|
Castles of Wales, ranked poorly Wales has more castles per km2 than anywhere else in the world – FACT probably not a fact. The best are in North Wales, built to subjugate Gwynedd, historically the English colonial possession that’s given the Saesneg more trouble than anyone other than the Irish. Edward 1s castles in North Wales are the pinnacle of 14th century castle design, but other castles in Wales vary from incredible to hilarious. Out of (Wikipedia sourced) 600 castles in wales I’ve probably been to about 100. In the north of wales, there is one castle (usually built by James St John, master builder) about every ten miles. We forget sometimes this was extremely hostile country. This is therefore my absolutely definitive, objectively true list of castles in wales ranked by how well build they are. Perfect: Beaumaris (Unfinished) Harlech (Unassailable) Caerphilly – Platonic Ideal of castle Very good: Conwy – town walls make this one. Town still mostly in the walls as well Carreg Cennen – the best Welsh-built castle, but like all welsh built castles it’s a jumble of weird design elements. Dinefwr – right next to carreg cennen. Also great. Good: Carmarthen – pretty much just ruined by 20th century building around it, good placement of castle and some clever construction Denbigh – really nice but just suffers in comparison to impeccable castles being about twenty minutes away Ok: Holt castle – now a pile of sandstone, given benefit of the doubt because it was probably very self contained with a stylish pentagon shape Kidwelly – seen one Norman castle you’ve seen them all Rhuddlan – James of Saint George couldn’t be much bothered with this one I think Flint – meh Aberlleiniog – the forgotten castle of angelsey, pretty meh Ogmore – meh Bad: All castles in Cardigan/Ceredigon are bad Most Monmouthshire castles are bad Dolbardan – built by Llywelyn the Great, guards a pass but is pretty much just a round tower and small keep. A cargo-cult imitation of Norman castles. Castel y Bere – as above, looks like it was made by bees or ants Criccieth – yep same as the two above Coity - boring norman castle Deganwy – now just a mound, once could see Conwy from it. Probably a cheap temporary castle. Rhuthin – another bad welsh built castle Tretower – I just don’t like triangle castles, ok Terrible: Morgraig – temporary fortification in a poo poo place Cardiff – BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Dryslwyn – “hey lets just chuck some walls up on a hill! That’s what a castle is, right?” Llandovery – see Dryslwyn Hay – just rubbish Weird: Caernarfon (more of a flashy palace than a castle, weird hexagonal towers) Newport – what the hell was the plan here Chirk - what
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:imperial knights are probably my favorite HRE concept imperial abbeys imperial nuns HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 13:03
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Was? While they're not as active as they used to be in this regard, Françafrique was a great excuse the French used to dick around in their former colonies. inclined to agree. If France doesn't maintain some form of empire, what the hell are they doing in Mali right now? E: Got curious and dug around, found this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/17/world/africa/niger-ambush-american-soldiers.html A long read and a bit of a pathos piece, but offers some pretty interesting insights into how the US spread soldiers all over Africa and occasionally gets some of them killed. Tias fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:imperial nuns go on
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
Tias posted:inclined to agree. If France doesn't maintain some form of empire, what the hell are they doing in Mali right now? what's the line between maintaining an empire and loving about in your backyard? does Iran try to maintain an empire because they're loving about in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:go on a while after the period i study their abess was (clears throat) Maria Karolina von Königsegg-Rothenfels, who chose to be presented to history looking like this:  couldn't find a bigger picture, but look at her hands: those aren't theology texts she's holding, they are building plans and maps. She wants the viewer to think of her as a stateswoman, a builder, someone with power in the world of the Empire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:
The largest was using a few hundred megatons of nukes to dig a channel to the Med from the Quatara Depression in Egypt to create a new inland sea. The German scientist who proposed the idea was much more enthusiastic about it than the Egyptians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:what's the line between maintaining an empire and loving about in your backyard? does Iran try to maintain an empire because they're loving about in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc? Good question, and one for which I don't immediately have an answer. It's just sort of convenient that Mali needs help against an insurgency, and then gets a full 4000 special forces backed up by airstrikes and NATO logistic support in one of their former colonies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:what's the line between maintaining an empire and loving about in your backyard? does Iran try to maintain an empire because they're loving about in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc? Your feelings towards the actor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
hot take: the german u boat captain in land that time forgot is the good guy, whose life was tragically wrenched off course by a bunch of fuckers who did not keep to their parole when taken prisoner
