|
Mycroft Holmes posted:i can't stop reading kancolle fanfics. send help. 
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Fusion Restaurant posted:Any suggestions for learning more about the vietnamese-cambodian war in 1979? Or facts about it? It seems interesting that a war which stopped a genocide seems to basically have happened out of paranoia? I know that's probably a uninformed take, but woul dlike to learn more. I am in Vietnam right now and would like to hear more about this as well. Especially since i just heard (no idea if this is true) that Vietnam got some major concessions afterwards including an ongoing share of ticket revenue from Angkor Wat
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:i can't stop reading kancolle fanfics. send help. Is this where someone reposts that post of pictures of the shipgirls and the war crimes committed by those ships' crew?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Fusion Restaurant posted:Any suggestions for learning more about the vietnamese-cambodian war in 1979? Or facts about it? It seems interesting that a war which stopped a genocide seems to basically have happened out of paranoia? I know that's probably a uninformed take, but woul dlike to learn more. I think the Vietnamese were just sick of all the refugees, so they went in to put a stop to the killing fields. China wasn't happy because Cambodia was one of their client states, which is why they invaded Vietnam shortly afterwards. Very short take, but I don't think it was merely due to "paranoia".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
I'm reading Hanoi's War and although it doesn't cover the Cambodian war it does mention that Pol Pot really hated the Vietnamese and even when they were fighting on the same side he ordered "friendly fire" on PAVN while they were ostensibly fighting together. Also, further mention of the Chinese distrust of the Vietnamese and Cambodia's relation as a Chinese ally didn't help things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:I'm reading Hanoi's War and although it doesn't cover the Cambodian war it does mention that Pol Pot really hated the Vietnamese and even when they were fighting on the same side he ordered "friendly fire" on PAVN while they were ostensibly fighting together. Also, further mention of the Chinese distrust of the Vietnamese and Cambodia's relation as a Chinese ally didn't help things. Yeah, that Pol Pot guy sounds like a jerk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yeah, that Pol Pot guy sounds like a jerk. Yeah I know, not exactly real news here, but I mean he was the sort of person who even attacked the PAVN forces when they were fighting on the same side and the PAVN were keeping him alive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yeah, that Pol Pot guy sounds like a jerk. He was supported by the United States because of his opposition to the Vietnamese, who fought a war with the United States in part due to the perception in the US that Vietnam would be step one of a Chinese takeover of Southeast Asia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
bedpan posted:He was supported by the United States because of his opposition to the Vietnamese, who fought a war with the United States in part due to the perception in the US that Vietnam would be step one of a Chinese takeover of Southeast Asia. But ironically the chinese actually supported the khmer rouge, right? Also - I don't get why the Khmer Rouge antagonized vietnam so much. Did they just hate vietnamese people or is there a sane explanation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
Theres a long history of Khmer and Vietnamese antagonism. They feared Vietnamese hegemony in Indochina. Their fears weren't unfounded because Laos became a puppet state of Hanoi and was used to support communist insurgents in northeast Thailand. I'm an American born Lao and I've been reading up on the Secret War and that whole period is really interesting. DookieSandwich fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
DookieSandwich posted:Theres a long history of Khmer and Vietnamese antagonism. They feared Vietnamese hegemony in Indochina. Their fears weren't unfounded because Laos became a puppet state of Hanoi and was used to support communist insurgents in northeast Thailand. What was the secret war/what were you reading? Super interested to hear more! Also, I didn't realize Vietnam was apparently such a powerhouse? It seems like the other asian countries were all concerned that they would take over, but I didn't realize Vietnam was relatively stronger than surrounding SEA countries? I don't know much about e.g. Malaysian/Thai history, but both of them certainly are decently wealthier than Vietnam now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yeah, that Pol Pot guy sounds like a jerk. I have never read any proper biography of him. Does anyone have good recommendations on the subject? Somehow I always just get him more as an idea than as a person. Some sort of manifestation of extremely brutal inhumane anti-intellectual regime, only described via shady out-of-focus BW pictures. Ideology without a face or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
sullat posted:I think the Vietnamese were just sick of all the refugees, so they went in to put a stop to the killing fields. China wasn't happy because Cambodia was one of their client states, which is why they invaded Vietnam shortly afterwards. Very short take, but I don't think it was merely due to "paranoia".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
I think Deng's invasion is more than anything a cock waving exercise aimed at the Soviet Union. The Khmer Rouge situation was a pretext, but the shifting of allegiances from the Soviets to the US was foremost on their minds.quote:On February 15, the first day that China could have officially announced the termination of the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, Deng Xiaoping declared that China planned to conduct a limited attack on Vietnam. It's kinda a blatant 'gently caress you'. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
