|
Jobbo_Fett posted:According to British technical documents, 152mm rounds weighed between 99 lbs and 131 lbs. I guess it would depend on which 152mm round you're talking about as there are a lot of 6 inch guns out there, not least some of them naval cannons which are probably able to fire rather longer shells than land guns. E: incidentally I found a picture of those su-152-34s:  Pontius Pilate posted:Looks like it was made from cast iron! I would guess/hope that's because it was grave goods. You need your sweet OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Sep 8, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
"ULFBERT STEEL BLADE FOLDED 1000 TIMES" "How the gently caress did he even get in here"
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Well obviously he killed the evil spirits guarding the path to the afterlife with his GUNGNIR brand legendary swords and his masterful skill at arms that he learned from watching sturlusOWN3D_69 down at the thingstead. Also he writes really good sagas because he buys lots of poetry mead from the traveling merchant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I always feel a little sorry for this guy despite some of his gently caress up's now, you got all those weird issues on top of living in your uncles shadow. There is that story where Wilhelm II just kind comes to visit him during late July 1914 and goes "yeah, the mobilization is off we are only going to fight Russia, see to it chop chop" and Moltke just starts crying because goddamn he just wants to have a loving world war like the one he planned for is that too much to loving ask? And then Wilhelm is all "Your uncle could have done it". I mean drat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:09
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There is that story where Wilhelm II just kind comes to visit him during late July 1914 and goes "yeah, the mobilization is off we are only going to fight Russia, see to it chop chop" and Moltke just starts crying because goddamn he just wants to have a loving world war like the one he planned for is that too much to loving ask? And then Wilhelm is all "Your uncle could have done it". Ouch.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Conrad von Hotzendorf was tragically hosed up dude. His diary entries are dark as gently caress - he was obssessed with spending time with his mistress, and wrote constantly about how he was crushed by the weight of the responsibility of his position and the pressure to always show a strong masculine side that never backed down. A lot of correspondence revolves around how he didn't want to have to portray a tough manly man all the time and just wanted to spend time with his mistress and get away from the world. I saw it speculated somewhere that the Harden-Eulenburg affair might have lead to an increase in militarist rhetoric & posturing by the Kaiser, as a way to debunk or dissuade rumors of homosexuality. Anyone know if there's truth to that, or is it too reductionist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:the early modern... I've got a friend who's a professional early modern musician who plays things like this. It's pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:"His imperial and royal Majesty would like to congratulate Gen. Cadorna to yet another very successful offensive at the Izorno and would like to offer his most heartfelt encouragement to continue operations in this sector." You know why we talk about (spoilers) twelve battles of the Isonzo, even though the Italians just crossed it and really the next six should be the Battles of the Vallone, or of Doberdo, or something like that? Some propaganda-wallah in Vienna had a thought in May 1915 "there are probably going to be a lot of battles in this general area, so every time they attack and gently caress it up, it's the next Battle of the Isonzo, and they'll look worse every time"...and the Italian general staff was so thick, they just followed the enemy's naming convention, and by the time they realised "wait a minute, this is making us look really, really bad..." it would have looked worse for them to try to get a different name over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Finally, something the Hapsburg government did right in WW1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
The July Crisis was such an immense clusterfuck that for once in his life Nicholas II got to be the smartest one in the room. When the Austrians gave their ultimatum to Serbia he told them to accept it and stall for time in order to generate sympathy in the rest of Europe because nobody likes a bully.