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:hot take: the german u boat captain in land that time forgot is the good guy, whose life was tragically wrenched off course by a bunch of fuckers who did not keep to their parole when taken prisoner Read this as "Land Before Time", was  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Squalid posted:
The US military is also indirectly responsible for one of the most important ersatz nature preserves in Asia: the Korean DMZ. There are a lot of people worried about what happens to the place if reunification ever happens. It’s a solid belt of land that has more or less been untouched for over 60 years now and was never heavily developed in the first place but it’s also right next to Seoul and a prime candidate for development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
anyone else read bernard cornwell's waterloo? i decided i didn't know anything about the napoleonic era and so am reading it it is a good speed for people like me, which i appreciate
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The US military is also indirectly responsible for one of the most important ersatz nature preserves in Asia: the Korean DMZ. There are a lot of people worried about what happens to the place if reunification ever happens. It’s a solid belt of land that has more or less been untouched for over 60 years now and was never heavily developed in the first place but it’s also right next to Seoul and a prime candidate for development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:also the wildlife is thriving in chernobyl, if slightly radioactive Frankly cancer matters a lot less for animals that A) don’t have 80+ year life spans and B) as long as the procreate before dying it’s a net win for the species. Deer don’t get upset if they never enjoy a retirement taking the grandkids to six flags on the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:anyone else read bernard cornwell's waterloo? i decided i didn't know anything about the napoleonic era and so am reading it i have not read it but his historical fiction is fun enough which probably helps. i should try to read it. Chandler is good for a British perspective, he wrote a lot of short papers as an academic on individual battles that are digestible and fairly sensible, in addition to bigger works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
bewbies posted:anyone else read bernard cornwell's waterloo? i decided i didn't know anything about the napoleonic era and so am reading it I bought it for my brother, who has not read it, and I have not gotten around to actually reading it myself, but the edition is very opulent and from a quick browse it seemed decent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Read this as "Land Before Time", was Kaleu Friedrich von Schoenvorts did his duty to God and the Kaiser, escaping twice from his British and American captors. He and his crew made repeated attempts to re-establish communication with his superiors and get back to his mission, which was raiding and interdicting Allied shipping. tyler: Irresponsible, dishonorable, ruined a sub's navigation equipment*, the audience is supposed to let all that go because dinosaurs are cool. von Schoenvorts: just trying to do his loving job and live his loving life, demonstrated leadership skills while retaking his boat, should have been the protagonist. *a German was responsible for this in the movie HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:bowen tyler, in addition to having a jayden-level dumb name, repeatedly and openly violated his parole, committing acts that both the german and the british navies of the time would have regarded as dishonorable. It turns out they were dead all along and the whole story is allegorical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:It turns out they were dead all along and the whole story is allegorical. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
You get back and immediately stuck in dock for want of any resources
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:in the german navy circa 1916 do you get courtmartialed for accidentally steering your uboat into a dinosaur island unknown to science, if you bring it back by the end of the movie/book I thought it was really hosed up how they finally reached the Great Valley but then they got bombed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
I haven't seen the movie, but in the story, von Schoenvorts fired on and sank a civilian vessel belonging to a neutral power without first confirming it was carrying contraband or giving the vessel the opportunity to be boarded. And when Tyler and the British tug crew take the U-boat, they hadn't surrendered before. They took it in a fair fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I haven't seen the movie, but in the story, von Schoenvorts fired on and sank a civilian vessel belonging to a neutral power without first confirming it was carrying contraband or giving the vessel the opportunity to be boarded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:it's well-known by 1916 that the americans run guns for the uk. well known. pull your head out of the sand and get with the program (the program is Wilhelm II's naval aims) <Pulls out prepared statement> "The United States is a non-beligerant and as such exercises its rights of peaceful trade with all powers. We look with grave concern on the practice of unrestricted submarine warfare by the German Empire as a violation of freedom of the seas and contrary to the practice of civilized warfare. Qe therefore urge the German Empire to cease such actions and allow our ships to pass unmolested."
