|
Mycroft Holmes posted:the list of people throughout history who were not horrible by todays standards consists of one person: Fred Rogers. Shirley Temple was rude to Fred Rogers once and he spent the rest of his life talking smack about her as a result.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Infantry Tank Mk.I Queue: Hummel, LT vz. 38, Pz38(t), E-50 and E-75, Hellcat trials in the USSR, Allied fictional tanks, crazy Soviet tanks, Light Tank M3A3, Char B1 in German service, Renault NC, Renault D1, Renault R35, Renault D2, Renault R40, 25 mm Hotchkiss gun, LT vz 35, Praga AH-IV, Praga LTL and Pzw 39, T-60 production in difficult years, big guns for the KV-1, A1E1 Independent, PzI Ausf. B, PzI Ausf. C, PzI Ausf. F, Renault FT, Maus in the USSR, 76 mm gun mod of the Matilda, M4A2(76)W Available for request:  Light Tank M5 NEW   T-37 with ShKAS Wartime modifications of the T-37 and T-38 SG-122 Tank destroyers on the T-30 and T-40 chassis 45 mm M-42 gun SU-76 prototype SU-26/T-26-6 T-60 tanks produced at Stalingrad  L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40 Strv m/42 Landsverk prototypes 1943-1951 Strv m/21 Strv 81 and Strv 101  Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR 37 mm anti-tank gun   PzII Ausf. a though b PzII Ausf. c through C PzII Ausf. D through E PzII Ausf. F PzII trials in the USSR Pak 97/38 7.5 cm Pak 41 s.FH. 18 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Apparently they're being refitted with smoothbores again these days. As far as I'm aware, that's still only a maybe, should the exchequer decide to pony up the cash. This bring British Procurement, I would imagine they will spend the money only to find that they can't fit a smoothbore after all. The money will not be refunded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
I think the British way would be to order a full set of replacements, deliver half of them with new turrets but no cannons to go in them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:As far as I'm aware, that's still only a maybe, should the exchequer decide to pony up the cash. This bring British Procurement, I would imagine they will spend the money only to find that they can't fit a smoothbore after all. The money will not be refunded. ...And they'll end up with 17pdrs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:To be fair, he is translating articles written in Russian by someone else. You're addressing the wrong dude. I dunno, I feel like it's part of the translator's job to address glaring errors or biases in the source work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
GotLag posted:I dunno, I feel like it's part of the translator's job to address glaring errors or biases in the source work. It isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
GotLag posted:I dunno, I feel like it's part of the translator's job to address glaring errors or biases in the source work. You may be thinking of an editor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:It isn't. True. We already have politics loving over historians, we don't need to add to the mix with translators starting to rewrite history texts however they feel like at the moment. Besides, that would make international relations even more disfunctional. Could you imagine Russia's reaction if one of their leaders gets their hands on such a "bias-corrected"-version? They would flip their poo poo. Likewise the US if some joker "corrected" US-historians by referencing every little native massacre when they feel it was left out. TerminalSaint posted:You may be thinking of an editor. If by "editor" you mean "peer who wrote a text pointing out the glaring errors of his colleague", then yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Hello milhist thread! Quick request: my dad recently bought some victorian correspondence and is looking to do a bit of research on the guy it's addressed to (letters are from his wife). Unfortunately Victorian handwriting strikes again and we can't make out the surname on the envelope. I know there have been some similar requests to this in the past so was hoping someone here could decipher it! Here's the envelope: http://imgur.com/RuDpn6S It's milhist relevant as part of the letter is her making sure he's got smart trousers for a regimental reunion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:Hello milhist thread! Quick request: my dad recently bought some victorian correspondence and is looking to do a bit of research on the guy it's addressed to (letters are from his wife). Unfortunately Victorian handwriting strikes again and we can't make out the surname on the envelope. Looks like Cameron Moore Sykes, but I'm not 100% certain. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Looks like Cameron Moore Sykes, but I'm not 100% certain. Awesome, thanks! Moore certainly looks plausible (I thought the last name was Sykes as well to start with, but after looking at it I'm about 90% sure it's Esq.).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:every little native massacre 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
yeah
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Libluini posted:every little native massacre 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
i read that as sarcasm, like libliuni was making fun of a US historian trying to brush our history of genocide under the rug
