|
Polyakov posted:Time for some napkin maths!  this thread
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:I recall reading somewhere that sauerkraut was a superior scurvy preventer due to both vitamin C content and preservability. Saurkraut was certainly employed, and it has a fairly high vitamin C content at 15mg/100g, as compared to 30mg/100g for limes and 60mg/100g for lemons (not sure on juice but i think its very close to that value). Im not really sure why the RN didnt issue it, they tested it with Captain Cook in the early 1700's and found out that it worked. I would guess that it was because Lind and his successors didnt really study it for whatever reason and so as a result it didnt get brought to the attention of the RN leadership at the time that the decisions were being made.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Time for some napkin maths! haha thanks! HEY GAIL posted:i While it would't be hard to find rats in ports, how about breeding rats on a ship?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Time for some napkin maths! In which the poster should have started with "It's time for some small game theory."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:While it would't be hard to find rats in ports, how about breeding rats on a ship? You would need a greater mass of feed because the rat-matter has to come from somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:While it would't be hard to find rats in ports, how about breeding rats on a ship?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:considering the quantity of food and weight of rats, i think it would only be feasible if you were traveling in convoy--one ship could be dedicated to rat husbandry Rats can swim fairly well, just rotate them in and out of the water, they will mainly burn fat or muscle mass but the rich vitamin C parts of the rat, namely liver and intestines should lose minimal weight.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Rats can swim fairly well, just rotate them in and out of the water, they will mainly burn fat or muscle mass but the rich vitamin C parts of the rat, namely liver and intestines should lose minimal weight.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:I recall reading somewhere that sauerkraut was a superior scurvy preventer due to both vitamin C content and preservability. It's why we call 'em limeys and krauts IE Their sailors ate limes or sauerkraut
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Time for some napkin maths! 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's why we call 'em limeys and krauts This also explains why you'd call Korean sailors Kims
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Saurkraut was certainly employed, and it has a fairly high vitamin C content at 15mg/100g, as compared to 30mg/100g for limes and 60mg/100g for lemons (not sure on juice but i think its very close to that value). Im not really sure why the RN didnt issue it, they tested it with Captain Cook in the early 1700's and found out that it worked. I would guess that it was because Lind and his successors didnt really study it for whatever reason and so as a result it didnt get brought to the attention of the RN leadership at the time that the decisions were being made. i bet it's just not invented here syndrome
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:i bet it's just not invented here syndrome Cook did discuss the strategies he used to get the sailors to eat their sauerkraut.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
I expect it is easier to just maintain a small supply of lime growing trees on a larger vessel than it is to make the stuff too.
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
One Weird Trick discovered by a Sea Captain to secure a supply of citrus on long voyages. The First Sea Lord hates him!
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:39 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Is the Russian KAB GLONASS system for making precision-guided munitions a "conversion kit" that can be strapped to dumb bombs, similar to JDAMs? The CMANO DB only lists the Su-34 Fullback as being capable of carrying it, but that seems way too limited.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
It's Russia, so you can strap anything to anything given sufficient Soviet blue electrical tape.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It's Russia, so you can strap anything to anything given sufficient Soviet blue electrical tape and alcohol. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
С кувалдой и какой-то матерью
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It's Russia, so you can strap anything to anything given sufficient Soviet Fixed that for you, comrade.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:This also explains why you'd call Korean sailors Kims http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-5
