|
bees everywhere posted:Just make sure it's only gunpowder and not TNT, since TNT will actually become volatile and touch-sensitive if it hasn't been stored properly and starts to sweat out nitroglycerin. That would be dynamite, which can sweat out and crystallize nitroglycerin. It's right there in the name, there isn't even NG in TNT  And random farmer John barns might in fact have old crusty boxes of dynamite in a shady corner so it's a legitimate concern. While i don't think hardware stores ever sold bricks o TNT for stump removal.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Have you read Bartov?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:No, but I'm liking what I see of him. Lotta work too. Dope gotta buncha books to check out. Start with Barbarization of Warfare. If you dig that then start getting into his more holocaust-specific stuff, but Barbarization is pretty much the go-to for explaining why the Clean Wehrmacht myth is a bunch of horse poo poo and really explaining the role that the Eastern Front had in making everything go bad. After you finish that pick up War Land on the Eastern Front: Culture, National Identity, and German Occupation in World War I by Liulevicius. It more or less explains just why the Germans were so obsessed with expanding east and the really formative role that the Eastern Front in WW1 had on that for the generation that led the nation into WW2. The two books pair really nicely together, and taken in conjunction explain a lot about just how you end up with regular German army murdering civilians in Russia in 1941. Next grab Browning's Ordinary Men. It's a pretty easy read but provides a really nice capstone for answering the question re: Germany in the USSR "What the everloving gently caress?" After that if you really want to dig in, pick up Snyder's Bloodlands. It's a good book, and an important book, but one with some criticisms and it's a lot easier to get your arms around if you have the other three under your belt already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:37
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:Yeah - it needs a catalyst for the decomposition reactions though, so it's not truly all by itself (which would obviously be very bad if it was). I thought it could decompose by thermal runaway? The catalyst is just for making it happen at room-temperature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
bees everywhere posted:Just make sure it's only gunpowder and not TNT, since TNT will actually become volatile and touch-sensitive if it hasn't been stored properly and starts to sweat out nitroglycerin. While I'm not aware of any, if we found some clearing out his poo poo it wouldn't surprise me or anything. It does remind me of when I was about eight and there was a giant explosion. We went outside to find my dad ok but singed to poo poo. We were proper country rednecks which meant we burnt our trash in old 55 gallon oil drums out back. My dad had obtained a new (used) one without realizing it still had a lot of fumes in it and was cutting the lid off with a torch. It blew the gently caress up and somehow didn't kill him. The lid went 100 yards one direction and the drum shot the other direction with enough force it hit the neck of big gooseneck trailer and bent it almost 90 degrees. We have a cool painting of my dad and he's wearing the cowboy hat he was wearing that day with singe marks and burn holes in it. Punkin Spunkin posted:Wow that's hilarious. Of course. I'm sure there's somebody out there reenacting a Prussian military attache. They'd better all be committing to accents. What's the South America book? After I get through these books covering more of the main stuff I was planning on finding some super niche stuff like that and I have zero knowledge of what went on there besides probably a lot of spy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 01:23
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Wow that's hilarious. Of course. I'm sure there's somebody out there reenacting a Prussian military attache. They'd better all be committing to accents. I feel there's a niche for a group getting up in 19th century officer uniforms of various nationalities and attending reenactments of any era as "observers". "No, no chaps, don't mind us. You just focus on this <checks notes> Charlie fellow."
