|
SeanBeansShako posted:gently caress the dude who had a dude beaten to death for not taking off his hat, along with all the other dudes who did these horrible things.
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
The important question is did the guy's hat come off while he was being beaten, or did they have to take it off his corpse?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:How you classify the Scharnhorsts is related to how you classify the Dunkerques, but I think you can reasonably classify them as battlecruisers. They were intended for a guerre de course (and to chase each other down during that war - although S&D's inclusion in Force de Raid indicates that nothing was ever learned from WWI) and not to fight in the line, and they trade protection and armament for high speed compared to contemporary BBs. The Renowns, Hood, and Kongos all had similar speed, but all were also under-armored and all were BCs. The classification changes of the Kongos were almost entirely speed related - from BC to BB was due to a significant reduction in speed. Good points, but I prefer to classify German ships according to how German sources classify the ships. Which makes the Scharnhorst-class an undergunned battleship class. It also prevents consistency problems when talking about German ships, because the Kriegsmarine actually planned a for real class of battlecruisers, but the design was never actually built. The thing is, the German navy gave up on the concept of the battlecruiser after WWI and officially, Schlachtkreuzer weren't even a thing in the WWII-Kriegsmarine. From a German viewpoint, all those ships were designed and used as Schlachtschiff/battleship, it's just that the German navy had other ideas about how battleships should be used. Calling them battlecruisers is missing the point, I think. Also hilariously, the O-class battleships are only known colloquially as battlecruisers because of this, because for the German navy, they were simply fast battleships meant primarily for trade war. They are battlecruisers in all but name, specifically designed for the role of battlecruiser. Even Wikipedia calls them "Schlachtkreuzer", after pointing out that contemporary Germans disagreed.  Edit: As a sidenote, German battlecruisers were never, even in WWI, designed for the same thing as their British counterparts. Generally, German battlecruisers were meant to fight and defeat other battlecruisers, which is why German battlecruisers generally had stronger armor and weaker guns then their counterparts. They (the WWI-ones) even threw out a lot of crew space since they were meant to operate close to Germany, where Germany expected to find enemy battlecruisers to fight. This lead to ships fast enough (ideally) to catch enemy battlecruisers, with the armor to withstand their fire and guns just good enough to defeat the weaker armor of British battlecruisers. After WWI, this concept was quietly abandoned. Edit2: Basically, this: KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:just because I call my horse a mule doesn't make it a mule Libluini fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
just because I call my horse a mule doesn't make it a mule
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Didn't the Me-109's have all sort's of handling quirks and visibility issues when landing and taking off. I see they got as far as testing the navalised version on a river barge... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graf_Zeppelin-class_aircraft_carrier#Flight_testing_at_Travem%C3%BCnde ... but trying to land one on the back of a pitching carrier actually at sea doesn't seem like it would be much fun.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
   The remaining stamps from a gas ration book. As a Class B driver (factory workers and traveling salesmen supporting the military industry), he was entitled to 8 gallons a week for his 1938 Chrysler.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 19:58
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The important question is did the guy's hat come off while he was being beaten, or did they have to take it off his corpse? I imagine the man would have eaten the thing if he had the chance.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
I asked about my grandfather’s job and why he didn’t get serve. He was the last of 12 brothers to not be drafted, so he was initially deferred as the last remaining son (plus already married with kids) despite being 1A. His brother Stanley was stationed on one of the ships that was sunk in Pearl Harbor and only survived because he was an extremely devout Catholic and allowed to go to church on the island that morning. He worked in an automotive die cast part factory, which got him the B ration sticker. He actually got drafted in September 1945 and controversially taught his wife how to drive. While on the train, they received the news that Japan had surrendered and the war was over. He was told that he still had to serve, but when the train stopped next he went “gently caress that” and snuck off to hitchhike back to Detroit. He figured they wouldn’t give enough of a poo poo to chase him down.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Object 238 and other would-be KV-85s I've love to learn about the SKS stuff if you can put that in the queue.