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I expect it is easier to just maintain a small supply of lime growing trees on a larger vessel than it is to make the stuff too. Wouldn't the salt spray kill them?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Unfortunately for those trying to make a racist joke, it's probably just the dude's name: No as in kimchi since like sauerkraut it contains vitamin c aplenty and 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:Speaking of. I saw the first couple of episodes of the Roots remake recently. Does that accurately get across being a slave? I imagined it to show the slaves being treated better than most were, almost sanitised after the inital whipping scene. I suggest you finish watching the series. ;p It's going to depend on the particular plantation and its owner/overseers. Generally speaking, slaves aren't going to be getting whipped 24/7, because they are valuable property their owners don't want to damage. They are going to be working very long hours, though, and if they step out of line in any way or don't make quota then things are probably going to get brutal. Also, as you'll see watching the series, they run the risk of their sons/daughters/wives/husbands being sold off somewhere else without their consent. Also also, rape. I do have a bit of a nitpick with the new Roots, mind you; there's a bit where a British aristocrat comes in, buys Chicken George off his US owner, and carts him off by force to the UK and keeps him there for like a decade. This isn't in the original, where George goes voluntarily, and the nitpick is that this happens in the 1850s, long after slavery had been abolished throughout the British Empire, when people who cared one way or the other about slavery in the UK were generally pretty abolitionist. In the real world, all that George had to do was go find a local policeman and there would have been a loving massive scandal in the papers, a disgraced aristocrat and a free ticket home.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
76 years ago today, Bismarck left Norway having made the fatal mistake not to top up her fuel, and HMS Hood left Scapa Flow having made the fatal mistake of being a British battlecruiser. Bismarck, two days later:  The last photo of Hood:  Those guns in the foreground are HMS Prince of Wales, which I only just learned went on to be the first capital ship to be sunk solely by aircraft in open water, three days after all those American battleships were sunk by aircraft at anchor. December 1941 was a bad month for battleships. Edit: Hood was on the drawing board in 1916, and the lessons learned at Jutland were incorporated in her design. Yeah, they solved that problem, didn't they? 
Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 11:29 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 11:17
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Edit: Hood was on the drawing board in 1916, and the lessons learned at Jutland were incorporated in her design. Yeah, they solved that problem, didn't they? Well, the Hood probably sunk for a different reason than the battlecruisers at Jutland did, at least.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I suggest you finish watching the series. ;p Wasn't there a odd period in the late 18th/early 19th century in that while Slavery had been declared non-existent in law on the British Isles themselves, but it was still fine in the colonies? (because who cares about me he rule of law over there)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Extra credits is currently producing their "type thing" on the Bismark in case anyone is interested. They actually got someone knowledgeable to talk about how and why Hood's deck armor, was the way that it was.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well, the Hood probably sunk for a different reason than the battlecruisers at Jutland did, at least. Yeah, they fixed all the design flaws and then got sloppy with powder handling between the wars. The main problem with British battlecruisers is that they got into fair fights, when the entire point of the type is to be massively unfair -- they were meant to outgun anything with less armour, and outrun anything that could put up a fight. Battlecruiser design, sacrificing armour for speed, was meant to pick on the little guys and nope the gently caress out when a battleship appeared. Get in a fight with other battlecruisers, it's like tanks -- first to shoot wins. Get in a fight with a properly-armoured battleship ... And then they sent Hood to go after a proper battleship (which Hitler had sent on a suicide mission to do a BattleMoose posted:Extra credits is currently producing their "type thing" on the Bismark in case anyone is interested. They actually got someone knowledgeable to talk about how and why Hood's deck armor, was the way that it was. The deck armor didn't really play into it, the killing blow came through the side. wikipedia posted:In Jurens's opinion, the popular image of plunging shells penetrating Hood's deck armour is inaccurate, as by his estimation the angle of fall of Bismarck's 15-inch shells at the moment of the loss would not have exceeded about 14°, an angle so unfavourable to penetration of horizontal armour that it is actually off the scale of contemporaneous German penetration charts. Moreover, computer-generated profiles of Hood show that a shell falling at this angle could not have reached an aft magazine without first passing through some part of the belt armour. On the other hand, the 12-inch belt could have been penetrated, if Hood had progressed sufficiently far into her final turn In the same battle, King George V took a hit that went through 80 feet of water, holed the ship 28 feet below the waterline, and booped the torpedo bulkhead after going through several lesser walls. Luckily the shell was a dud. If nothing else, I think we can all agree that naval artillery is a thing you do not want to be on the receiving end of. Whether it's Nelson, Jellicoe, or Halsey, a line of battleships is a bad day for the enemy. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 13:12 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Wasn't there a odd period in the late 18th/early 19th century in that while Slavery had been declared non-existent in law on the British Isles themselves, but it was still fine in the colonies? (because who cares about me he rule of law over there) Kinda. Slavery has never been explicitly legal in the UK (well, not since the Romans and Anglo-Saxons). There was a legal decision in the 18th century that set precedent that slavery was explicitly illegal in England and Wales - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart - though I'd not want to rely solely on that if I were a black dude in England at the time. Bear in mind that the colonies did always have a different legal system to the UK proper. Colonies aren't 'the greater UK' in the way that French overseas departements are part of France now, they were their own thing with their own legal system that before abolition did explicitly recognise the legality of slavery.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Wasn't there a odd period in the late 18th/early 19th century in that while Slavery had been declared non-existent in law on the British Isles themselves, but it was still fine in the colonies? (because who cares about me he rule of law over there) From 1807 to 1834, so it's still anachronistic.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:From 1807 to 1834, so it's still anachronistic. Nope. 1807 was the abolition of the British slave trade from Africa to the New World (colonies and USA both), 1834 was abolition of slavery within the British Empire's colonies. Neither covered slavery in Britain itself.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:Speaking of. I saw the first couple of episodes of the Roots remake recently. Does that accurately get across being a slave? I imagined it to show the slaves being treated better than most were, almost sanitised after the inital whipping scene. Chattel slavery in North America was an absolutely massive institution, so there isn't really an "accurate" depiction as such...it ran a huge spectrum. I like the way one of my professors explained it once a long time ago: slaves were treated much like how we treat our cars today, which makes a lot of sense if you think about it. They were high dollar items that were very important to lifestyle and economy, but they were also the source of serious headaches and expenses. Some were badly abused and neglected, and much like cars that are abused and neglected, they did not perform optimally from an economic perspective. Again, much like our cars, most were treated as well as was necessary to get adequate performance out of them. This meant a life of pretty minimal comfort/luxury, barely adequate food, punishment designed to keep them fit for work as much as possible. A small minority were well, or very well treated (relatively speaking of course). In general, the larger the operation, the worse the treatment was - huge plantations were far worse for most of their slaves than were small family operations. As time went on and power/wealth concentrated at the huge plantations, average quality of life for slaves got a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Nope. 1807 was the abolition of the British slave trade from Africa to the New World (colonies and USA both), 1834 was abolition of slavery within the British Empire's colonies. Neither covered slavery in Britain itself. You're right, thanks for the correction. Apparently slavery was never formally abolished in either England or Scotland, but the Somersett case in 1772 was either its de facto end or led to the emancipation of slaves in England; I'm not sure which. E: point being that for a while slavery was illegal in England and Scotland but legal in the rest of the Empire.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:You're right, thanks for the correction. Apparently slavery was never formally abolished in either England or Scotland, but the Somersett case in 1772 was either its de facto end or led to the emancipation of slaves in England; I'm not sure which. Ummmm yes if you look like three posts up you'll see me linking that specifc case. Slavery was never formally established in the UK (post the norman conquest, obviously there were slaves in Roman Britain); so there wasn't much in the way of slaves to be de facto freed or emancipated. Also, Somerset applied as precedent in England and Wales, but not Scotland; Scotland has always had its own separate legal system.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Looking at the wiki page, Somerset was also quite narrow in his judgement (even if publically it was taken as a ban on slavery in England). He only said that slaves couldn't be deported to the colonies without consent, and later ruled being enslaved didn't count as being "hired" for Poor Law relief.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
The one thing that I remember about Roots that I doubt is their depiction of how the actual enslavement happened. I thought the process was people being grabbed in wars between African nations and then sold onto boats, not just sailors hopping off a boat and throwing a net over anyone hanging around the beach. Am I wrong about that?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Pretty sure IRL if you run a horse into a bunch of dudes you end up with a busted horse and you going at horse speed without a horse under you.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:, not just sailors hopping off a boat and throwing a net over anyone hanging around the beach. Am I wrong about that? That's Planet of the Apes
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The one thing that I remember about Roots that I doubt is their depiction of how the actual enslavement happened. I thought the process was people being grabbed in wars between African nations and then sold onto boats, not just sailors hopping off a boat and throwing a net over anyone hanging around the beach. Am I wrong about that? The new Roots gets this right, you're thinking of the original. (and no, you are not wrong)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:00
|
|