|
SeanBeansShako posted:In the 1st World War British and Commonwealth used sandbags as covers until they started manfacturing helmets with a camo friendly surface. Maybe it was the same? some sackcloth and some glue? Here's a source on the Germans doing the same thing. They cut up sandbags and used bailing wire to secure the cloth on their helmets.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also, I'm endlessly amused by the Hapsburgs controlling like half of Europe and having an empire that literally hauls money out of the ground in the new world, but is still constantly bankrupt. I mean, what were the Hapsburgs doing? Playing cards with those Genoian brothers? Addicted to art collecting? Having to constantly shell out the florins for massive armies to garrison against the Ottomans? Lol if you're an early modern European monarch or other ruler and you aren't constantly broke as gently caress you are doing it wrong Look that money isn't going to spend itself go to war or something, gently caress fund a new cathedral if you have to ask whether your castle is sufficiently prestigious yet, it isn't also if you are the Habsburgs, you may or may not have to pay the Ottomans off because you lost a war or two (this is not tribute, you see, just a payment agreed upon in a peace treaty. Completely different). I think Geoffrey Parker tells a story where the Spanish make peace with the English and the Amsterdam stock market crashes as a result because now neither side will need new war loans and no one has any idea what to invest in anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:I believe the German term of art is Brandmeister This is a firefighter's rank now. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dienstgrade_der_Feuerwehr_in_Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg Amusingly enough there also is a "Löschmeister", so in any given firefighting situation there's a decent likelihood of there being both a blazemaster420 and an extinguishing master around. Blazemaster is the higher rank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
I've heard things about all that gold and silver spewing out from the new world actually devaluing the precious metals themselves, but I've never seen any more information than just a handy little anecdote. When Charles took over the throne, he walked into a situation where it seemed reasonable at the time to make war with basically everyone, which is a horrendously expensive proposition, especially when everyone included the constituent bits of the empire that were supposed to make him money. On top of all of that, he had already spent a massive amount of money becoming emperor in the first place. I wonder if he would have overreached himself far less if he didn't have all that cash flowing in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
French Light Tank Building: Any tank you want, as long as it's a Renault FT The Renault FT was, without a doubt, the most progressive tank of WWI. It's no wonder that Renault decided to focus their efforts on this tank after the end of WWI. After all, there was still a demand for tanks. The Russian Civil War raged on, and many uppity natives in imperial colonies wanted "independence" or some nonsense like that. The tank business was good, and 3728 tanks of this type were built by 1921, an astonishing number for such an early design. However, time didn't stand still, and tastes grew. Not only did the French army stop buying Renault tanks, but they started selling off the ones they already had, cutting into Renault's export business. Renault was forced to innovate. One of the biggest problems with the tank was its mobility. This "light" tank could only reach a speed of 3 kph off-road, and even a more powerful engine couldn't help with that. The rigid suspension was the limiting factor. In addition, the tracks only lasted 150-200 km before needing replacement. One solution to this problem was something you can see on construction vehicles today: a "rubber band" type track as opposed to one made up of individual links. The new tanks also had suspensions similar to the Citroёn-Kégresse halftracks. These tanks were sometimes equipped with large front and rear drum-like wheels to prevent the hull from dipping forward and scraping on the ground. The new suspension and tracks made the tank faster and more reliable, but unfortunately the rubber track shredded quickly in rocky terrain. Since the entire track had to be replaced in one go, this was a time consuming process, and incredibly difficult to perform in combat. As a result of experience in Marocco, the Kegresse tracks were upgraded with metallic spurs to increase traction. Meanwhile, arms manufacturers didn't sit still, and armour piercing munitions became more and more common. This, combined with problems discovered with the Renault FT, resulted in the new Renault NC tank. There were two prototypes: the NC-1 with a conventional chassis (now improved with coil springs) and the NC-2 with a Kegresse chassis (using leaf springs). The turret was taken from the Renault FT with no changes, but the front armour of the hull grew to 25 mm. The hull was also lengthened to accommodate a larger 62 hp engine. The speed of the new tanks grew to an impressive 20 kph, despite an increase in weight to 8.5 tons. However, in what will be a trend in French tank building, the engineers couldn't keep up with the military's appetites. The military now wanted a 13 ton light tank with 30 mm of armour and a 47 mm gun. The Renault NC was relegated to an export role under the index NC-27. A handful of NC-27 and Renault FT-Kegresse tanks were sold, but they were often considered not superior enough to FT tanks to justify the expense. The NC-27 saw some success in Japan, where it served as the new backbone of the Japanese armoured force under the index Type 89, after several improvements like the installation