|
How many times do you want to fix the same thing before you decide not to bother anymore?
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
https://youtu.be/r9jwGansp1E I am normally a loathe to share music with anyone particularly strangers over the Internet but I feel like this thread would really love this song, hopefully as much as I do. bewbies fucked around with this message at 04:43 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/nulA3ly.gifv
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
 Cause I can't remember how to link gfycat and their site never includes instructions.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:It wasn't a Danish air force base I'm talking about, it was some BAE facility near Liverpool. I'm presuming that Tias's friend was one of the women arrested in the 90s for beating up a jet due to be shipped to Suharto's Indonesia. I don't think this is the one. At least, her name doesn't figure among the charged - I might have to ask her. Also, Danish politicians have supported every coalition action for ages, and gleefully explain the population that they don't understand global politics whenever we're caught killing civilians - so yeah, we're an imperialist state, no ifs or buts about that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Tias posted:I don't think this is the one. At least, her name doesn't figure among the charged - I might have to ask her. Somewhere in the depths of gchq, a natural language processing system starts a database search.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
The whole peace activist discussion kind of brings out an interesting question: if you are an anti-war person (against some specific war or in general, just to make it harder to answer), then what can you do to prevent the nation in which you reside from doing wars? Do you judge anti-war acts by how effective they are? How do you even judge an act's efficacity? PS please try to divorce the question from the specific act of bashing a fighter jet with a hammer, as that appears a little too divisive to debate here.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:The whole peace activist discussion kind of brings out an interesting question: if you are an anti-war person (against some specific war or in general, just to make it harder to answer), then what can you do to prevent the nation in which you reside from doing wars? Do you judge anti-war acts by how effective they are? How do you even judge an act's efficacity?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:The whole peace activist discussion kind of brings out an interesting question: if you are an anti-war person (against some specific war or in general, just to make it harder to answer), then what can you do to prevent the nation in which you reside from doing wars? Do you judge anti-war acts by how effective they are? How do you even judge an act's efficacity? Here's an article about a Finnish conchie who managed to change laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arndt_Pekurinen
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:The whole peace activist discussion kind of brings out an interesting question: if you are an anti-war person (against some specific war or in general, just to make it harder to answer), then what can you do to prevent the nation in which you reside from doing wars? Do you judge anti-war acts by how effective they are? How do you even judge an act's efficacity? If you live in a democracy you can campaign against it or join a political party with the intention of making opposition to the war a policy. Vietnam is a good example, where popular opposition to the draft and the war in general was one of the reasons for withdrawal and in particular Congress' decision to not fund South Vietnam after the US pull out. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
bewbies posted:effective at what? I meant the hammers were clearly effective at damaging the plane. Bit more than a little dent in the side, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
goddamn tankers die in some horrible ways
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:goddamn tankers die in some horrible ways That always seems to be the trade off. Sure, you roll around and don't have to carry your stuff. But if the tank gets penetrated, you all die horribly I read somewhere, maybe wikipedia that after World War 2, ex-tankers were the ones with the overall highest rate of mental illness. Don't know if it is true, but it does make sense...
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Re; Anti tank tactics I'm phoneposting, but if you google 'panzerknacker fibel' you'll find a nicely illustrated German manual on how to knack panzers!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
This and the Cold War thread have convinced me that in the modern battlefield everyone dies to something launched three times over the horizon away.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
What is the origin of the widespread affection for the StuG?
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What is the origin of the widespread affection for the StuG? It worked.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
It was produced in large numbers, it was effective, it looks cool/cute, it's unusual, weeaboos/secret nazis aren't slobbering its knob, StuG rhymes with Thug, thus allowing you to use the StuG lyfe maymay...
