|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The Texas of balkanized 1865 would not be modern Texas at all (sorry Republic of Texas you tried). The eastern chunk would be "Texas" and probably join up with wherever Florida and/or Louisiana are at. South would just be Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila, But More So, and my homeland, the west, would be wherever modern New Mexico ends up. I mean there's a lot of hoops you have to jump through to have the concept of a Texas that would declare independence if there wasn't a United States to have troublesome immigrants settling a piece of Mexico. Also questionable how many of the original colonies would actually accept independence, and the vulnerability and economic isolation it would entail. Like I can't imagine Maryland having a go at independence, and even without a real effort towards unification, a lot of areas would be heavily dependent on other areas. Alliances would be formed in addition to wars for areas to assert dominance over other areas. And things get very confusing when you consider things like the incorporation of territories or how state borders wouldn't be anywhere near what they are now without some kind of organized respect enforced by a federal body. Native nations would hold their own more against disunited states, but Florida was successfully conquered by a bunch of Tennessee volunteers, so presumably there'd still be encroachment. And there's things like the states of Kanawha and Franklin, cessation movements from other states from being geographically isolated behind a mountain range.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Chamale posted:This is my dream game and I'm mad it hasn't been made yet. All I want is to feel the creeping doom as water floods from compartment to compartment in my battleship, instead of the typical ship hitpoints system. Word. I can't remember the text of the OP, but I believe it just asked whether it happened at all. Platystemon posted:Explain how this differs from Sid Meier’s Pirates!. Pirates just has a ship that gets slower and worse at shooting the more it's hit. A hypothetical FTL-pirates clone would focus on keeping your own ship in shape as it's hit by cannon balls, while maneuvering to shoot/board the opposition. On the subject: Milo and POTUS posted:I had a pretty solid idea for pirate themed RL with FTL-inspired mechanics. You could even target different parts of the ship during ship to ship combat. You ever need a writer, I'm game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 08:28
|
|
|
Tias posted:Pirates just has a ship that gets slower and worse at shooting the more it's hit. A hypothetical FTL-pirates clone would focus on keeping your own ship in shape as it's hit by cannon balls, while maneuvering to shoot/board the opposition. Oh, age of sail pirates? I was hoping for a setting that featured pirates sailing around in pre-dreadnoughts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 08:42
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:That's true, but the general expectation was that cruisers weren't going to be fighting anything with enough armour for this to matter. 6in guns could penetrate the armour of most cruisers at typical combat ranges, and they weren't expected to fight battleships. Huh? What about armoured cruisers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 09:52
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:This is not borne out of experience (where full-power cartridges are preferred for long-distance shooting) and the flatter trajectory and greater resistance to wind drift makes full-power cartridges more accurate than 5.56 NATO and similar at long ranges. I'm not going to say that full-power cartridges are better than intermediate ones in every respect or even preferable overall, but they're not without merit. Full-power cartridges are with merit for guns that actually have the ability to accurately hit man-sized targets at that range. If you’re not a sniper or machine gunner, it doesn’t have much point compared to a smaller one because those are ranges where the target is smaller than your front sight post or red dot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 11:36
|
|
|
Gort posted:Huh? What about armoured cruisers? 1st class armored cruisers were very slow compared to post-Dreadnought light armored cruisers. Bluecher managed 25 knots (later to be her undoing), the Minotaurs managed 23, Edgar Quinets 23, Rurik 21, etc. Light armored cruisers and their descendants were never intended to engage 1st class armored cruisers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 12:30
|
|
|
Who was the first army to start issuing every common infantryman with a magnifying optic on their rifle?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Who was the first army to start issuing every common infantryman with a magnifying optic on their rifle? no one, since the most commonly used reflex sights are nonmagnifying
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:no one, since the most commonly used reflex sights are nonmagnifying According to the Battlefield series, every combatant in WWI! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The Texas of balkanized 1865 would not be modern Texas at all (sorry Republic of Texas you tried). The eastern chunk would be "Texas" and probably join up with wherever Florida and/or Louisiana are at. South would just be Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila, But More So, and my homeland, the west, would be wherever modern New Mexico ends up. Even with an 1865-ish start? SlothfulCobra posted:I mean there's a lot of hoops you have to jump through to have the concept of a Texas that would declare independence if there wasn't a United States to have troublesome immigrants settling a piece of Mexico. In the original hypothetical there wasn't a divergence under somewhere in the Civil War, so you already had an independent Texas become a US state and then a CSA state. After that it going independent again doesn't seem that odd. Also with that start your Indian wars east of the Mississippi are over, although there could be significant divergence to the west.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:no one, since the most commonly used reflex sights are nonmagnifying To take the Australian army as an example, the default optic on the F88 Austeyr is 1.5x. That's not very magnifying, but it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
