Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »

bewbies: Sep 23, 2003; Fun Shoe

Raenir Salazar posted:

Can anyone do me a favour and link me the effort post on WWII aircombat and how it was a constant battle of compromises and the "energy bank"?

Were you thinking of this vintage post?

bewbies posted:

I�ll try and keep this as un-spergy as I can. I will probably fail, but oh well. We�re all nerds here.

For reference I�m going to limit this to WWII talk, but a lot of the same principles and concepts hold true from WWI to the present day.

As you alluded to, all fighter combat (especially in WWII) essentially revolves around energy management. Think of the plane as a bank. The engine is like energy income, constantly putting more energy into the bank as it works against gravity. Maneuvering is like spending, as maneuvering depletes energy by increasing the gravity working on the airframe. For WWII era planes, the engine was not terribly efficient by modern standards, so it took quite a while to build up energy through what is usually called �sustained climb� (the speed at which a plane can ascend using no stored kinetic energy). In a dogfight, the pilot who can maintain/manage his energy more efficiently will be able to maneuver more and thus can position himself better. Likewise, the better a plane could produce and hold energy, the more effective it was going to be.

Like with any performance-oriented thing, planes were ultimately a series of compromises. For instance, if you wanted a plane that was more maneuverable you could increase the chord of thickness of the wing, but in doing so you would make the plane slower. You could increase the power by putting in a larger engine, but in doing so you might increase the frontal area and thus create more drag. You could increase the amount of armor, but that would decrease climb, acceleration, etc. The best planes of the era were ones that had no serious weaknesses while at the same time having one or two things that they excelled at.

In a very general sense, these are the major performance parameters for fighter aircraft:

Speed in level flight. Speed was little more than an equation between engine power and drag. Speed was important in that it allowed pilots to engage and disengage at their discretion, as well as allowing them to chase down opponents. It seems pretty straightforward, but it was actually a really complex thing to figure out. Planes� published top speeds were rarely achieved in practice and top speeds varied wildly based on altitude and other factors. For example, the Ki-84�s typical published top speed was around 80 km/h slower than the high end Allied fighters of the period, but at typical combat altitudes the Ki was as fast or faster than the P-51/47.

Rate of climb. The powered climb was a very important performance consideration. It was largely a function of power/weight ratio, plus some aerodynamic things. Much like speed, having a plane which could out-climb its opponents allowed pilots to engage/disengage at their leisure. It allowed for more effective interception and it allowed pilots to regain lost energy more quickly. The Bf-109 was generally the premier prop climber of the war (it was the best in 1939 and probably still the best, in a later variant, in 1945), and this fit in very well with how the elite German aces preferred to fight: stalking the opponent from above.

Zoom climb/energy retention. As opposed to powered climb, a zoom climb was a climb that utilized kinetic energy gained from a dive. It was a function of aerodynamic efficiency: the heavier and more streamlined a plane was the further it could zoom, just like any ballistic object. It was used when planes dove down on an opponent for an attack, then turned back up to return to altitude. The P-51 probably had the best zoom climb of the war; it was a big plane that was extraordinarily aerodynamically efficient, so it was very slow to bleed energy in a zoom. The P-47 and Corsair were similar. Planes like the Zero and the 109, which were lighter and less well streamlined tended to have relatively poor zooms.

Acceleration. This is both in level flight and in a dive. It was primarily a function of power/weight ratio, but aerodynamics played a role as well. Acceleration was important as a means of creating distance between you and an opponent, it allowed pilots to recover lost energy quickly and to maneuver more aggressively at slow speeds. The Bf-109 and the Yak-3 were regarded as very quick fighters; the big American fighters like the P-47 and P-38 were not. Dive acceleration was a somewhat different issue; it was really a function of weight (or more precisely ballistic coefficient) more than anything. Being able to dive quickly allowed pilots to escape or catch opponents in a dive. The other major factor with dives was �never exceed� speed: some planes were able to dive to near the sound barrier, others could barely exceed 400mph. The P-47 was the king diver of the war for obvious reasons, the Zero was comparatively weak.