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:The July Crisis was such an immense clusterfuck that for once in his life Nicholas II got to be the smartest one in the room. When the Austrians gave their ultimatum to Serbia he told them to accept it and stall for time in order to generate sympathy in the rest of Europe because nobody likes a bully. high noon in the clock repair shop right here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:By "competitive" I didn't mean to imply that crossbows with very high draw weights were equal to matchlocks. I was getting around to the discussion of spanning with mechanical devices by specifying that not all crossbows will give you the least of what a matchlock can do--a high likelihood of penetrating quality body armor and causing wounds at short range. That requires a very heavy crossbow, which takes longer to span. They will be less powerful than a matchlock, but still sufficient to have a good chance of getting that result. I still think you're overselling the power of crossbows, and I say that as someone who is generally in their corner when in discussions comparing them to other ranged weapons. Wounding through good-quality plate armour from the front is, from all the evidence I've seen, very unlikely for man-portable bows or crossbows. That said, bows and crossbows are quite accurate, especially when compared to smooth bore firearms loaded with under-sized balls, as they commonly were to speed loading . Arrows and bolts also maintain their energy better over distance than bullets, and their shape means they need less energy to penetrate targets. Conversely this also means that the wounds they leave are less severe than those caused by bullets at close range. The wide diameter of a bullet, and the way it tears, rather than cuts or pierces through its target, leaves a more open wound channel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I still think you're overselling the power of crossbows, and I say that as someone who is generally in their corner when in discussions comparing them to other ranged weapons. Wounding through good-quality plate armour from the front is, from all the evidence I've seen, very unlikely for man-portable bows or crossbows. Is this the case before armor starts thickening in response to guns?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Is this the case before armor starts thickening in response to guns? Yes. This is evident both from Alan Williams' tests and from textual evidence, like Monstrelet talking about Agincourt "the men lowered their heads so the arrows would not penetrate the visors of their bascinets" ie going where there were already holes in the armour. The tops of their bascinets, though, were obviously more resilient (and indeed are made thicker there). Its also worth mentioning that if the French have to lower their heads then they must be getting shot at within a range where the arrows are flying in a fairly flat trajectory. The sides of breastplates and helms were also generally thinner than the front or top, and there is evidence of men being wounded and killer from close-range shots in such cases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Yes. This is evident both from Alan Williams' tests and from textual evidence, like Monstrelet talking about Agincourt "the men lowered their heads so the arrows would not penetrate the visors of their bascinets" ie going where there were already holes in the armour. The tops of their bascinets, though, were obviously more resilient (and indeed are made thicker there). Its also worth mentioning that if the French have to lower their heads then they must be getting shot at within a range where the arrows are flying in a fairly flat trajectory. The sides of breastplates and helms were also generally thinner than the front or top, and there is evidence of men being wounded and killer from close-range shots in such cases. Awesome info, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Off topic - is there either a WWII reenacting or just reenacting in general thread somewhere on SA that I'm missing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I still think you're overselling the power of crossbows, and I say that as someone who is generally in their corner when in discussions comparing them to other ranged weapons. Wounding through good-quality plate armour from the front is, from all the evidence I've seen, very unlikely for man-portable bows or crossbows. Speaking of, in 1491 the author mentions that when Europeans showed up in North America the local's bows were actually better weapons than the settler's guns. How true is that? And for that matter, how much do we know about North American bowmaking? Were they better, worse or different than bows in Europe and Asia?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Off topic - is there either a WWII reenacting or just reenacting in general thread somewhere on SA that I'm missing? Reenacting thread courtesy of TFR EDIT: Miles Vorkosigan posted:Speaking of, in 1491 the author mentions that when Europeans showed up in North America the local's bows were actually better weapons than the settler's guns. How true is that? And for that matter, how much do we know about North American bowmaking? Were they better, worse or different than bows in Europe and Asia? I think bows were better for the kind of fighting that occurred in that time period and area. Plus guessing at the date, they still used matchlocks that obviously still kind of suck. Chillyrabbit fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:
What is that from?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Sharpe. Right clicking on the image and selecting "search Google for image" would have even given you the name of the character in the picture as the first result. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There is that story where Wilhelm II just kind comes to visit him during late July 1914 and goes "yeah, the mobilization is off we are only going to fight Russia, see to it chop chop" and Moltke just starts crying because goddamn he just wants to have a loving world war like the one he planned for is that too much to loving ask? And then Wilhelm is all "Your uncle could have done it". Well I've always thought Moltke was on edge because he was sure Germany was going to lose. Based on the various pre-war plans drawn up by the German staff, finding yourself actually charging towards a war with France, Russia, and Britain and only A-H in your corner could not have been a fun time. Dealing with Wilhelm would only be icing on the cake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Miles Vorkosigan posted:Speaking of, in 1491 the author mentions that when Europeans showed up in North America the local's bows were actually better weapons than the settler's guns. How true is that? And for that matter, how much do we know about North American bowmaking? Were they better, worse or different than bows in Europe and Asia? Firearms in 1492 had their issues, but it's a moot point, since native American arrows ain't got poo poo on the suits of armor that the spaniards had access to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Having said that the Spaniards always got creamed in small skirmishes without native assistance.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Miles Vorkosigan posted:Speaking of, in 1491 the author mentions that when Europeans showed up in North America the local's bows were actually better weapons than the settler's guns. How true is that? And for that matter, how much do we know about North American bowmaking? Were they better, worse or different than bows in Europe and Asia? That depends what he is quoting. In situations where nobody wears armor, they might be better. Longbows show up in early english colony's inventories. Spanish sources speak of quite nasty archery related experiences in Florida. Apparently the inhabitants used quite large and powerful bows. The last engagements where archery was used on a larger scale in europe was in this timeframe and it ended pretty bad for the english.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Just a quick question but why was the battle of Yorktown the decisive battle of the American revolution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:That depends what he is quoting. In situations where nobody wears armor, they might be better. Longbows show up in early english colony's inventories. Since it's one of your things, was there much composite bow construction among Native Americans? Pretty much everything I've heard of has been self bows. e: Wikipedia tells me a few Native Americans had "sinew-backed" bows but none had wood-horn-sinew composite bows like what show up in the Old World. Maybe that's related to availability of suitable horns since from your posts that seems to be a big factor? Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:"ULFBERT STEEL BLADE FOLDED 1000 TIMES" he cut his god drat way in
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Firearms in 1492 had their issues, but it's a moot point, since native American arrows ain't got poo poo on the suits of armor that the spaniards had access to. * I heard this somewhere, possibly in a documentary, conversation with a homeless man, or a dream.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
can't stop one of them sword-bats, a spanish saw a dude decapitate a horse with one of those things
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Since it's one of your things, was there much composite bow construction among Native Americans? Pretty much everything I've heard of has been self bows. I'm not sure about the horns available there, but sheep horn does work. Bighorn sheep horn for example. I strongly doubt that composite construction is viable without metal tools. It wouldn't make alot of sense to try, since they had access to some of the best bow woods. That being said, composite construction is also only meaningful in places that didn't have access to these great bow woods and an equestrian tradition. Small sinew backed bows can be quite enough to kill large game and people. Nobody wore e.g chainmail with padding, so there's no pressure to come up with ever more powerful and compact bows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:can't stop one of them sword-bats, a spanish saw a dude decapitate a horse with one of those things molecular-edged volcanic glass blades, badass as gently caress HEYYY BATTER BATTER *slice*  JaucheCharly posted:I'm not sure about the horns available there, but sheep horn does work. Bighorn sheep horn for example. Yeah I suppose that makes sense given how non-decorative metalworking was absent in most of the Americas and as you say they had good woods and weren't up against munitions-grade plate armor. There's also the argument I've seen that marginal upgrades in technology didn't catch on because the old school stuff was perfectly suitable. The Mesoamericans were familiar with bronze-working technology but stuck with the obsidian blades because bronze was a ton more effort for no obvious benefit. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Firstscion posted:Just a quick question but why was the battle of Yorktown the decisive battle of the American revolution? It drove home the point that continued fighting for the colonies wasn't worth it for the British. British imperial holdings were getting whittled away daily by France and Spain and Parliament was souring on the continued commitment to fighting in America when they could be pushing back against France and Spain. It's better to think of the American Revolutionary War as one of multiple fronts on which Britain was fighting at that time. When you look at the Paris negotiations it becomes pretty clear who and what Britain was really concerned about (Cockblocking France's economic interests in the Americas, being able to pivot militarily and better defend other holdings like the Indies) rather than the concept of kingly ownership of colonies or some such. In short, the same poo poo that ends up being the path to victory for every insurgency/insurrection - make the other guy realize victory later is going to cost a hell of a lot more than a peace treaty now. Britain basically bought American friendship out from under France's nose by ceding a hell of a lot of territory (probably including Spanish territory they didn't actually have a right to cede Florida strikes again) in exchange for economic access to the American continent and a stake in the new country's inevitable Westward expansion. Spain hilariously didn't even want to end the war. They wanted to keep kicking Britain in the balls while they were tied down in the colonies and distracted by French attacks against their maritime empire. Consequently, they got a good price for their peace.France got shafted after incurring massive costs backing the revolution, and the sheer extent to which they got hosed raw probably ranked high among popular grievances driving the French Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:molecular-edged volcanic glass blades, badass as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:and you can swap out the individual blades so you don't have to replace the whole thing when one part breaks, which is my favorite part. so useful imagine obsidian-tipped pikes it's basically high iron content glass i'm not concerned about your rapier fetish but if you purchase a macuahuitl i might be very concerned for my life
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:imagine obsidian-tipped pikes Bring that sass Get stabbed with glass On the other hand, I'd feel bad for any poor bastard who had to fight in that field after the first few battles because you'd have a bunch of shattered pike tips in the dirt, waiting to be stepped on by man and horse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:and better defend other holdings like the Indies Yeah, basically. Bear in mind the West Indies (with its vast sugar plantations) were economically more important to Britain (and less expensive to defend/maintain when not fighting France and Spain - no natives for the colonists to piss off and trigger expensive wars) than the North American colonies, which after all it could continue trading with in any case. (And it's not like Britain even lost all of them, hence Canada)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:There's also the argument I've seen that marginal upgrades in technology didn't catch on because the old school stuff was perfectly suitable. The Mesoamericans were familiar with bronze-working technology but stuck with the obsidian blades because bronze was a ton more effort for no obvious benefit. That sounds...wrong. Obsidian bladed swords maybe, but how good is an obsidian bladed chisel, hammer, axe, pick and shovel, even if you discount armour too? Then again, I don't know how they cut the stones for their roads, buildings and temples. Copper tools?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
I don't think anyone would be silly enough to use an obsidian chisel, let alone a hammer. Obsidian is very brittle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
I thought the Spanish did win on occasion even without native allies? And even when they didn't, the casualty ratio was still insane (even when considering later victor inflation)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Comstar posted:That sounds...wrong. Obsidian bladed swords maybe, but how good is an obsidian bladed chisel, hammer, axe, pick and shovel, even if you discount armour too? They had chisels and such, but they were made of hard stones. Large stones would be cut through non-metal means like plugs/feathers and wedges, a technique that's existed for thousands of years. This is a modern example of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxm1VCzVswQ The Aztecs were engaging in metallurgy and making bronze around the time of the Spanish invasion, but the first works of metal in Mesoamerica date back to only around 600-800 AD. Metal was mostly used for making valuable items or status symbols. Grand Prize Winner posted:The Spanish usually reduced their armor to padded cloth surcoats due to the sweltering heat. They kept the morion helmets. Even so those coats were plenty to stop stone-tipped arrows and macuahuitls, at least for a few hits. Think like the trauma plates in modern ballistic vests. * I don't know how accurate that is, but soft vests have actually seen use as ballistic armor for practically as long as guns existed. Silk vests were popular for defending against lower caliber weapons like compact pistols from the 19th century onward and didn't get fully usurped until post-WW2 scientific advances started giving us ballistic fibers. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 13:48
|
|
