|
zoux posted:What was the Iowa’s mission in 1989? Carrier escort? Being "cool"
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
The "intentional sabotage by gay man" that just happened to take place in an under-maintained turret with inexperienced personnel who were being directed to intentionally overload the guns in a dickwaving contest (that was not actually authorized, one dude just kind of snuck it in). There's a lot not to like about the military. This is a good reminder of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Being "cool" Mission: accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
iirc similar to carrier battle groups the Iowas were put in BBGs with their own escorts, etc. what they would have actually done in a Red Storm Rising ww3 who knows
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
They shelled Lebanon and Kuwait, so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:They shelled Lebanon and Kuwait, so there's that. To important effect or just because we had them Neophyte posted:iirc similar to carrier battle groups the Iowas were put in BBGs with their own escorts, etc. Probably eat a couple of whatever the USSR equivalent of an Exocet was
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Being "cool" MISSION ACCOMPLISHED unless you were being facetious in which case fu
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
zoux posted:To important effect or just because we had them Look, Reagan said we needed a massively expanded navy so now we have to figure out what to do with these things Though they would be quite good at absorbing missile fire at least, even with modern munitions they're apparently quite hard to sink.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
It performed admirably at the job of being the first Iowa class battleship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
bewbies posted:MISSION ACCOMPLISHED I'm not being facetious. The Iowas are loving cool ships and I don't know many milhist nerds that aren't incredibly nostalgic about them, and naval gunnery in general. Who doesn't like a 16 inch rifle? But, isn't it for these same nostalgic reasons that some lawmakers demanded they be put back into service?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
zoux posted:What was the Iowa’s mission in 1989? Carrier escort? As for the polearms I always thought the different heads were for specialty purposes and they just tend to get preserved because they're weird whereas "a spear head" is not. But they'd have purposes like hooking a guy off his horse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:I'm not being facetious. It's also why we get Trump and his buddies jerking themselves off over the navy. It's nostalgia for a time when US naval power gave us essentially worldwide supremacy over smaller countries to project ourselves on them (whether they wanted us to or not), but also because I think they have trouble understanding the more complex world of modern warfare. The days of the Iowa-class were the days where big guns and planes with bombs won wars, and having more guns and more planes meant you were better. But now you have information warfare, missiles, electronic warfare, etc. that make this a lot more complicated. It's nostalgia not just for the big guns, but what those guns represented. It's a simpler time when they were in power and there was a clear, easily understandable projection of that power. As things get harder for them to understand and our influence slips due to mismanagement and occasional bouts of outright evil, they want that back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
I think the US still has a pretty big Navy though
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
zoux posted:What was the Iowa’s mission in 1989? Carrier escort? Ram stuff (mostly missiles and torpedos)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:I'm not being facetious. I'm sure nostalgia contributed, but they really did offer several capabilities that have not been replicated since they and all the other armored big gun ships were retired. those capabilities were not in line with their operating costs, which is why they are museum ships now, but there was definitely was a good faith argument for their activation at the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
I'd also add it's a nostalgia for the American Industrial War Machine that could build so many BIG SHIPS and bombs it literally could bomb a country into the Stone age. Edit: zoux posted:I think the US still has a pretty big Navy though But it could be so much bigger! We don't even have any battleships anymore!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
zoux posted:Probably eat a couple of whatever the USSR equivalent of an Exocet was The USSR had MUCH bigger antiship missiles for this kind of thing. Which is just as well since the Iowas were the last actually armoured warships afloat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