Maneuverability. This is simply how responsive a plane was to control inputs. It was important in all 3 axes. Roll (axial movement) was critical in evasive maneuvers and was a very, very complex aerodynamic function. The F4U, Fw-190, and at high speeds the P-47 were regarded as the best rolling aircraft. Turning on both axes was the other main maneuverability concern, particularly the �flat turn�. This meant simply turning in a circle on the horizontal axis, and it was the single most common move in a dogfight. �Turning tight� meant that you could get inside of your opponent�s turn and eventually get your guns on him. This maneuver bled a great deal of energy however, and so planes which adopted this tactic had to rely on the quickness of maneuver instead of retaining energy. It was largely a function of wing loading and by proxy weight; lighter planes could turn more tightly without stalling. The other main concern was the integrity of the airframe: the 109E, for instance, could probably out-turn a Spitfire, but pilots were hesitant to push it to its limit due to the weak wings and tail. The Zero was the king of this maneuver; all Japanese and Italian planes were supremely maneuverable. The later Soviet fighters (Yak-3 and La-5/7) were also extremely maneuverable.

Armament. Armaments were pretty similar between nations throughout the war. Most planes began the war with either rifle-caliber or heavy machine guns, usually between 2 and 8 depending on the plane type. A few planes had heavy (15mm+) autocannons. These armaments were extremely effective against early fighters, but were less effective against armored opponents and bombers. For example, Spitfires and Hurricanes armed with 8x.30 machine guns could dump their entire magazine into bombers and not bring them down. However, against a 109 it was like a giant shotgun: very effective at short ranges. American fighters were generally armed with 6 to 8 heavy machine guns, which were obviously more effective than their light counterparts but still not as effective as a heavy cannon. 6x.50 (the M2, same as we used today) was the standard USAAF armament on nearly every plane until late in the war. Russians preferred lighter armaments (usually one cannon and two machine guns). Eventually everyone figured out that high-velocity, high ROF autocannons in the 20mm class firing explosive shells was the most effective weapon. 2 to 4 20mm was a pretty standard late-war loadout, and it was very effective against all targets. 20-23mm remains the most common caliber of gun on fighters today.

Armor and protection. There was a constant battle between weight and protection. Designers could heavily armor the pilot and engine, but doing so cost hundreds or thousands of pounds and so could offset or even worsen the protective effects of the armor. As planes got bigger and more powerful they naturally could carry more armor, and so planes got much tougher as the war went on. Another issue was self-sealing fuel tanks. These tanks had a layer of rubber that melted when contacted with fuel and thus closed off any fuel leaks, which was a marvelous feature but one which also added a great deal of weight. The F6F Hellcat, the P-47, the P-40, and Hawker Tempest were some of the planes regarded as the toughest.

Range. How far or for how long the plane could fly. Pretty simple. The P-51, the P-38 and the Zero were the best of the lot, the 109 and the Yaks were weak.v

So, with those in mind we can start to see how aerial tactics evolved during the war. Each plane had its individual strengths and weaknesses; pilots worked to use their strengths to exploit the weaknesses of their opponents. I thought a good way to discuss this would be to post some examples of the tactics adopted by each side during some select situations.

Bf-109E vs Spitfire I, Battle of Britain, 1940. The Bf-109 could out climb, out dive, out-roll, out accelerate, and fly higher than the Spitfire, but not by much in any category. It could also probably out-turn the Spit, but since it had structural issues pilots generally didn�t try to test this. The Spitfire was marginally faster at some altitudes, had superior visibility, and in fighter-to-fighter combat it outgunned the 109. Combat between the two was generally very evenly matched. 109s would typically bounce the lower flying Spitfires, which would then turn hard to evade the 109s; the 109s couldn�t follow the turn lest they lose a tail. The 109s would then try and maintain an energy advantage against the Spitfires� turn. Eventually the 109 would dive away and disengage, but Spitfires soon learned that 109 pilots pulling out of dives did so very timidly, so the Spitfire could sometimes catch the 109 at the bottom of dives. The 109 had one other advantage: fuel injection. It could pull negative Gs, the Spitfire could not. 109 pilots were very fond of quick dives that caused the Sptifire�s engine to stall due to a lack of fuel. In general these engagements were very short as the 109s had minimal fuel with which to stay and fight. As such, the Spitfires usually held the sky at the end of the engagements.

