|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm always amazed at the billshit about guns some soldiers will spout with an air of absolute confidence. Someone from the forces once told me that a 25mm round from a Bushmaster will kill someone from overpressure or some poo poo on a near miss, which doesn't seem right. Anyone c/d?
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:54
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Someone from the forces once told me that a 25mm round from a Bushmaster will kill someone from overpressure or some poo poo on a near miss, which doesn't seem right. Anyone c/d? That gentleman is talking crap, it's really really hard to create enough overpressure to do real damage outside of an enclosed space without using a large bomb. People don't die from grenade overpressure in open spaces but from fragmentation, and the explosive force of those is much more than the effect of a cannon round passing by, otherwise you'd see more ground effect along their flight path. Hell you don't see honest to God tank rounds doing much other than kicking up dust on a miss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
The Kawanishi H8K "Emily" Most of this will be based on R.J. Francillon's "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War," which is a very good source for just about every aircraft they had at the time. Checking the stats on the H8K2 (which the stats are provided for on Wikipedia's page), they differ only by the smallest of margins. Hopefully, I can cover all the different important factors in the H8K's design and implementation. Firstly, it came after the Short Sunderland (1937) and the PB2Y Coronado (1937), both of which are large, 4 engined flying boats whose purpose was maritime patrol, transport, and ASW duties. It should also be pointed out that flying boats weren't important for some countries, or at least not as important as Britain, the USA, and Japan. For example, Russia had several indigenous designs, but settled on using Lend Lease PBY Catalinas, whereas Germany had the monstrous BV-222 Viking and the less resource-intensive Do-16/Do-18. As a result, I'll try to keep comparisons to the two aforementioned aircraft: the Short Sunderland, and the PB2Y Coronado. Aircraft like the JRM Mars, the Short Shetland, and the BV-238 were either not produced in high numbers, still being tested, or still in the prototype stage. Alright, now that thats out of the way, let's begin with the fact that the H8K's design was a development from a request for an aircraft that could outperform the Short Sunderland, and the civilian Sikorsky XPBS-1 (AKA the VS-44). According to Francillon, the stipulations were for a plane that had a top speed of 276 mph, a cruising speed of 207 mph, and a max patrol range of 4,500 nautical miles. It would attain none of these (in its first variant, and only achieve 1 in the 'best' variant of the type) but that doesn't mean it was a failure. In fact, its one of the exceptions when it comes to Japanese aircraft where the designers thought that protecting the crew and having great safety features was a good idea rather than a waste of resources. To that end, the H8K had 14 individual fuel tanks - 8 unprotected tanks in the wings, 6 protected ones in the fuselage. The fuselage tanks had a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher system similar to the Yak-1 (or was it the Yak-9 and beyond?), with the tanks being partially self-sealing. In addition, the H8K had a system where leaking fuel (in the hull) could be pumped into the undamaged tank(s) thereby limiting the problem. Speaking of fuel, the H8K was designed to carry some 17,000 litres of fuel, roughly 30% of its take-off weight. Protection and defensive armament was also rather substantial, although the armor is only stated as being "extensively provided" which can't be a bad thing, at least. The prototype had 5 20mm cannons and 3 7.7mm machine guns, while the first production model would reduce the number of cannons, which were then brought back in subsequent versions. It could also carry 2 800kg torpedos (long lances), 8 250kg bombs, or 16 60kg bombs/depth charges. Compared to the Sunderland and Coronado, the H8K is the only aircraft to have cannons and either has a similar or worse bombload. For reference, the Sunderland would end the war with an average 18 machine guns (.303 or .50 cal), while the Coronado had 8 50.cal defensive guns.  The prototype version suffered from some handling and performance issues. Reports state that the high speed taxi-ing and take-off was "highly disappointing", but both of these were mostly remedied by modifying the shape of the hull of the aircraft, making it slightly deeper in the process. By the time it went into production, it carried four 1,530HP engines, and these were replaced by four 1,850HP engines in the H8K2 variant. By the time the H8K1 was authorized for serial production, it was already 1941. I want to point this out because 4 years is a huge(!) step up from the prewar designs and both of the comparative aircraft were using weaker engines. Because of the improvements vis-a-vis engine power thus allowing it to carry more fuel (now almost 19k litres!), the prototype's number of cannons (5), it gained a reputation as a hard to down plane. Interestingly, there were transport variants of the H8K, these being capable of carrying 29 passengers, or 64 soldiers, but this necessitated less defensive guns and a lowered amount of fuel carried. Boring Stats ahead! So, to go along with Wikipedia, since its a lot easier for people to check themselves (and because I haven't done any extensive readings of the Sunderland or the Coronado) let's compare the stats between the three planes. code:code:code: In any case, its clear to see that the Kawanishi H8K flew faster, higher, and for longer than either aircraft. All while having similar defensive armament and having similar, or 'slightly' less offensive power. It does have the benefit of having been in production later, and specifically to beat the Sunderland, which it does quite well. Its undoubtedly a great aircraft, and one of the examples of Japanese design that could be very good but, for every good design produced, they had others with shortcuts and limitations. Fake edit: Forgot code doesn't all bbcode, whatever. Its late, I might add photos tomorrow. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I PM'd you on this, to end the derail I agree. I've taken classes from Albert White Hat and he didn't know the etymologies of some words, particularly relating to cosmology, mythology, and religion. He would say "the elders told me its name was X, which I think is a contraction of Y." Please don't. I know this isn't really directly related to milhist but it's really interesting and I kinda doubt a Lakota linguistics a/t would survive for long. Unless you were able to make it a general culture/ethnography thing... Pellisworth posted:America is a couple centuries behind Europe on realizing the magical properties of human fat. We're catching up, though! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9oUhZvCC18 Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:That gentleman is talking crap, it's really really hard to create enough overpressure to do real damage outside of an enclosed space without using a large bomb. People don't die from grenade overpressure in open spaces but from fragmentation, and the explosive force of those is much more than the effect of a cannon round passing by, otherwise you'd see more ground effect along their flight path. Hell you don't see honest to God tank rounds doing much other than kicking up dust on a miss. Could the overpressure be enough to throw off someone's balance? Cause him to fall down instead of a planned "hit the dirt" dive response? That could result in a lot of false kills.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Yeah, keep the Lakota chat in the thread, we're all really just history nerds with overlapping niche interests, so go for it! I've got another between the wars Labour foreign policy post to do - but should I copy the previous one over here? I think it ended up on the last page.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Could the overpressure be enough to throw off someone's balance? Cause him to fall down instead of a planned "hit the dirt" dive response? That could result in a lot of false kills. Doubtful, since again you're not creating enough of a pressure difference by missing with a projectile. You might react instinctively by going to ground because you heard (or saw) a projectile coming your way /passing you by, but you're not getting dizzy or knocked off your feet by a miss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Yeah, keep the Lakota chat in the thread, we're all really just history nerds with overlapping niche interests, so go for it! Always yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:That gentleman is talking crap, it's really really hard to create enough overpressure to do real damage outside of an enclosed space without using a large bomb. People don't die from grenade overpressure in open spaces but from fragmentation, and the explosive force of those is much more than the effect of a cannon round passing by, otherwise you'd see more ground effect along their flight path. Hell you don't see honest to God tank rounds doing much other than kicking up dust on a miss. The muzzle blast of any large gun, like those on main battle tanks, however will gently caress you up. Other than that, I'm sure that soldiers still believe in black magic, there's no other explanation to +5 HMG of Near Miss Death and such crap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
lenoon posted:
It's probably a good idea. I'm just one goon but I missed a lot from the last couple pages and it wouldn't hurt to have it repeated. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
Ok, I'll pop them in here while I try and Labour Party Foreign affairs, 1924-31 I don't know much about the 1919-1939 situation with British foreign affairs, except those brief, messy periods of the first, second and (kind-of) third Labour governments, 1924, 1929-31 and the ill-fated "National Labour" of 31-35. I guess, really, that covers a good whack of the period, thinking about it. It's one that defies easy explanation, and also one with remarkably few concrete statements of intent on foreign policy. There's a certain sense of paralysis on foreign affairs that characterises the actions taken by Labour governments at the time, and one that i'd put down to: War weariness - still incredibly massive in Britain right up until 1939 A significant block of highly regarded pacifists (not "normal" COs in the early years, but men like Philip Snowden and George Lansbury, who had led the anti-war Union of Democratic Control during ww1, and older COs like Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, conscripted at the age of 47 in 1918) Inexperience - the Labour Party had gone from a vocal minority to an almost-majority in the space of six years (50-odd seats in 1918, 142 in 1922, 191 in 1923) and it's MPs were a mix of old liberals, socialist organisers, union men and political thinkers - with little foreign policy experience Turbulent politics. Not a single one of the Labour governments commanded an absolute majority in the House - they could be (and were) defeated by coalitions - and in 1924 didn't even have a majority in any sense. They concentrated on domestic issues and fought against the Tories. Emerging consensus politics among Labour MPs - this is still the age when actual real-life communists are elected to the House as Labour MPs, and they're sharing with socialists, democratic socialists, liberals and members of the landed gentry, all within the same party. A lot of this period is about where Labour will go - a party to govern, or, as it was, a parliamentary means of achieving a decidedly non-parliamentary aim. There's other issues as well - and the 1931-35 is such a clusterfuck of coalition politics that it's hard to unpick why any of it happened, but if you think that 1924 can be characterised by ideals expressed through inexperience, you won't be far wrong. Part One: 1924 Stanley Baldwin is the Prime Minister, but he's looking for a mandate to introduce massive tariffs and generally float a protectionist economic plan, all very much part of the Tories stated desire to move away from the vague Liberal consensus that had prevailed since Asquith took power. He feels he needs to call another election and no doubt win a massive victory. He fails to do so, and December 1923 returns a hung parliament, that the wily old Asquith decides to hand to Labour - both as a punishment to the Tories for rejecting free trade, but also in the hope that Labour become so incompetent that the Liberals are returned to their former glory as the second (or first) party (it backfires in the long term, and the Liberals begin their slow slide into political irrelevance, as always happens when they try something clever - see our recent coalition for details). The government will last less than a year, but in that time they blitz domestic policy and do well on the world stage - Conservative historians will say their most notable achievements are abroad, but anyone who believes things like "people should have houses" and "the rich should pay more tax than the poor" tends to think otherwise. So Labour are in power, and Ramsay MacDonald is the first Labour PM. He's had a broad anti-war stance since the Boer War, arising from his socialist principles, and resigned the Chairmanship of the Labour Party in 1914, refusing to support war credits. He has, in a bold and ballsy move, also taken on the role of Foreign Secretary, perhaps not trusting Arthur Henderson (wartime leader of the Labour Party and man with the most foreign policy experience, and a man Lenin described as "As stupid as Kerensky") just quite enough to give him the job. It's about a 10 month government, but with some significant foreign policy agreements. Germany Ramsay's main platform for foreign policy related to Germany. He'd described Versailles as a victor's peace that would cause trouble, and realised that Germany's ability to make reparations payments was dependent on the state of the German economy, rather than the French attitude of "who gives one merde". The French and Belgians are still occupying the Ruhr, perpetuating a crashing German economy and (well, we all know about the Ruhr occupation, to be honest). His main contribution to resolving the crisis was as a negotiator. By all accounts a fairly charismatic fellow, he latched onto the Dawes plan (US lends money to Germany, who pays off the British and French, who pay it back to the US), but identified a crucial problem in implementing it that the American led reparations commission had