|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:As someone who's read everything he's written, multiple times, it's all bad. Honestly the worst copy paste potboiler stuff you could imagine, it's all terrible. At some point I realized I got as much enjoyment from wikipedia plot summaries as the actual books, it saves a lot of time.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:As someone who's read everything he's written, multiple times, it's all bad. Honestly the worst copy paste potboiler stuff you could imagine, it's all terrible. I'm still seriously disappointed whenever I find something that looked like a neat setpiece in a book to have been a shameless copy of some reallife event transported to America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
As far as full conversion to an aircraft carrier goes, putting a battleship in the yard is a mistake, the air that was there before was a better candidate. Carriers really want to be fast, which is strike one, and it's a lot of work to core out a battleship to the point conversion is viable. Much better to have a battleship and a carrier rather than a bad carrier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:As far as full conversion to an aircraft carrier goes, putting a battleship in the yard is a mistake, the air that was there before was a better candidate. Carriers really want to be fast, which is strike one, and it's a lot of work to core out a battleship to the point conversion is viable. Much better to have a battleship and a carrier rather than a bad carrier. I have no idea what you're referring to
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm reading The Eastern Front by Norman Stone I strongly advise you read Prit Buttar's Collision of Empires, Germany Ascendant, and Russia's Last Gasp as well/instead, it's a giant leap forward from Stone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Happy to have made it to the end of the thread, even with the carrier posting. Then again, there was some excellent interwar tank posting, which is always hilarious. By the way, there's one thing that's bugging me: Ronson Shermans. Like you people said, they installed wet racks to stop cooking Tommies, but how long did that take? What's the time gap between Shermans starting to roll around like angry houses and the time they get/are refitted with wet racks? I mean, it wasn't like they discovered the issue on day two and fixed it with an overnight patch, so there should have been a period of flammable tanks, no? What about the Soviet Shermans? Still on Shermans: how fast was the switch over to 76 mm gun? Where there Sherman tankers rolling around in 75s in 1945? If anyone is shy about efortposting on Shermans post war as well various ways they got modernised, I would like it if you posted away. Going by Fate of a Nation, the Israelis were sticking any gun they could on Shermans. Were there ever similar attempts to upgun T-34/85s to a hilarious extent?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Production never fully switched to the 76mm because it fires a much smaller HE shell and most of what a tank does is shoot HE at buildings/people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Not a major expert on Shermans, or anything in particular, but the Ronson Sherman thing is a myth. The original ones were about as flammable as any other tank, and the wet racks made them far less flammable. Also yes, there are tons of 75mm Shermans rumbling around in 1945. For 98% of the time, they're going to be capable of doing exactly what you need them to do, I mean, it's not as if Germany was swimming in Tiger IIs at this point or anything like that, so why go to the expense of replacing thousands of tanks for that final 2%?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
JcDent posted:By the way, there's one thing that's bugging me: Ronson Shermans. Go watch this: https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY Also, the T-34-85 basically was a hilarious ungunning. It got a whole new turret to fit the gun in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Trin Tragula posted:I strongly advise you read Prit Buttar's Collision of Empires, Germany Ascendant, and Russia's Last Gasp as well/instead, it's a giant leap forward from Stone. Thank you for the recommendation! I'll add them to my reading list.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Psh like half the IJN's carriers were conversions from battleships or battlecruisers, though I'd imagine a battlecruiser's hull is the better of the two suited for having a runway slapped on top since it's what happens when you put Orks in charge of ship design and they give you something with more engine and gun than armor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Happy to have made it to the end of the thread, even with the carrier posting. The whole Ronson thing is a myth that for some reason will never die. The Sherman never caught fire more than other tanks, WAR Shermans caught fire a lot less. quote:Still on Shermans: how fast was the switch over to 76 mm gun? Where there Sherman tankers rolling around in 75s in 1945? The 75 and 76 mm guns solved different tasks. The 75 mm gun had an excellent HE shell, the 76 did not. Dropping the 75 mm gun entirely would have made the Sherman ineffective against infantry and fortifications. quote:If anyone is shy about efortposting on Shermans post war as well various ways they got modernised, I would like it if you posted away. Going by Fate of a Nation, the Israelis were sticking any gun they could on Shermans. The Sherman Tank Site is what you're looking for. The guy that runs it is a huge Sherman fan and effortposts in quantity. quote:Were there ever similar attempts to upgun T-34/85s to a hilarious extent? Yes, both the Soviets and Czechs independently attempted to upgun the T-34-85 to 100 mm guns. Both came to the same decision: sure, we could do that, or we could produce the T-54 instead. PittTheElder posted:Also, the T-34-85 basically was a hilarious ungunning. It got a whole new turret to fit the gun in. The D-5T required a new turret. The S-53 was designed to fit into the hex-nut turret, and they just happened to go with the bigger turret because it was time to upgrade anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I'm still seriously disappointed whenever I find something that looked like a neat setpiece in a book to have been a shameless copy of some reallife event transported to