Fw-190A3/4 vs Spitfire V and IX, Channel battle, 1941-42. When the 190 hit the scene in the summer of 1941 it scared the crap out of the RAF. It was superior to the Spitfire V in more or less every way except for the flat turn. The 190s could do as they pleased, engaging and disengaging at will. All the Spits could do was dodge the 190�s passes and hope to draw them into a knife fight. The British rushed a more powerful engine into the Spitfire and came out with the IX model, which restored some parity with the 190. The IX was about as fast as the 190 (faster at altitude), could out-climb it and out-turn it. The 190 could out dive and outroll the Spitfire, outgunned it by a fair margin, and was tougher. The fight that developed was one where the 190s would usually have the initial advantage thanks to their dive speed, but they would gradually lose energy to the Spit, which thanks to its greater speed and acceleration could now force the 190 to maneuver a bit. Once the speeds got a bit lower the Spitfire was in its element in the flat turn; the 190 would do well to disengage through a dive.

A6M2/3 vs F4F and F6F, Pacific, 1942-43. The Zero was an absolute world-beater in 1940. Its range, maneuverability, climb and armament were impressive even by late-war standards. (Alternate history discussion: if the Luftwaffe�d had a wing or two of Zeros in the Battle of Britain, they would have beaten the RAF decisively.) The F4F was a relatively primitive plane with very mediocre performance by European standards, but it was a serviceable carrier fighter, plus it was all the USN had. It could out-dive the Zero, plus it had a healthy gun loadout and plenty of armor. The Zero was superior in more or less every other way. The Wildcat pilots figured out very quickly that mutual support and minimal aggression were the best ways to survive; they basically either flew in circles or in weaves (the �Thach Weave� is the most common example) to protect each other and try and survive until the Zeros lost interest. The F6F was a pretty similar design to the F4F, just with a more efficient airframe and a much bigger engine. It was faster than the Zero, held energy better, outclimbed it sometimes, and maintained the diving and armor/armament advantage of the F4F. Now, USN pilots could engage at their discretion. They could come close to maneuvering with the Zero, and in large-scale combats the Zeros suffered badly due to their light construction; a Zero needed several seconds of fire to down a Hellcat, but a Hellcat needed only a short burst to knock down a Zero. Interestingly enough the Hellcat was a pretty mediocre performer compared to some of the land-based planes being flown in the ETO (the 190A7/8, Spitfire XIV, P-51) and compared to its USN counterpart (the Corsair), but it was pretty much ideal as a Zero killer.

P-51D vs. Bf-109G14/K and Fw-190D, Germany, 1944. These were really the two A-teams of high performance high altitude fighters. The P-51s were charged with hunting down Luftwaffe fighters who were coming after the giant bomber formations. The 109s were generally charged with occupying the P-51s while the 190s went after the bombers. The 109s could out-climb, out accelerate and were faster at most altitudes than the P-51; the P-51 retained energy extremely well, could outturn and outdive the 109. Of particular use was the fast dive; the 109 handled very poorly at very high speeds, so the P-51s could dive away with relative ease. These fights were usually initiated by the P-51s, who would bounce the 109s and attack from above. They�d then use their excellent zoom climb to haul back up to an advantageous position above the 109s, who were still climbing at power. Eventually the 109s would catch the P-51s, at which point they were more or less an even match. The P-51s would get position by turning, the 109s could climb away and reengage.

Yak-3 vs. Fw-190A8/Bf-109K, Poland, 1944. The Yak-3 was probably the best all-around dogfighter of the war. It was as fast as any aircraft in the world at low level, was arguably the best climbing aircraft of the war, and generally had sterling maneuverability in all situations. The 190 and 109 were older designs by this point, and though they were still effective they were pretty immediately outclassed by the Yak-3 when it appeared. The best German pilots continued to rely largely on stalking tactics which were effective against anything, but inexperienced German pilots who engaged the Yaks had a very difficult time of it. The Fw-190s only real advantage was in armament, so pilots typically tried to force head-to-head passes with the lightly armed Yak. The 109K was faster and could out-climb the Yak in certain situations so it wasn�t as outmatched, but it was still in serious trouble if a pilot let his energy level get too low relative to the Yak. Eventually the Germans had enough of the Yak so a general order was issued to avoid them if at all possible.