of a Japanese engine and a more powerful gun. Back in France, Renault didn't want to give up on their new design. The NC-3 was going to be an NC-1 with thicker armour, but as always, that had other consequences. The military also demanded the addition of a radio, which caused the hull to widen to accommodate it and the radio operator. The hull was then lengthened to fit a bigger engine, necessary due to the increased mass. For some reason, the driver received a machinegun, which could only be aimed in the vertical axis. This tank was named D1, and appears as Renault UT or Renault TY in the company's documents. This new tank was pretty impressive: at 14 tons, a bigger engine retained the mobility of the NC-1, plus 30 mm of armour was nothing to scoff at in 1929. The contract for 10 new tanks was signed before a new turret that could handle a 47 mm gun was even designed. The next 70 tanks ordered the next year also had to be armed with Renault FT turrets. 10 years passed, and Renault's tanks were still using a gun with inferior armour piercing performance to AP bullets fired from a machinegun. A new turret was finally finished in 1930. It wasn't that great. Even though it had 40 mm of armour, a more powerful cannon and a more compact machinegun, it was still very cramped and had to have a large counterweight in the rear to balance the tank. Eventually Schneider engineers designed an improved turret, but it didn't enter production until 1936, one whole year after production of the tank ceased. New turrets also caused trouble, since the ammunition racks in the tank were designed for a 37 mm gun. By the mid-1930s the tank was largely obsolete and relegated to colonial duties. Only 160 tanks were built. Compared to thousands of Renault FTs that it was supposed to replace, that was not nearly enough. In 1933, the requirements for a new light tank were formed. The new tank was a step backwards. It was supposed to have 30 mm of armour and either two machineguns or a 37 mm cannon. The mass and top speed were the same as the Renault FT: 6 tons and 8-10 kph. These requirements were ridiculous, considering that 30 mm of questionable quality cast armour protected the tank only from machineguns and low velocity 37 mm guns. Renault offered a combination of their previous designs, but the requirements grew by 1934: 40 mm of armour, enough to resist a 25 mm cannon, and a top speed of 15-20 kph. The 37 mm gun was already unsatisfactory, but the new APX Rueil turret that new French light tanks were equipped with still used it for economical reasons. The guns were taken from old Renault FT tanks that were either written off or rearmed with machineguns. The Renault ZM, more commonly known a R 35, was accepted into service with a mix of new and old requirements: the turret had 40 mm of armour, but the hull still had 30 mm. The 6 ton tank fattened out to almost 11 tons, and the 85 hp engine could barely cope. The suspension was also poorly adapted to rough terrain. The Hotchkiss tank (H 35) was not much better. Using the same turret as the R 35, it repeated the two-man Renault FT-esque light tank concept. The Spanish Civil War came as a shock to the French. The new powerful German 37 mm cannon had no problems penetrating French armour. Trials showed that the new tank was very vulnerable both to this gun and the 25 mm gun that it was designed to withstand. The armament also suddenly became unacceptable. An attempt was made to equip the tanks with the Tourelle FCM (a welded turret from the FCM 36), but that was an expensive proposition, plus the turret cracked when a new SA 38 gun was used. The gun had to be installed in the old, cheap, low quality cast turret. The firepower increase was also insignificant: the SA 38 could penetrate only 29 mm of armour. Only 1540 of these unsatisfactory tanks were built, not even enough to finally replace the Renault FT, and fewer than 250 received the upgraded gun. Despite the outdated design concept, the family of FT-like tanks didn't die here. The Renault R 40 was designed, featuring an improved suspension and the longer 37 mm gun. Since production of this tank began very late, only 130-155 tanks of this type were built. The tanks were better than the R 35s, but not enough of a leap in quality to make a difference. The FCM 36 is worth a special mention. It was armoured with 40 mm thick plates that were not only welded together, but placed at a sharp angle, increasing their effectiveness. At the time, it was the heaviest armoured tank in the world, impervious to existing anti-tank artillery. However, it was very heavy and very expensive. At 13 tons (compared to the 10 ton requirement) and a cost of 450,000 francs (a Hotchkiss H35 cost 200,000 francs), it was an expensive proposition for the budget-conscious French military, especially since the turret could not use a more powerful gun than that same old 37 mm SA 18. To make things worse, FCM was also tasked with producing the Char B1 bis, a tank that the French army needed much more than the FCM 36. Nevertheless, 100 tanks of this type were built. This tank directly influenced the design of the Soviet BT-SV tank with sloped armour and, potentially, even the T-34.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Snow off runways, surely. That one is a fire engine, they inject water into the jet stream and blow the fire out. They do, however, also use mig engines as snowblowers.  I don't know what the Russian equivalent of "Cletus" is but I'm sure the driver is named that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
I want to say Ivan but sadly I do not know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
I'd like to repeat my request for information on late 18th - early 19th century warfare, especially organization, logistics, and tactics. I feel like my question got lost in tankchat. (I won't repeat it again - I don't want to clog up the thread too much.)
