|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Hack implies a different intent, but he's dangerously out of his depth on medieval stuff. Hew Strachan disagrees with his WWI stuff though I don't remember the deets on that. How does Hew Strachan rate? I watched his World War 1 series and I'm curious as to how accurate it was.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
GotLag posted:How does Hew Strachan rate? I watched his World War 1 series and I'm curious as to how accurate it was. v  v The only part of WWI I really pay attention to is Russia.The only lectures I received from Strachan were on Clausewitz, and I remember them being extremely good, especially explaining how Clausewitz was valuable beyond the first chapter, and how he has to be read as a dialectic rather than like a series of maxims. But this was nearly 10 years ago, so I don't remember as much as I'd like to. I remember he mentioned in passing his disagreement with Keegan and I asked him to elaborate on it after the lecture, but frankly it went over my head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
Continuity RCP posted:Oh, to be a German making weird mechanisms. See this? This is how we get the "legendary" German efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/balthusknot/status/1255159608722837504?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:edit: hah, yep, sure is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:For meritorious achievements in journalism? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
The World Wonders
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
Did Halsey's hour-long sulk have an effect on the battle? Could have have moved his forces into position to do something useful in that time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
GotLag posted:How does Hew Strachan rate? I watched his World War 1 series and I'm curious as to how accurate it was. I strongly dislike Hew Strachan because he wrote a really good first volume of a series on the war, then never got around to finishing the other two. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 06:26
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Argas posted:See this? This is how we get the "legendary" German efficiency. all I want in life is to be as happy as that guy. sorry wait no I mean superior deutsch kruppstahl crossbow, worth 10 ronsons,
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 11:10
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Did Halsey's hour-long sulk have an effect on the battle? Could have have moved his forces into position to do something useful in that time? Not really, it's more emblematic of how hard Halsey bit on the bait part of that operation. Even the IJN didn't think it would work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 13:00
|
|
|
GotLag posted:How does Hew Strachan rate? I watched his World War 1 series and I'm curious as to how accurate it was. Strachan's fine, you're not going to go too far wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 13:19
|
|
|
Carillon posted:What was the determining factor? Lack of evidence that they got armor kills? Or inability to penetrate concrete bunkers? I find that really interesting that what I'm was sustained fire from large guns wasn't able to be effective. I'm talking about very large naval rifles - 5, 6, and 8 inch guns are still big rear end guns (6" = 155mm) and they were generally more useful. But the 14s 15s and 16s that everyone is stoked about were just not as useful. Analysis was done based on what they hit. It's pretty obvious where 14" shells hit, they make a goddamn big hole and you didn't shoot all that many of them in the first place so you can track em pretty well. Now, assuming that you land an absolute direct hit on a AFV it's gonna be blown in to smithereens. But when you dump a bunch of shells in a field, or in some French dude's house, or a church, or the woods, it's very unlikely that you actually got hits on targets that matter. In order to destroy a bunker of any size and strength, you basically have to hit it directly. You can disable it by throwing up a bunch of dirt, and you can make the guys inside deaf or insensible or even dead, but you have to stop shooting eventually and then the defender can do a little clean up, throw new dudes in to it, etc. It's not totally ineffective and you can kill guys, injure guys, damage equipment, etc, but the effect is relatively marginal. I am sure as a German solider it was loving terrifying to be shelled by 14" guns and I'm sure it gave the Airborne guys a huge fuckin chub, but it really did not do that much. 5, 6 and 8" shells were much more useful because there are more of them, and the HE ammunition is better. Factors leading to lack of success: 1) Shooting at the wrong poo poo or incorrectly called in targets. Notably, Texas uselessly expanded over a quarter of her ammunition shooting at a bunch of telephone poles, but the quality of targeting was not always great especially in reactive fire missions. Lots of shells were shot at things that were identified as targets, but were not actually targets, and a lot of shells missed those targets. 3) Physical accuracy of the firing platform. Even a ship at anchor is gonna move around a little bit. If the ship rolls even a minute of angle (1/60th of a degree), that will move the impact point one inch for every 100 yards of range fired. So at maximum ranges even a basically imperceptible roll will move the impact point of a perfectly accurate gun roughly 28 feet. That's the difference between putting a shell on top of a tank and merely covering it with a layer of dirt and rocks. 2) Mechanical accuracy of the guns. I can't find true dispersion information for the 14/45, which is annoying to me, but all guns have limits on mechanical accuracy. Basically if you fix the gun on a platform and you start banging away with it, not every round will hit the same spot. The pattern around this is dispersion. It's measured as a vertical circle with probability weighting towards the center, and usually expressed in minutes of angle (1/60th of a degree). Now, you're not actually firing on a vertical plane, so you have to project the dispersion circle on a flat plane based on arc, which gives you a big ole ellipse. At maximum range, it's quite possible that you could stand in the absolute middle of the aiming point of a ten-gun salvo from Texas and not be hurt. (It wouldn't be pleasant, and you have a good chance of dying, but you're not guaranteed to die solely due to mechanical accuracy) 3) Physical accuracy of the firing platform. Even a ship at anchor is gonna move around a little bit. If the ship rolls even a minute of angle, that will move the impact point one inch for every 100 yards of range fired. So at maximum ranges even a basically imperceptible roll will move the impact point of a perfectly accurate gun roughly 28 feet. That's the difference between putting a shell on top of a tank and merely covering it with a layer of dirt and rocks. Plus, you also have the mechanical accuracy problem as well. 4) Ammunition available. Shells are huge, you get about a hundred per gun so even if your hits are really devastating, you don't get that many of them at the rates of accuracy. Also, to hit anything at range with a naval rifle in the period, you use a big mechanical computer to guess based on what you know of the location of the target. But you have a lot of factors going in to the shot, and so you usually try to straddle the target with 3 or 4 rounds fired at slightly different vertical angles. They are supposed to miss, but give you an idea of which one is most accurate and how far you are off. You'll spend quite a few of them missing on purpose, more if your targets change. 