Of course there is a lot more to be said on all of this but I�m about done typing for now.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 15:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 04:58

xthetenth: Dec 30, 2012; Mario wasn't sure if this Jeb guy was a good influence on Yoshi.

Wow today is a good day for posting in this thread.

BattleMoose posted:

Thatch Weave:
At the beginning of the war, the wildcat was totally and completely outclassed by the zero in terms of manoeuvrability. If a wildcat would try to dogfight against a half competent zero pilot, they would lose. The was the "energy doctrine" too, which was to dive into the combat, take a few shots, leg it and repeat.

The thatch weave was developed to try and limit the manoeuvrability advantage of the zero. Basically the idea is that the zero *will* get onto one of the planes tails, in so far as how manoeuvrable the zero was, the was an unavoidable outcome. What the the thatch weave allowed for, was that once the zero was on one of the planes tails, it would also be in the gun sights of the other plane involved in the weave. Hardly an ideal scenario but it seemed to work until the US got the hellcat.

Jobbo touched on these considerations before but there's a few really important bits of context for the weave that are non-obvious and were definitely weighing on Thach's mind. It was developed in the aftermath of Coral Sea.

In that battle, the US lucked out and their torp bombers didn't get much enemy attention, but their dive bombers definitely did, and it became clear to the guys there that fighters needed to be right on hand to their bombers, something like 3k feet above worked well (the other, incredibly wrong lesson that got learned was that the dive bombers would get the most attention so the escort should focus on them, which is how Hornet's fighters wound up circling high over the target while their torpedo bombers died as part of the single worst deck strike of the war).

The next was the action defending the carriers from the Japanese strike. The first fighters went out high with the idea that they could always dive on the torp bombers. This didn't work, they couldn't get visual contact, and defense against the torp bombers fell to whatever fighters were just launching and the SBDs that had been put up to supplement the CAP (US carriers up through Coral were very constrained in fighter capacity, with about eighteen fighters, which isn't enough when you understand that due to scheduling and resupply constraints, they had to be split between strike and CAP duties, and in both cases had to deal with multiple strike squadrons at different levels, so Sherman (iirc) on the Yorktown had come up with the idea of refueling the dive bombers coming back from scouting duty and using them to help attack torp bombers). The first fighters had an okay time of it, since they had decent energy, but especially the later guys had an awful time of it, either trying to climb to intercept or fighting at low level without energy advantage to make repeated passes, and they wound up having their wing pairs break up under the strain of repeated attack and trying just to survive, while the Japanese did a great job of working in concert (they trained really hard at that). That did however do a decent job of neutralizing the fighters and some Japanese squadrons got beat up pretty badly.

Finally was a half solution to one problem by the introduction of another. The F4F-4 was just starting to come out, and Thach was not a happy camper about it. The F4F-3 and 3A they'd been using had fixed wings and four guns with deep reserves of ammo. The 4 introduced folding wings, and at the request of the British changed the four guns to six. The plane carried less ammo total as well as using it faster, and even then was much heavier. That hurt performance, especially climb. However that let them go to nearly 30 fighters in a squadron so it was probably worth it (that's why later versions like the FM-2 go back to 4 guns incidentally, the -4 got ripped on hardcore by the USN pilots).

So adding it all up:
Bombers, including torpedo bombers, need escort nearby, and CAP flights need interceptors at bomber level, as well as the fighter they have climbing slowly enough hasty launches might not be able to attack from their chosen altitude. That means engagements with zeroes in an unfavorable energy state where the zeroes can fight with their strengths. One fighter didn't have a great chance, even with turning into attacks to give a nasty high deflection shot, although that had been helpful. That meant a formation that would be resilient under attack even when attacked from above. The weave neatly solved all those problems, it didn't require an altitude advantage and because it was flown with a constant eye on the other guy it would hold together under stress.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 16:06

MrMojok: Jan 28, 2011

Jobbo_Fett posted:

And then you have close air support aircraft that had their own formation when near/over their target. I forget if it has a specific name, but the example I remember involved a flight of 4 Bf-110s. Now, imagine them flying in a horizontal circle at the 12, 3, 6, and 9 positions. Each plane would fly in a (counter)clockwise manner and circle their target. One plane would break off and commence an attack run against its target and then egress to a safe distance before returning in the circle, repeat until out of ammo, target destroyer, enemy aircraft, etc. The formation allowed them to mutually support eachother and present themselves as a constant threat to any forces below. Shooting at the incoming plane means the other(s) may attack you, not shooting lets them attack freely, what if two aircraft attack at the same time, etc.