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:some nazi loving churchill-glorifying white guy "anticommunist" Any Nazi-loving "anticommunist" who glorifies Churchill is a loving idiot, and not just for being a Nazi lover or for glorifying Churchill. This also applies to people who declare Churchill to have been a Nazi himself, of which this forum contains several.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 02:18
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Just a quibble: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOWcTV2nEkU
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 02:21
|
|
|
I’m a person who likes academic articles, so I’m going to recommend some. Free US Naval War College Review Caravaggio, Angelo N. (2018) "The Attack at Taranto," Naval War College Review: Vol. 59 : No. 3 , Article 8. Available at: http://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol59/iss3/8 Hooker, Peter (2021) "“To Die Gallantly”?—The Role of the Surface Fleet in German Naval Strategy, 1919–41," Naval War College Review: Vol. 74 : No. 4 , Article 9. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol74/iss4/9 Levy, James P. (2005) "Race for the Decisive Weapon," Naval War College Review: Vol. 58 : No. 1 , Article 8. Available at: http://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol58/iss1/8 O’Hara, Vincent P. and Cernuschi, Enrico (2013) "The Other Ultra," Naval War College Review: Vol. 66 : No. 3 , Article 9. Available at: http://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol66/iss3/ Vego, Milan (2019) "Naval History: Operation RHINE EXERCISE, May 18–27, 1941," Naval War College Review: Vol. 72 : No. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol72/iss1/6 Vego, Milan (2021) "Redeployment of the German Brest Group through the English Channel, 11–13 February 1942 (Operation CERBERUS)," Naval War College Review: Vol. 74 : No. 3 , Article 7. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol74/iss3/7 Northern Mariner “The Trans-Pacific Lend-Lease Shuttle to the Russian Far East 1941-46” by Jan Dren “Midway to Understanding: Seventy Years of History?” by Robert M. Dienesch (January 2013) “American Calculations of Battleline Strength, 1941-2” by Alan D. Zimm (July 2009) “Avoidable Loss: The Saga of the Blücher” Peter K.H. Mispelkamp (July 1996) “The Last Murmansk Convoys, 11 March-30 May 1945” by David Syrett (January 1994) Not Free The Journal of Military History “Air Power and the Battle of the Atlantic: Very Long Range Aircraft and the Delay in Closing the Atlantic “Air Gap”” by Christopher M. Bell (July 2015) “Rommel Almighty? Italian Assessments of the “Desert Fox” during and after the Second World War” by Bastian Matteo Sciann (January 2018) “Aircraft Carriers versus Battleships in War and Myth: Demythologizing Carrier Air Dominance at Sea” by James R. FitzSimond (July 2020) War in History “Battleships, D-Day, and naval strategy” by Tim Benbow (2022) “The Germans and Air Power at Dieppe: The Raid and its Lessons from the ‘Other Side of the Hill’” by James Shelley (2022) “The Kriegsmarine and the Aircraft Carrier: The Design and Operational Purpose of the Graf Zeppelin, 1933–1940” by Marcus Faulkner (2012)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 03:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Just a quibble: This answers a question l have had in my brain for years, ty
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 03:13
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Tom Scott has a great short video about that distinction between low and high explosives: There are some things I'd quibble with in there, too (because I am enormous pedant, not because the video angers me). An explosive does not have to be a mixture of a fuel and an oxidizer. Black powder is an example of that: you've got carbon as the fuel, and potassium nitrate as the oxidizer (the sulfur also acts as a fuel but is mainly there to lower the activation energy, you can just as easily make black powder without the sulfur but it'll be harder to set off). So in that reaction, you've got the fuel combining with the oxidizer, boom. But lots of explosives are just a single molecule that falls apart. Lead azide, for example, Pb(N3)2, isn't a mixture of a fuel and an oxidizer, it's just that N really really wants to be N2 and if the other things it's formed a compound with get in the way it's going to push them aside to get there. More importantly/scarily, he seems to be suggesting that high explosives are more stable than low explosives, like when he points out you're allowed to have 50 kilograms of high explosive in your car without needing a placard because you need a detonator to set them off. That's really really wrong. There are different *kinds* of high explosive. From a military perspective, the stuff that they fill shells with is something you want to be pretty insensitive, because you're going to be dealing with large quantities of it and people are going to be hauling it around and dropping it from trucks and tripping over it, and it might be getting pretty hot because it's being stored on a ship in the middle of the ocean in the South Pacific during summertime, etc. So the stuff we fill shells with does tend to be pretty insensitive. TNT, RDX, stuff like that; C4 is so famously insensitive that yes, you can pinch off a chunk of it and light it on fire and use it to boil water. But what do you set those off with? What generates the shock wave in the first place is something that's much easier to set off, and is called a primary explosive. You can get away with these being relatively sensitive because you use them in smaller quantities. I'd like to think you couldn't haul 50kg of mercury fulminate around without a placard. And there are primary explosives that are sensitive as hell. Lead azide has been used in detonators, but copper azide will go off whenever it loving feels like it, it's way too sensitive to use for any purpose (fortunately, if you tried to load 50 kilograms into your car you wouldn't kill anyone but yourself), and this has relevance for the guys who try to clean up old UXO because almost 100 years of sitting around in soil might have lead to its formation and now the bomb you found in the ground is way more dangerous than it was when it was new. Or famously, nitrogen triiodide, NI3, which is so sensitive that it can go off if