I read all of the goldmined thread and was working my way through this one when mean ol' Lowtax closed the forums to lurkers again. At this point I couldn't go back to what passes for milhist discussions on the rest of the internet so here I am. Basically you fuckers made me spend money on an internet forum by posting too good.  Anyway, since I'm here can someone tell me about flamethrowers? Not the mechanics, but who would be using them and when. Would some unlucky grunt in a squad/platoon/whatever be told that he gets to lug around a heavy awkward weapon that makes everyone want to shoot him? Or were they given to some kind of specialists who'd get attached to units as necessary? Would there be people carrying them around constantly or just when they were expecting to be clearing bunkers or some such? Mainly interested in WW2 since my understanding is that's they were used the most, but any info is welcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Fusion Restaurant posted:But ironically the chinese actually supported the khmer rouge, right? I don't know about the Khmer Rogue specifically, but when I recently visited Cambodia, pretty much everyone there absolutely despised Vietnamese people. The - incredibly corrupt - government is seen as a Vietnamese puppet, the local Vietnamese population is blamed for everything wrong with the country, you get told how the revenue from Ankor Wat supposedly goes to Vietnam, that they're sending in people to 'eat our country from the inside'... It was quite nasty. I suspect more than a few Cambodians still have irredentist dreams of clawing back the territory Vietnam annexed from the Khmer kingdom in the 1800s...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
bloom posted:Anyway, since I'm here can someone tell me about flamethrowers? Not the mechanics, but who would be using them and when. Would some unlucky grunt in a squad/platoon/whatever be told that he gets to lug around a heavy awkward weapon that makes everyone want to shoot him? Or were they given to some kind of specialists who'd get attached to units as necessary? Would there be people carrying them around constantly or just when they were expecting to be clearing bunkers or some such? The original Flammenwerfers were IIRC given to German combat engineers, who had a rather more aggressive role than what English-speakers think of when they hear "military engineer"; they were supposed to be grenade specialists (among many other things) as well as bridge-builders. In those days they were definitely skilled weapons to be used by people who knew what they were doing and not just any old sod.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
bloom posted:I read all of the goldmined thread and was working my way through this one when mean ol' Lowtax closed the forums to lurkers again. At this point I couldn't go back to what passes for milhist discussions on the rest of the internet so here I am. Basically you fuckers made me spend money on an internet forum by posting too good. This video from Forgotten Weapons is a pretty great introduction to flamethrowers, particularly American ones. IIRC in terms of WWII you would be assigned to be flamethrower guy and would train with that weapon in the same way that you might be assigned to mortars, machine guns, BAR etc. I doubt it's a weapon you can just pick up and know how to use, due to the maintenance involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
I still wouldn't want to be the bugger assigned to carry it because yeah I think every fucker on the field would be gunning for your fire-spewing arse. Also I think the fuel time is measured in seconds so you can't go round spraying it willy nilly. There are also a number of tank variants which mount flame projectors on the bow or coaxial to the turret. I think those sometimes would have towed fuel tanks behind the tanks and would also feature much greater range due to higher pressure and more fuel allowance. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Soviet flamethrower designs tried to look as much like a regular rifle+backpack as possible, but the hose and enormous jet of flame kind of give it away. I've mostly read about flamethrower use by specialized urban assault teams, and those definitely received special training. Soviet flamethrowers were also classified as chemical weapons, so you'd have entire chemical units (at least before the war) specialized in flamethrowing and smokescreens. They had all sorts of experimental cool poo poo like teletanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
ROKS-2 was still convincing looking enough that I think it would have been hard to identify at a distance (also you don't light a flamethrower up until at firing distance) Finns were taking the concept a bit further and combining flamethrower with a real SMG for maximum   needs a bayonet though
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Now that's tactical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Finns invented the combiflamer!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:
Chainsaw bayonet for maximum  Also thanks for the replies. I never knew disguising flamers was a thing, already learning things!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:They had all sorts of experimental cool poo poo like teletanks. I thought teleportation was more of an allied thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I thought teleportation was more of an allied thing Yuri can change that, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Fusion Restaurant posted:What was the secret war/what were you reading? Super interested to hear more! Also, I didn't realize Vietnam was apparently such a powerhouse? It seems like the other asian countries were all concerned that they would take over, but I didn't realize Vietnam was relatively stronger than surrounding SEA countries? I don't know much about e.g. Malaysian/Thai history, but both of them certainly are decently wealthier than Vietnam now. The secret war refers to America's involvement in Laos during the Vietnam war. Its called the secret war because of our "officially unofficial" involvement which was mostly directed by the CIA. Here's a video that'll give some background info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huf8bxSDiy4