Lufberry!

# ? Jul 26, 2016 16:20

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

MrMojok posted:

Lufberry!

That's a different thing. The term I've heard for that CAS circle of death is just "circle of death".

# ? Jul 26, 2016 16:54

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

I just finished reading The Mint by TE Lawrence.

That last loving line hits you hard when you know what happened to him :smith:

. The dude just found happiness at last.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 16:57

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

But was something similar to the Thatch Weave used in Europe? If you were in an American or British formation and the Germans were chasing you what did you do to protect the Boss? Did you break off and slow turn or break off and tried to turn around to intercept?

e: Basically I'm not sure what it means to provide "cover" beyond warning of "Hey there's a guy behind us, check 6!"

bewbies posted:

Were you thinking of this vintage post?

Exactly! Thanks!

Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 26, 2016

# ? Jul 26, 2016 17:29

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Those that didn't use it originally used a formation called "The Vic" or "V" formation. The downside to this was that you had one lead plane and 2 wingmen, which limited its tactical capabilities as the flight didn't have the same amount of protection.

Is this what the British used? I am immediately reminded of the stupid trench run scene in Star Wars, and I know most of the space battle choreography was ripped off from British WWII films. It always infuriates me that the wingmen don't actually bother to do anything, they sit there waiting to die.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 18:01

Kemper Boyd: Aug 6, 2007; no kings, no gods, no masters but a comfy chair and no socks

Since we talked earlier about Lindybeige being bad, here, have some more bad because The War Nerd talks about the 30YW in this post: https://pando.com/2014/08/24/the-war-nerd-today-is-the-200th-anniversary-of-the-wimpy-so-called-burning-of-washington/

# ? Jul 26, 2016 18:04

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

darthbob88 posted:

That's a different thing. The term I've heard for that CAS circle of death is just "circle of death".

I've also come across the Western allies referring to CAS circular holding patterns as taxi ranks in the ETO.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 18:05

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Kemper Boyd posted:

Since we talked earlier about Lindybeige being bad, here, have some more bad because The War Nerd talks about the 30YW in this post: https://pando.com/2014/08/24/the-war-nerd-today-is-the-200th-anniversary-of-the-wimpy-so-called-burning-of-washington/

i'm not going to click on that because i am squeamish and vulnerable to open displays of dumb, plz summarize for me

# ? Jul 26, 2016 18:06

bewbies: Sep 23, 2003; Fun Shoe

PittTheElder posted:

Is this what the British used? I am immediately reminded of the stupid trench run scene in Star Wars, and I know most of the space battle choreography was ripped off from British WWII films. It always infuriates me that the wingmen don't actually bother to do anything, they sit there waiting to die.

Early on in the war the RAF was still flying Vs, which, no poo poo, was based mostly around airshow flying. Like, they were so concerned with looking good at airshows they didn't really let the doctrine evolve. The Luftwaffe used the same approach early in the 30s, but they kind of accidentally figured out the finger four in Spain and it was a huge advantage early on in the air war. Elements of 3 didn't work well at all....it was fundamentally unstable, each pilot tended to go off chasing his own targets and all manner of chaos reigned. Pairs were a lot easier to do, spread formations of 4 aircraft were harder to spot, harder to attack, etc etc.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 18:19

Chillyrabbit: Oct 24, 2012; The only sword wielding rabbit on the internet; Ultra Carp

HEY GAL posted:

i'm not going to click on that because i am squeamish and vulnerable to open displays of dumb, plz summarize for me

30 YW hater posted:

The Swedes annihilated the entire population of some German regions. By consensus accounts, they destroyed something like 1500 towns, and the notion of sparing the civilian population of those places didn�t even enter their Abba-singing blond heads. It was SOP to kill everybody in the town, rape every woman and girl in the place, steal everything worth taking, and burn every building, be it ever so humble, to ashes. And it wasn�t any sudden attack of conscience that made the Swedes turn peacenik, it was Peter the Great teaching them what happened when you tried to attack the Russians on their own turf.

