|
PittTheElder posted:At this point isn't philosophy just pedants bullshitting unfalsifiable arguments in the face of unanswerable questions? Hell no, son I mean, there are people doing that, but, well, there are people writing books on how awesome Operation Sealion would have been In my 'hood having an unfalsifiable argument was some serious poo poo. Immanual Kant was the biggest thug I've ever known when some buster was shittin' on his block. He was stone. Cold. He'd just lay him out with the necessity of time, space and causality an' poo poo bein' a logical necessity for any mind to coherently understand the universe an'--- --CRUNCH--- Buster would eat a curb. Then Kant would scream "A PRIORI MOTHERFUCKER" an' jus' walk away. Didn't look to see if anybody saw, dude just didn't give a gently caress Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Sep 23, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Turns out it's really hard to arrange a fleet battle when both sides are determined to do it on their terms. Anyone asking "why didn't they fight" has obviously never played Eve-Online. All those hours in fleet, lost like tears in the rain for nothing... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
kant was very good
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
We spent a lot of money on these ships and we'd really prefer not to get them shot at if we can avoid it. Like if you can get the enemy to fire some cinematic shots around the ship that'd be good so I can pose on deck and pretend to be Nelson.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
So I know this thread's opinion on LindyBeige and his milhist conjecture is pretty clear, but I'd really like to hear what the thread thinks of his other passion, the one that he named himself after. Dance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Here's Richard Evans: We're well into the gay black Kaiser zone, but surely it can be argued that the Social Democrats gained power and popularity precisely due to the failure of the militarists? In the event of the German army being more successful, indeed dramatically more successful as would be required for a victory, a lot of power and influence would be given to the generals instead. Even with the defeat, you saw the likes of Ludendorff and Hindenburg have huge sway over Weimar politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:29
|
|
Fangz posted:We're well into the gay black Kaiser zone, but surely it can be argued that the Social Democrats gained power and popularity precisely due to the failure of the militarists? In the event of the German army being more successful, indeed dramatically more successful as would be required for a victory, a lot of power and influence would be given to the generals instead. Even with the defeat, you saw the likes of Ludendorff and Hindenburg have huge sway over Weimar politics. No, the SDP were already on course to be the strongest party.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Yeah also you need to remember that the sdp fell in line with the unity govt which helped cause the KPD breakaway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I think it makes sense that any German settlement would be more harsh because of the way Versailles constituted a compromise between those that wanted Germany punished harshly (France, in particular) and those who wanted a fairly lenient deal (the US). A victorious Germany wouldn't have anyone like a Woodrow Wilson to tone things down. Alternatively Woodrow Wilson is negotiating for the Central Powers because thats how Germany wins 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
anakha posted:Not sure if this has already been asked, but here goes: I feel like the most lopsided battle is probably one of the battles between settlers and natives where the settlers had cannons and rifles against stone-tipped arrowheads, something like the Battle of Blood River. As far as battles between more equally matched forces, I'm a fan of Cannae.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Elyv posted:I feel like the most lopsided battle is probably one of the battles between settlers and natives where the settlers had cannons and rifles against stone-tipped arrowheads, something like the Battle of Blood River. As far as battles between more equally matched forces, I'm a fan of Cannae. Thanks for the link. Yeah, what I was looking for was along the lines of equal/similar technology and numbers with a massively lopsided outcome. Cannae just might fit the bill for land battles. Almost complete decimation of one side (including prisoners) vs a little over 10% losses for the other? That works. I'll check the other responses for the naval battles; I saw a lot of examples given. Could anyone give examples of similarly lopsided air battles?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
anakha posted:Could anyone give examples of similarly lopsided air battles? Battle of the Philippine Sea comes to mind - the Americans called it the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. 123 American planes shot down in exchange for upwards of six hundred.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Anything during the Gulf Wars, I imagine. If by battles you just mean one side "outfighting" the other in a fair and clean way then I guess this might be disqualified but the the battle of salsu is the single most lopsided battle I've ever heard of. One of the sides gets lured into a dry riverbed and then has a dam broken on top of them, drowning practically their entire army.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
anakha posted:Thanks for the link. Yeah, what I was looking for was along the lines of equal/similar technology and numbers with a massively lopsided outcome. To be picky, 10% losses would be literal decimation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Got to the point in my Shattered Sword reread where he talks poo poo about people on message boards discussing counterfactuals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
anakha posted:Thanks for the link. Yeah, what I was looking for was along the lines of equal/similar technology and numbers with a massively lopsided outcome. Harpers Ferry fits your bill and was very epic, it's only less known because it was part of the Antietam Campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:True, but damage results from a combination of how loud and how frequent the noise is. I can confirm that listening to "fwooooooossssshhhh" piped directly into your ears over several years will wreck your hearing just fine even if you are never exposed to loud, percussive sounds like gunfire or artillery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To be picky, 10% losses would be literal decimation. I too find it extremely irritating that people constantly reverse this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:04
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
