|
i think the reason i can like that battle so much is that it comes with a clean conscience--nobody died. One dude got hurt. It's great. Also both boats are really ridiculous looking. Clank, thud, chunk, steam. 
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i think the reason i can like that battle so much is that it comes with a clean conscience--nobody died. One dude got hurt. It's great. Also both boats are really ridiculous looking. Helps that if you go by the actual objective both sides of the fight had, the Union won. The Merrimack was trying to finish off the disabled Union frigate Minnesota, and the Monitor was trying to save the ship. The Minnesota went on to have a much longer career than either ironclad and was ultimately decommissioned and scrapped in 1901.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i think the reason i can like that battle so much is that it comes with a clean conscience--nobody died. One dude got hurt. It's great. Also both boats are really ridiculous looking. An experimental prototype is suddenly called into action to stop a devastating superweapon against which conventional technology is useless, what's not to like?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Looting was explicitly forbidden. Yes, you could send parcels back home. These parcels were checked. If you had poo poo in there you weren't supposed to have, criminal charges were laid. Calling it an open invitation to loot is incredibly lazy scholarship. Well, reading accounts it seems like either the rules were enforced really laxly, or there's some definitional issue over what 'looting' is. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...l%20ww2&f=false
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:38
|
|
Cythereal posted:The American Civil War was an awkward one in general, right in the sweet spot of technological and social change to make the war a complete loving nightmare for everyone involved. Crimean War here, welcome to the club.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
German Naval Infantry in WWI was organized in Seebatallions, but I'm not sure what an individual soldier was called.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Crimean War here, welcome to the club. Yup, and Iron Dawn talks a bit about the Crimean War - not a lot, but a number of officers in the ACW had been observers during the Crimean War and that war also saw some proto-ironclads used.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:An experimental prototype is suddenly called into action to stop a devastating superweapon against which conventional technology is useless, what's not to like? Broader question: what are some historical actual devastating superweapons throughout history (besides The Bomb)? Also include blunderous wonderwaffe boondoggles!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
The invention of the machinegun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
The VT radar-based proximity fuse used by American anti-air munitions in WWII comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
The B-29, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:Broader question: what are some historical actual devastating superweapons throughout history (besides The Bomb)? Also include blunderous wonderwaffe boondoggles! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergun#Blackpowder_age
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Can anyone attest to the quality of Associated Press' history books ? I'm tempted by the latest Humble Book Bundle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:Broader question: what are some historical actual devastating superweapons throughout history (besides The Bomb)? Also include blunderous wonderwaffe boondoggles! Smallpox and syphilis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Crimean War here, welcome to the club. War of the Triple Alliance here. Welcome to hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
zoux posted:Broader question: what are some historical actual devastating superweapons throughout history (besides The Bomb)? Also include blunderous wonderwaffe boondoggles! Horses, if you're the Aztecs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Horses, if you're the Aztecs. Also blankets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
zoux posted:Broader question: what are some historical actual devastating superweapons throughout history (besides The Bomb)? Massed non-line-of-sight gun artillery? That was the big killer in WWI, well over machine guns and gas, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
^^^ the way I read it, just saying "all QF artillery" isn't nearly exclusive enough; it's not a superweapon if every hairy-arsed bombardier in the Army gets to play with one ^^^zoux posted:Broader question: what are some historical actual devastating superweapons throughout history (besides The Bomb)? Also include blunderous wonderwaffe boondoggles! Before Skoda made cars... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_cm_Haubitze_M._14/16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_cm_Belagerungshaubitze_M_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_cm_Marinekanone_L/45_M._16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoda_305_mm_Model_1911 meanwhile in Germany, Krupp gives you Dicke Bertha, Langer Max, and Pariser Kanone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bertha_(howitzer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_cm_SK_L/45_%22Max%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:^^^ the way I read it, just saying "all QF artillery" isn't nearly exclusive enough; it's not a superweapon if every hairy-arsed bombardier in the Army gets to play with one ^^^ 'The known problem of hitting a moving target with indirect fire was to be alleviated by massed fire from multiple weapons all firing with the same data. At any rate, two howitzers were bought to defend the main Austro-Hungarian naval base at Pola on the Adriatic.' Uhh guys that's not what 'massed' means 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The invention of the machinegun. How long did one side maintain Machine Gun Supremacy before everyone else was on par? Reiterpallasch posted:The VT radar-based proximity fuse used by American anti-air munitions in WWII comes to mind. Cythereal posted:The B-29, too. Could y'all elaborate on these? HEY GAIL posted:late medieval/early early modern supercannons Trin Tragula posted:
We're these actually effective? I know a very little about the German superguns, but my impression was that they were more for show than effect. Also that wiki link to the blackpowder superguns says they were kind of bad, unless I'm misunderstanding "early early modern"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
i wonder if the czechs ever got a little mad they were shackled to the dudes who made austrian_gun.jpg edit: in re the supercannons, it turns out you don't need to make a gun that much bigger than normal to make a more powerful gun
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:^^^ the way I read it, just saying "all QF artillery" isn't nearly exclusive enough; it's not a superweapon if every hairy-arsed bombardier in the Army gets to play with one ^^^ I'm basing my answer based on the other answers given, like "horses" and "disease". For something more exclusive...can I say a doctrine and say "levee en masse"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