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Most Monmouthshire castles are bad quote:Newport – what the hell was the plan here HEY GUNS posted:von Königsegg-Rothenfels
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:I thought it was really hosed up how they finally reached the Great Valley but then they got bombed. Littlefoot's mother being divebombed by Stukas was pretty sad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
sullat posted:Littlefoot's mother being divebombed by Stukas was pretty sad. That and the gas attack on the rat colony. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Tias posted:Can confirm, I learned about these in my chemistry class (in Denmark) last semester. Fun fact: sacrificial anodes were invented all the way back in 1824 and an iron anode was implemented the same year, by this rather sharp fellow. And there was about a century of the Royal Navy dealing with the problem of electrolytic corrosion without fully understanding the science behind it. The problem of fouling on ships' hulls had been known since antiquity (and probably long before) - marine growth (weed, barnacles etc.) grow on the hull and cause considerable drag which not only affects a ship's speed but her sailing qualities - a ship with a clean hull will be able to point closer to the wind and will make less leeway (sideways motion through the water as a proportion of forward motion) than a ship with a fouled hull. This has obvious tactical considerations in naval actions. Unprotected hulls were also attacked by the infamous teredo worm (or 'naval shipworm') which tunnels into the wood of the ship's hull, posts, keel and frames and if left unchecked can cause serious structural damage. The traditional solution was regularly scraping clean the hull and replacing any parts riddled with worm. This was either done in a dry dock, by careening (beaching a ship at high tide and letting it dry out while lying on its side as the tide fell) or by lifting the ship out of the water on pontoons. All of these methods were expensive and time-consuming and meant that the ship had to be out of service for period of time ranging from a week to several months. The Admiralty called for all ships to be dry-docked, surveyed, repaired and refitted every three years but most underwent inspection annually. Ships operating in the cooler, less oxygen-rich waters of Northern Europe could go a couple of years before being de-fouled but in the warmer seas of the Caribbean or the Indian Ocean even a year could see a ship become rich with growth to an extent that it greatly impacted her sailing ability. And even brief service in the tropics could lead to a ship becoming riddled with shipworm which would then eat away at the timbers for the rest of the ship's service. The traditional solution was cover the hull in a mix of horsehair and tar and then attach a layer of thin wooden planks over that as sheathing. These planks acted as biological sacrificial anodes - the worm would attack the non-structural sheathing while the set-solid mix of hair and tar ('Black Stuff') would deter it from getting to the actual hull. On top of the sheathing would be 'White Stuff' - a mix of pine resin, whale oil and sulphur, plus tallow so the mix could be rendered smooth. This prevented weed and barnacles getting a good hold on the surface. But none of these methods were absolute and all required regular re-application and repair. The need to annually dock ships continued. There was a cost balance to be struck, as money spent on providing effective anti-fouling meant that each ship could stay at sea longer than if it was unprotected, which acted as a 'force multiplier' but dozens of ships needing regular re-application of anti-fouling incurred more expense in maintenance and dockyard facilities. The compromise was that most ships would only be coated in White Stuff and would only be sheathed if they were due for service in the tropics. As early as the 1670s the Admiralty had trialled sheathing ships' hulls in lead plates - as the metal corroded in the sea water it maintained a poisonous surface layer which detered both growth and worm. This had huge up-front costs but rendered ships virtually immune to fouling and promised huge long-term savings in maintenance as well as big military advantages. The scheme to lead-plate the fleet was approved but before it could get under way in earnest the trial vessels began suffering severe problems with their iron bolts and fittings corroding due to the (unknown) electrolytic action between the lead and the iron immersed in salt water - several ship came close to wreckage after losing their rudders when the rudder pintles failed due to corrosion. The lead plating was also very heavy and affected the handling and rolling characteristics of the ships. Sheathing in copper was first suggested in 1708 but rejected on grounds of cost and the obvious (but not understood) corrosion problems. Experiments were made with copper in the 1750s when the non-structural false keel of the seventy-four HMS Invincible was clad in copper sheet. These trials were promising and in 1761 the 32-gun frigate HMS Alarm was fully coppered below the waterline. Within five years the problems with corrosion of the iron bolts and fittings began to resurface, although the copper had almost completely defeated both shipworm and marine growth despite five years in service. The 24-gun HMS Dolphin was coppered in 1765 with a layer of 'Soft Stuff' (yarn and paper) under the plates to try and isolate them from the hull but within three years she needed refitting to have all her iron fittings replaced. None the less the Admiralty was impressed enough with the potential of copper sheathing to try building a brand new ship (the seventy-four HMS Egmont) with copper bolts instead of iron. This solved the corrosion problem but at great expense - no-one was willing to pay