So the latest Battlefield game is taking a lot of criticism for including a whole bunch of self-loading rifles used or manufactured in incredible small numbers as standard issue in World War I. The problem I'm having though, is why did bolt action rifles last for clear into the second world war? There were examples of semi-autos during and before WWI, and every other field of military technology advanced substantially, so why did infantry weapons get left in the dust?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:So the latest Battlefield game is taking a lot of criticism for including a whole bunch of self-loading rifles used or manufactured in incredible small numbers as standard issue in World War I. I'd imagine it has a lot to do with being reliable and simple to manufacture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:So the latest Battlefield game is taking a lot of criticism for including a whole bunch of self-loading rifles used or manufactured in incredible small numbers as standard issue in World War I. Nobody really wanted to spend the money to design and research semi autos, then even more to replace their bolt action rifles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
And probably the fact that everybody still had tons lying around from the last kick at the can. That was definitely the reason they didn't want to change cartridges, and without changing ammunition, building an effective automatic is tough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No, the SDP were already on course to be the strongest party. The failed Bavarian Soviet Republic didn't hurt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
anakha posted:complete decimation of one side (including prisoners) vs a little over 10% losses for the other? So that would be two decimations?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Nobody really wanted to spend the money to design and research semi autos, then even more to replace their bolt action rifles. And think of how much the ammunition to feed all those semiautomatics would cost!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:20
|
|
Cythereal posted:I'd imagine it has a lot to do with being reliable and simple to manufacture. And having a shitload of surplus after the war as well. Plus well, when your country is suddenly paying off money one way or another due to said war you really don't have the money or man power to suddenly decide to rearm your armed forces. Outside the stuff that is clearly game mechanic orientated I feel that game is doing a pretty decent job with World War 1918.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:That's because a normal office has a coffeemaker, not a kettle. I don't care about the posts before this but want to chime in and say tea is a drink for troglodytes and the english, but I repeat myself
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Outside the stuff that is clearly game mechanic orientated I feel that game is doing a pretty decent job with World War 1918. Goddammit apparently it comes out the same day as Civ 6.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:20
|
|
Phanatic posted:Goddammit apparently it comes out the same day as Civ 6. If you don't see me post in this thread for like a month after October you all know why.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:And probably the fact that everybody still had tons lying around from the last kick at the can. That was definitely the reason they didn't want to change cartridges, and without changing ammunition, building an effective automatic is tough. Tons and tons and tons. Hell, the US had the money to throw at the problem and came out with the M1 Garand, which still fired the .30-06 that had been the standard US Mil rifle round since 1906 (hence the ought see-yix there) for the bolt action Springfields they'd been using before Canada saved the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
As long as there are wild places on the earth the men that live in them will be armed with war surplus 303s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I'm researching hats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Harpers Ferry fits your bill and was very epic, it's only less known because it was part of the Antietam Campaign. the defenders never learn, either. another century, another dude looking at the high ground next to his position and going "this is fine. i feel ok about this"
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:drat near every WW2 vet I've known who saw combat had serious hearing issues. This applies to my grandpa. He wasn't even a combat vet but he was bunked right under a deck gun in an old Victory ship ib the pacific. Every now and then they'd test the gun or do firing practice or whatever and it a) left him hard of hearing and b) got him a few concussions from when he'd jerk upright and bash his skull on the bulkhead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i love all battles where the punch line is "yes you can get artillery up that slope" Wouldn't be surprised if there was an infantry commander in Afghanistan going all "There is no way any Tah-lay-bahn are getting up that there hill, no sir, it ain't happening, no way no how, sure as Jesus is the son of God OH poo poo WHERE IS THAT FIRE COMING FROM"
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
Well, the mountains are where the taliban mostly like to fight from
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:So the latest Battlefield game is taking a lot of criticism for including a whole bunch of self-loading rifles used or manufactured in incredible small numbers as standard issue in World War I. The Soviets had semi-automatic (SVT 38) and indeed even a selective fire rifle (AVS 36) in the 1930s. The problem was that the reliability was poo poo, especially in the hands of your average poorly trained conscript who isn't maintaining the gun properly. The Moisin-Nagant bolt action was simple, reliable, and much quicker to produce.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The Moisin-Nagant bolt action was simple, reliable, and much quicker to produce. Also there were a ton of them around (and Lee Enfields, K98s etc) from the previous war which worked just fine. Why would a cash-strapped interwar military spend a ton of money on making masses and masses of new rifles if it didn't have to? Edit: e;fb, should have caught all the way up! 
feedmegin fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
That's probably a bit less significant for the Moisin-Nagant given that the Soviets ended up producing 20 million of them during the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
lenoon posted:Mate we should both do some musket firing, where you based? I'm trying to get in with the sealed knot guys but they are not appreciative of my digger philosophies 17th century goonmeet? With fabulous hats!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 12:43
|
|