I did a few clicks through various polearm wikipedia pages and holy poo poo are those all just poo poo piles of nerd poo poo wars over semantics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The USSR had MUCH bigger antiship missiles for this kind of thing. Which is just as well since the Iowas were the last actually armoured warships afloat. To expand: Exocet: weighs 670 kilos, top speed of Mach ~0.9, has a 165 kilo warhead  Kh-22: weighs 5,800 kilos, top speed of Mach 4.6, 1,000 kilo warhead (optionally several hundred kilotons) 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:It wasn't "somehow". Brown's plan was to grab the guns, and then send people to nearby plantations to recruit slaves from there. When he had enough people, he planned to head south with a slave army, growing along the way as it attacked plantations and recruited slaves from them, as well as seizing more weapons and supplies. I was under the impression that he believed that the initial slaves would have been brought to him by God or something. I can't find the source but I remember reading that his initial plan didn't have the numbers he needed because Harriet Tubman and Fredrick Douglass refused to help him because the plan was terrible and incredibly unlikely to succeed. He thought that God would give him the initial men because he believed he was on a mission from God. The whole thing was suicide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
WW2 Data The Hs 293's estranged cousin is up today; the Hs 298 being an air-to-air version of the missile. How exactly did it operate? What were its capabilities? How many were ordered and/or attempted to be produced? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Be on the look out for hey guns showing up to his next reenactment with a diamond-encrusted sword: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/25/thieves-steal-priceless-treasures-dresden-green-vault-museum
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Be on the look out for hey guns showing up to his next reenactment with a diamond-encrusted sword: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/25/thieves-steal-priceless-treasures-dresden-green-vault-museum The sad thing is that there's basically a 99% chance that the thieves will melt the stolen poo poo down for precious metals and gems rather than keeping them in one piece. Basically they're going to get spot price for cultural treasures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
I dunno. A few years back there was a spout of heists of Chinese cultural treasures in European museums sponsored by Chinese billionaires in the same kind of targeted way, with the artifacts now presumably hidden away in their mansions. Maybe some insanely rich person wanted that diamond encrusted sword for their collection?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Depressingly sad that is the better scenario.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:I was under the impression that he believed that the initial slaves would have been brought to him by God or something. I can't find the source but I remember reading that his initial plan didn't have the numbers he needed because Harriet Tubman and Fredrick Douglass refused to help him because the plan was terrible and incredibly unlikely to succeed. He thought that God would give him the initial men because he believed he was on a mission from God. The whole thing was suicide. Harriet posted:Tubman herself was effusive with praise. She later told a friend: "[H]e done more in dying, than 100 men would in living."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I dunno. A few years back there was a spout of heists of Chinese cultural treasures in European museums sponsored by Chinese billionaires in the same kind of targeted way, with the artifacts now presumably hidden away in their mansions. Maybe some insanely rich person wanted that diamond encrusted sword for their collection? Unless Hey Guns is secretly an insane billionaire I seriously doubt it. (Hey Guns, please be an insane billionaire. Will write analytical essays or moderate internet forums on a
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:I was under the impression that he believed that the initial slaves would have been brought to him by God or something. I can't find the source but I remember reading that his initial plan didn't have the numbers he needed because Harriet Tubman and Fredrick Douglass refused to help him because the plan was terrible and incredibly unlikely to succeed. He thought that God would give him the initial men because he believed he was on a mission from God. The whole thing was suicide. Douglass refused to help because he thought a raid on a federal armory would spark a federal response and there was no way Brown could have taken on the Federal government (which he was right about). Tubman was involved in some of the initial recruiting, but she didn't participate, and we don't know why. Some reports say that she was recruiting volunteers for him when it happened, and they didn't get there in time. Or she was sick. (Tubman had brain damage from being hit in the head by a metal weight her owner had thrown at another slave who displeased him, which led to both visions that she believed were from God and also bouts of crippling pain and fever). I don't know of any particular belief he had that God would miraculously send him people. I'm pretty sure his main plan was to set up camp in the mountains of Western Virginia and then use that as a base to attack plantations and liberate slaves, and grow his army through either freed slaves or from escapees that made their way to him, and count on the inhabitants of the area, who tended to be anti-slavery, to protect him. The raid on Harpers Ferry was supposed to be just that, a raid...he had hoped to overpower the armory, grab the weapons and get out, but because of various tactical mistakes made during the raid, the area responded with an armed force sooner and in greater strength than he expected, and they were trapped there. It was never supposed to be a stand and die mission. They wanted to get guns and get out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