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Didn't the Me-109's have all sort's of handling quirks and visibility issues when landing and taking off. So my broad-strokes understanding of the Bf-109's ground handling issues is that most of them related to visibility over the long nose, lateral torque from the big engine and prop, and the very narrow track landing gear. All of these issues appeared, to a greater or lesser degree, on otherwise successful naval fighter designs. The Corsair had a similarly long nose and various other nasty quirks, enough that the Navy wouldn't let them on carriers for a while, but eventually the problems were ironed out enough that they could be used by shipboard squadrons. Torque was essentially an unavoidable issue of the large engined prop-driven single engine fighter; the more power you added, the worse it got. The F4F Wildcat also had very narrow landing gear, and it was a major issue but never to the point of hindering its successful deployment; notably, one source even suggests it was less of an issue making trap landings than it was landing at shore bases.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
I could be wrong in this but I also seem to recall wanting folding wings leading to narrower landing gear footprints on a lot of naval aircraft of that era.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Last year, I translated another batch of documents for the "Chronicles of Terror" of the Witold Pilecki Center for Totalitarian Studies. This time the documents were taken from the Auschwitz trials, and are now available on the site. Rutabaga is turnip, correct?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 22:44
|
|
.
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Rutabaga is turnip, correct?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
As that article points out, actually yes, depending.  V nice grated in a Cornish pasty.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Our final document from my grandfather: the paperwork that came with his Civil Defense ID tag. Like a set of paper dog tags, there’s two copies stapled together.   The address on there is more important than most, as this is the house their children were born and raised in. They kept it all the way into 1979 before moving to the Orlando area and building the first house in what’s now my neighborhood. Because my mom was born so late in their life (1964), all her older brothers had long since moved out by the time she was a high school sophomore.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:What even is a tank destroyer? Actually Nicholas Moran had a really good bit in his video about tank destroyers about that A miserable pile of secrets, but enough talk.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 3rd May 1918 posted:At 4.30 a.m. the Battalion "Stood to" in the trenches and at 6 o'clock started to clean up the enormous amount of tins and rubbish which was on top. This was buried after which the Battalion "Stood down". The day was spent in improving the trench and surroundings generally and making bivouacs for the men. During the day, working parties of 2 Officers and 100 other ranks were found and were employed on digging and carrying. During the night a working party of 2 Officers and 50 other ranks was found. 13th KRRC War Diary, 4th May 1918 posted:The enemy artillery was more active today than it has been for some time past. Letters of congratulation addressed to Lt.D.L. Malcolm Smith and 2/Lts.Craig and Yates have been received from the Divisional Commander for the excellent work done by them on patrol during our recent tour in the front line. The usual routine continues, the day working party completed its work but the one in the evening was cancelled and we had to supply 130 for carrying wire as this was of more urgency. 13th KRRC War Diary, 5th May 1918 posted:The day passed quietly. During the afternoon and evening there was considerable aerial activity and shelling. Our Lewis Guns opened out and succeeded in turning the aircraft. In the afternoon our reconnoitring parties went forward to the new area to take over from the 10th R.F.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
quote:working parties of 2 Officers and 100 other ranks were found "Found" by the simple expedient of wandering around the trenches until one trips over a subaltern too stupid to be somewhere else
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Clarence posted:At 4.30 a.m. the Battalion "Stood to" in the trenches... quote:...and at 6 o'clock started to clean up the enormous amount of tins and rubbish which was on top.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 01:01
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:"Found" by the simple expedient of wandering around the trenches until one trips over a subaltern too stupid to be somewhere else Got to occupy them with something before they break out the bad satirical trench poetry and drive a Sapper Major to drink somewhere.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:
Hell it's a long way from anything really. E: it was Wayne State College I was thinking of, which is in deeply rural Nebraska and has a cool planetarium. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 16:09 on May 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Actually think the biggest issues the BF 109 would have faced as a carrier fighter weren't really landing gear related, it was the weak wings and particularly tail it's takeoff and landing characteristics weren't all that different from aircraft that were successful carrier fighters, but they almost universally had a much stronger airframe. I think the FW 190 would have made a superb carrier aircraft except that its wings couldn't really be folded and it's combat radius was pretty limited
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Actually think the biggest issues the BF 109 would have faced as a carrier fighter weren't really landing gear related, it was the weak wings and particularly tail You know they would have just loaded the thing up with Me-163s and one bomb would have set off the fuel at some battle near the Azores.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Yikes, Wayne State U is a long way from Michigan. It's in Detroit... or am I missing a joke somewhere?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Last year, I translated another batch of documents for the "Chronicles of Terror" of the Witold Pilecki Center for Totalitarian Studies. This time the documents were taken from the Auschwitz trials, and are now available on the site. Good work. Thank you for doing this.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
When was the last time 4 A-6s needed to take off in a row?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:It's in Detroit... or am I missing a joke somewhere? Maybe he’s referring to the Wayne State in Nebraska.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
E: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:20
|
|
Cat Army 
|
StandardVC10 posted:So my broad-strokes understanding of the Bf-109's ground handling issues is that most of them related to visibility over the long nose, lateral torque from the big engine and prop, and the very narrow track landing gear. All of these issues appeared, to a greater or lesser degree, on otherwise successful naval fighter designs. The Corsair had a similarly long nose and various other nasty quirks, enough that the Navy wouldn't let them on carriers for a while, but eventually the problems were ironed out enough that they could be used by shipboard squadrons. Torque was essentially an unavoidable issue of the large engined prop-driven single engine fighter; the more power you added, the worse it got. The F4F Wildcat also had very narrow landing gear, and it was a major issue but never to the point of hindering its successful deployment; notably, one source even suggests it was less of an issue making trap landings than it was landing at shore bases. The Bf109 was sort of a perfect storm of 'what you don't want in a naval fighter' - mostly because it wasn't remotely conceived as one, of course. The whole airframe was designed to be as light and compact as possible, with an added focus on in-the-field servicing. This led to relatively weak wing and tail joints since they were supposed to be easily removable and with a minimum of attachments. Which is not to say that the 109, in its role as a land-based interceptor, was liable to crack up but that it was designed up to the point where it wouldn't crack up and no further. Apparently when you start throwing a Bf109 around hard in a dogfight/aerobatic situation you get a lot of creaks and shudders from the structure which are...less than confidence inspiring. Theoretically a Bf109E was the equal or superior to the Spitfire Mk1 in a high speed turn but a lot of 109 pilots didn't want to push their aircraft near its aerodynamic limits because of the way the structure complained and flexed, on top of its sudden, if gentle, stall characteristics. The Spitfire's big low-loaded wing generated a lot of pre-stall buffet which let pilots finesse their way right up to the limit and crucially it felt structurally strong even when abused. Add that weakness into a naval operations situation and I can imagine some repeated trap+hook landings ripping the tail of a 109 unless it was seriously strengthened. But structural flimsiness isn't always a dealbreaker for naval aircraft - the Zero's skin would wrinkle during high-load flying and that was a superb naval fighter in its day. The 109's nasty ground characteristics are due not so much to its narrow-track gear (shared with many other aircraft such as the Spitfire, the P-40 and the F4F) but that that landing gear is raked significantly forward and splayed outward to increase its track, with the wheels mounted parallel to the undercarriage struts so they are somewhat running on their sidewalls. The Bf109 also had a relatively rear-biased centre of gravity. Both these factors made the 109 prone to ground-looping, especially when operating from hard surfaces rather than grass. The 109's undercarriage was also not blessed with huge reserves of strength, due to the large side loads imposed by both the splayed design and the aircraft's swing tendency, plus that the landing gear attached to a single trunnion on a bracket that served also as the main engine firewall mount and the main wing attachment point. The 109 was blessed with very good brakes (which didn't help it's ground-looping habit) which could be used to the full without fear of the plane nosing over thanks to that rear-bias weight. Despite its high-loaded wing in flight, which