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i read that as sarcasm, like libliuni was making fun of a US historian trying to brush our history of genocide under the rug Me too, I thought that was clear and unambiguous JcDent posted:I don't think Forrest was just covering his rear end; considering how easy and profitable it must have been to say that The South Did Nothing Wrong back then, he clearly didn't take the easy way out. That is, unless you don't believe that people can change their opinions, or that redemption only comes if they start claiming that they're a piece of poo poo at every possible moment. The part i object to is where he says "racism is bad, we'll protect you from it" but then goes on to not do that. Wikipedia says he "offered his services" to hunt the Klan in Tennessee, but not that he actually did it. To me there's a distinction between him personally becoming a better man on one hand, and then having already established a really hosed and noxious legacy on the other. And neither of those have any impact on whether he was good at commanding cavalry, which is i think what this conversation was about originally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i read that as sarcasm, like libliuni was making fun of a US historian trying to brush our history of genocide under the rug I was more making fun of the idea we should let translators rewrite history texts to "correct biases", because as laudable as that is, in this world it wouldn't even work even if the translators could pull this off. In truth, it would probably end in poo poo like a Russian translator going through a British text about the occupation of the Baltic states by the Red Army and changing it into a glorification of Soviet liberation. Or like a German translator going through an US historians description of native massacres and removing all references to them because it was "too brutal to read". In fact, there is probably a "translator" right now in some place like North Korea, working on "correcting" some "biased" work from the outside world. Edit: My knowledge of US-historians is kind of limited, I think I never even heard of this Forrester-guy, for example. So I sadly can't say I had him in mind when I opened my endless fountain of sarcasm. Libluini fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Libluini posted:My knowledge of US-historians is kind of limited, I think I never even heard of this Forrester-guy, for example. So I sadly can't say I had him in mind when I opened my endless fountain of sarcasm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:he's not a historian, he's one of our generals from the nineteenth century, and a real douchebag! The best thing I can say about Bedford Forrest is that while he was undoubtedly a douchebag shitheel, he was a talented douchebag shitheel
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:The best thing I can say about Bedford Forrest is that while he was undoubtedly a douchebag shitheel, he was a talented douchebag shitheel Tangentially related: I just finished my biannual re-watch of Ken Burns' The Civil War, and realized for the first time that Kurt Vonnegut is listed as a voice actor. Does anyone know which of the episodes/segments/individuals he did voiceovers for?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:The best thing I can say about Bedford Forrest is that while he was undoubtedly a douchebag shitheel, he was a talented douchebag shitheel 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
There was a discussion of sapping and underground warfare on pg 358 i would likley highly reccomend this book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CCPIHZQ Its riveting and you can read straight through it in a good 2-3 hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:There was a discussion of sapping and underground warfare on pg 358 i would likley highly reccomend this book Can confirm that. The Tunnels of Cu Chi is amazing, and as a history of a battle/campaign in the Vietnam War, right up there with We Were Soldiers Once, And Young (the book by General Moore, not the movie with Mel Gibson). To c/p a review I wrote offsite a while back: Cu Chi was a district just 25 miles from Saigon. Starting from the French Indochina War, local guerrillas carved tunnels out of the strong laterite clay that made up the district. By 1968, the Iron Triangle had over 200 miles of tunnels, with three and four level base camps including barracks, hospitals, and weapons shops. This book covers the Vietnamese men and women who lived and fought in the tunnels, and the American soldiers tasked with going in and smoking them out, the stone crazy tunnel rats. The authors have compiled an extensive body of interviews with veterans on both sides of the conflict, bring forth the survivors own words as they describe living without sunlight or fresh air for months on end, and the terror of chasing the enemy into the bowels of the Earth. A secondary topic is weapons, from madcap high-tech schemes to destroy the tunnels, to the trained wasps and snakes that the VC used to defend their bases. Both the human and military elements are well-represented. In the end, America never learned how to fight in the tunnels. Instead, in the wake of the Tet offensive, the army simply obliterated the entire district, first with defoliants, then with Rome plows, then with B-52 strikes that blew 10m craters in the ground. The guerrillas were essentially destroyed, but only at the cost of the entire region. The Tunnels of Cu Chi is a fascinating micro-history that amply demonstrates the fractally hosed up nature of the war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:he's not a historian, he's one of our generals from the nineteenth century, and a real douchebag! Ah, that's why I have this nagging feeling I should remember his name from somewhere. I probably read about him and then later forgot, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
Part 1: Arriving in South Africa Part 2: The Reality of Combat/Getting Stuck In/WATERSPORTS! Part 3: March Marching Madness/Trench Sniping/CANADIANS! Part 4: Boer Guns, Hunger Marches and Bloody Charges With The Gordon Highlanders. quote:
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
I think the best thing to say about General Forrest and how he (and the Confederacy in general) should be remembered is Nate DiMeo's Notes on an Imagined Plaque to be Added to the Statue of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, Upon Hearing that the Memphis City Council has Voted to Move it and the Exhumed Remains of General Forrest and his Wife, Mary Ann Montgomery Forrest, from their Current Location in a Park Downtown, to the Nearby Elmwood Cemetery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Hey, I've heard that the narrative of 'dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince Japan to surrender/ save the American lives to be lost in an invasion' is false because the Japanese were already trying to surrender, and the real reason to do that was to intimidate the Soviet Union. What's the evidence for these two competing stories?