I'm playing catch up on the thread, but this just came to my attention, the most 30 Years War thing ever: a game based on negotiating the Treaty of Westphalia for exactly six players, and only six players. https://hollandspiele.com/products/westphalia-1 quote:Westphalia concerns the diplomatic negotiations and military campaigns that brought an end to the Thirty Years War and Eighty Years War. The question isn't a matter of who "wins" the war - that was decided a long time ago. Instead, each player seeks to arrive at a settlement that meets their own political, confessional, and economic goals. These goals are not mutually exclusive: if multiple players meet their victory conditions, they all win. The trick is, if all six players manage to meet their goals, then the game goes to a scoring round, and only one player wins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 07:11
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:To expand: Two Exocets couldn't even sink a frigate
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 08:35
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:I did a few clicks through various polearm wikipedia pages and holy poo poo are those all just poo poo piles of nerd poo poo wars over semantics. There are a couple of period sources on how to fight with poleaxes and halberds, but they're largely framed in a 1-on-1 practice session. "Hit then on the head and stab them in the face" is the gist of it, with the occasional trip attack. There's not a lot on the weird poo poo but odds are they work much the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Two Exocets couldn't even sink a frigate The Kh-22 on the other hand looks like it could take out a frigate just by falling on it Can the Russian missile cruiser use these or similar missiles? If yes, that thing could probably take out a fleet of Iowas on its own
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 09:49
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Be on the look out for hey guns showing up to his next reenactment with a diamond-encrusted sword: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/25/thieves-steal-priceless-treasures-dresden-green-vault-museum also polearm head shapes are the way they are because you can hook people or parry with them, that's it. some of them are exceptionally nifty but the over-strict taxonomy smells like bullshit to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I dunno. A few years back there was a spout of heists of Chinese cultural treasures in European museums sponsored by Chinese billionaires in the same kind of targeted way, with the artifacts now presumably hidden away in their mansions. Maybe some insanely rich person wanted that diamond encrusted sword for their collection?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
here's a neat thing from twitter. https://twitter.com/what_eats_owls/status/1199006633273114624 it is a long'ish thread but worth reading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 10:45
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The Kh-22 on the other hand looks like it could take out a frigate just by falling on it Meet P-700 Granit. And they are even bigger (smaller warhead though).  Kirovs carried twenty of these babies, Oscars and Kuznetsov 24. There was also a smaller missile, P-500 Bazalt. Kievs carried eight, Slavas sixteen, also was carried on missile subs. Both missiles are still in service with the Russian navy, although in process of being replaced by a new, smaller missile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 11:01
|
|
|
MrBling posted:here's a neat thing from twitter. And we can have no way of knowing whether Henry and George's relationship was physical, or whether it would have been like the relationships we describe as "gay." Conversely she seems unaware of just how common physical relationships between men in all-male environments probably were. This is irresponsible, and flippant. (Before someone comes in and says "But historians are fine inferring things about straight relationships!" Marriage is for the control and transmission of property and interests, I don't assume a married straight pair is having sex either, without historical evidence)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 11:13
|
|
|
I think there is meaning to be found in recounting the level of emotional rapport that these two history dudes had, both in its own right (understanding the life of the mind of the time) and for contrast to the present day, where certain structures and social expectations are treated like ordained gospel when in fact they came about either by the random drift of social mores, or in some cases, to sell products. I can see the logic in not wanting to describe this as "a gay relationship" in the sense that is meant now in the year of Luigi 2019, and this tweeter is very ignorant of Walt Whitman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 11:20
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Two Exocets couldn't even sink a frigate
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 11:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
Nessus posted:certain structures and social expectations are treated like ordained gospel
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 11:49
|
|