missed, that the French would never accept it in a million years. He spent most of the year he was in power hosting talks and playing the reasonable man, bringing French and Belgian representatives over to Britain and, in August, hosting a pretty massive conference in London to build a broad "Allied" consensus on accepting the Dawes plan and ending the occupation of the Ruhr. He cleverly stacks the deck on who to invite, bringing aboard the French and Belgians, and then roping in half the representatives of the Commonwealth to show a "united" front - when they're mostly civil servants who more or less do as he asks them to. France are eager to punish Germany for defaulting on the reparations, but they're also much more interested in remaining firm allies with Britain - and so MacDonald's benign hardline stance on accepting the Dawes plan becomes a fairly easy sell. Herriot is gently pressured into accepting the Dawes plan and a raft of concessions on Versailles aimed at - and this is the crucial thing - making Germany better able to still pay off a huge reparations debt. There's a lot of discussion about whether the occupation was justified, what it did to German politics or showing that Germany could get away with defying Versailles, but to the Labour government, it was an example of French Imperialism - remember, this is a government of Socialists - and it would lead to increasing militarism, rearmament and probably, more war. Ramsay Mac wanted French troops out of the Ruhr and a Germany that could look after it's own people, just as Labour believed their own calling as a socialist-democratic party in parliament was to look to the needs of the people of Britain. The Empire Secretary of State to the Colonies for 1924 is an ex-union organiser and the man who could well have brought down capitalist government in Britain forever but decided not to do so, Jimmy Thomas. There's still bits of Britain where the old men will spit when you say his name, but as Colonial Secretary he was pretty much a non-entity, in place for only 10 months. Most of the 1920's Imperial crises had happened under the previous administration - The Irish War of Independence had peaked in 1921, India had flared up and now simmered resentfully after the Amritsar Massacre and Egypt had become independent in 1922. The Dominions had won a great deal of independence de jure in 1923, when they were "allowed" to set their own foreign policy - they had been for a while - and the Empire began to turn into the Commonwealth. With only ten months on the job, and the Empire going through a period of quiet after a huge degree of unrest, there's not much to report here. The Army Shockingly a year where (as far as i remember) Britain didn't fight some kind of crazy Imperial war, the operations of the Army continue under MacDonald as they had under Baldwin. Except for - I believe - some fighting on the North West Frontier (a phrase that can be used from 1860-now, every year, no problem), the main Army deployment was the British Army of the Rhine. Overall, MacDonald was happy to keep the restriction on Military Expenditure proposed under the ten-year plan (Britain won't be involved in another war for ten years) and enacted under the sweeping austerity program of Geddes' Axe. This was a very broad restriction on Government expenditure that Labour's domestic policy sought to overturn (and did fairly successfully), but they held to restricting government spending on the military. It rose - slightly - during the MacDonald government, but was kept broadly inline with the Tory policy of austerity, falling from £190 million in 1921 to £111 million in 1923 - Ramsay upped it insignificantly to £114 million for the year 1924. Somewhere along the lines of £40 million of this total was spent on the British Army of the Rhine. It had been reduced in strength between 1920-24, but still made up somewhere along the lines of 10,000 men of all ranks, with a contingent of tanks and supporting equipment. Two brigades of battalions made up of (now) volunteer soldiers are rotated in and out - a few in 1924 are not replaced. The British forces seem to have largely got on well with the Germans, and in some cases returned home pretty pro-German and anti-French, which would raise some problems later. MacDonald's government left it mostly alone, and there's few indicators that it was given much thought beyond it's implications for negotiations around the Dawes plan. Several Labour MPs continued to agitate for disarmament, others prepared to support an armed revolution, and the newly formed Communist Party (with MPs soon to be sitting as Labour members - Shapurji Saklatvala would win on a Communist slate in the 1924 election) openly called for mass mutiny. Navy Big news here - 1924 sees the formation of the Fleet Air Arm, and it's 15 year history as part of the RAF before 1939 sees it attached to the Navy permanently. It was officially for RAF squadrons flying from aircraft carriers and other ships - HMS Hermes, the first officially designed from day one carrier, is commissioned in 1924, but again, it's inception and financing predates MacDonald's first year. It's flying the fairly cute Fairey 3, and does the fairly standard mediterranean and colonial tour, including an exciting interlude with pirates. The standard policy would have been stasis on naval issues generally, with the Washington treaty fairly freshly signed, and a general freeze on navy spending. Right, phew, that's all I can think of about 1924, time for 1929.... OH NO WAIT The single most important foreign policy issue for a party of socialists in Britain in 1924 was undoubtably Russia. The Soviet Union is 2 years old, Britain has pulled out it's Army and Navy after immediately disproving the "war to end all wars" bullshit by deciding to just carry on the First war but against a new and exciting foe, and relations have certainly not yet normalised. Ramsay Mac officially grants recognition to the USSR on the first of February, to howls of protest from the Tories and the right wing press. This is massive. It's the British Empire formally recognising the existence of the USSR, and it's a socialist government doing it. It's real world-wide-revolution stuff, It's coincidentally after the death of Lenin, who was a very controversial figure in the Labour party at the time. There's a fairly even split between pro- and anti-bolshevik factions in Labour that dated all the way back to 1919, after Labour had called for a revival of the Second International, and Lenin had responded by calling the Comintern. His screed against non-parliamentary socialists won him back a few Labour moderates, but the biggest foreign policy crisis for Ramsay Mac came from within - the Daily Mail. Days before the 1924 election (Labour had refused to prosecute the editor of Workers Weekly for calling for soldiers to refuse orders in case of another war - something half the Labour party had been doing from 1914-1920, which caused a vote of no confidence), the Daily Mail published the Zinoviev letter, an entirely fraudulent, completely fabricated letter from Zinoviev to the Communist Party in Britain. It essentially called for worker's agitation, led by the Labour party and Communist party, to cause an uprising that would lead to the establishment of Leninism in Britain. By the end of 1924 the secret services had concluded that the letter was complete bollocks, but the damage was done. Labour were