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I've heard things about all that gold and silver spewing out from the new world actually devaluing the precious metals themselves, but I've never seen any more information than just a handy little anecdote. Maintaining the prestige of the Spanish crown is a very real issue for these monarchs and apparently it is worth spending yourself into bankruptcy multiple times. As for the cash from the New World that did gently caress up the crown's finances, but not in the way people generally assume. The Spanish crown was able to leverage the expected silver coming in as collateral to borrow money with the predictable result that they eventually were spending more financing their debt then they were making every year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:58
|
|
Eela6 posted:I'd like to repeat my request for information on late 18th - early 19th century warfare, especially organization, logistics, and tactics. I feel like my question got lost in tankchat. Each one of those would need a pretty meaty effort post man, pick one to start with and one of us will get around to it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:This is a firefighter's rank now. Eela6 posted:I'd like to repeat my request for information on late 18th - early 19th century warfare, especially organization, logistics, and tactics. I feel like my question got lost in tankchat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Any of you dudes with blogs have any recommendations about platform (ie major complaints with the one you're using)? I figure having a proper place to put things might encourage me to do them more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Any of you dudes with blogs have any recommendations about platform (ie major complaints with the one you're using)? I figure having a proper place to put things might encourage me to do them more. Blogger is pretty flexible and integrates with all your Google stuff. The only downside is that you can't get it running on your own host like WordPress. I used both and I like Blogger more, although I know people who say the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:I believe the German term of art is Brandmeister 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Maintaining the prestige of the Spanish crown is a very real issue for these monarchs and apparently it is worth spending yourself into bankruptcy multiple times. As for the cash from the New World that did gently caress up the crown's finances, but not in the way people generally assume. The Spanish crown was able to leverage the expected silver coming in as collateral to borrow money with the predictable result that they eventually were spending more financing their debt then they were making every year. As an aside, Tallahassee actually has a really good state history museum with a whole room devoted to Spanish silver coinage. Most of the explanatory plaques end with "and then the guy with the crown monopoly on the mint was executed for embezzling". 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:So I have a question about US helmet covers in WWII. Specifically if anyone has sources on GIs making their own in Europe. I know that the army experimented with camo uniforms in Europe but they dropped them pretty quickly. I've read stuff about making cloth covers of their own, does anyone have ideas what sort of fabric they would use? Just OD? Not really answering your question but in the defense of Bastogne, they used the white bedsheets and towels the townspeople gathered up and donated. The Army even gifted a bunch of that stuff to the town after the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
May as well do this right here. Fun concepts in ship design: The Torpedo Battleship The US laid down a whole bunch of dreadnoughts that were on the whole pretty similar in concept. Big armor, big guns, and a low speed. This is not about them. This is about an idea that got seriously considered and wargamed as a supplement to them. The US had a bit of a love-hate relationship with torpedoes on large ships, putting them on and then taking the above water tubes off their early battleships following the Spanish-American War. However torpedoes kept getting better and by late 1903 the General board was recommending them on every armored vessel of the Navy under construction, one or preferably two as they started proving decisive in war games at ranges of 3,000 yards or even more. But if one was good, why not more? In 1903, that was answered by advances in fire control taking gunnery out to considerably longer ranges. In 1907 a Lieutenant Commander Schofield proposed a 23 knot ship that used weight that would otherwise go to guns to become essentially proof to shellfire, above a 16 21-inch torpedo tubes, with only 12 5 inch guns to cover from torpedo ships. A torpedo hit was reasoned to probably sink and certainly cripple its target, and such a ship would be able to launch an entire school of fish at once. While battleships would be firing at longer ranges and unlikely to be able to fire their torpedoes and lighter torpedo ships could be held at bay, such a ship could fire torpedoes into an 18-knot fleet with ease, with armor to deal with the shellfire that represented the only major threat. Gaming showed that a fleet with two such ships could always attack an enemy line with torpedoes. So the idea went on to the main games, where the ships were given a charitable rating of equivalence in underwater resistance to damage (charitable in that a university system of torpedo rooms like that would've meant the TDS would be a torpedo detonation syndrome rather than a torpedo defense system, but this wasn't realized until years later, when it led to the removal of submerged torpedo tubes). The ship was given a 50% greater life than a usual battleship, since it would still be vulnerable to conning tower and smoke pipe hits even if it wasn't actually sunk. In games with such ships replacing battleships 1-1, one such ship could never succeed but two nearly always resulted in victory. There were other unconventional ships being touted however, and