America. This is everything from the first page of the first ww1 book onwards, I have no idea why I slugged all the way through those terribly unimaginative pieces of alt-history. HEY GAL posted:the first attempts at star forts are slightly pointier, slightly squattier, medieval castles Just to expand on this with some fairly shallow input as it's only stuff I've read around the place, I feel like there's a fairly linear path from the height of concentric castles through rubble-fortified places like Rhodes into star forts. My knowledge of castles kind of ends in the 14th century, but you can see the kinds of principles at play in Star fortresses in the technically-perfect-but-never-finished Beaumaris, the squat towers with artillery emplacements that cover each other, lengthy protruding bastions that produce these deep killing fields while presenting minimal area, etc. It's those kind of ideas that you see in Rhodes and in the rubble and soil reinforcements of older fortifications. Once they again become slightly impregnable to cannon fire, you get another development of siege works you need in order to invest the fortress, which are earth revetments that resist cannon fire from the castle. Combine the science and design considerations behind concentric castles, upgrading medieval fortifications to deal with cannon fire, angled earthworks that let you deliver cannon fire into the castle and then most importantly what seems to be Italian engineers obsessed with geometric perfection and you get the star fort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Psh like half the IJN's carriers were conversions from battleships or battlecruisers, though I'd imagine a battlecruiser's hull is the better of the two suited for having a runway slapped on top since it's what happens when you put Orks in charge of ship design and they give you something with more engine and gun than armor. Battlecruisers make pretty good conversions while battleships don't have the speed, Kaga only happened because Amagi got ruined by an earthquake while underway. Battleships are slower than carriers, unless you're the US and think that a battleship design being balanced is optional and cruiser speed doesn't make it a BC. The only real problem with conversions of partially constructed ships is their hangar space isn't as good as purpose built ships. Shinano was pretty late and had a tiny hangar. Problem with rejiggering completed ships is they either cost as much time and effort as a new build or they turn into whatever the gently caress misfortune befell the Ise, and good luck managing to turn the below deck space into something like a hangar. Another Tone would probably have been a reasonable idea instead of those conversions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
I have a bunch of questions about cannon in the late 18th / early, 19th century, if anyone minds taking a crack at it. How is it made? Is it something that can be made relatively ad-hoc, like musketry? (can muskets be made ad-oc? I think so but I'm not sure. Or are people mostly using rifles now?) Or do you need sophisticated facilities? Is most cannon in the colonial wars made in the Americas, or overseas and shipped over? How much training do you need to use it? What kind of ammunition does it use? Thank you again everyone for all your answers to my and others questions. Eela6 fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
This video covers a lot of the usual nonsense myths around US armour in WWII, including the whole Ronsons thing. Recommended watch. Main points are: 1. "Ronsons" as a nickname for Shermans are anachronisms and there is no recorded evidence of it ever being used during the war 2. The whole "Shermans lighting on fire a lot" thing is probably due to Death Traps and the fact that Belton Cooper saw a lot of burnt out Shermans, what with working in an armoured maintenance company and all. This doesn't mean that Shermans burned up at any greater a rate than any other tank. It's also probably tied up in the different ways countries counted kills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Italian engineers obsessed with geometric perfection
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:45
|
|
Eela6 posted:I have a bunch of questions about cannon in the late 18th / early, 19th century, if anyone minds taking a crack at it. How is it made? Is it something that can be made relatively ad-hoc, like musketry? (can muskets be made ad-oc? I think so but I'm not sure. Or are people mostly using rifles now?) Or do you need sophisticated facilities? Is most cannon in the colonial wars made in the Americas, or overseas and shipped over? How much training do you need to use it? What kind of ammunition does it use? Arsenals more or less constructred artillery pieces using the most modern metal work of the times. The concept of somebody trying to make a 18th century cannon in their house seems weirdly hilarious to me though.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Eela6 posted:I have a bunch of questions about cannon in the late 18th / early, 19th century, if anyone minds taking a crack at it. How is it made? Is it something that can be made relatively ad-hoc, like musketry? (can muskets be made ad-oc? I think so but I'm not sure. Or are people mostly using rifles now?) Or do you need sophisticated facilities? Is most cannon in the colonial wars made in the Americas, or overseas and shipped over? How much training do you need to use it? What kind of ammunition does it use? No artillery would have been produced domestically in the Colonies until after independence, and likely after 1795. Artillery is really difficult to make and require a poo poo ton of infrastructure. Gunners are highly trained specialists, literate and with advanced formal school education, because artillery is math. There are three types of guns: cannon, mortars, and howitzers. The gun or cannon is a direct-fire weapon using primarily solid cast shot (with a short-range backup of canister, essentially a giant shotgun cartridge). The mortar is an indirect-fire weapon using fused hollow explosive shells firing a shell at a very steep angle. The howitzer is an unnatural hybrid between the two, which generally fires shell in direct fire. It has a shorter barrel and larger bore than a gun, and is less accurate in direct fire than a gun. It is useful because it fires shell. I don't know much about the Americas outside of the Colonies, though. Smoothbore flintlocks are still de rigeur until about 1845 or so. The first musket was produced at the Springfield Armory in 1795.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