should have given it high take-off/landing speeds the automatic leading edge slats, coupled to effective wing flaps (as opposed to the ones on the Spitfire, Hurricane and P-40 which were really more air brakes than lift devices) gave it very good short-field capabilities. Similar to the Seafire in that regard, which was also plagued by structural and handling problems in carrier operations due to its narrow track but was blessed with a very large, low-load wing area. Then there was the 109's short range and endurance, which is probably what would have killed it as a naval fighter more than anything else. Without a droptank about 200 miles operational range and an hour's endurance would be lethal in carrier operations. The 109E with a droptank had a maximum range of 840 miles/just under four hours endurance but that's point-to-point with no reserves at economical cruise power only. The operational range, with allowances made for high-power climb, combat, return to base with reserves, was still only 285 miles with the droptank.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 10:06
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:something is about to happen to them, i can feel it Sunrise on 3rd May 1918 in the Bucquoy area was at 4.23 am. I'm a bit surprised it wasn't actually earlier that they stood to.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
One of the things that get me about the prisoner with a hat story is how the defendant responded. He did not try to defend himself, or push the blame or someone else. He just up and said "yes, I did it, but the witness is lying, no-one there called me a bandit!" For some reason, that's the thing he cared about, that's where he wanted to correct the record. That guy in specific - Max Grabner - is really terrifying in where he draws the lines. "Sure, I ordered prisoners hanged, but I never tied the noose! I had people tortured, but I never raped anyone! And if the witnesses say I did, they are lying!" You can tell he had some insane rationalization going on in his head.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:One of the things that get me about the prisoner with a hat story is how the defendant responded. He did not try to defend himself, or push the blame or someone else. He just up and said "yes, I did it, but the witness is lying, no-one there called me a bandit!" For some reason, that's the thing he cared about, that's where he wanted to correct the record. That guy in specific - Max Grabner - is really terrifying in where he draws the lines. "Sure, I ordered prisoners hanged, but I never tied the noose! I had people tortured, but I never raped anyone! And if the witnesses say I did, they are lying!" You can tell he had some insane rationalization going on in his head. Well, even evil has standards. Doesn't make it any less evil that you don't commit all possible crimes all at once.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
One of the grimly hilarious parts of the transcipts of Draža Mihajlović's trial by the communists after WW2, specifically regarding the black troikas, boils down to: "The black troikas literally butchered everyone they vaguely suspected of being your enemy, slitting their victims' throats with knives, they were under your command, and the orders to commit those murders were marked З for "заклати" (butcher) by you." "Well, actually, the З stands for "заплашити" (intimidate), and there were targets killed by rifle fire, too."Dude was pathetic and wasn't guilty of some of the stuff he was blamed for, but that doesn't mean the poo poo he actually did wasn't vile as hell. e: derp my dad fucked around with this message at 13:27 on May 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 13:15
|
|
|
I imagine if they caught and tried the French officials who started the root of atrocities in Spain they would have the same sort of argument too.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I was watching a thing, and I got to wondering, do the world's militaries have plans for what to do in the event of an alien invasion or some kind of giant monster attack, like they do for other improbable scenarios? How fast would they deploy fighter jets and tanks in the interior like they always do in movies? That's something a lot of financial institutions do. It's called operational risk scenario analysis. I think there was a trend toward more and more extreme scenarios, back when Nassim Taleb was fashionable, up to and including alien contact.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:That's something a lot of financial institutions do. It's called operational risk scenario analysis. I think there was a trend toward more and more extreme scenarios, back when Nassim Taleb was fashionable, up to and including alien contact. Religious institutions like the Roman Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Convention have official theological thought on alien contact, too.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:It's in Detroit... or am I missing a joke somewhere? Whoops, had it confused with Wayne State College.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
this post dedicated to HEY GUNS
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
what's the significance of the fourth panel 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 17:32
|
|