the battlecruiser as represented by HMS Invincible and a more heavily armored example the Naval War College had devised in 1904 offered a serious problem, since the design depended on a surfeit of speed. The Invincible was already faster by two knots, and could carry a significant torpedo load as well as a battery superior to any battleship except the Dreadnought. By the time a reworked torpedo battleship was submitted, gunnery had gained ground yet again, and an enemy fleet with battlecruisers was able to wipe them out before they entered torpedo range. Further attempts to gain sufficient speed led towards unsustainable sacrifices. Late drafts could hit 31 knots, with four 14 inch guns and a very large number of 6 inch guns, with a protected cruiser armor scheme, and it took mounting all four guns in a single thin turret to get a belt. It just wasn't going to work. However, the torpedo was still considered very strongly as a battleship weapon even in 1914, when the General Board wanted four tubes a side, and when C&R started screeching about how the torpedo bulkheads would be compromised and structural bulkheads near No. 1 turret would have to be cut, they accepted a cut of half a knot. Thankfully war experience showed soon that it turned out that firing the things at speeds over 16 knots was pretty much impossible, damage showed they were a weakness, and in the end they were omitted. In 1921 the above water tube was set to make a comeback with the South Dakota class (not that one, the one that got canceled by treaty), but by the end of the treaty era the battleship torpedo tube was not in the US' design ideas. More reading: The Superposed Turret The Weird and Wonderful World of North Carolina Design Sketches: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 xthetenth fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Having just finished some college work that turned out to be way more of a task than I expected and it being nearly 2AM I've only managed to gather the photos for part two of my tanks post. There was a fuckton of stuff developed between 1919 and 1939 so I might split this into two sub-posts along the lines of "got shot by nazis" and "did not got shot by nazis". It's like 20+ tanks of varying degress of sanity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
hey quick question, i was recently reading into the whole situation where mccarthur was fired by truman, and i was curious about this. has there ever been a time in US history where we came anywhere even close to a military coup d'etat? are there military plans in place to seize power from the executive branch in case of some kind of situation where the president tries to declare himself a dictator or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Kanine posted:hey quick question, i was recently reading into the whole situation where mccarthur was fired by truman, and i was curious about this. has there ever been a time in US history where we came anywhere even close to a military coup d'etat? are there military plans in place to seize power from the executive branch in case of some kind of situation where the president tries to declare himself a dictator or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh_Conspiracy This was pre-Constitution though, so it's not quite the same dynamic as when the country was more established. And before someone mentions the Business Plot, that doesn't meet the "anywhere even close" criterion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:This is a firefighter's rank now. Blazemaster von Töch
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:59
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Each one of those would need a pretty meaty effort post man, pick one to start with and one of us will get around to it. That's totally fair. I know zilch about the issue, so it's kind of an issue of 'not knowing enough to know what to ask'. I'll toss out a couple questions, but really any info whatsoever would be fascinating to me. To try and sum it up, my question is this: 'What kind of armies did spain have in their middle colonial period, before the latin american revolutions'. To make it into a bunch of smaller sub-questions: I know that the Kingdom of Spain is in fact the Kingdoms of the Spains. Do they have separate armies? Do these armies work together or overlap? What kind of armies are they? That is, are they small or large - both absolutely or relative to their rivals? Are these armies comprised of professional soldiers, militia / levies, mercenaries, or some combination? Who commands? Is it a nobility thing, or can you buy commands, or is it professional / merit based? Most importantly, do they believe that if your commanders are sufficiently powerful wizards they can become immune to bullets? If not, why not?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Kanine posted:hey quick question, i was recently reading into the whole situation where mccarthur was fired by truman, and i was curious about this. has there ever been a time in US history where we came anywhere even close to a military coup d'etat? are there military plans in place to seize power from the executive branch in case of some kind of situation where the president tries to declare himself a dictator or something. Wasn't there a bunch of people plotting against FDR, especially during his whole "stuff the Supreme Court" phase? I don't think it was military, but it might have been government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 05:30