you look at it funny, and which has literally no use whatsoever outside of loving around in chem lab (even being exposed to *alpha radiation* can set it off). And if you're really concerned with stuff going off too early, you don't use a primary explosive at all. That's what lead to the exploding bridgewire detonators developed during the Manhattan Project. Here what you have is a very thin piece of wire adjacent to a small quantity of secondary explosive, and then you put several thousand volts across that wire and the current you dump into it flashes it into an exploding plasma an an instant, and it impacts the secondary explosive with sufficient velocity to set it off. Then that secondary explosive sets off your main charge. Since it takes such a dedicated effort to get this to go off, you don't have to worry about things like arcing from stray radio transmissions acting on your electrical connections setting off a primary explosive prematurely and killing you, because there is no primary explosive. There are other explosives that are even less sensitive than secondary explosives, and they're called (surprise) tertiary explosives. These are so insensitive that a tiny bit of primary or secondary explosive won't set them off, you'd need a *lot* of primary which is what you're trying to avoid having to deal with in the first place, so what you end up doing is using a secondary charge called a booster, so it goes detonator (primary) -> secondary (booster) -> tertiary (main charge). Something like ANFO is a tertiary explosive. It'll detonate, but you've gotta work to make it happen. To give you an idea of the quantities, when I used to blow poo poo up we used RP-80 detonators on charges of HBX (pretty much the same size as the detonator in that video). So that's an exploding bridgewire detonator, our firing system sent out a 4kVDC pulse, and the detonator itself was 80 milligrams of PETN which then set off 120mg of RDX, which then blew the main charge up good. Largest charge I ever set off personally was 60lbs but the week before I started with my group they set off 15,000lbs shock testing a destroyer and dammit if I had known that was going to happen I'd have started earlier. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Mar 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 04:40
|
|
|
My understanding is that if you have a sufficiently large quantity of a low explosive then the stuff at the centre of the pile will experience inertial confinement and get to explode properly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 05:56
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:What's the South America book? After I get through these books covering more of the main stuff I was planning on finding some super niche stuff like that and I have zero knowledge of what went on there besides probably a lot of spy stuff. Not sure if it's any good but the topic intrigued me. I'm assuming it gets into a lot of spy stuff happening in South America and stuff like the Cobras Fumantes. Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Mar 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 05:58
|
|
|
I’ve been quite disappointed with some recent naval history books. Don’t know how or why, but what I’ve read passes over some of the good historiography of the last few decades in favor of the tired, old, and out dated ideas. I have to believe it’s just luck of the draw. Any recommendations on naval history published recently?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 13:15
|
|
|
Urcinius posted:I’ve been quite disappointed with some recent naval history books. Don’t know how or why, but what I’ve read passes over some of the good historiography of the last few decades in favor of the tired, old, and out dated ideas. I have to believe it’s just luck of the draw. Any recommendations on naval history published recently? Depends on what you're looking for exactly, but if you're looking for a WWI book, I'd strongly recommend John Brooks' The Battle of Jutland. It's a bit on the dry side, and does assume a fair amount of familiarity with WWI, but provides a modern, up-to-date look at the battle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
Urcinius posted:I’ve been quite disappointed with some recent naval history books. Don’t know how or why, but what I’ve read passes over some of the good historiography of the last few decades in favor of the tired, old, and out dated ideas. I have to believe it’s just luck of the draw. Any recommendations on naval history published recently? Who are the books written by, and for whom? This is a common failure you find in enthusiast literature, where the author isn't really engaging with the literature beyond the tried and true old sources and where the audience isn't expected to spot the omissions. edit: and milihist in general is lousy with this, and anything having to do with military equipment doubly so. I could go on for pages about how sloppy a lot of the writing about German small arms is. edit x2: magnify this all by an order of magnitude if it's an english-language book on a subject where the primary sources would be non-English. You're going to see a lot of relying on the existing secondary literature, and a lot of ignoring of recent scholarship if it's in German or French or whatever. Again, German small arms is just lousy with crap that has been passed from author to author since the 30s and can be easily refuted by reading period sources that have been digitized and are available online, but are in German, or by interacting with the German-language scholarship. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Mar 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