I believe muskets were sort of grass roots cottage industry thing until the early 19th centuy when they transitioned to factories during the Napoleonic Wars.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Eela6 posted:I have a bunch of questions about cannon in the late 18th / early, 19th century, if anyone minds taking a crack at it. How is it made? Is it something that can be made relatively ad-hoc, like musketry? (can muskets be made ad-oc? I think so but I'm not sure. Or are people mostly using rifles now?) Or do you need sophisticated facilities? Is most cannon in the colonial wars made in the Americas, or overseas and shipped over? How much training do you need to use it? What kind of ammunition does it use? Can't comment on artillery, but have an hour long video on gunsmithing in that time period: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAzJOULyx5c
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I believe muskets were sort of grass roots cottage industry thing until the early 19th centuy when they transitioned to factories during the Napoleonic Wars. This is correct. I can't confirm exactly when the transition was made, but at the time of the American Revolution they would contract small scale gunsmiths to make a certain number of weapons, using a copy of the weapon held in a pattern room for reference. This meant that no parts were interchangeable, as no two gunmakers would make their parts 100% identical. If you wanted a replacement part, you'd need to custom-make it for that particular gun or get a replacement and then pound and bend it into shape to fit the gun it's being put into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I believe muskets were sort of grass roots cottage industry thing until the early 19th centuy when they transitioned to factories during the Napoleonic Wars. Depends on how you define grass roots cottage industry - the French were certainly more centralized than the English, and produced muskets at a series of centralized arsenals.The Continental Army tended to use French arms. Cottage gunsmithing in the colonies was prevalent but more for civilian arms and repair of military arms than production of military arms. The Seven Years' War left a whole lot of arms in colonial militia hands, generally service weapons from France and England.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:33
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Depends on how you define grass roots cottage industry - the French were certainly more centralized than the English, and produced muskets at a series of centralized arsenals.The Continental Army tended to use French arms. Cottage gunsmithing in the colonies was prevalent but more for civilian arms and repair of military arms than production of military arms. The Seven Years' War left a whole lot of arms in colonial militia hands, generally service weapons from France and England. Well I was thinking about how we did it in the UK now. Reguardless of continent, that is still pretty impressive when you look at the craftsmenship of the pre-factory ones. Lots of poor people straining their eye sight  .
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Well I was thinking about how we did it in the UK now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:36
|
|
HEY GAL posted:the 18th c french are very, very on top of things Well, for the first half of the century anyway.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Depends on how you define grass roots cottage industry - the French were certainly more centralized than the English, Don't read those words too often!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Well, for the first half of the century anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
HEY GAL posted:what's a total financial meltdown between friends It's cool, I know this Swiss guy he's good with numbers!
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
cool, i remembered the title of the book i was looking for https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-...+the+Revolution it's about how the french made guns
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Don't read those words too often! The French are universally more centralized than the English until the revolution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:cool, i remembered the title of the book i was looking for poo poo I really do not want to pay thirty bones for a Kindle book but eh
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The French are universally more centralized than the English until the revolution. The Rule of the Major Generals would like a word 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The Rule of the Major Generals would like a word first shots fired in the War on Christmas
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
poo poo, didn't Venice have state arsenals making handguns/muskets back in the 1600s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:poo poo, didn't Venice have state arsenals making handguns/muskets back in the 1600s? also the ottomans https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Sultan-Military-Cambridge-Civilization/dp/0521843138
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Gunners are highly trained specialists, literate and with advanced formal school education, because artillery is math. Only after the mathematics was figured out, though. Which leads to another question: how the hell were guns aimed before there was a theory on ballistics? Point it at target, fire, see if the cannonball reached it, if not then move the gun closer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Only after the mathematics was figured out, though. Secrets of the artilleryman's guild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Only after the mathematics was figured out, though. You don't need too much ballistics to observe the fall of the shot and correct the elevation as needed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
pre-galileo, they had a theory of ballistics, a relatively well-developed one it was just wrong and weird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_impetus http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/experiment95/paraintr.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:21
|
|