Apparently only Swedish troops committed the bog standard "war crimes" of the era by killing the people that you steal food from, and burning down their own winter quarters.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 18:26

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Chillyrabbit posted:

Apparently only Swedish troops committed the bog standard "war crimes" of the era

well it's a change from "only Imperialist troops committed the bog standard war crimes of the era," at least

edit: sop? unless you're deliberately making an example of a recalcitrant area (this is what Holck did for Wallenstein, and it's why his cav has such a terrible reputation) that's the last thing your commanders want you to do.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jul 26, 2016

# ? Jul 26, 2016 18:33

Kemper Boyd: Aug 6, 2007; no kings, no gods, no masters but a comfy chair and no socks

HEY GAL posted:

well it's a change from "only Imperialist troops committed the bog standard war crimes of the era," at least

It also goes "and they only did this to non-Protestants." Someone should ask Saxony and Brandenburg about how cool & ownage it is to have a Swedish army trampin' across your lands.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 18:36

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Kemper Boyd posted:

It also goes "and they only did this to non-Protestants." Someone should ask Saxony and Brandenburg about how cool & ownage it is to have a Swedish army trampin' across your lands.

it's incredibly rad to be a Bohemian/southern German Catholic when the nearest available Imperial/Bavarian/Spanish army swings by too, lemme tell ya

edit: i wonder how he can tell that everyone working for the swedes was a protestant :allears:

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 26, 2016

# ? Jul 26, 2016 18:38

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

HEY GAL posted:

In general, it's like..."if people think well of you," but there are also certain places in life that are honorable by definition (soldiers, guilds) or dishonorable by definition (executioners, shepherds, tanners). How that works out is different for different sexes, different Staende, and different stages of life: an honorable woman, unless she is a farmhand or working-class woman and it's 19th century germany, must be chaste (see The Village In Court for more of this--what I'm translating as farmhand is the level below the peasants--these people don't have their own property, they do agricultural work for peasants. For a woman from that group to be honorable and valued she has to be a strong worker and a reliable companion, nobody cares about her bastard kids if she's got any). Soldiers don't have to be chaste (lol), but journeymen and full guild members should. But apprentices don't have to; in fact, it's fine and good for them to visit official city brothels.

What I find really interesting is all the memes floating around Facebook about how people would be less "offended" all the time if dueling was brought back. Which is getting it exactly backwards.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:06

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Chillyrabbit posted:

Apparently only Swedish troops committed the bog standard "war crimes" of the era by killing the people that you steal food from, and burning down their own winter quarters.

also in re the peter the great comment, the Northern Wars had way less atrocities, including the earliest one, which had a bunch of 30yw veterans in the common soldiers and the officers (montecuccoli was in it, but he shows up everyfuckingwhere). turns out all you have to do is feed your troops regularly and actually pay them and this poo poo goes way down

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jul 26, 2016

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:09

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Armyman25 posted:

What I find really interesting is all the memes floating around Facebook about how people would be less "offended" all the time if dueling was brought back. Which is getting it exactly backwards.

on the same note, consider that we have just as much opportunity to sue that these guys do, but we don't sue people for dishonoring us as often as they did.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:13

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

HEY GAL posted:

on the same note, consider that we have just as much opportunity to sue that these guys do, but we don't sue people for dishonoring us as often as they did.