already on the way out, but the Tories successfully spun it as a crisis, and they won the election. Labour didn't actually do too badly, and the real losers were the Liberal party who were savaged by the conservatives and continued their drift into pointless irrelevance. Baldwin, the new tory PM, cancelled all diplomatic efforts towards Russia and the rest of the world followed him. Russia became more isolationist, and Lenin's worldwide revolution was replaced by Socialism in one country. I take this as conclusive "proof" that no-one will ever be able to convince me of otherwise, despite the fact that it is complete bollocks, that the Tories were directly responsible for Stalinism. COs in 1924 About 30 CO MPs now sit in the House of Commons - many of them having been released from prison in 1919. Head CO Clifford Allen remains Chairman of the Independent Labour Party and exerts a huge degree of influence over parliamentary labour, and attempts to move it leftward. Another key figure, Fenner Brockway, stands against Winston Churchill (in his "Constitutionalist Party" phase) in 1924, and misses out by 2,000 votes. COs in important roles: Charles Ammon - Secretary to the Admiralty Morgan Jones - Secretary to Board of Education Manny Shinwell - First Sec for Mines John Muir - Sec to Paymaster General Herbrand Sackville - Hereditary Peer in Waiting (believe it or not) Next time - they're everywhere! Edit: Oh man! I forgot about Geneva! Ramsay Mac put a fairly radical proposal to the League of Nations alongside his French counterpart, Herriot, in 1924. The Geneva Protocol called for compulsory international arbitration, a massive disarmament conference and the incredibly radical idea that anyone who didn't listen to the league would be named the aggressor and subsequently opposed by the other members of the league. It was, unfortunately, too huge an idea - after being approved provisionally by the League, the Tories then torpedoed it after Ramsay left power, ostensibly due to fear of conflict with America, but equally likely to have been seen as an international restriction on when and where Britain could do whatever it wanted. Labour's inter-war foreign policy, part 2: 1929-31 After Labour lost power in 1924, the Conservatives essentially set about dismantling what it could of their policies and advancing their own, more bellicose foreign policy. With the 1926 General Strike, and the Tories increasing ability to alienate the workforce fresh in the minds of the electorate, the 1929 general election returned Ramsay MacDonald to power, though again without an outright majority in the commons. In five years the Conservatives had managed to piss off America (Britain has it's own sphere of interest and it's called the whole world, gently caress you you upstart colonials, oh and also we want you to legislate that we always have to have a cruiser force twice as big as yours, wait what do you mean that's ridiculous?), slightly pulling away from the League of Nations by refusing to fund it and alienate the commonwealth by demanding their backing on foreign policy issues despite their new-found independence. Phew. The big change with regards to foreign policy comes in Russia. Baldwin had completely severed relations after the All-Russian Cooperative Society raid in 1927, where the British police raided the trading organisation on suspicion of spies, found a few, cack-handedly revealed that Britain had been spying on Russia and basically led to nothing but the USSR adopting better encryption. Of course, the first thing MacDonald does policy wise? Reestablishes relations with Russia. Arthur Henderson is now Foreign Secretary, and he enjoys a broad brief from a hands-off Mac, who is busy battling against rising unemployment. He plans a three point strategy that becomes Labour's election pitch on foreign policy: International Peace - a general arbitration platform, with key support to the League, attempting to prop up it's already slightly decaying mechanisms and replace them with proper means to arbitrate disputes. Normalised relations with Russia Disarmament - pointing out that the cost of the League for 700 years equals one year's military expenditure. Pretty simple cost-saving exercise here. Again, this is a party increasingly dominated by ex-Conscientious Objectors, run almost entirely by members of the old Union of Democratic Control (the parliamentary anti-war group in ww1). They're being elected on a stated platform of disarmament, if not absolute pacifism. The British public (narrowly) elected a socialist government that promised in the run up to the election would pursue peace and disarmament, simple as that. The pretty good leaflet "Labour and the Nation" is swiftly passed around the civil service after the slightly surprising 1929 election victory. There is no canvassing of the civil service to see if they can help them formulate a policy, and no Tories are invited to the party. This is, for the first time, a Labour party policy that will be pursued. It has, after all, just received a mandate from the people... Henderson's foreign office requires no acts of parliament (at least I don't think a single act was necessary), and it doesn't require extra money. In fact, it's policies are aimed at actively saving the government money. The combination of these factors and domestic troubles means that for two years, It's all Arthur's show. International Politics Ramsay Mac goes to the 1929 Hague conference and argues generally for the adoption of the Young Plan, another grand american financing scheme to help Germany recover from being a liberal country with an economy in the shitter to (ideally) another socialist-liberal country with a pretty powerful economy which everyone can be best friends with. He manages to soothe French rumbling about the timing and date of reparations payments, while pushing a protectionist platform of money only rather than reparations in kind, which were undercutting the British coal market pretty hugely (hey! free german coal!). Philip Snowden (George Baker's hero), ends up being a linchpin of this protectionist policy as he slowly becomes fiscally ever more conservative as his control on the budget grows. He comes down on a very right wing-style position, and it's only MacDonald's friendly relations with the French that stop it from being a disaster. The foreign office are very annoyed, and start to shut out the treasury ever more. He also manages to negotiate for the withdrawal of Entente forces from the Rhine, bringing back not only the British Army (good saving there), but fairly stunningly the French and Belgians as well. The Labour delegation are pretty much immediately swept off to Geneva where the foundations of the League of Nations buildings are being laid, and the Tenth General Assembly is beginning. Interestingly, the Labour delegation includes outright pacifists, including Helena Swanwick, suffragist and NCF member. She would later commit suicide at the outbreak of the second world war. Various Labour historians credit the delegation with renewing the spirit of international arbitration and disarmament at the conference, but how much of that is cronyism and how much is honest is unknown to me. Ramsay Mac pushes for the Commonwealth to move further out of British imperial control, and signs the "Option" clause, adding the commonwealth dominions to the league and binding them not to British foreign policy but to the League of