|
lenoon posted:Why wouldn't war literature be appropriate? Views of war, cultural understandings of war etc etc are as much a part of military history as talking about the width of a bullet or the thickness of a tiger's glacis plate. This is a thread that shys away from any discussion of politics in war like a prancy bay horse drafted off a Pomeranian estate to haul a gun in front of Stalingrad in '42.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:This is a thread that shys away from any speculative discussion of politics in war like a prancy bay horse drafted off a Pomeranian estate to haul a gun in front of Stalingrad in '42. fixed this one for you
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
we are more than willing to discuss politics, see discussions about the civil war or the nazi or soviet state or old American procurement methods or fascism as a political movement/ideology etc etc it's just not a good idea to discuss politics as a faucet of current events because it's outside the remit of the thread and leads to posting derails that are better suited elsewhere
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:fixed this one for you
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Probably the igniter charge. A percussion cap/primer is enough to light off a musket or rifle, but the six bags of boom behind a 16" shell need a bit more than that to light 'em off. I don't know about naval guns specifically, but one of the late-war/Cold War vehicles Nick Moran did a video on (with separate ammunition, so most likely a self-propelled howitzer rather than a tank) used "primers" that were basically a .30-06 blank cartridge; IIRC naval guns used something similar, but on a larger scale (maybe a percussion cap the size of your fist and a pound or two of black powder at the bottom of each 120-pound bag of smokeless powder?) Isn't a lot of IFV ammo sabot in one form or another? Much smaller rounds obviously, but much higher ROF. Is stray sabot bits something infantry have to watch out for in situations where they're advancing on something with the Bradley/BMP/Warrior etc at the back providing fire support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:
This is a good point. I write a lot about pacifists (and will finish the series of posts on women's role in the anti-war movement of ww1), but I wouldn't expect anyone to want to read my thoughts on pacifism as a modern day political ideology (which incidentally are surprisingly not in line with the guys I work on). History is always interesting, and the history of politics cannot be separated from the history of warfare, but yeah - jumping from here's cool thing you guys might like to "and here's why I think X ideology should be imposed world wide" is not for this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
lenoon posted:"and here's why I think X ideology should be imposed world wide"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:some of that is that cheerfullydrab's thoughts about the USSR are real weird and we don't want to get in an argument with them
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Isn't a lot of IFV ammo sabot in one form or another? Much smaller rounds obviously, but much higher ROF. Is stray sabot bits something infantry have to watch out for in situations where they're advancing on something with the Bradley/BMP/Warrior etc at the back providing fire support. I'd expect there's a combination of sabot petals of an IFV being way less high-energy, and also that the use cases for 25mm sabot are generally ones that preclude having loads of infantry standing in front of your vehicle. If you're firing over your dude's heads as they're charging towards something, you're probably firing HE-T. If your guys are charging directly towards a tank something's probably gone wrong somewhere. To be clear, HE rounds so far as I know are generally not sabot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:uh, "the global supremacy of the Spanish Empire," obviously I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:uh, "the global supremacy of the Spanish Empire," obviously I think you mean the primacy of Austria in German politics (this is a bad idea don't do this).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
lenoon posted:This is a good point. I write a lot about pacifists (and will finish the series of posts on women's role in the anti-war movement of ww1), but I wouldn't expect anyone to want to read my thoughts on pacifism as a modern day political ideology (which incidentally are surprisingly not in line with the guys I work on). History is always interesting, and the history of politics cannot be separated from the history of warfare, but yeah - jumping from here's cool thing you guys might like to "and here's why I think X ideology should be imposed world wide" is not for this thread. I really don't want to say anything even slightly against your posting, because I think it's wonderful, but that's some bullshit. That kind of thinking makes out the past to be some exotic country that we can't even comprehend. There is no real separation of the past and the present, it's all just people being people. Every division of culture and generations and such is just arbitrary. Compare and contrast some of modern-day social media postings of sports celebrities with the writings of the mercenaries that pike lady is always quoting. Or youtube comments versus Roman graffiti. You can't just automatically excuse things that happened in the past because you've drawn an arbitrary dividing line between the people of today and the people of the Land of Ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:I've got a soft spot for Fury on account of my personal connection to Shermans, and I like how it doesn't go full Disregarding the fact that a very recent post in this thread demonstrated why World War II needed to be fought as a certain side was rather found of committing war atrocities at an underrepresented scope, how was it supposed to have ended a year earlier?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:35
|
|
wank and instead just tells a story about 5 guys in a tank fighting a pointless war that should have ended a year ago.