That thing about perceived insult resulting in direct violence reminds me of some people I've known. Most of them are ex-boxers or some other kind of athlete, a few are punk rockers, and one is low level associated with some gang. They were all ready to go at the slightest hint of an insult. Most of 'em did time as a result, but it seems like those guys would blend happily into one of your regiments.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:17

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Grand Prize Winner posted:

That thing about perceived insult resulting in direct violence reminds me of some people I've known. Most of them are ex-boxers or some other kind of athlete, a few are punk rockers, and one is low level associated with some gang. They were all ready to go at the slightest hint of an insult. Most of 'em did time as a result, but it seems like those guys would blend happily into one of your regiments.

far more happily than we would, not just because we'd disapprove of them morally but also because they'd disapprove of us. if you let all that poo poo go unanswered, it might mean it's all true. you can't trust a guy like that.

edit: you don't have to threaten to hurt people though, you can just sue 'em and spend all your time in court. schutze and steter got into one fight on their way back from court to settle a previous fight :v:

so the 21st century transplant to one of my regiments could keep honor intact without having to murder his comrades.

edit 2: those dudes might end up doing time at the Provost's or something--just because these guys fight one another all the time doesn't mean the officers have to like it, it's a huge hassle when their soldiers kill one another instead of whoever it is they're payed to kill

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 26, 2016

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:20

Kemper Boyd: Aug 6, 2007; no kings, no gods, no masters but a comfy chair and no socks

HEY GAL posted:

on the same note, consider that we have just as much opportunity to sue that these guys do, but we don't sue people for dishonoring us as often as they did.

A friend who's a lawyer said that in these days, only whores and maniacs sue people for slander.

Btw, the Great Northern War actually had a bunch of war crimes committed by the Swedes, mostly in Russia because they were shaking down the Russian population for any food that hadn't been either set ablaze or evacuated by Peter the Great's forces. The War Nerd's view is also wrong because up until the learly 19th century, Sweden kept acting like it's a great power and starting several wars with Russia that didn't really work out. Sweden didn't stop acting like a great power before they lost Finland to Russia.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:20

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Kemper Boyd posted:

Sweden didn't stop acting like a great power before they lost Finland to Russia.

It's fortunate that they didn't participate in the Crimean War, things could have turned really awkward for everyone.

Well, apart from them taking �land when offered, that could have made some things less awkward later on.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:30

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

Armyman25 posted:

What I find really interesting is all the memes floating around Facebook about how people would be less "offended" all the time if dueling was brought back. Which is getting it exactly backwards.

Fun fact, if this ever happens I have plans to be a sort of 'second for hire'. I'll even provide the pistol and shot, bring your own sword though!

Nenonen posted:

It's fortunate that they didn't participate in the Crimean War, things could have turned really awkward for everyone.

Now I am wondering how bad the 1840's Swedish army was compared to the British.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:39

Grenrow: Apr 11, 2016

Armyman25 posted:

What I find really interesting is all the memes floating around Facebook about how people would be less "offended" all the time if dueling was brought back. Which is getting it exactly backwards.

When I was doing 19th century British swordsmanship research, I found some articles in newspapers and magazines complaining about how no one dueled with swords any more and that fewer stabbings were contributing to the Moral Decline of the Youth. I love that people complaining about the kids these days haven't changed a bit since centuries. Now they use lovely jpgs on facebook instead of florid Victorian prose to whine, though.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:41

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Grenrow posted:

When I was doing 19th century British swordsmanship research, I found some articles in newspapers and magazines complaining about how no one dueled with swords any more and that fewer stabbings were contributing to the Moral Decline of the Youth. I love that people complaining about the kids these days haven't changed a bit since centuries. Now they use lovely jpgs on facebook instead of florid Victorian prose to whine, though.

this was actually a thing i was wondering about--19th century germans stab one another all the freaking time, members of the bourgeoisie and the army love duelling. (we think it's aristocratic and atavistic but in germany it's actually bourgeois and modern. weird.) austro-hungarian officers too. also civilians in italy and spain. french people got into duels over marie loving curie and this happened so late i posted youtubes of it in the fencing thread.

is england the outlier?

# ? Jul 26, 2016 20:52

Pontius Pilate: Jul 25, 2006; Crucify, Whale, Crucify

Grenrow posted:

When I was doing 19th century British swordsmanship research, I found some articles in newspapers and magazines complaining about how no one dueled with swords any more and that fewer stabbings were contributing to the Moral Decline of the Youth. I love that people complaining about the kids these days haven't changed a bit since centuries. Now they use lovely jpgs on facebook instead of florid Victorian prose to whine, though.