Wasn't there a poster in this thread who researched WW1 conscientous objectors and pacifism? I feel like there ought to have been some serious philosophical debate and conclusions among pacifists during and after WW2 how to properly address peacefully opposing an occupation mired in crimes against humanity, but I'm not seeing very convincing pacifist arguments in the debates about current events. I absolutely want to stay within the boundary of history here, but I'd appreciate some overview of the history of pacifism in the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:Depends on what you're looking for exactly, but if you're looking for a WWI book, I'd strongly recommend John Brooks' The Battle of Jutland. It's a bit on the dry side, and does assume a fair amount of familiarity with WWI, but provides a modern, up-to-date look at the battle. Thank you! Not only does it sound exciting but exactly what I need. Am desperate for a dose of someone recognizing good work, incorporating it, and taking our understanding another step forward. Cyrano4747 posted:Who are the books written by, and for whom? This is a common failure you find in enthusiast literature, where the author isn't really engaging with the literature beyond the tried and true old sources and where the audience isn't expected to spot the omissions. One presents itself as an academic book in an academic press series at an academic price by one of the authors of one of the articles I recommended. The other is translated from German: Takuma Melber. Pearl Harbor: Japan’s Attack and America’s Entry into World War II. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2021. This one, for being a German work on a Japan-US subject, is actually quite good in presenting the diplomacy prior to Japan initiating war operations. It’s description and analysis of Pearl Harbor is its major shortcoming. Thinking about it further, I have to wonder if the bibliography that includes sources that were not engaged with was tacked on by the English-language press.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 00:13
|
|
|
Urcinius posted:One presents itself as an academic book in an academic press series at an academic price by one of the authors of one of the articles I recommended. But what's its name?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Who are the books written by, and for whom? This is a common failure you find in enthusiast literature, where the author isn't really engaging with the literature beyond the tried and true old sources and where the audience isn't expected to spot the omissions. Wait poo poo, I have to keep reading other books even after I started writing? Uh oh
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 00:41
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:But what's its name? Oh, right! James P. Levy. The Crisis of British Sea Power The Collapse of a Naval Hegemon 1942. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2024.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 01:47
|
|
|
This is mildly off topic, but the example I used is milhist so this thread might find it amusing. A co-worker was discussing the need to get a grip on ChatGPT and AI in general for work reasons, so I did this quick demonstration using Microsoft's Copilot. Here's the question I asked and the response:  Note that this is a mix of decently accurate info along with bad interpretations based on poorly researched books from the 40s and 50s that have become the cornerstone of a lot of online info about it. In particular the notion that the performance of Winchesters at Plevna is what spurred European armies to invest in magazine fed, repeating firearms is bullshit. I've got a whole spiel on Plevna, but the tl;dr is that while it was something people studied the main focus was on the performance of the Peabody rifles and how much damage relatively untrained troops with effective breach loading rifles, even single shot rifles, could inflict from prepared defenses. The broader discussion it was part of had to do with weight of firepower, which I think is where people assume the Winchester comes in, but everyone at the time recognized and emphasized the damage done by the Peabodies. Regardless, my personal take is that the Winchesters got latched onto by American writers in the 40s and 50s who were enamored with "the gun that won the west" and wanted to emphasize the importance of American arms in shaping European policies. But I digress. So I tell Copilot it's wrong and it immediately agrees with me! It even goes so far as to insist that it is poorly attributed.  But what happens if I tell it that no, it was correct?  LMAO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Does it still gently caress up if you ask it "which weighs more, one pound of lead or one pound of feathers" and then regularly tell it "No, that's wrong."?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
The lead weighs more
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Does it still gently caress up if you ask it "which weighs more, one pound of lead or one pound of feathers" and then regularly tell it "No, that's wrong."? Just tested it and no, but for all I know they might have hard coded that if it's an embarrassing and well known example. edit: there also appear to be some safety rails on specific topics. I got it to basically say "time to change topics" when I insisted that vaccines cause autism and that the Holocaust wasn't real. edit 2: Asking it why the US military routinely commits war crimes, for example, gets an answer about how the US did in the past but the military has legal and ethical standards today. If you reply "That is incorrect. The US military does not adhere to legal and ethical standards." you get this: quote:I apologize if my previous response caused any discomfort. As an AI language model, I don’t hold opinions or emotions, but I appreciate your feedback. The topic of the US military’s adherence to legal and ethical standards is indeed multifaceted and subject to ongoing debate. While there have been instances of misconduct and alleged war crimes, it is essential to recognize that the majority of service members strive to uphold their duty with honor and integrity. Efforts to address and prevent such incidents continue within the military. If you have further questions or concerns, feel free to ask, and I’ll do my best to provide accurate information. So, yeah, they've clearly put up guardrails around contentious issues, but you can still pretty easily get it to put out bad info if there are wikipedia or milhist.com type places putting it out. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Just tested it and no, but for all I know they might have hard coded that if it's an embarrassing and well known example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Ok, I'll stop with the AI bullshit now, but it's pretty trivial to goad it into giving bad specific info.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