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I really don't want to say anything even slightly against your posting, because I think it's wonderful, but that's some bullshit. That kind of thinking makes out the past to be some exotic country that we can't even comprehend. There is no real separation of the past and the present, it's all just people being people. Every division of culture and generations and such is just arbitrary. Compare and contrast some of modern-day social media postings of sports celebrities with the writings of the mercenaries that pike lady is always quoting. Or youtube comments versus Roman graffiti. You can't just automatically excuse things that happened in the past because you've drawn an arbitrary dividing line between the people of today and the people of the Land of Ago. Not what I'm saying at all - to me they are pretty much indistinguishable, but my point was that if you wish to endlessly explicitly pass value judgements, then you're not going to jibe with the atmosphere of the thread. As I said "Jumping" from past to present is kind of bullshit - Like I said: Me, an idiot posted:
Which is a comment on the legality of an action in war, but not jumping to "and therefore your napalm droppin' daddy is a war criminal", which is a jump from present to past in the spirit in which I meant it. edit: I mean a value judgement absent context lenoon fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Not what I'm saying at all - to me they are pretty much indistinguishable, but my point was that if you wish to endlessly explicitly pass value judgements, then you're not going to jibe with the atmosphere of the thread. As I said "Jumping" from past to present is kind of bullshit - Which is a comment on the legality of an action in war, but not jumping to "and therefore your napalm droppin' daddy is a war criminal", which is a jump from present to past in the spirit in which I meant it. edit: I mean a value judgement absent context [/quote] You're right that this isn't the thread to post about those things. I have said some controversial things in these threads, but I've spent 80% of the time apologizing for saying them, because I don't read this thread for discourse, I read it to hear about blammo death machines. This whole recent controversy comes from me saying that political statements are controversial, which is some human centipede stuff if I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:Disregarding the fact that a very recent post in this thread demonstrated why World War II needed to be fought as a certain side was rather found of committing war atrocities at an underrepresented scope, how was it supposed to have ended a year earlier? Well, after Bagration, the Normandy landings and the failure of the Ardennes offensive, it should have been pretty obvious to any German general that the war was going to be lost so the only moral thing to do at such a junction is to stop fighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
I finally got to see the future howitzer which the engineers are lovingly referring to as RJ. Sorry but this is the best pic I can find of it, you can kind of see how ridiculously long the barrel is. This is the new barrel and chamber mounted on a 777 chassis; they're also looking at mounting it on 105s and on the new A6 Paladins. Here is a contemporary 777 gun from about the same angle for comparison:  It can throw a 155mm round about 5 times the range of a WWII era equivalent or twice what a 777 can do, which is a really cool capability but it has a lot of issues associated with it, like it throws the rounds so high they enter into airspace normally only used by high flying aircraft, and we don't have a reliable way to see that far but hey 70km is 70km.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Well, after Bagration, the Normandy landings and the failure of the Ardennes offensive, it should have been pretty obvious to any German general that the war was going to be lost so the only moral thing to do at such a junction is to stop fighting. That is true. The issue though is that the person leading Germany at the time was not the least bit rational and the Allies were quite determined to make sure that they did not have to fight Germany again in another thirty years or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I finally got to see the future howitzer which the engineers are lovingly referring to as RJ.  Can that thing actually be slung under a helo, or was that not a design goal?I'm picturing artillerymen cranking torque wrenches on that flange-looking thing halfway down the barrel to assemble it after delivery but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Why wouldn't war literature be appropriate? Views of war, cultural understandings of war etc etc are as much a part of military history as talking about the width of a bullet or the thickness of a tiger's glacis plate. Gentlemen! Fighting in the military history thread? This is nether the time nor the place
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I think you mean the primacy of Austria in German politics (this is a bad idea don't do this). A.E.I.O.Goon