Nations and the international court - absolutely confirming them as independent nations, though true independence would come later (in the 1931 Statute of Westminster). It was a catalyst for the wider acceptance of the League of Nations as an arbitration body, and there was a general move towards accepting the League as the ultimate legal body for international disputes. It incorporated and codified the Kellogg-Briand pact, essentially renouncing war as a means of settling disputes, and led to the League of Nations Codification assembly (the next year) which sought to properly lay down how to resolve specific disputes (but failed to do so). The foreign office also try to abolish tariffs worldwide and set up a finance branch of the League aimed at resolving international financial crises, but their attempt was shot down by Snowden. Thawing relations with Russia and improving them with the USA was another key Henderson goal, and MacDonald spoke eloquently around America on naval reduction, economic policy and anglo-US relations, apparently to a receptive audience. Ambassadors with Russia were exchanged again in late 1929, and by 1931 relations were almost on normal terms - possibly helped by the decision of the CPGB to refrain from wide recruitment in Britain and return to the safety of their increasingly irrelevant vanguard party politics. Defence Spending In the context of Labour's desperate attempt to stave off the effects of the depression, and provide money for massive public works projects (failed), they slashed the defence budget by about 7 million within about four months of regaining power. The government was still spending about 100 million annually on the military, but the cut was a reversal to a slow incremental increase since 1924, returning it to OG Ramsay levels of economic commitment. The Navy 1930 saw the London Treaty which we all know fairly well, extending the terms of the Washington Treaty and further restricting tonnage for cruisers, submarines and destroyers. It was well regarded in Britain as both a cost-cutting measure and a step towards disarmament. Henderson personally saw it as a major breakthrough in US-Japan-UK relations, and his team were extremely self-congratulatory over the whole affair. In terms of the Milhist thread though, the treaty led to the final death of the submarines-with-huge-weapons trend, sorry, Surcouf fans - Uncle Arthur's to blame. The Empire With the dominions pushed out of the nest of mother, probably mere seconds before they upped sticks and told her where to shove it, the military problems of the empire went back to being ones that local governments dealt with - non-violent independence movements in Samoa, India and elsewhere. The colonial secretary, Sidney Webb, hardcore fabian and author of clause 4 (the bit of the Labour party constitution that says we're socialists), doesn't do much in this period except override the civil service and provide the legal means for a colony to become a dominion - Gandhi comes over to London to the Round Table Conferences, and argues for constitutional reform and dominion status as a stepping stone to independence. The Army The British Army of the Rhine returns home to a complete lack of a heroes welcome, but at the very least Labour fulfils it's promise to have them home for Christmas 1930. Their job done, there's a pause in any real attempt to retool, retrain or expand the returning Battalions, which are divided again into home and colonial service and sent back out. While there's no significant rearmament, 1930 sees the slow beginning of the official mechanisation process. British military forces are involved in conflicts in China, the Aden conflict (RAF led) continues to sputter on but mainly involves locally organised militia and biplanes, and would incidentally carry on pretty much constantly until the establishment of the Republic of Yemen some 30 years later. Palestine rumbles on, but trouble on a wide scale would only really come in 1936. The RAF With government spending on the military frozen, the RAF struggles to justify it's existence but finds a good role (that Henderson and the War Office support) as a cheap way to "police" (i.e. bomb) the far flung outposts of the empire. It's the age of top of the rang biplanes though, so all this is done with the help of the Handley Page Hinaidi (ugly), and the Hart, Osprey and Demon, some of the near-to-last biplane fighters in british service. Interestingly, Ramsay Mac's government managed to see the Supermarine entries to the Schneider Trophy in 1929 and 1931. The end Faced with crisis upon crisis at home, Henderson's far sighted foreign policy platform is ended by the virtual collapse of the MacDonald government. When he proposes cuts to state benefit as an austerity measure, his party divides - half to his new "National Labour" and half remaining true to their socialist principles (christ, how many times have I written that particular phrase when working on the anti-war movement!) and sticking with the Labour name. Henderson finds himself leading the latter. MacDonald goes to the polls - in coalition with the Tories - and wins in a landslide. Foreign policy would be markedly different under a conservative-dominated government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i thought he was an inefficient dude with a wound that wouldn't heal, was he also an alcoholic? People made fun of him being a drunk, might have ofc been that it was the perception that since he was poo poo at his job, he's a drunk. Banér, probably because Banér was actually feared for being a mean drunk. Banér was also superstitious beyond the usual and had a bunch of camp followers executed for witchcraft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Banérs main contribution was also to make the war even nastier than it had been. I think I discussed this with Nils Villstrand when I wrote a paper about the development of Swedish army for him. Gustav Adolf's Articles of War didn't mean that the Swedes were nice about doing war in any meaning but he probably had a genuine belief in that his soldiers should behave themselves, not only because it is nice but it is good for discipline and the Early Modern is all about Disciplining The Subjects. The net effect is probably that you get a bit less of looting and robbing from your army (this is hard as hell to actually measure) because you're trying to do things in a way that keeps things efficient and orderly, like letting towns get off a bit easier because they can pay you contributions in hard cash, which you feed back into the local economy by buying foodstuffs, instead of just sending your soldiers out to steal grain and meat.. Banér really didn't see the value in that and his army's economy was far more hosed than Gustav Adolf's had been, so going All In with the whole "The War Will Feed Itself" came naturally to him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Are you new to the concept of rhetoric? I'm not sure it's so much rhetoric as being kind of dickish to pull the 'let me google this' thing to a presumably Lakota guy talking about the Lakota language in good faith. If it were Keldoclock or  , sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Banér, probably because Banér was actually feared for being a mean drunk. Banér was also superstitious beyond the usual and had a bunch of camp followers executed for witchcraft. he was weird, baner was an rear end in a top hat. fun fact about wallenstein, when the conspirators were thinking about how to get him away from everyone else on the night of 25 Feb '34, they invited all of the targets, him included, to a party, gambling that Wallenstein would refuse, which he did. So he died as he had lived: avoiding a social engagement. edit: according to peter wilson, his distaste for socializing with people he didn't choose to socialize with might have contributed to his death, since he never went to court since some point in the...20s? and therefore couldn't schmooze and was at a disadvantage in the kind of politics these people did. Not sure how much schmoozing he could have done at court, but it would have shown the Emperor and the King of the Romans he was making the effort. edit 2: please do not insult superstitious generals in my presence, thanks and god bless HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Banérs main contribution was also to make the war even nastier than it had been. look at it this way, he wasn't a hypocrite