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 18:46
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:It worked. Go on.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What is the origin of the widespread affection for the StuG? close combat 3 for me
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
As above, it's cheap, it's built on a reliable chassis, it packs a good gun, it's as useful as an anti tank gun with a machinegun nest bolted onto it and also it can drive itself. Cheapo, reliable, available, and versatile things are generally well received.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Go on. It was a cheap, relatively well-armed and well-armored vehicle that, though originally designed for infantry support, was able to effectively engage armor more effectively than many other contemporary vehicles. Pound for pound, it was arguably a more effective combat vehicle than any of the big cats, in spite of being completely inferior on paper.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What is the origin of the widespread affection for the StuG? Counterpoint to everyone else: it's a lil' pancake tank that went doop doop
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
One of the things about it is that they could use most of the tooling for Panzer III when the war got too big for its gun and turret ring. They also built StuG on Pz IV chasis, but that didn't catch on. StuG was originally conceived as infantry support assault gun, roughly infantryman in height, good for taking out MG nests and other stuff that give fusiliers/grenadiers/etc trouble. Then they put a decent gun in it, which worked fine with its low height. And I bet it was super great on the defensive, camping for T-34s and what not.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
It's also hilarious in Company of Heroes because it has a really low pop cost so you can fill the map with them. Which if Germany had tried they might have done better honestly given the later tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
How good were the Panzer III and IV? The Big Cats get the majority of the coverage but these two were the workhorse tanks, right?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Kiiinda? The Pz IV was actually artisinally crafted by a small team of expert craftspeople using only locally sourced components, so the Panther was only marginally more expensive despite being massive because it was mass-produced like every other country did. I think the numbers of panthers and panzer IVs was roughly equal on the western front. The Panzer IV held an advantage in not absolutely necking fuel and breaking down every five minutes, though, and was still reasonably good at supporting infantry, whereas the Panther was basically built to kill T-34s and it's anti-infantry performance suffered for that reason.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Counterpoint to everyone else:
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
JcDent posted:One of the things about it is that they could use most of the tooling for Panzer III when the war got too big for its gun and turret ring. They also built StuG on Pz IV chasis, but that didn't catch on. Same reasons the Hetzer is widely considered another of the truly great AFVs Germany put out in WW2. Cheap, effective, and visually appealing.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Lil' dumpling gonna hetz.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
david_a posted:How good were the Panzer III and IV? The Big Cats get the majority of the coverage but these two were the workhorse tanks, right? They were both fairly solid, especially when you keep in mind they were pre-war tanks that were forced to fight heavier and heavier poo poo as the war went on. A real key to their success was their reliability and adaptability-the chasis of the Panzer III was able to support a wide number of support vehicles and other AFVs like the StuG even when the tank itself became obsolete, and the Panzer IV was good enough that, with significant upgrades, it was able to remain roughly competitive right up until the end of the war. It's also worth noting that the Panzer III/IV featured one of the biggest advancements in tank design of the time, the 3 man turret. Before them, most tanks had a two-man turret with a gunner (Who would also be commanding the tank) and a loader. With the Panzer III and IV, the commander and gunner were split into dedicated roles, allowing them to focus on the job of actually commanding the tank/shooting enemy tanks far more effectively. It was such an innovation, in fact, that it's still a design principle of modern tanks today, and was quickly aped during the War by the British, Americans, and Soviets once the next generation of medium tanks started rolling out.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Another article on
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
spectralent posted:The Pz IV was actually artisinally crafted by a small team of expert craftspeople using only locally sourced components It sounds like you're describing some overpriced hipster furniture or food or something
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
I'm still amazed how French ended up with basically putting the FT-17 turret on everything. Two man turret is for weenies!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
John Brown did nothing wrong
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I'm still amazed how French ended up with basically putting the FT-17 turret on everything. Two man turret is for weenies! If you think it's good and you can get the same turret on your fast and heavy tanks then it's a good idea to do so. If you are wrong then you have a problem of course.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Pz38(t) Queue: Allied fictional tanks, crazy Soviet tanks, Hellcat trials in the USSR, 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, PzII Ausf. a though b, PzII Ausf. c through C, PzII Ausf. D through E, PzII Ausf. F, PzII trials in the USSR, Field modifications to American tanks, Israeli improvised armoured cars, Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR, Polish 37 mm anti-tank gun, 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, SU-122 precursors Available for request:  Light Tank M5    L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40 Strv m/42 Landsverk prototypes 1943-1951 Strv m/21 Strv 81 and Strv 101 Swedish tanks 1928–1934 NEW    Pak 97/38 7.5 cm Pak 41 s.FH. 18  Tankbuchse 41 NEW 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
How did the Irish Revolution of 1919-21 succeed whereas prior revolts had failed?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Was the Hetzer actually as good as it was on paper?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Grouchio posted:How did the Irish Revolution of 1919-21 succeed whereas prior revolts had failed? ETA: comedy option! If you keep saying "now's our time lads!" every half hour or so, eventually you'll be right and it'll stick!  ETA2: can't believe I forgot this  , but being immediately post WWI the British public weren't super enthusiastic about the whole idea of having another war right next door. There was very little support for sending lads off to pacify a province when everyone knew someone who didn't come back from the last adventure.
Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 22:06 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 21:56
|
|