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:01
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Now that's tactical. If you can fix a bayonet to it, you can field it.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
WW2 Data Today's update finishes off the British cluster munitions, ending with an intro and explanation on the development of nose ejection cluster munitions. What's the largest cluster projectile the British have? What exactly is a knife useful for in a cluster projectile? What nose ejection clusters were being developed at the time, how large were they, and what did they carry? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
TORPEDO Anyway, update on the "scan antique manuals" front: hoo-boy, it's been a long time since I had the scanner up. So long, in fact, that I.. uh, can't find the proper power supply for it.  Luckily, I have a different one that's close enough.Scanner? Check! Power supply? Check! USB cable? Check! Drivers? Drivers? Yoo-hoo, drivers... Seems that HP never made post-XP drivers for the Scanjet 3300c.  I'm currently getting an XP virtual machine set up, and should be able to get some test scans done tonight.  Taking a closer look at the compilation again, I'm finding both entire replacement pages folded in, and pages of handwritten notes.  4-5 very tightly packed inches of documents here, at the very least I'll take some
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
In my experience the default windows fax and scan program can handle anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Approximately what are the pros and cons of building a more conservative successor to the Pz IV instead of the Panther and Tiger? Apparently the Panther is 45 tons and a late IV is 25. So maybe a 35 ton tank? That's apparently about in the same ballpark as the Sherman or T-34, and those were fine until the end of the war?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
I remember reading ages ago (so it must be true) that there was an American flamethrower dude who got shits and giggles by light his cigarettes with the pilot flame from his flamethrower and generally making everyone else super uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Approximately what are the pros and cons of building a more conservative successor to the Pz IV instead of the Panther and Tiger? Apparently the Panther is 45 tons and a late IV is 25. So maybe a 35 ton tank? That's apparently about in the same ballpark as the Sherman or T-34, and those were fine until the end of the war? Something in that ballpark was in the plans around 1941, but once Germans met T-34 and KV-1 the decision was made to go for something heavier that could withstand the Russian 76.2mm gun and reliably penetrate their armour, resulting in Tiger and Panther. As switching production to a new model takes time and resources I don't think it would have made much sense to create a Panzer 4½, either you try to polish the old design or you think of something radically different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Both the PzIII and PzIV were at their limit as far as weight, you'd need a brand new suspension platform, and there's very little way to make one without letting the military's imagination run wild and demand a bunch of extra crazy poo poo. I mean the original Panther concept was a 30 ton medium tank, but we all know how long that lasted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Approximately what are the pros and cons of building a more conservative successor to the Pz IV instead of the Panther and Tiger? Apparently the Panther is 45 tons and a late IV is 25. So maybe a 35 ton tank? That's apparently about in the same ballpark as the Sherman or T-34, and those were fine until the end of the war? As far as I can see: Pros - Probably would have made for a more reliable machine Would likely be possible to retool all existing Pz IV factories, instead of ending up in a situation where you are *still* building Pz IVs alongside the new tank Cons - Less efficient use of Nazis' dwindling stock of experienced tankers On paper Panther looked really good Unclear if this would be much better than a StuG Doesn't anticipate improvements in Soviet tanks
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:In my experience the default windows fax and scan program can handle anything. Oh, I'm sure it *can*... as long as the OS recognizes that there's actually a scanner attached, which requires drivers. BattleMoose posted:I remember reading ages ago (so it must be true) that there was an American flamethrower dude who got shits and giggles by light his cigarettes with the pilot flame from his flamethrower and generally making everyone else super uncomfortable. My grandma used to have a newspaper photo of my father, down in Oxnard on his National Guard SeaBee stint, using the pilot to torch weeds out of the cracks in the sidewalk. (I want to say, sometime between the mid-'60s through early '70s or so.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I remember reading ages ago (so it must be true) that there was an American flamethrower dude who got shits and giggles by light his cigarettes with the pilot flame from his flamethrower and generally making everyone else super uncomfortable. American flamethrowers don't have pilot flames, they use essentially a cylinder of miniature flares that goes in the nozzle, you hit one trigger to light one and then the other trigger to release the fuel. E: Unless it was one of the M1 types which were real bad. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
The Panther being the medium tank replacement of the Panzer fleet was a genuinely rude shock to the Western Allies so there's that going for it; the larger issue is lack of fuel and air supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
The problem is that it never replaced the panzer fleet, and never could have. Optimistic plans phased the PzIV out of production in the summer of 1945, with the chassis still left in production for StuGs and such. Yeah, on a tactical scale running face-first into a Panther is unpleasant, but it was a dead end as a long term solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:26
|
|