5) Corrections - you need someone in a plane or on the ground to accurately observe the fall of shot and call in corrections. At long ranges, the ship can't see the fall of its own shot, especially if firing at higher elevation targets on land. With smaller naval guns, it's easier to walk fire on to targets due to rate of fire and ammunition availability. With big naval guns, the correction process is really important. There's a lot more going on in an amphibious invasion than an open ocean battlefield, so the corrections process probably wasn't as robust as it needed to be. 6) Target sizes. Note that spotted naval gunfire accuracy is garbage, down in the 2-4% range. That's against moving (but usually semi constant course) targets, but also very big targets. An Inflexible is 500 feet long and 78 feet wide. A Panzer IV is 20 feet long and 10 feet wide. Even significant size targets (ammo dumps, fuel dumps, truck parks, etc) would be dispersed and at least soft-protected, so there's a limit to how much you can kill with one shell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
Argas posted:See this? This is how we get the "legendary" German efficiency. nothing about that is efficient it's precise and perfectionist but it aint efficient
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:51
|
|
|
Regarding naval bombardment effectiveness, do you know if there were major differences in performance between the beaches? As ever Omaha seems to be a perfect storm of poo poo going wrong, while it seems to have been more effective elsewhere? It might have been covered up by the aerial bombardment being more effective on the other beaches though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
I don't know the answer to that. I think it's hard to refer to "naval bombardment" as one category - evidence shows basically that LCI(R)s were useless, that destroyers were generally most effective, that cruisers were somewhat useful, and that the battleships didn't do much. So are you asking if BBs supporting the British beaches performed better, or what? As far as I can tell the aerial bombardment was pretty universally not super effective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
Yeah, that's basically what I'm after, though I also think the British landing zones were pretty different; some of the pictures from Juno make it look like they were landing directly into a town, and maybe that's not a thing you even try to smack with BB fire. And I thought the aerial bombardment was ok in some places, notably Utah?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
Supposedly the Utah beach airstrikes were a bit more effective because they all went in lower than told, probably by accident. Utah was just generally going to be easier due to the defenses, german orbat, and terrain. The British stupidly decided to bomb the poo poo out of Caen which killed a bunch of French civilians and didn't do much else. I don't think their aerial bombardment performance was all that much better. edit: changed airborne to aerial bombardment to avoid confusion KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Regarding naval bombardment effectiveness, do you know if there were major differences in performance between the beaches? As ever Omaha seems to be a perfect storm of poo poo going wrong, while it seems to have been more effective elsewhere? It might have been covered up by the aerial bombardment being more effective on the other beaches though. The main difference between the beaches was the completeness of the defences. Rommel's intention was for every possible landing beach to be covered by concrete bunkers, but these had only been completed to a significant extent at Omaha. On the British beaches, there were occasional concrete fighting positions, but most of the defences were either in trenches and earthen bunkers, or were dug into pre-existing houses. As the German defences were less well-protected, the bombardment was naturally somewhat more effective. Where concrete bunkers did exist, though, the bombardment was less effective and fighting was harder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I'm talking about very large naval rifles - 5, 6, and 8 inch guns are still big rear end guns (6" = 155mm) and they were generally more useful. But the 14s 15s and 16s that everyone is stoked about were just not as useful. Analysis was done based on what they hit. It's pretty obvious where 14" shells hit, they make a goddamn big hole and you didn't shoot all that many of them in the first place so you can track em pretty well. Now, assuming that you land an absolute direct hit on a AFV it's gonna be blown in to smithereens. But when you dump a bunch of shells in a field, or in some French dude's house, or a church, or the woods, it's very unlikely that you actually got hits on targets that matter. Really interesting thanks! Given all that it makes a lot of sense that the volume of fire you're able to put out becomes more important. I was sorta surprised for the bigger guns they didn't have pre-targeted or called out targets for them to go after, but your points about mechanical and physical accuracy, along with the firing computer make sense why it wasn't just so easy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Do the smaller guns have proportionately bigger burst charges
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
They had a ton of preselected targets, which goes in to my first point. Texas dumped 250 tons of shells on Pointe-du-hoc, a couple of destoyers added a bunch of 5", and I think it was on the fire plan of the RN heavy cruiser Hawkins with 7.5" guns, and it was on bombardment plans for various tacar but the guns were moved. So that was kind of a success in that they blasted the poo poo out of a pre-identified strategic target and made it look like the surface of the moon, but in actuality the reason to target that point was no longer relevant. Being alive up there under bombardment would have sucked rear end, but it was still a significant challenge for the Rangers to take and hold the position even with all that shelling. If you look at aerial photos there are a lot of craters but it's amazing how much the main fighting positions stayed intact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/johnthelutheran/status/1255555265631526912 I'm a Whig Commonwealthman, is that good