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Yeah, there was the business plot. The whole plan was that they'd take advantage of all the disgruntled veterans who set up a shanty town around DC to unseat FDR. The only problem was that none of the businessmen who had come up with the plot had the military experience or charisma to lead the veterans against Washington DC and the guy they tried to recruit for the purpose didn't want to do it, so it never got off the ground. Other than that, there's not too much. Washington could've done it if he wanted to, but he was fine retiring with all the money congress gave him. I think for the bulk of US history, the federal government wasn't really important to most people, so it was pretty safe from any coup. I guess there's more local things that you could call coups. The way that the Hawaiian government overthrew their queen before getting themselves annexed would count. Also, the civil war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Kanine posted:hey quick question, i was recently reading into the whole situation where mccarthur was fired by truman, and i was curious about this. has there ever been a time in US history where we came anywhere even close to a military coup d'etat? are there military plans in place to seize power from the executive branch in case of some kind of situation where the president tries to declare himself a dictator or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898 Armed white supremacists overthrow a lawfully elected government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
liberal democracy is a tougher form of government than a bunch of the others
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:liberal democracy is a tougher form of government than a bunch of the others This is really only true when it's been established for about a century and you have a ton of cultural assumptions entrenched about things like the sanctity of the ballot box, orderly regime changes, civil services that exist outside the party structures etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
once you do though, it's p. sick edit: there is a theory, however, that ethnic cleansing is what happens when democratization raises hopes it does not fulfill https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Democracy-Explaining-Cleansing/dp/0521538548 HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Oh poo poo, you're right. I've drifted into an area where DnD references cannot be recognized as silly out of hand after he ceded his titles to his brother, i'd say his brother decided it, and his brother's army quote:Also, I'm endlessly amused by the Hapsburgs controlling like half of Europe and having an empire that literally hauls money out of the ground in the new world, but is still constantly bankrupt. I mean, what were the Hapsburgs doing? Playing cards with those Genoian brothers? Addicted to art collecting? Having to constantly shell out the florins for massive armies to garrison against the Ottomans?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:once you do though, it's p. sick Indeed, I'm loving sick to my stomach at the wars, hypocricy and state racism.. I wonder when people start raising the black flag and some pikes again! Kanine posted:hey quick question, i was recently reading into the whole situation where mccarthur was fired by truman, and i was curious about this. has there ever been a time in US history where we came anywhere even close to a military coup d'etat? are there military plans in place to seize power from the executive branch in case of some kind of situation where the president tries to declare himself a dictator or something. Interested, I tried to google if the US military could seize power from a dictatorship. Never again.. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
gently caress countries that go the federal route. Like, reading abou WWI and sometimes it mentions the German army and army of some region, what the Christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Tias posted:Interested, I tried to google if the US military could seize power from a dictatorship. Never again.. OBAMER IS GON SEND IN ZIONIST UN TROOPS TO TAKE ARE GUNS GUNS PROTECT LIBURTY SOLDIERS IN THE ARMY HAVE NO AGENCY OF THEIR OWN AND WOULD GLADLY RAPE AMERICAN BABIES WITH BAYONETS IF ORDERED IS WHAT WE'RE IMPLYING YUROP MUDSLIME TERRORIST IMMIGRANTS BRITAIN 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
JcDent posted:gently caress countries that go the federal route. Like, reading abou WWI and sometimes it mentions the German army and army of some region, what the Christ. No kidding. I was harassed at a border bus stop by a German cop for not having my 'federal passport' with me. Then he wanted a 35€ bribe. Good thing he got off when several of the German passengers sided with me and told him to go gently caress himself. JcDent posted:OBAMER IS GON SEND IN ZIONIST UN TROOPS TO TAKE ARE GUNS it's something else allright. But seriously, are there any way to enforce the "enemies domestic" part of the oath? When would the U.S. military actually consider a civil leader a dictator, and would they mind?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
JcDent posted:gently caress countries that go the federal route. Like, reading abou WWI and sometimes it mentions the German army and army of some region, what the Christ. and bavaria and saxony and a bunch of the other german countries never would have been ok with the '71 unification if they didn't get to keep a bunch of their poo poo edit: that was the "reich" in "kaiserreich"/"zweites reich"
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Tias posted:it's something else allright. But seriously, are there any way to enforce the "enemies domestic" part of the oath? When would the U.S. military actually consider a civil leader a dictator, and would they mind? Find out this November!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Find out this November! Trump isn't going to a dictator, he's a petulant manchild with no idea what real power is, and will be easily controlled by departments and congress. Right? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Tias posted:Trump isn't going to a dictator, he's a petulant manchild with no idea what real power is, and will be easily controlled by departments and congress. Right? _________/ von_papen_say
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:_________/ I guess you're right. Burn the world, salt the ground!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:_________/ Comparing Trump to Hitler is really insulting to Hitler. After all, Trump never fought in a war!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Living the Landsknecht dream. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 08:42
|
|