to use copper bolts and sheets on every new-build ship, let alone the cost of refitting every existing ship in the fleet. The cost of the copper needed for a ship was roughly five times the cost of the wood needed to build that ship in the first place and a seventy-four needed around 15 tons of copper sheet to fully protect its underwater hull. The American War of Independence required ships to stay at sea for months, make numerous crossings of the Atlantic and frequently operate in the Caribbean. The RN was also outnumbered in how many ships it could commit to the American conflict once it began a concurrent war with France, so the advantage of having copper-sheathed ships became worth the up-front cost. It was decided to take the short term benefits over the long-term corrosion problem, which was combatted by layering the copper sheets over multiple layers of thick tarred paper - a technique which had proven effective on merchant ships. This proved the benefits of coppering and so in 1779 the Admiralty ordered that all ships of 32 guns and fewer (thus mostly being frigates which spent the most time at sea and depended most on speed and fine sailing qualities) would be rebuilt with copper sheathing as they came in for the scheduled refits. By the end of the year this programme had been expanded to larger frigates of up to 44 guns and in 1780 it was decided to copper every ship in the fleet. However as yet this work did not include replacing all the iron bolts with cupric ones, although each ship did have its crucial rudder pintles replaced with those made from copper alloy. The military advantages of coppering were proved in the actions against the French Navy in the early 1780s and long service by frigates in the Caribbean. By the end of the war in 1783 ships were beginning to suffer the inevitable corrosion problem but by now there was little opposition to the expense and in 1786 a programme was started to refit every ship in the fleet with cupric bolts. The British had the advantage that they could source all the required copper from domestic mines, and the start of the industrial revolution meant that the British mines were producing copper in previously unheard of quantities which drove down the price. Other nations - especially the French - lacked this geological and industrial advantage and had to pay more for less copper, thus having to selectively copper their ships (mostly choosing frigates engaged on long-distance cruises rather than the ships-of-the-line which spent most of their days in port). The widespread use of copper sheathing was crucial to the RN's strategy in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars of maintaining a constant blockade on the French Navy holed up in the ports of the Channel or the Bay of Biscay. The Channel Fleet was at sea almost continuously for years, which it could do without degrading the ships' performance or structure thanks to the copper. Ships could cruise thousands of miles through tropical seas without becoming fouled and allowed the RN to operate year-round in the West Indies with only a handful of ships. The same technique of continuous at-sea blockade was used during the War of 1812 - the fact that RN ships could loiter for months off Long Island and still be fast enough to catch one of the USN's heavy frigates was key to the individual ship-on-ship successes like the capture of the USS President. Naval interest in the chemistry behind the action of the copper plates largely ended once the decision to copper-fasten the entire fleet had been made as it solved the issue from a practical seamanship perspective. Davy's experiments (and invention of the sacrificial anode) were to try and solve the slow corrosion of the copper sheathing itself rather than the bolts. He was entirely successful in this, but it was found that the way the copper gradually sloughed off it surface layer to reveal a fresh surface (until all the sheet was gone) was key to preventing the marine growth getting a good hold. BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
 Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of maritime chemistry
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 18:02
|
|
bewbies posted:anyone else read bernard cornwell's waterloo? i decided i didn't know anything about the napoleonic era and so am reading it It's a fantastic little thing if you want a quick brush over of the battle now. Plus it has a bitching cover.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Naval interest in the chemistry behind the action of the copper plates largely ended once the decision to copper-fasten the entire fleet had been made as it solved the issue from a practical seamanship perspective. Davy's experiments (and invention of the sacrificial anode) were to try and solve the slow corrosion of the copper sheathing itself rather than the bolts. He was entirely successful in this, but it was found that the way the copper gradually sloughed off it surface layer to reveal a fresh surface (until all the sheet was gone) was key to preventing the marine growth getting a good hold. It's interesting that the sacrificial anode was invented so early, as it doesn't seem to have been in use in the RN in the mid-19th Century. HMS Prince Consort (laid down 1862) was an ironclad, but was given copper sheathing beneath the waterline, as on a wooden ship. Of course, galvanic action caused corrosion of the iron armour. To prevent this, rather than adding a sacrificial anode, they replaced the copper sheathing with sheathing made from Muntz metal (60% copper, 40% zinc). This had reduced anti-fouling properties compared to pure copper, but did not cause as much corrosion. This was used on most British ironclads. On the Inconstant class frigates (built from 1866), which had to be fast to catch the USN's Wampanoag class frigates, copper was used. These were iron-hulled ships, but were