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:That is true. The issue though is that the person leading Germany at the time was not the least bit rational and the Allies were quite determined to make sure that they did not have to fight Germany again in another thirty years or so. I think you are misreading what the poster meant by 'pointless'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I really don't want to say anything even slightly against your posting, because I think it's wonderful, but that's some bullshit. That kind of thinking makes out the past to be some exotic country that we can't even comprehend. There is no real separation of the past and the present, it's all just people being people. Every division of culture and generations and such is just arbitrary. Compare and contrast some of modern-day social media postings of sports celebrities with the writings of the mercenaries that pike lady is always quoting. Or youtube comments versus Roman graffiti. You can't just automatically excuse things that happened in the past because you've drawn an arbitrary dividing line between the people of today and the people of the Land of Ago. I'm sure we w gone around on this before, but you realize that this stuff exists on a continuum and that ideas and culturally relevant things drift with time, right? Go back to WW2 and we don't ha e much trouble parsing what people were thinking about or what was important to them. Jump back to the Spanish American War or ACW and there are issues but still no biggie Once you get out of living memory that gets a lot more iffy. gently caress HeyGal's post history is just a litany of explaining the culture, attitudes, and priorities of people that are so different from modern Germans or Italians that, yes, they might as well be from separate countries. You can always find points in common of course. Scatalogical YouTube comments and legionary graffiti are a pretty easy comparison. That said there are much larger differences such that you can't just lean on "people are people". To pick just as easy a point of departure attitudes about sex and gender are pretty widely different between Ancient Rome and the modern US, and then there are little things like race (as opposed to tribe or nation) as a category for dividing people. People in the past weren't aliens who we can never hope to understand but you vastly over state the universality of the human condition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:47
|
|
Hunt11 posted:That is true. The issue though is that the person leading Germany at the time was not the least bit rational and the Allies were quite determined to make sure that they did not have to fight Germany again in another thirty years or so. The spirit of the post you're misreading as well as the film is that the outcome of the war was clearly visible to all parties as a foregone conclusion. 1945 was a pointless year of struggle for that reason - many more people had to die to achieve an outcome known in advance by virtually everyone. It's not a commentary that goes beyond that.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I finally got to see the future howitzer which the engineers are lovingly referring to as RJ. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:54
|
|
bewbies posted:I finally got to see the future howitzer which the engineers are lovingly referring to as RJ. What's the travel time of a round traveling 70km?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:gently caress HeyGal's post history is just a litany of explaining the culture, attitudes, and priorities of people that are so different from modern Germans or Italians that, yes, they might as well be from separate countries. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'd expect there's a combination of sabot petals of an IFV being way less high-energy, and also that the use cases for 25mm sabot are generally ones that preclude having loads of infantry standing in front of your vehicle. If you're firing over your dude's heads as they're charging towards something, you're probably firing HE-T. If your guys are charging directly towards a tank something's probably gone wrong somewhere. The fire support was just an example, it's easy to think of a situation where there's friendly infantry between the autocannon vehicle using sabot rounds and the enemy. An enemy vehicle suddenly popping up on a flank is an obvious one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What's the travel time of a round traveling 70km? Depends on muzzle velocity but maybe a minute?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:Disregarding the fact that a very recent post in this thread demonstrated why World War II needed to be fought as a certain side was rather found of committing war atrocities at an underrepresented scope, how was it supposed to have ended a year earlier? Fury is set in '45, but by fall of '44 it was drat obvious that with the Allies securing France in the West and Bagration in the East that Germany didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the war. Any sane country would start negotiating terms at that point, but we all know that the Nazis were anything but sane so it took another year of pointless death and destruction to finally bring them around. Hence, pretty much all of Fury is just the war being drawn out pointlessly by Hitler and Friends - nobody who died in that movie had to die, they all should have been back home by that point. I thought that the futility of it all was a pretty major theme. EDIT: Others already said as much. That'll teach me to reply without reading to the end of the thread. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
