|
Arquinsiel posted:I think, perhaps, that the Irish sea might be more of a barrier to trains than the gauge difference. Well, sure, with that kind of attitude.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Also, I believe the Erie Railroad in New York was built to a different gauge from all the other railroads in the Northeast for some reason which I can no longer recall. They fixed it fairly early on, but with railroad construction in the United States being a semi-private affair stuff like that could sometimes happen. There was actually a war over this! Or minor riots, anyway. One rail company laid track from Erie to Ohio with a 4'10" gauge, and another laid track from Erie to the New York border with a 6' gauge, and yet another laid track from Buffalo to the PA border at 4'10." So if you were headed to Ohio from Buffalo you'd have to change trains first at the PA border, and then a second time in Erie just a few miles down the line. People in Erie really liked being a town where the changeover occurred, because the restaurants and merchants profited. When the rail companies decided to unify the gauge the town enlisted a whole bunch of "constables" who proceeded to rip up the new tracks that were being laid, and they were opposed by railroad cops. At one point one of the railroad workers shot one of the "rippers" in the head, but his skull was thick enough that the bullet just bounced off and knocked him unconscious. https://journals.psu.edu/wph/article/download/3251/3082
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:There's reports of some of the milita units going into the very first battles with pikes (mixed in among the hodgepodge of home-owned muskets and shotguns).
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Squalid posted:War Nerd is always a bit sloppy on specifics. Still I think it does a good job of making the point that an insurgency isn't really purely or even primarily a military action, they are political movements with political goals, and force or violence is just one means to that end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
I'm kind of curious, now. Are things like Vietnam and the Chinese Civil War (1940s edition) and the fighting against Al Qaeda or the IRA the same kind of thing, when people talk about "guerilla war"? In my head, guerilla wars were still ultimately "military campaigns", they were just ones where one side was aware they had a big disadvantage and were fighting accordingly with a large element of subterfuge and espionage about things. Comparatively, AQ and the IRA seem to be something different because there's no military objectives, except for the fact that all military objectives ultimately serve some political end. Presumably vietcong are fighting (in addition to fighting for the unification of Vietnam) to destroy a given element of the enemy army, or deny them ground or deplete materiel, or something similar, whereas AQ didn't destroy the twin towers for any kind of objective, except for what's ultimately for publicity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Another thing that I always found a little fascinating about the Civil War was that many of the "Five Civilized Tribes" ended up supporting the Confederacy over the Union and the irony that the last confederate general to surrender was a Native American not some defiant proud son of the south.
Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Another thing that I always found a little fascinating about the Civil War was that many of the "Five Civilized Tribes" ended up supporting the Confederacy over the Union and the irony that the last confederate general to surrender was a Native American not some defiant proud son of the south. Texans tend to get annoyed if you point out that Texan armies during the ACW as a rule did not do well and the North didn't consider Texas worth invading because it was a worthless, thinly inhabited backwater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Texans tend to get annoyed if you point out that Texan armies during the ACW as a rule did not do well and the North didn't consider Texas worth invading because it was a worthless, thinly inhabited backwater. They also get mad if you point out that the Alamo was pretty much an instance of insubordination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Texans tend to get annoyed if you point out that Texan armies during the ACW as a rule did not do well and the North didn't consider Texas worth invading because it was a worthless, thinly inhabited backwater. Don't forget Sam Houston was opposed to Texas joining the Confederacy pointing out the futility of the secession and was deposed as Governor of Texas. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm kind of curious, now. Are things like Vietnam and the Chinese Civil War (1940s edition) and the fighting against Al Qaeda or the IRA the same kind of thing, when people talk about "guerilla war"? In my head, guerilla wars were still ultimately "military campaigns", they were just ones where one side was aware they had a big disadvantage and were fighting accordingly with a large element of subterfuge and espionage about things. Comparatively, AQ and the IRA seem to be something different because there's no military objectives, except for the fact that all military objectives ultimately serve some political end. Presumably vietcong are fighting (in addition to fighting for the unification of Vietnam) to destroy a given element of the enemy army, or deny them ground or deplete materiel, or something similar, whereas AQ didn't destroy the twin towers for any kind of objective, except for what's ultimately for publicity. I mean I use the term broadly because all these conflicts occur across a wide range of circumstances with many wildly varying features and often involve relatively conventional phases. I'm fascinated by revolutions and asymmetrical conflicts because they can illustrate the processes and mechanism of power and social organization much more clearly than conventional conflicts, which are comparatively crude. Guerrilla war is just a tactic that can be used even by regular forces, for example Freddie Spencer Chapman efforts against the Japanese in Malaysia. On the other hand, the Zapatistas in Mexico today remain in what they have declared a "war" with the Mexican government, but haven't actually fought a military campaign since the mid-1990s, instead focusing on organizing its shadow government in relative peace. In the Rhodesian Bush War the ZANLA never really defeated the white government, they just made the situation difficult enough it had to seek a compromise, culminating in the Lancaster House Agreement and popular elections. Mugabe initially though he was getting screwed and neither side expected the smashing victory of his ZANU-PF in the elections of 1980, finally ending the conflict. HEY GAIL posted:war nerd is poo poo and bullshit in every area where i know enough to criticize him, so i imagine in the other areas too I mean its definitely juvenile but it still remains a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine, if only because I feel its really as much or more about political and popular narratives than trying to objectively describe some historical event. It certainly appealed to my adolescent edgelord history nerd self, who of course thought he could see through all the bullshit the government feeds to the drat sheep. I think there's still value in just explicitly saying there's more than one way to look at something, especially when say, the US government describes disastrous military defeats like this:  Translation: Afghan forces fled a region the coalition has tried to control for over a decade in the middle of the night abandoning their equipment, and we had to destroy the village in order to save it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
No the vehicles were a safety hazard so we must blow them up! That is great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Don't forget Sam Houston was opposed to Texas joining the Confederacy pointing out the futility of the secession and was deposed as Governor of Texas. Samuel L. Hacksaw posted:They also get mad if you point out that the Alamo was pretty much an instance of insubordination. Cythereal posted:Texans tend to get annoyed if you point out that Texan armies during the ACW as a rule did not do well and the North didn't consider Texas worth invading because it was a worthless, thinly inhabited backwater. Born and raised in Texas and uh, no one I've ever met gives a poo poo about the civil war or the alamo. Well someone must cuz I've seen three or so confederate flags in my 20ish years living there, but otoh the deposition of Houston for his union beliefs and Houston ordering the Alamo destroyed are both things that got taught many, many times in our many Texas history lessons. And I was in a notoriously conservative area, not a liberal enclave. You want to piss off texans, suggest that Cali's mexican food offerings are "more authentic" (they're not, as anyone who's eaten enchiladas or fajitas or tamales homemade from some tejana abuelita's kitchen knows!!) (before anyone mentions it, it was also hammered into our heads that the mexicans abolished slavery and the texians wanted to keep it.) Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Born and raised in Texas and uh, no one I've ever met gives a poo poo about the civil war or the alamo. Well someone must cuz I've seen three or so confederate flags in my 20ish years living there, but otoh the deposition of Houston for his union beliefs and Houston ordering the Alamo destroyed are both things that got taught many, many times in our many Texas history lessons. And I was in a notoriously conservative area, not a liberal enclave. You want to piss off texans, suggest that deposing Sam "like Washing but double" Houston was a swell idea. then why do the textbooks you pawn off on other states say none of that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:then why do the textbooks you pawn off on other states say none of that? I doubt we sell Texas History books to other states. There were two Texas History years in my time, once as young kids and then again around 14. There's at least one more year that's Texas-focused but is labelled geography or social studies rather than history. IIRC high school geography also had a good chunk devoted to Texas. I wouldn't be surprised if things are getting worse curriculum-wise under the recent state government though  and it wasn't good to begin with.
Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Sorry for the slight derail from Texas bashing, but a long time ago there were some recommendations for a good book on WWI. I've been searching and searching, but just can't find it. Would anyone happen to remember the title that was bandied about a while back/be willing to recommend me a good book on WWI that isn't insanely dry?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
I'd recommend this (links to review): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/11/beauty-sorrow-peter-englund-review
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I'd recommend this (links to review): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/11/beauty-sorrow-peter-englund-review That seems like a really interesting book, I'l definitely pick it up. Thanks a ton for the recommendation! MikeCrotch posted:I second The Beauty and the Sorrow. Thank you as well, I'll definitely look into Dreadnought and Castles of Steel and might look into The Sleepwalkers and A World Undone. If I find the time, I'll also definitely check out that documentary. Work and life being as they are, though, books are easier for me. USMC_Karl fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
USMC_Karl posted:Sorry for the slight derail from Texas bashing, but a long time ago there were some recommendations for a good book on WWI. I've been searching and searching, but just can't find it. Would anyone happen to remember the title that was bandied about a while back/be willing to recommend me a good book on WWI that isn't insanely dry? I second The Beauty and the Sorrow. The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark is also good, and if you want a general overview A World Undone by G J Meyer is goon-recommended, though I wasn't the biggest fan. Dreadnought and Castles of Steel by Robert K. Massie are both excellent if you're into naval stuff. If you're a documentary type of person then the 1964 BBC series The Great War is on Youtube, which has a bunch of interviews from people who were alive at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm kind of curious, now. Are things like Vietnam and the Chinese Civil War (1940s edition) and the fighting against Al Qaeda or the IRA the same kind of thing, when people talk about "guerilla war"? In my head, guerilla wars were still ultimately "military campaigns", they were just ones where one side was aware they had a big disadvantage and were fighting accordingly with a large element of subterfuge and espionage about things. Comparatively, AQ and the IRA seem to be something different because there's no military objectives, except for the fact that all military objectives ultimately serve some political end. Presumably vietcong are fighting (in addition to fighting for the unification of Vietnam) to destroy a given element of the enemy army, or deny them ground or deplete materiel, or something similar, whereas AQ didn't destroy the twin towers for any kind of objective, except for what's ultimately for publicity. I can't believe we've all forgotten to mention South Africa. You've gotten the concepts wrong. Here's Alchenar's off the cuff definitions: Conventional Warfare: The use of force to establish exclusive control over an area. People do what you tell them to because you have all the crucial infrastructure and services and resisters go to prison. Objectives are to defeat any enemy forces capable of challenging control of the area while maintaining control of the key locations mentioned. Guerrilla warfare: Don't challenge control of area. Aim to exert continuous 'friction' on the enemy force while evading attempts to destroy you. Victory comes from the enemy force deciding that the cost of your friction is more than the value of controlling the area you in and withdrawing of their own accord. The Chinese Civil War was entirely conventional. Vietnam was a hybrid - the VC were fighting a guerrilla campaign (note that when they attempted to step up into conventional warfare in the Tet offensive it goes disastrously for them), meanwhile the NVA were engaging in limited conventional warfare. Another example of a successful campaign - the ANC mixed violent resistance with an effective diplomatic campaign and disarmed the moment their objectives were met (particularly credibly given the temptation to seek retribution for apartheid).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:To avoid writing an effort post, the alternative narrative on the IRA is that they were utterly militarily defeated, compromised by the security services, and their political leadership had the police closing in on them. The Good Friday Agreement was not a victory for the IRA, they had to concede the legitimacy of NI's place in the UK while all the UK gave up in return was the principle of the right to self-determination (which you'll note has been UK policy on literally every part of it's territory). That's missing a huge number of victories the IRA achieved in the peace talks: a non-gerrymandered assembly, a mixed police force, the withdrawal of armed forces, the end of checkpoints and an open border. Catholics in NI were second-class citizens during the Stormont era. Now they are equal citizens. I don't agree with the tactics used, but the IRA certainly achieved many of its goals. Arquinsiel posted:He's also massively over-charitable to the IRA, who did regularly engage in reprisal killings. Mostly targeted at military personnel, but