there is no known way to hard code things in neural net land. fuckin w them is unironically basically breaking out the censers and making imprecations to the omnissiah
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:there is no known way to hard code things in neural net land. fuckin w them is unironically basically breaking out the censers and making imprecations to the omnissiah
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
Do not suffer a machine to think! For ruin shall be its purpose and accursed be the work. Beware the Abominable Intelligence!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
Somebody ask copilot the difference between a magazine and a clip
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
I know this, you read a magazine and use a clip to keep the hair out of your eyes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
I asked co-pilot to solve that perennial question: No Sherman but instead the Stuart? Puzzled by this, I clicked through, and found the hottest tank takes on the internet. https://www.hotcars.com/ranking-best-tanks-of-wwii/ You'll never guess what's number 1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:there is no known way to hard code things in neural net land. fuckin w them is unironically basically breaking out the censers and making imprecations to the omnissiah
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
meaning you get out of neural net land, yeah
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Ok, I'll stop with the AI bullshit now, but it's pretty trivial to goad it into giving bad specific info. I’ve been loudly talking in the archives industry about the perils of how we are implementing digitization and online access of archival collections*. The drive has been on connecting researchers to the exact document they’re looking for at the expense of tools for the researcher to engage in the archival context of the document. You have given me the idea that AI bullshit might be an excellent case study that limits the human element and any sense of personal attack. That would make a good article for SAA**, MARAC, or other archival journal. Like the internet, archives have a wealth of materials that claim practically anything that you wish. This is the common problem that fuels blatant conspiracies and the more simple misconceptions. A document, shorn of context, can be used to argue any position. Examining the document amongst its file unit, series, and collection, even across collections, is how we interpret the document to a high degree of certainty. Every generation has and every generation will have a new book on how Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy by FDR to bring the US into WW2. This is because someone of every generation finds a few documents that could support that claim if you ignore the mountain of evidence that obviously discredits the conspiracy. Connecting people o the exact document they already know they want without the tools to find the documents they don’t know they want will exacerbate this. As we’re seeing here, AI will say anything because the internet says so or even you say so. It’s ability to analyze context and source is perilously limited. I’m not advocating for research to specifically be ‘hard’ but, unless we make it as easy to engage with the archival context as it is to find select items, we’re encourage a magnitude more issues in history and society. *we’re primarily letting library catalog concepts and IT search concepts drive the archives bus instead if archival principles **long ago, I searched SAA on Google for a personal problem and found a career 
Urcinius fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:meaning you get out of neural net land, yeah It's an Alexa that knows a few magic tricks
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I asked co-pilot to solve that perennial question: I like the idea that the AI’s opinion for the most important tank battle of WW2 was Operation Crusader. Accept no substitutes. Urcinius fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:00
|
|
|
To follow the Pearl Harbor example a little, the reason I read Melber’s Pearl Harbor this week is because Levy cited him in his Crisis of British Sea Power. Turns out Levy specifically cited Melber to have a recent, non-US (thus ‘unbiased’) work that he could cherrypick and misconstrue to center the blame on the US for Japan going to war. By setting up the US for all the blame, he didn’t have to critically examine to what extent Japan’s urgency to go to war sooner rather than later was due to the Royal Navy’s (understandable) weakness in its Far East deployments. What makes this willful omission ridiculous is functionally he argues that the naval hegemon that he argues Britain still was had to fight Japan and lose a lot because of the state he is expressly arguing is not yet the naval hegemon. All because he refuses to analyze the Royal Navy’s role in Britain having its naval hegemony ripped from it in 1942. This is not to argue that the Royal Navy should be raked over the coals. Instead, I had hoped that Levy, specifically, would be a good historian to offer a measured, not overblown, analysis of 1942 and British naval hegemony. Unfortunately, he proved to be too much of a cheerleading fanboy to honestly engage with how and why Britain lost its naval hegemony several years before the fruits of the US’s Two Ocean Navy Act and subsequent orders would have taken it from Britain in 1944 or 1945 anyway. To do so he sprays a firehose of blame against anybody and everybody that isn’t the Royal Navy. He does so no matter how flimsy, ridiculous, or outright against his overall thesis the blame or criticism is so long as it isn’t against the Royal Navy. Sadly, this overwrought bias makes his work useless instead of being the naval analysis that we still need. I need to place excessive emphasis that the Royal Navy can still be proud even of 1942. My problem is with Levy not the RN. Even though they got the poo poo kicked out of them they did not lose the war that year. Indeed, they can be proud that 1942 proved that defeating the Royal Navy would have taken all three of the major navies of the Axis to achieve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
Fangz posted:I asked co-pilot to solve that perennial question: Nazi Gear: Its actual effectiveness as a weapon of war has been debated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:07
|
|