Shimrra Jamaane posted:I don’t even need a remake/remaster, give me a regularly full 64 player server for the Forgotten Hope mod for Battlefield 1942 and I’ll never need another FPS again. The alt history Swiss fortress map with the experimental stuff was the best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Yeah, that mod was the greatest. The mechanics actually encouraged somewhat realistic gameplay, since you couldn't one shot people at a dead sprint, you actually had to stop, aim, then fire. I still remember the one time playing the Market Garden map (the small updated original Bf1942 map), coming over the bridge in a jeep, seeing a Tiger, turning off the road and abandoning the jeep, running for cover to the barn while my companion went prone in the ditch and tried to hurt it with a bazooka. I just remember it being super cinematic for something that long ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
every time people mention stick grenades i remember one of the best photos i've ever seen
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:I still remember the one time playing the Market Garden map (the small updated original Bf1942 map), coming over the bridge in a jeep, seeing a Tiger, turning off the road and abandoning the jeep, running for cover to the barn while my companion went prone in the ditch and tried to hurt it with a bazooka. I remember the bridge blocked chock full of burning armor. God that mod was good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:every time people mention stick grenades i remember one of the best photos i've ever seen is that an arquebus?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:26
|
|
Phanatic posted:I remember the bridge blocked chock full of burning armor. I remember the packed out planes for of meaty paratroopers in Fall Of Crete.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I remember the packed out planes for of meaty paratroopers in Fall Of Crete. I loved that loving map so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:is that an arquebus?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06st7vKDzQ8
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtnwyTICTx4
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I remember the bridge blocked chock full of burning armor. While World of Tanks is not very realistic, there was a map where a very good strategy was to take the biggest and heaviest tank you had and have someone block a bridge with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:So if you could pick and choose from every side, what would give the best bang for your buck when outfitting a mid-sized WWII mechanized unit? Russian size, american small arms, german support weapons, and british amenities?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Russian size, american small arms, german support weapons, and british amenities? Russian amenities, Japanese armor, British electronics and German engines 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The British note that the Germans are willing to hang anything and everything on their tank, as long as it improves protection, reliability be damned.    Concrete on chickenwire
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
Is it true that british tanks as early as WW2 and into the present feature dedicated kettles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Is it true that british tanks as early as WW2 and into the present feature dedicated kettles? They're called "boiling vessels," and yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Is it true that british tanks as early as WW2 and into the present feature dedicated kettles? just because you are at war is no reason not to have a cuppa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Is it true that british tanks as early as WW2 and into the present feature dedicated kettles? Wikipedia posted:he "Vessel Boiling Electric" or "BV" was an innovation at the very end of World War II, when the Centurion tank was introduced with the device fitted inside the turret.[2][3] Previously, British tank crews had disembarked when they wanted to "brew-up" (make tea), using a petrol cooker improvised from empty fuel cans[4] called a "Benghazi burner".[5] Use of the BV enabled the crew to stay safely inside the tank and reduced the time taken for breaks.[6] They're going to have a brew-up, so you might as well make allowances for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:
Very interesting, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Very interesting, thanks. The book i pulled it from is Panzerwrecks 22
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Russian size, american small arms, german support weapons, and british amenities? Russian units were comparatively small though for most of the war, even tiny, and were often severly lacking in HQ staff, leaving the commanders overworked. It's one of the reasons you most often see the corps or the army as the standard Red Army operating unit in the war, their divisions just weren't as capable of independent action (also didn't have much integrated artillery and such) e: Anyone ever played in that kind-of tournament thing for the Forgotten War mod? World at War or something it was called I think. You basically signed up, was assigned to either the axis or allies* for the duration of a campaign, then was assigned to a unit and squad on that team and you played a series of weekend matches throughout a season. It was actually very fun, because it to me felt like basically the way the game was meant to be played in that eveyone made the most of what they had by co-operating communicating and rehearsing. I mean tactics weren't necessarily realistic, but we did have actually use tactcs and poo poo to accomplish stuff and it was great. The fact that a map was revealed a week in advance and we rehearsed did mean that artillery was basically the undisputed king of the battlefield though, they basicaly practiced by aiming at points in the static sky and making a chart for where you would hit by aiming at certain spot (I'm certain some of those crazy bastards placed a transparent grid over their screen), so combined with a couple of spotters working with them artillery could nearly always strike any part of the battlefield. *You could also pay like $5-10 and be assigned a team of your choice, interestingly I think (Because I played 3 times and got assigned axis each time) more people paid to be allies than axis, which, to me is unexpected for a WWII game, especially a kind of groggy mod for said game. Though I do remember German and Japanese equipment in the mod not being well balanced up against allied equipment, especially Russian stuff, so maybe that's a reason, axis just being weaker. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 07:09
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:On the plus side, this is a very milhist reason. Lord knows I'm consoling myself with that. Content: The Aubrey and Maturin series is at least as good as people say. The non-technical prose and time spent ashore are quite good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i have no idea how the early-modern chinese classified their firearms, but it is a matchlock piece nice I wonder how it would do in the oldest gun used in a war competition. Could it beat the Dardanelles gun? ChubbyChecker fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Lord knows I'm consoling myself with that. Yes, everyone should read it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:While World of Tanks is not very realistic, there was a map where a very good strategy was to take the biggest and heaviest tank you had and have someone block a bridge with it. There was one map in CC3 where one single lane bridge connected the two map halves. I as the defender took advantage of this in a LAN campaign and oh boy how my opponent sulked  it was a cheap tactic, but c'est la jeu de guerre
