under Bismarck. It was a really successful attempt to co opt the agendas of the social democrats to forestall real social change. As far as education goes it had been on the national governments radar in Prussia as far back as Frederick the great and a major reform issue on the post Napoleon shake up. France also had good public education at least by the 1880s = I want to say earlier but I don't know French educational history that well Next thing you'll be telling us about how austerity affected the rise of the Nazis. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Next thing you'll be telling us about how austerity affected the rise of the Nazis. Read that as autisim.  edit: \/\/\/ Pellisworth posted:Fascism is militarized political autism Holy poo poo IT IS. That's amazing. Suspect Bucket fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
How do you think the trains ran on time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Fascism is militarized political autism
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:36 |
|
Woodchip posted:How do you think the trains ran on time? Somebody post a picture of those disturbingly detailed Nazi dream city models Hitler and Speer would play with for hours.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:41
|
|