Aren't the Canadian C79 and British SUSAT standard issue? Those are 3-4x magnification.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
I guess most are magnifying now, but I also question the universality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:I suppose I'm just having trouble conceptualizing the frame of mind they had to be in to think the war was winnable. I guess we just have to go with it being an ideological conflict, however twisted the ideology was. It was really pretty simple...they wanted the political will of the north to collapse, for the US government to say "gently caress it" and either recognize the south's independence, or negotiate some kind of settlement that ensured slavery would be absolutely protected. They came very close to accomplishing this, by the way...far closer than most people (even history people) seem to realize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Who was the first army to start issuing every common infantryman with a magnifying optic on their rifle? The US Army started seeing ACOG sights in....2005 or so? I have no idea if anyone else had something similar widely issued before that though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Oh, age of sail pirates? I was hoping for a setting that featured pirates sailing around in pre-dreadnoughts. Pre-dreadnoughts are the best, since there's so many crazy ideas during that period. Battleship rams should be more common.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
what the...(looks again) gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Pre-dreadnoughts are the best, since there's so many crazy ideas during that period. Battleship rams should be more common. Speaking of, since we're getting all naval gunnery in here lately, what made the Japanese gunnery so relatively effective at Tsushima Straits? Was it just better crew and positioning? They were still using Pre-Dreads too, after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
that model didn't use that main gun, and the paint scheme is all wrong for the period
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Nice scratch-built Baneblade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
imagining a formation of them trundling across the plains and i...i kinda like it
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Nice scratch-built Baneblade. I was thinking chibi Strv 103, with the heavily sloped front and the fixed gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
New S-Tank looking good
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The US Army started seeing ACOG sights in....2005 or so? I have no idea if anyone else had something similar widely issued before that though. German army was phasing in the G36 as the default rifle in around 2001. It has a magnifying sight in the default config.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:imagining a formation of them trundling across the plains and i...i kinda like it Yeah seems good until someone puts scotch tape on the bottom Platystemon posted:I posted this in the awful graphs thread, but this thread deserves to have a laugh at it as well. Is that bWAR or fWAR
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I posted this in the awful graphs thread, but this thread deserves to have a laugh at it as well. quote:There were also generals that had surprisingly low total WAR despite a reputation as master tacticians. Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate States Army, finished with a negative WAR (-1.89), suggesting an average general would have had more success than Lee leading the Confederacy’s armies. Lee was saddled with considerable disadvantages, including a large deficit in the size of his military and available resources. Still, his reputation as an adept tactician is likely undeserved, and his WAR supports the historians who have criticized his overall strategy and handling of key battles, such as ordering the disastrous ‘Pickett’s Charge’ on the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg. In the words of University of South Carolina professor Thomas Connely, “One ponders whether the South may not have fared better had it possessed no Robert E. Lee.” Seems legit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
I was joking, but it's literally using wins above replacement general. WARG. Does it use Formation Independent Planning or Effective Rearguard Actions
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
Considering there is only two generals on the chart I thought the joke was kinda obvious.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
everyone knows napoleon was just a compiler
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Speaking of, since we're getting all naval gunnery in here lately, what made the Japanese gunnery so relatively effective at Tsushima Straits? Was it just better crew and positioning? They were still using Pre-Dreads too, after all. Probably a few factors: 1) The Russians have just voyaged around the entire god drat world. The ships and crews are not performing at peak abilities. 2) The Japanese have actually fought honest-to-god naval battles and are experienced. 3) The Japanese trained gunnery like crazy 4) Japanese doctrine included use of high explosive shells to wreck superstructure of enemy ships, vs Russian doctrine which focused on using armor piercing ammunition. Japanese hits did more damage. 5) The Japanese had superior rangefinders and their guns generally outranged the Russian ones (although the latter was not much of a factor in the battle itself)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:German army was phasing in the G36 as the default rifle in around 2001. It has a magnifying sight in the default config. phasing in isn't the same thing as every rifleman with a magnifying optic, though