zoux posted:Broader question: what are some historical actual devastating superweapons throughout history (besides The Bomb)? Also include blunderous wonderwaffe boondoggles! The 600-pounder monster cannon used by the Ottomans during the Fall of Constantinople (twice as big as the biggest existing cannons then!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:The 600-pounder monster cannon used by the Ottomans during the Fall of Constantinople
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:didn't that thing remain in Istanbul for hundreds of years afterwards No, that was the Dardanelles gun, built a few years later in 1486 and used to protect the place. The Basilica cannon used in the actual siege was pretty much destroyed by its own strength.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:No, that was the Dardanelles gun, built a few years later in 1486 and used to protect the place. The Basilica cannon used in the actual siege was pretty much destroyed by its own strength.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
zoux posted:Broader question: what are some historical actual devastating superweapons throughout history (besides The Bomb)? Also include blunderous wonderwaffe boondoggles! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburners comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:aw dang It was a badass gun in any case. It could only shoot six times a day and it overheated like a mother but it was the only thing that could do serious damage to the Theodosian walls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Spherical case shot was pretty fuckin wild at the time. I'll throw in a vote for radio as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Fangz posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburners comes to mind. Whoa badass "The earth shook as with the throb of a volcano. A wild glare lighted up the scene for one moment, and was then succeeded by pitchy darkness. Houses were toppled down miles away, and not a living thing, even in remote places, could keep its feet. The air was filled with a rain of plough-shares, grave-stones, and marble balls, intermixed with the heads, limbs, and bodies, of what had been human beings. Slabs of granite, vomited by the flaming ship, were found afterwards at a league's distance, and buried deep in the earth. A thousand soldiers were destroyed in a second of time; many of them being torn to shreds, beyond even the semblance of humanity." I wonder what an explosion like that looks to someone with no frame of reference for a massive explosion. I mean we've all seen footage of the greatest explosions known to man and so many others that we can pretty much conceptualize any possible explosion. Probably not so for your average 16th century dutchman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Oh yeah the Korean Turtle Ships were some real monsters as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:51
|
|
Plutonis posted:War of the Triple Alliance here. Welcome to hell. The early to middle 19th century was full of these sort of wars that could have gone either way for the nations or states fighting them.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
zoux posted:How long did one side maintain Machine Gun Supremacy before everyone else was on par? VT fuzes were a way to make artillery shells into proximity explosives. They'd have a miniature radar installed that could detonate the shell whenever it got close to the target, instead of having to rely on contact detonation. For both anti-aircraft and traditional artillery, VT fuzes were a game-changer. Against aircraft, the benefit is obvious-instead of having to score a direct hit, you just need to get the shell close enough that the explosive burst will damage the aircraft. For traditional artillery, the fuzes allowed shells to explode immediately before they hit the ground, which imparted far more sharapnel and explosive force into the target area (As a shell that hits the ground is both less likely to go off and will impart a significant portion of its killing potential into the dirt). They were such a game changer, in fact, that their use was severely restricted, to prevent enemy forces from capturing duds and reverse-engineering them. For a time*, VT fuzes for anti-aircraft weapons were only authorized for shipboard AA guns (So any duds would go into the ocean and be irrecoverable), and their use for traditional artillery was only authorized in the closing stages of the war. To put it bluntly, the effectiveness (Especially of the AA variants) was devastating, and was a literal lifesaver for the US Navy in defending against Kamikaze attacks in the last year of the war. *IIRC, I may be off on this
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
zoux posted:I wonder what an explosion like that looks to someone with no frame of reference for a massive explosion. I mean we've all seen footage of the greatest explosions known to man and so many others that we can pretty much conceptualize any possible explosion. Probably not so for your average 16th century dutchman. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The early to middle 19th century was full of these sort of wars that could have gone either way for the nations or states fighting them. Paraguay was doomed from the start of the war. It would only have a chance if it advanced to Rio and Buenos Aires at the same time before Brazil and Argentina started mustering more troops than them and it had absolutely no logistics to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 21:00
|
|
I'd like to point out that gun cotton and a little bit of fulminate mercury are also worthy of a mention here.Plutonis posted:Paraguay was doomed from the start of the war. It would only have a chance if it advanced to Rio and Buenos Aires at the same time before Brazil and Argentina started mustering more troops than them and it had absolutely no logistics to do so. Paraguay, Mexico and Franco Prussian War France are the exceptions to this yeah.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:fulminate mercury
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 21:01
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:oh jeez, yes. priming loving sucks I imagine a collective sigh of relief from every soldier ever who had to reload a flintlock musket under preassure happened when these things were issued. Well uh, except from some of the Indian Sepys.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
zoux posted:How long did one side maintain Machine Gun Supremacy before everyone else was on par? Well unless you count colonial wars in Africa or something I think everyone entered WW1 with some understanding and stock of machineguns but they still focused quite heavily on rifles. But once things got going, machinegun fire became a major component in keeping the war bogged down in trenches. Bit of a chicken and egg thing because you could argue that trenches favour machineguns and artillery and artillery and machineguns makes trenches necessary, but spades and, to an extent, artillery, already existed. The volume of fire achievable by dedicated machinegun positions meant you had a form of direct fire artillery of unparalleled compactness, concealability, fortifiability, and effectiveness against personnel. One machinegun can stop an assault dead in its tracks over open ground, and because it's small and runs on normal bullets you can keep it dug in there and keep it firing (especially if it's a vickers) until doomsday if you need to. And you can fit dozens of them along your trench line. And you can move them if you have to. Can't drag an artillery piece through the trench. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 21:11
|
|