I think there is a very easy to sustain argument that 'people exposed to a similar environment will behave similarly' that underlines a basic human condition, but that is very different for arguing that people everywhere are the same all the time; people can't help but be the product of their environment, and that environment has shifted beyond recognition over the centuries. This starts with 'basic' things, for example geography, the mode of economic production, social organisation and political organisation and diet - but it includes knowledge, and not just the raw stuff of knowledge, but the way in which knowledge is structured to form radically different understandings. These things shape us, and where they are different, shape us differently. If you treat human beings as totally equivalent on a 1:1 basis with you sitting in front of you computer today, all sorts of perils await you. You are at a grave risk of treating your concept of human as the telos of the human of the past. You're also in danger of treating the past as comprehensible without reference to context, replacing context with one's own projection of how certain behavior could be explained: if you too strongly insist upon a specific idea of a 'human condition', you're at risk of filling it with your own (modern) idea of what it is to be human. Cyrano4747 posted:You can always find points in common of course. Scatalogical YouTube comments and legionary graffiti are a pretty easy comparison. That said there are much larger differences such that you can't just lean on "people are people". Thought experiment: take any person today writing a dick joke on a bathroom stall and any Roman writing one in the wall in Pompeii. Now ask them to explain their concepts of religion and justice to you and tell me how similar they are. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You are at a grave risk of treating your concept of human as the telos of the human of the past. *not even power, although he does want power--the power is secondary to the prestige, because his priorities are not a modern politician's priorities
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:That is true. The issue though is that the person leading Germany at the time was not the least bit rational and the Allies were quite determined to make sure that they did not have to fight Germany again in another thirty years or so. Also a bunch of both the leadership and the rank and file had a bad feeling about surrendering given what they had been up to for the past couple years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
Now try writing about differentiation in traditions and techniques in the production of material culture 2.5-1.5 million years ago, across several species and three separate genera of hominid, and you'll realise why I spent all day thinking about nice, easy, castles instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:
That pic is of a 54 caliber barrel and it can be slingloaded under a 46 or 47 just like the current 777. There is also a 58 caliber barrel being evaluated and I don't know about that one. Disinterested posted:What's the travel time of a round traveling 70km? It's roughly 2.5 mins at max range, assuming round isn't rocket assisted. Also it is always really strange to me when people argue that decision makers in a fog of war type situation "should have known" something as significant as "my country has no chance to gain anything at all from further resistance".
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
WW2 Data We move on to larger Italian calibers, but still retain some lesser known examples. Today's specimens are the 57/43mm, 65/17mm, and 70/15mm projectiles. The first caliber, the 57/43mm, was used with the QF 6 Pounder Nordenfelt gun, I think. The guns, though very outdated by WW2 standards, were still in use by the Italians during that time. Interestingly, they were earmarked for Anti-Tank use due to the high velocity of the projectile, although none of them appear to have seen combat use. Secondly, the 65/17mm projectiles were used by the 65mm Mountain Gun, otherwise known as the Cannone da 65/17 modello 13. Like many of Italy's weapons, they too were obsolete by WW2. Lastly, the 70/15mm rounds were used with the 70mm Infantry Gun or Cannone da 70/15. This last gun was even worse off than the previous two, being so outdated that it lacked a recoil system. But what projectile types were available? What filling did they use? All that and more at the blog! Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:People in the past weren't aliens who we can never hope to understand but you vastly over state the universality of the human condition. I think that a fairly good example is this: I walk into a bar and punch a dude in the back of the head and give him a couple of blows for good measure. Then I go "defend yourself, coward", drag him outside, and when he pulls a knife I stab him with my own. I go back into the bar and tell my friends at the table "guy's been talking poo poo about me and called me a coward." 17th century people would mostly go "oh ok yeah we get you now", average modern day people, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Eh, depends on the bar. e: vvvv Ah, there we go. That's an actually good example of this stuff. my dad fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
'I had to use a special silver knife because that guy made a pact with the devil though.'
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:'I had to use a special silver knife because that guy made a pact with the devil though.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:39
|
|