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Dunkink teaser. For a story involving lots of boats and ships it sure seems to be hiding them for the twist at the end. The ticking noise could/will be replaced by the BAAWAHHH sound from the last 5 years worth of trailers, and I'm hoping it does not become a trend. From the guy who's very happy to see a Stuka coming down to the poetic shots at long distance, I'm not very enthusiastic that the director of The Dark Knight can pull it off. Still, it's a movie about Operation Dynamo, so maybe it will be good? I haven't heard anything to say it will actually mention that the French were 50% of the soilders evacuated, or the very heavy losses they took to save the BEF. Edit- I take it back about lack of boats. This Behind the scene movie shows a MTG, and a cute model Ju87 buzzing around. Comstar fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Doubtful, since again you're not creating enough of a pressure difference by missing with a projectile. You might react instinctively by going to ground because you heard (or saw) a projectile coming your way /passing you by, but you're not getting dizzy or knocked off your feet by a miss. Does it have an explosive round, or something similar? If some of the shrapnel hit someone in the leg or something they might think they'd been hit full-on and go down, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Could the overpressure be enough to throw off someone's balance? Cause him to fall down instead of a planned "hit the dirt" dive response? That could result in a lot of false kills. You might poo poo your pants from the crack of the round going past. Assuming 25mm rounds are supersonic, I would guess they are. I doubt there's very many people who would manage to behave in a dignified manner when being shot at by one, in either case. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Comstar posted:From the guy who's very happy to see a Stuka coming down to the poetic shots at long distance, I'm not very enthusiastic that the director of The Dark Knight can pull it off. Still, it's a movie about Operation Dynamo, so maybe it will be good? I haven't heard anything to say it will actually mention that the French were 50% of the soilders evacuated, or the very heavy losses they took to save the BEF. I'm just happy someone is making a war film that shows the British doing something other than sitting around drinking tea and breaking all of the codes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Inter-War British Foreign Policy Part 3: 1931-35 the ...urgh... "National Labour" Government In 1930, Labour are divided. All the achievements of Part 2 of this series are achieved in the brief bright period of 1929-30 and achieved with a minority government. It's a very unstable situation. With the economic depression absolutely loving the British economy, half of the Labour party is pushing massive expenditure, public works and make-work programmes (some kind of "new deal" some might say), Ramsay Mac and Philip Snowden are pursing a different path. They're pushing for massive, drastic reductions in government spending - and, as always when someone wants to push austerity, those cuts are aimed directly at the poor, largely in reductions in the already marginally established welfare state. Arthur Henderson - architect of the foreign policy successes in the previous years - leads the rebellion against it, and, taking half the cabinet (and a couple of COs) with him, threatens to resign. It brings down the government. But Ramsay Mac stays exactly where he is. Going to talk to the King, MacDonald decides to form a "National Government" with the Conservatives and the Liberals. Henderson has MacDonald and Snowden expelled from the party. They form "National Labour" - a party that is supported by no-one, except the tories. It was a deeply cynical move that cemented him in power, but at the cost of losing his Labour support. In October 1931, he leads an unholy alliance to a majority victory. He has 13 ex-Labour MPs with him - this is a tory government in all but name. The Tories take over domestic policy (and make a pigs loving ear out of it), and MacDonald throws himself, increasingly lonely, stripped of support and friends and surrounded by people who hold him in fairly open contempt, into foreign policy. If we can characterise previous policies as a conciliatory period, I'd say that Ramsay taking over from Henderson signals the beginning of Appeasement proper. This post doesn't include the Army, Navy and Air Force sections, because I'd have to really look them up - I'll dig it out for an addendum later. International Politics Ramsay spends, I'd say, the majority of his first two years as PM in the National Labour government, organising and leading delegations to international conferences. He leads a disarmament-focused platform at the Second Geneva Naval conference in 1932, which builds on the 1927 conference. He aims to build a broad consensus on a reduction in naval spending, tonnage and fleet numbers. Reduction in Army sizes is discussed, but it's pretty much pointless at this point - most of the participating nations have reduced their militaries so heavily that further reduction would lead them to be three or four guys standing in a field shouting at each other. Ramsay pushes increasingly harsh restrictions on air forces, but again - most airforces are so embryonic that it means little. He's also standing on a platform of involving Germany in their own defence, aiming to counterbalance French worries with German aims. I really like how this period (we're still pre-Hitler) is basically Vicky 2 - all about that battleship prestige. It becomes a part of the World Disarmament Conference, a series of conferences initially chaired by Arthur Henderson (see part 2), but now increasingly bogged down in details. MacDonald concerns himself with backing FDR's limits "offensive" weapons, and then spends half of his time at the conference attempting to precisely define just exactly what the hell this means. Unlike Henderson, who seems to have considered the global questions, MacDonald and his delegation stick to British interests. Strategic Bombers and Submarines (Britain's supposed only weakness) should be banned. In fact, Aircraft should be strictly limited – there are some insane sounding proposals floating around that all civilian aircraft that could be converted