the_tasman_series fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Part 1: Arriving in South Africa Point of order, 10 shillings was 120 pence, or half of a pound. This wasn't one of those crazy bastardised New Shillings I recall from my childhood 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
the_tasman_series posted:Hey, I've heard that the narrative of 'dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince Japan to surrender/ save the American lives to be lost in an invasion' is false because the Japanese were already trying to surrender, and the real reason to do that was to intimidate the Soviet Union. What's the evidence these two competing stories? Also, how were tank destroyers supposed to be used, and have you heard about this bear?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Also, how were tank destroyers supposed to be used, and have you heard about this bear? And what's the deal with those wacky Mark 14's?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
the_tasman_series posted:Hey, I've heard that the narrative of 'dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince Japan to surrender/ save the American lives to be lost in an invasion' is false because the Japanese were already trying to surrender, and the real reason to do that was to intimidate the Soviet Union. What's the evidence for these two competing stories? They're not competing stories. The Japanese were not ready to surrender, as evidenced by their lack of surrending, and pursuit of a negotiated end to the war. And as long as the war is still going, the bomb will be dropped; you don't spend billions of dollars on a new weapons system and then decline to use it. Intimidating the Soviets was considered a nice side benefit by the political class, even though the scientific lobby was pretty united in pointing out that using it without informing Stalin would surely poison relations with the Soviets - this probably would have happened either way; also Stalin had pretty complete knowledge of the American bomb program, not that the Americans knew that. But the biggest Soviet related reason for dropping the bomb on Japan isn't to intimidate them at some generic level, it's to end the war before the Soviet invasion of Manchuria can be launched, thus denying them influence there. As it happens that didn't work out, but it was close.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:31
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
You also have to understand the bomb in the context of WW2 era strategic bomber doctrine. It wasn't seen as a terrible new huge step so much as a more efficient way of doing what we were already doing with hundred bomber raids dropping incendiaries. About as many people died in the firebombing of tokyo as at hiroshima and nagasaki, for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Even after the nukes were dropped, the anti-peace faction tried to coup the government to prevent the surrender.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:They're not competing stories. The Japanese were not ready to surrender, as evidenced by their lack of surrending, and pursuit of a negotiated end to the war. And as long as the war is still going, the bomb will be dropped; you don't spend billions of dollars on a new weapons system and then decline to use it. There are a couple of holes with that theory, foremost the fact that the US leaned heavily on the Soviet Union to enter the war in Asia. Stalin demanded supplies and equipment, and only declared war after they had been delivered. The US knew that the Soviets were entering the war, because they asked them to. It makes no sense to ask them to and then try to end the war before they do. The Japanese decision to surrender hinged heavily on the idea that they could avoid an unconditional surrender. The fate of the Emperor is often touted as the central concern, but the Allies very publicly stated that the Japanese would be permitted to choose their form of government, and the Japanese government took that to mean that the Emperor would be kept in some form. What was probably more important was the fact that the key Japanese decision makers wanted to to avoid having to sit through war crime tribunals and thought they could push through a deal where the Japanese military would be in charge of the tribunals and its own demilitarization (for some reason, the Allies were somewhat less enthusiastic about the idea). For some reason, the Japanese government had convinced itself that the Soviets would argue their cause before the Allies, and that they could get their negotiated peace with the backing of Stalin. With the Soviet attack, that entire strategy went up in flames. Claiming that the Allies used the bomb to intimidate the Soviet implies that the Allies knew that the war would soon be over, and that the bombs were not needed to make the Japanese surrender, neither assumption is necessarily true. The Allies fully expected that they would have to either carry out an opposed landing on the Japanese home islands (and the prospect of that was nothing short of terrifying) or starve the Japanese into submission, both options would have taken until early 1946.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Boer War Guy posted:May 26th: Marched off this morning at 9 am towards Vaal Rover, a distance of 14 miles, which we reached and crossed about 1:30 pm. Here I captured a sheep and had a good tuck in. Uh did he gently caress the sheep?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:36
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Uh did he gently caress the sheep? Boy, they don't even let me gently caress it.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Point of order, 10 shillings was 120 pence, or half of a pound. This wasn't one of those crazy bastardised New Shillings I recall from my childhood Decimalisation was better for us than universal suffrage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:43
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Uh did he gently caress the sheep? Never heard of the phrase tuck in eh?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Here is a video by a giant nerd on the topic. lol he's a major dork, but the video was interesting
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:32
|
|