Only a matter of time until someone dies in a Pokemon Go related duel.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 21:12

Trin Tragula: Apr 22, 2005

Hey guys, the BBC are bringing back Time Commanders, a show in which people play Total War: Rome while a panel of ex-soldiers pretends to seriously analyse their performance for a comfortable appearance fee; hilariously fun entertainment for at least some of the family. (If you've never seen it, there are plenty of uploads available on a popular video-sharing website).

...Anyone want to apply with me?

# ? Jul 26, 2016 21:12

Sulphagnist: Oct 10, 2006; WARNING! INTRUDERS DETECTED

If I lived in Britain I'd be all over that. Time Commanders was the poo poo.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 21:16

Siivola: Dec 23, 2012

HEY GAL posted:

is england the outlier?

They kinda are, I think. By 19th century I'm fairly sure both they and 'Muricans had already transitioned to shooting each other � which conversely failed to catch on on the continent, right?

Siivola fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jul 26, 2016

# ? Jul 26, 2016 21:17

Grenrow: Apr 11, 2016

HEY GAL posted:

this was actually a thing i was wondering about--19th century germans stab one another all the freaking time, members of the bourgeoisie and the army love duelling. (we think it's aristocratic and atavistic but in germany it's actually bourgeois and modern. weird.) austro-hungarian officers too. also civilians in italy and spain. french people got into duels over marie loving curie and this happened so late i posted youtubes of it in the fencing thread.

is england the outlier?

I'm not 100% sure about dueling in England. These articles were from the really really late 19th century, like 1880s-1890s, so this is perhaps more reflective of the end of the century than the beginning. I think I've read before that the English generally dueled with pistols rather than the sword, which was more of a French/German/Italian thing? I read one officer's recollections of his education where he specifically mentioned that he learned to duel with broad-swords during his time at some German academy, and recommended that sort of experience for anyone being sent to India. I suppose he thought that broadsword combat was more applicable to fighting Indian swordsmen than the more-French influenced swordsmanship more commonly taught in England at the time.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 21:22

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

my friend, you need to google mensur fighting :getin:

# ? Jul 26, 2016 21:28

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Siivola posted:

They kinda are, I think. By 19th century I'm fairly sure both they and 'Muricans had already transitioned to shooting each other � which conversely failed to catch on on the continent, right?

some 19th c americans fight with big knives (some are almost shortsword sized) but i think we were pretty into shooting one another

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jul 26, 2016

# ? Jul 26, 2016 21:30

Grenrow: Apr 11, 2016

HEY GAL posted:

my friend, you need to google mensur fighting

Yeah, that's probably what he's talking about. It's funny, he mentions the dueling and his hunting rifle practice, but not a thing about any sort of technical military education. Some British officers were terrified at the idea of being sent to India and having to fight dudes with swords, but then you get a few who were really :black101:

about it.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 21:40

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

Trin Tragula posted:

Hey guys, the BBC are bringing back Time Commanders, a show in which people play Total War: Rome while a panel of ex-soldiers pretends to seriously analyse their performance for a comfortable appearance fee; hilariously fun entertainment for at least some of the family. (If you've never seen it, there are plenty of uploads available on a popular video-sharing website).

...Anyone want to apply with me?

Goddamn I hope they do a US version. Because I'd be all over that like flies on the naked corpse of a defeated mercenary.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 21:46

System Metternich: Feb 28, 2010; But what did he mean by that?

HEY GAL posted:

my friend, you need to google mensur fighting

That still exists, btw. More as a niche, uh, "hobby", and whoever's doing it is pretty much 100% guaranteed to be a Nazi, but it's still around

# ? Jul 26, 2016 22:01

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Trin Tragula posted:

Hey guys, the BBC are bringing back Time Commanders, a show in which people play Total War: Rome while a panel of ex-soldiers pretends to seriously analyse their performance for a comfortable appearance fee; hilariously fun entertainment for at least some of the family. (If you've never seen it, there are plenty of uploads available on a popular video-sharing website).

...Anyone want to apply with me?

Amazing, Time Commanders was the stupidest, most low rent TV ever dreamed up, I'm so glad it's back.

# ? Jul 26, 2016 22:09