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Do the smaller guns have proportionately bigger burst charges They have higher fire rates, especially the 4" and 5" guns. The 5"/38-caliber could do 12-22 rounds per minute depending on the type, while the 8"/55-caliber could do 3-4 rounds and the 16"/50-caliber used on the Iowa class could do 2. As for blast charge...there were a lot of different shell types, especially for the 5"/38, but its common shell was 54 pounds and had a 2.6-pound explosive charge. The 8"/55 common shell was 260 pounds and had a 11.5-pound charge. And the 16"/50's HC (high-capacity) shell was 1900 pounds with a 153.5-pound charge. Or if you used the AP shell, it was 2700 pounds with a 41-pound charge. Those larger shells had much higher armor penetration (especially the AP shell of course), but generally speaking the smaller shells were more damaging if armor and range weren't a concern.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/johnthelutheran/status/1255555265631526912 Well let me have a look: quote:You are on the most extreme wing of the Whig Party. You burn a flame for the 'Good Old Cause' of regicide and republicanism. You're almost certainly either an extreme Protestant Dissenter or a Deist. You would disestablish the Church, and believe that government is purely a secular, contractarian affair. Examples: Robert Molesworth, Walter Moyle And so the answer is: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/johnthelutheran/status/1255555265631526912 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
Captain pike from star trek somehow?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Type B diabetes? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/johnthelutheran/status/1255555265631526912 Did it twice. I'm either Moderate Hanoverian Tory or Jacobite Crypto-Papist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
How much counter-battery fire did battleships draw vs lighter units? I know Texas took several hits while bombarding Cherbourg.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:How much counter-battery fire did battleships draw vs lighter units? I know Texas took several hits while bombarding Cherbourg. Rather they shoot at the Texas than a DD or troop transport.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Did it twice. I'm either Moderate Hanoverian Tory or Jacobite Crypto-Papist. OI'll 'ave yer 'ead Oi will
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Squalid posted:
So I finished the paper and had some thoughts on it, would be curious to hear what you thought having finished it as well. The author really seems to push for human rights training as effective, despite then talking how many times it falls down when the money supply and monitoring get cut off. It seems what's important to preventing the violations isn't the training itself but the actual aligning of incentives, both the militias and even the government forces, and then having accountability to prevent it going off the rails. That seems like a tough one to crack though, and with militias seeming to be acting as either defacto governments or at least the enforcement arms of local power groups, hard to do without an even strong centralizing force. That paradoxically might mean the local groups splinter even more though as there seems to be an overarching theme of distrust of the Federal central power. One thing I thought interesting about Al-Shahaab is that while they had clan support in some areas, their success seems to be from cutting through the interlocking series of power structures and laying out a conflict resolution strategy that seems brutal but effective. One thing that jumped out to me is how many different power structures there are and of course how those at the locus of that power want to keep it. Not only clans, but also state leadership, federal leadership, strong militia leaders, even it sounds like businessmen. And the way that power is projected is through force and having the ability to control your own use of force. That seems to stem from something that jumped off the page to me ""Selling the business of protection, such as through militias, is very profitable, and the most significant source of paid employment in Somalia." There's both little incentive to give up power, but also those who are the enforcement arm don't seem to have much else to do if they stopped. Part of this too is that the author really focuses on improving the SNA and getting more power of those darwish's under federal control, but doesn't seem to address the fact that the SNA and SPF also act not as an arm of the state but of a militia of Farmajo. Maybe the idea is that a central power that is better even if it's essentially a militia under one guy as opposed to all these interlocking groups vying for power. But that ties back into how do you get that centralization to happen voluntarily, because for everyone but Farmajo it seems like a losing proposition. (Apparently Farmajo comes from Formaggio, (Italian for cheese) which made me laugh)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
quote:Your Result: Court - Non-Aligned yay im a centrist
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i think everyone knows what i got Is Leveller/Fifth Monarchy Man an option? Because I already know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
quote:You are on the most extreme wing of the Whig Party. You burn a flame for the 'Good Old Cause' of regicide and republicanism. You're almost certainly either an extreme Protestant Dissenter or a Deist. You would disestablish the Church, and believe that government is purely a secular, contractarian affair. Examples: Robert Molesworth, Walter Moyle
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 21:28
|
|
zoux posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/johnthelutheran/status/1255555265631526912 Same here, Huzzah! Lets hi-five Napoleon and then be awkwardly quiet after Waterloo.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I have no idea who these people are but it sounds good for Ireland Molesworth is one of the people Swift's Modest Proposal was attacking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Molesworth 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Molesworth is one of the people Swift's Modest Proposal was attacking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 23:06
|
|