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 08:21
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:While World of Tanks is not very realistic, there was a map where a very good strategy was to take the biggest and heaviest tank you had and have someone block a bridge with it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyxFUCWNIC4
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:They're going to have a brew-up, so you might as well make allowances for it. I believe that the official modern justification for the BV is that it's perfectly sized to put rations into, fill with water, and now you have hot food (for a given definition of "food"). Sometimes it's even used for this purpose! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-yPZ9_2EBU
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 11:00
|
|
|
From PYF.C.M. Kruger posted:royalnavy.txt from Massie's "Dreadnought"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
And yet I am not surprised.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
How do you enamel a ship?? Very carefully, I know, but apart from that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:How do you enamel a ship?? Very carefully, I know, but apart from that. Likely in shifts punctuated by tea breaks, fox hunts, and meals of that blood clot pudding stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Likely in shifts punctuated by tea breaks, fox hunts, and meals of that blood clot pudding stuff. Dockworkers having tea breaks and hot food? What are you, some sort of agitator?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
sullat posted:Dockworkers having tea breaks and hot food? What are you, some sort of agitator? That brings up a question for the actual experts in the thread: During the peak age of ship polishing, were there specialist personal employed for the more specialized jobs? Also, did the polishing happen more at sea or in port?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Lord knows I'm consoling myself with that. I do enjoy how Capt. Aubrey loathes the paint and brightwork obsession of the RN. At one point he buys a pair of brass cannons as chasers, and he paints over them so that sailors won't spend time polishing them
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:19
|
|
quote:Sahib, By Richard Holmes: Haha, cute. quote:Sahib, By Richard Holmes: Oh well drat  .quote:Sahib, By Richard Holmes: shine on your little drunk monkey bastard son.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:From PYF. This quote has come up several times in this thread and it has been noted before that Percy Scott was hardly an impartial or objective reporter. It should not be read uncritically. Moreover, when studying the 19th century Royal Navy it is worth keeping in mind that we now view it through the lens of the very nasty organizational reform process/slap fight that occurred around the turn of the 20th century and ended up with Fisher and his supporters at the top of the heap. Fisher in particular was the type of person for whom anyone with a different position than him on any issue was an idiot, regardless of the merits of their position, and a lot of very competent people were sidelined because of this. This camp controlled the narrative of Royal Navy history for quite some time, had a vested interest in painting themselves in the best light, and hence a lot of what is written about the development of the Royal Navy in the 19th century is hardly objective. Some of the more vitriolic criticisms of the Royal Navy from the Fisher camp (rum, sodomy, and the lash, etc.) should maybe be taken on rather the same level as Donald Trump's criticisms of the EPA than as objective fact. Don't get me wrong, the Royal Navy was certainly an organization in need of reform by the end of the 19th Century but there was no particular reason for the reform to have been as nasty or destructive as it was. That was at least partly a product of the personalities involved. As with all largely peacetime forces there was a lot of incompetence and make-work projects going on (and look no further than the two collisions between US Navy vessels and civilian ships last year or even our own GiP idiots thread for examples of the same thing in military forces today) but the state of it was probably not as dire as the Fisher reformers made it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:10
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:Don't get me wrong, the Royal Navy was certainly an organization in need of reform by the end of the 19th Century Very much so yes.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
yeah that curved thing up top is the serpentine, which is a lever with a little clamp on one end (in the ones i've seen you finger-tighten it with a wingnut) that holds the match
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Very much so yes. Oh indeed! I actually have an engraving of that incident hanging on my wall and it certainly speaks to poor judgment on the part of Tyrone and a breakdown of command culture on both the HMS Victoria herself and in the British Mediterranean fleet as a whole. My point is that the Victorian Royal Navy was not some uniquely incompetent organization, obsessed only with trivialities and appearance, as many later authors would have it, and that portrayal is as much a product of the politics of the Fisher reforms as anything to do with reality. In fact it had a huge wealth of competent individuals and as an institution was able to successfully perform its mission for over a century. Note that the HMS Victoria incident is isolated; it is not as if 19th century British capital ships were colliding all the time or that Royal Navy fleets were afraid to carry out maneuvers for fear of collisions or as a result of the incident. Indeed given the difficulties of maneuvering per-dreadnoughts and the difficulty of communicating between them it is a testament to general competence in all navies at the time that there were not more major collisions during fleet maneuvers. I guess the way I see it is that taking the HMS Victoria incident and using it as a complete indictment of the Victorian Royal Navy as utterly incompetent (as is often done) is rather the same as taking the two collisions last year involving vessels of the US Pacific (mentioned in my previous post) and using them to argue that the US Navy is utterly incompetent. They certainly speak to - and indeed the navy investigations into them seem to indicate - a command breakdown in at least some of the vessels of the US Pacific fleet and the need for reforms. It does not indicate that the entire US Navy is just a bunch of incompetent morons. I think at some level the situation of the Victorian and Edwardian Royal Navy is a bit similar to that of the US Navy today - namely a very large force that strains its nation's budget, is a key part of its nation's force projection, but experiences mainly small-scale combat actions. I am not really arguing with you, I just think that the rap the Victorian Royal Navy takes is a bit overblown and a product of rather suspect historiography when in fact it performed its mission quite successfully. A_Bluenoser fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
It's not MilHist necessarily but does Braudel's Civilisation & Capitalism hold up these days? It's exactly the kind of nerdy analysis and numbers I love but it's old enough it's worth asking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:00
|
|