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:My criticism of that point would be the idea that such energy is valid and perceivable at the end. A 5.56mm round and a 7.5mm MAS round are both lethal at that range, with the only difference being whether your rifles are given sights for firing to that range. And even if yoy are, it’s so far in the distance that you’re basically launching volleys at invisible targets. Any attempt by even a squad of riflemen to achieve more than basic suppression at that distance is a folly, and no soldier struck solidly by a 5.56mm round at that range would be combat effective afterward. Have you shot out as far as 700 yards? Even by 500, the difference in wind is huge. Plus, once 5.56 isn't fragmenting it's at a pretty significant deficit in effect, because it's just going to icepick, which is a very unreliable mechanism for wounding. Also, what do you have for information on small caliber high velocity rounds being a known thing well before the 60s? Because just about everyone starts going for an SCHV design about the same time, and I'd be surprised if the same intransigence were duplicated on both sides of the iron curtain. Plus, developments inside the cartridges make it seem like the mechanisms weren't really known in depth. LatwPIAT posted:There were some elements of this but I think point #3 is a bit uncharitable. I went into more detail about this in a post in the last thread: the full-power cartridges are necessary for effective fire at distances of 800 meters, and while this is often not necessary if you have plenty of machine guns and explosive firepower that can deliver effective fire at 800 meters, not every army could afford sufficient machine guns and support weapons. If you don't have a sufficient mass of machine guns and mortars that can reach out to 800 m, you need the service rifle to do the job. The French, for example, stuck with the 7.5 mm French in the post-war era because they wanted to every man in the squad to be able to reach out to circa 700 meters, for two reasons: It's also far from unknown for people to want the MG cartridge to also be the rifle round. One of the reasons .280 British is such a chimera that promised controllability and great trajectory is that it was a development program that shifted over time. It had hard requirements for MG performance, and the concept shifted to make sure it was a good MG round at the expense of being a nice light weapon for the infantry rifle. US rifle development post WWII seemed to have been based around the idea of controlling a full power rifle cartridge, which makes sense in light of standardizing on 7.62x51 as the one cartridge for infantry use. All that development eventually got binned in favor of a slightly updated M1 that sucked horribly, but as opposed to modern understandings which focus on the StG44, the prototypes the US came up with make it pretty clear that they were inspired much more by the FG42, and wanted to take that layout, add an aggressive brake, and end up with something that could do all the jobs. That fell through though. The muzzle device got replaced with something for rifle grenades and the rest of the gun was a fiddled with M1 for parts compatibility reasons (spoiler: the parts and tooling weren't all that compatible in the end either). That whole period was interesting and odd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
How many rifle engagements happen at 700m
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Who was the first army to start issuing every common infantryman with a magnifying optic on their rifle? If you want to count the 1.5x optic on the Steyr AUG (which is weirdly made by a subdivision of Swarovski) then it's the Austrians in 1978 by some distance, but you asked about magnification in specific and I really don't like the AUG sights anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
The problem with issuing a magnified optic to every soldier is that such optics are necessarily much less useful up close. You end up with options like flip-up magnifiers or raised scopes to clear iron sights, none of which are quite as good as a reflex sight or unobstructed iron sights. Once you’re fighting at 50 meters or less, a magnified optic can even be a hindrance. As far as those, a red dot is typically 2-5 MOA in size and a front sight post is far larger. This is large enough that at several hundred meters the sight is obscuring most or all of the target, making any kind of precision beyond “probably aimed at the person” nearly impossible. At that range anyone without a scope is firing mostly for suppression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:How many rifle engagements happen at 700m one of the Afghanistan challenges was that a lot of engagements happened at much longer ranges than anticipated
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:one of the Afghanistan challenges was that a lot of engagements happened at much longer ranges than anticipated At what range are non-specialized infantry usually trained to fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:one of the Afghanistan challenges was that a lot of engagements happened at much longer ranges than anticipated Wasn't that mostly PKs and RPDs rather than rifle fire?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:If you want to count the 1.5x optic on the Steyr AUG (which is weirdly made by a subdivision of Swarovski) then it's the Austrians in 1978 by some distance, but you asked about magnification in specific and I really don't like the AUG sights anyway. What's weird about Swarovski Optik? They make great scopes, albeit hunting oriented ones. A crystal company being involved in precision optics isn't that surprising, honestly. chitoryu12 posted:The problem with issuing a magnified optic to every soldier is that such optics are necessarily much less useful up close. You end up with options like flip-up magnifiers or raised scopes to clear iron sights, none of which are quite as good as a reflex sight or unobstructed iron sights. Once you’re fighting at 50 meters or less, a magnified optic can even be a hindrance. Yeah, it looks like the US is strongly considering going to low powered variable optics, and those are already seeing a good bit of use. Those are 1x up to some other value, frequently 6x, sometimes 4 or 8x. Those scopes are fantastic and don't give much up at all to a red dot in close while being capable optics out to a relatively long distance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:18
|
|