into military aircraft, and since this is the early 30s this basically means all aircraft should be placed under League control – but the destruction of Henderson's 1924 plan for League military alliances makes this utterly pointless. The World Disarmament conference rolls on into 1933, with MacDonald making fairly frequent trips to Geneva as he essentially abandons control over domestic policy and pushes an increasingly unworkable 1920s-era disarmament platform. It achieves gently caress all. MacDonald is completely unwilling to offer the French any form of blank check or unquestioned military support, and the French are unwilling to give Germany any concessions. Ramsay still believes in the Germany of the 1920s, but already we have signs that Germany does not want “an” army, but an army on parity with the French and British forces. After 28 months of discussion and with MacDonald increasingly sidelined in the process by Tory-appointed civil servants and diplomats, the talks break down. The upshot? Precisely gently caress-all of any real importance. Except one thing – Germany withdraws from the conference, and then from the League. Oops. MacDonald's role is not pivotal, but the confused nature of the platform put forward by his delegation is one of the important reasons the talks collapsed. He pushed for disarmament, but refused to back up France – which could have secured French arms limitations. He focused, and instructed the delegation to focus, on minutiae that were solely in British interests (who cares about tanks? How would they get them across the channel?) In the end, though, I suppose it was pointless – there was no way newly dictatorial Germany would have agreed to any of it. The situation is officially out of control – and we all know the rest. The remilitarisation of the rhine, the march towards war, and the last weird days of appeasement. Could the National Government have done a thing about it? I don't think so. Everyone was stripping the British military of people, equipment and funds. The Tories were as equally opposed to war and remilitarisation as the pacifist inclined Labour party – but more for financial reasons. By 1935, Ramsay is on the way out. His health is rapidly declining and his speeches in Parliament are becoming literally incomprehensible. Pressure, and age, have rendered him very vulnerable – but he's still pretty much ideologically pushing for demilitarisation. This is the absolute perfect time to go to Italy and try bring Mussolini on board. The Stresa Conference. Aims? Confirm Locarno (the post-war borders of Europe settlement), prevent Anschluss, drive more wedges between Hitler and Mussolini. It achieves: loving nothing really in the long term. MacDonald has recently presented a united front with the French, but his united front is a weird one – proposing talks on German arms limitation, but.... very meh. He's suckered in by Mussolini and leans towards supporting an invasion of Abyssinia. His overall aim is to secure an explicit agreement containing Germany, with France, Britain and Italy allying to make sure Germany couldn't rearm. He actually gets signatures! It's great! Perhaps it might even work.... But then MacDonald retires, and his policies are reversed. Britain's new foreign policy appeasement plan engages more with Germany directly, instead of trying to build a consensus to contain them. The Anglo-German Naval treaty is signed in June – this is full on real appeasement, and it undoes much of the good of bringing Mussolini into a wider anti-German consensus. Britain (the Tory Baldwin leading the charge on this) has changed it's foreign policy to a weirdly isolationist version of international appeasement – work directly with Germany, gently caress Italy and France. MacDonald, his poorly thought through foreign policy and mental health in tatters, retires in May 1935, and by 1936 he's responding positively to the reoccupation of the Rhine, and by 1937 he's dead. The last vestiges of “Labour” foreign policy died with him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
Sorry to repeat a question, but anyone got much on the 1st Polish army/Polish I Corps? It's really easy to get polish army stuff... If you want the II Corps, but the soviet-organised army is much harder to dig up info on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:that's not just him, that's everyone. i don't really blame him for that. idk, the hypocrisy thing doesn't really appeal to me considering there were people who seriously discussed the ethical stuff related to war, and even Gustav Adolf read books about the justifications of war and debated pretty hard with his bros about if his idea of getting into the 30 YW was actually justifiable in a moral sense There's a lot of War Nerd level popular history which is pretty much based on the idea that all ideals were always fake and no one really cared about them, and despite being a terrible nihilist, I really don't want to think like that. People before the Early Modern (and even during the 17th century) bought hard into the ideals of chivalry, for example, even when they didn't actually live up to them. And when we're talking about the Early Modern, the most recurring theme in any machinery of the state is that the state clearly tries to do good things from time to time, but due to issues related with organizations, financial realities and the generally weak state of the state, they end up at best being half measures or even counterproductive. As a commanding general, you would have a pretty wide array of choices when it comes to things like contributions or Brandschatzung, and not all of them always took the most convenient path or the path of least resistance. Harrison mentions a lot of negotiation going on in many cases, where generals were satisfied with getting less than they could, because it was a lot neater for both ethical and practical reasons. The Most Practical Reason of course being that if you sent your knechts out to get the money, those fuckers would steal as much of it as they could. I really love the 17th century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
17th century best century edit: for more substantial responses to your points, everyone had a legal justification for going to war, everyone had lawyers on tap, and they'd publish that justification in pamphlet form as fast as they could. this was not specific to one side or one guy, and by the 40s I'm pretty sure it had begun to seem rather...tattered. at least Baner didn't believe his personal interests were identical to the cause he served or the interests of his religion. edit 2. Everyone's got ideals. Ferdinand the Second had ideals. Ferdinand the second was the most moral person in the goddamn war, and look what that got everyone. Ideals make potential peace treaties fall apart. Ideals are the enemy. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to drink until I'm not depressed and angry about this any more. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:17th century best century  Yep, checks out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 12:51
|
|
Comstar posted:Dunkink teaser. For a story involving lots of boats and ships it sure seems to be hiding them for the twist at the end. The ticking noise could/will be replaced by the BAAWAHHH sound from the last 5 years worth of trailers, and I'm hoping it does not become a trend. Please don't suck. Pleeeease don't suck  .