given an outer sheathing of oak. This both acted to give the ship a modicum of armouring (as they did not carry any iron armour), and prevented galvanic corrosion of the iron hull. The wood sheathing was in two layers. The first was screwed into the iron hull using iron nails; the second was then attached to the first using brass screws. Finally, the copper was nailed to the outer layer using copper nails. It was a highly successful system. Inconstant would survive afloat for just under a century, with few corrosion issues, being scrapped in 1956. After steel was introduced, the RN still struggled with corrosion, especially on lighter craft. The torpedo boat TB 13, built in the late 1870s, was given a brass hull. This would be found to be successful, but far to expensive for real service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:The torpedo boat TB 13, built in the late 1870s, was given a brass hull. This would be found to be successful, but far to expensive for real service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:On the Inconstant class frigates (built from 1866), which had to be fast to catch the USN's Wampanoag class frigates, copper was used. At what point did the British stop considering us as potential foes in their planning E: also is there a general term for that, like how the F-15 was intended to be an answer to the Mig-25 zoux fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:At what point did the British stop considering us as potential foes in their planning
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:At what point did the British stop considering us as potential foes in their planning Never. Every armed force is constantly thinking about how they might respond to various potential threats, some likely and some not. You'd better believe that somewhere in the Pentagon there's a cabinet full of "Oh God the Brits have gone nuts and we're looking at a potential shooting war with them, here's what we should do" plans. This is especially true of major capability gaps. Every nation on earth with a navy had thought about how they might deal with an American carrier task group (even if the general answer is 'we're hosed') and how to maybe try to kill stealth bombers. During the 19th century, gaps in performance in ship speeds was one of those kinds of things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
The US probably dropped off their list of "keep these updated and ready to hand at all times" list after the Suez Crisis, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Never. Every armed force is constantly thinking about how they might respond to various potential threats, some likely and some not. You'd better believe that somewhere in the Pentagon there's a cabinet full of "Oh God the Brits have gone nuts and we're looking at a potential shooting war with them, here's what we should do" plans. And sometimes it's not really a serious plan - Staff Officers are sometimes assigned to make plans so as to practice making plans, if that makes sense. So you'll see assignments like "Maj. Smith, come up with a plan to conduct an amphibious assault on Newfoundland." No one is really thinking that they're going to invade for real, it's just a chance to practice planning, and maybe Newfoundland was picked because it has difficult tides so it makes Maj. Smith think of how to account for this. But then someone finds the declassified plans decades later and thinks, "holy hell, they were actually planning to invade Newfoundland!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:It's interesting that the sacrificial anode was invented so early, as it doesn't seem to have been in use in the RN in the mid-19th Century. HMS Prince Consort (laid down 1862) was an ironclad, but was given copper sheathing beneath the waterline, as on a wooden ship. Of course, galvanic action caused corrosion of the iron armour. To prevent this, rather than adding a sacrificial anode, they replaced the copper sheathing with sheathing made from Muntz metal (60% copper, 40% zinc). This had reduced anti-fouling properties compared to pure copper, but did not cause as much corrosion. This was used on most British ironclads. I think it was probably the usual RN (and more general military) problem of being very practical-minded and letting your technology stagnate when you're in a position of dominance. The success of copper plate as an anti-fouling measure was known in general for centuries, was specifically proposed to the RN in 1708 and the solution to electrolytic corrosion was well understood by 1765. But it wasn't until it became a pressing matter in a time of war, 20 years later, that the technology was implemented. Once it was, all ships were copper-plated, all existing ones were progressively rebuilt with copper bolts and all new-builds were constructed that way, the problem was solved and that method was standardised across the navy. The sacrificial anode was of no practical benefit to the RN and had 'failed' in the task for which it was invented. So there was no need to adopt the anode. I suspect that with Prince Consort they were concerned with making the copper too inert which, as with the original anode trials, actually made it redundant as an antifouling method. Muntz brass was a compromise - less effective in antifouling (but better than copper neutralised with an anode) but also much less electrolytically active. Tias posted:
I'm afraid my knowledge of the actual chemistry stops at pretty much the level in that post. The practical struggle to overcome its effects and the impact of that on naval history is more of my jam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
I would assume the modern War Plan Red is to blow up the British container ports, destroy the chunnel entrance, and just sit around til the island falls to starvation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 19:23
|
|