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
It will definitely be spectacular to look at with huge attention to detail. Whether or not it will be accurate, however...
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:19
|
|
Disinterested posted:It will definitely be spectacular to look at with huge attention to detail. Whether or not it will be accurate, however... 'We're saved It's the Prime Ministers secret weapon the blimp tank!'
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:25
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:'We're saved It's the Prime Ministers secret weapon the blimp tank!' They all fly away holding the wings of Spitfires that land on the shore.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Dunkink teaser I, uhh, think your autocorrect is showing. Unless it literally is 'hot squaddies getting rammed up the rowboat by studly Stukas' 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I am going to UK/France soon. Part of my trip I certainly plan on going through the Normandy beaches and maybe spending a night in Caen and so forth. Have people here been through that area before? Can you tell me if there are anything specific I should go to/do? Even if its a little out of the way and worth it, very interested. Will also be in Paris. Im just gonna run through the places i went. Best place to go is the Caen Memorial, its slightly misleadingly named because its a big museum as opposed to a memorial with a great section on Vichy France which i didnt know much about till wandering round beyond Petain is a little bit of a fascist, they also have a full scale typhoon hung in the lobby. The audio guide is really good so I'd advise getting it, if you are in Cane then the tram system is both good and cheap. The way they have organised it is that its a load of small museums, other than that one, each one being a couple hours to wander through at a comfortable pace, i would not try to do large amounts of it without renting a car because getting around the Normandy countryside just does not work without that or an organised bus tour, if you have a particular interest in an area of operations there is probably a small museum on the site of it dedicated to that particular part of the campaign which is nice. Pegasus bridge i really enoyed but it is purely about the British gliderborne operations on D-Day, they have a full scale reproduction of one of the gliders along with some cool stuff like a centaur tank and a 17 and a 25 pounder in the grounds of the place. The film they have in the center is pretty cool. No. 4 Commando Museum at Ouistreham is small but great to look around. The Overlord museum at Omaha is one of the larger ones, and it is also right next to the largest american cemetary if you want to visit both, its more of an artifacts museum than an explanation museum which isnt so much my thing, but theres lots of interesting period stuff in there. One thing that i particularly liked, though i think its because i have a particular interest in it, is at Douvre there is a survivng German Wurzberg radar and a neat little museum about its history. I didnt get a chance to look at the Mount-Ormel memorial and the attached Falaise pocket museum but i hear its got some good stuff from a friend of mine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:30
|
|
Disinterested posted:They all fly away holding the wings of Spitfires that land on the shore. Company Of Heroes had a terribad movie (which one of us should suffer for our entertainment) so why not Battlefield 1942? feedmegin posted:I, uhh, think your autocorrect is showing. Unless it literally is 'hot squaddies getting rammed up the rowboat by studly Stukas' At last, a UK version of Shaving Private Ryan!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:At last, a UK version of Shaving Private Ryan! Surely you mean Shaving Ryan's privates?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Looking for help identifying this ribbon. It was found among some pretty easily ID'd WW2 Army ribbons, but who knows? edit: US Army that is. 
mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Someone from the forces once told me that a 25mm round from a Bushmaster will kill someone from overpressure or some poo poo on a near miss, which doesn't seem right. Anyone c/d? I've been obliquely downrange from heavy auto cannon fire and full-time and it is extraordinarily unpleasant. Even from a ways away you can feel the air being displaced by the rounds. that being said I seriously doubt that would actually cause injury. what does cause injury, and a lot of injury, is the blast and the fragmentation. Those rounds are like hand grenades when they go off and if it happens in an even partially confined space the effect is pretty bad. What I would guess is this guy probably saw some injury caused by the detonation of the round next to the target and then attributed it to overpressure because that sounds cooler
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:35
|
|
Polyakov posted:Surely you mean Shaving Ryan's privates? Nope, I'm not into the indie gay war movie porn parody scene. Waaaay too pretentious.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Anyone got any ideas as to the accuracy of Atonement's fantastic long tracking shot of the Dunkirk evacuation? edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QijbOCvunfU
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:That gentleman is talking crap, it's really really hard to create enough overpressure to do real damage outside of an enclosed space without using a large bomb. People don't die from grenade overpressure in open spaces but from fragmentation, and the explosive force of those is much more than the effect of a cannon round passing by, otherwise you'd see more ground effect along their flight path. Hell you don't see honest to God tank rounds doing much other than kicking up dust on a miss. There's a really good video of the Syrian Army fighting ISIS troops here proving that. You can see grenades going off practically right next to the soldiers, and they keep fighting. A 25mm cannon round passing nearby isn't going to be creating nearly as much pressure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Can someone explain what exactly happens in a tank when it is penetrated by an anti tank shell? What actually 'takes out' the tank? Is it the ammunition cooking off? Overpressure killing the crew? The crew directly being killed by spalling/fragments and the survivors deciding to bail out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
lenoon posted:Anyone got any ideas as to the accuracy of Atonement's fantastic long tracking shot of the Dunkirk evacuation? I somehow doubt they'd actually be running the Ferris wheel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 14:49
|
|