still... they killed people. Lots of people. He also misses how lightly the IRA took civilian casualties. It's definitely true that killing civilians was always seen as undesirable, but it's pretty clear that a successful bomb was considered worth a few bystanders being blown up. From a pr point of view, the fact that the remembrance day or shankill road bombings were gently caress-ups was hardly important, especially since they came alongside "successful" bombings which killed civilians, as well as forcing Catholic civilians to be proxy bombers by threats to their family, sometimes resulting in their death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I can't believe we've all forgotten to mention South Africa. I would like to point out that with regard to the ANC the disarmament was of mixed success. Most of them were absorbed into the South African army, but some of them either were not offered positions or refused and instead turned to crime to support themselves as they possessed no other marketable skills. The South African government is still struggling with handling the criminal gangs that were started by their former guerillas, the slack has been taken up a huge number of private security firms that were (generally) started by former soldiers of the apartheid regime who didn't feel like staying on after 1994.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:And yet somehow they were losing to Russians who also had a multinational army, poor morale, corrupt and incompetent government, poor industrialization, bad generals (albeit some good ones), and had had a huge rebellion just 10 years back. But I assume that an overall larger industrial base and army helped to overwhelm the Austrians and also the generals fighting the Austrians seem to have been more competent than the ones at the Masurian lakes, at least, and no worse or better than their Austrian opponents? Besides being cursed with a totally disfunctional military, the Austria-Hungarian strategy was also poo poo. A lot of troops ended up uselessly marching between the two fronts, because high command completely misjudged Serbian resistance. In the confusion over which front should get more troops, said troops ended up coming too late to either front. To add to this, especially the region bordering Russia and the Russian regions on the other side of the border, were basically huge, empty stretches of land. No railroads, lovely roads and a lot of land to cover. On foot. The Austrian armies in the early phase of the war exhausted themselves pretty badly just trying to reach the Russian defenders. When both sides finally clashed, it didn't go over well for the Austrians and it never really got better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Carcer posted:I would like to point out that with regard to the ANC the disarmament was of mixed success. Most of them were absorbed into the South African army, but some of them either were not offered positions or refused and instead turned to crime to support themselves as they possessed no other marketable skills. Oh I get this (just like NI isn't clear cut either way), but insofar as reconciliation and rebuilding goes South Africa is a pretty golden example. Even the massive cronyism, corruption, and general misgovernance of the ANC can't detract from it being a better place to live that much of sub-sahara Africa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fair. South Africa handled the post revolution phase much better than most countries that go through a low level civil war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:One particular thing I've found interesting is that Lincoln really wasn't that popular when he came into office, but he managed things well and built political coalitions to support the war, because he turned out to be an extremely competent president. I used to agree totally with this, I suppose time has softened my stance a bit on Davis. He was reluctantly put into what he himself thought was a pretty impossible position, and I think now he did a respectable if not spectacular job. I think he actually did a better job than Lincoln on the military side of things - Bragg (and Polk, for that matter) aside. Lincoln would have driven me freaking crazy as a boss. Also I haven't read War Nerd in probably a decade at least but he's basically military Cliff Clavin except not funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I used to agree totally with this, I suppose time has softened my stance a bit on Davis. He was reluctantly put into what he himself thought was a pretty impossible position, and I think now he did a respectable if not spectacular job. I think he actually did a better job than Lincoln on the military side of things - Bragg (and Polk, for that matter) aside. Lincoln would have driven me freaking crazy as a boss. I think, besides that he never figured out how to deal with the more extremist states rights' types like that governor of Georgia, wosshisname, was that it was very late on in the war that he even nominated an overall commander. The Virginian, Tennesseean and the Transmissisippi fronts never really managed to act in unison, except for that brief period when Longstreet was over in the West.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Carcer posted:Yeah, that's fair. South Africa handled the post revolution phase much better than most countries that go through a low level civil war. Initially there was a lot of hope and the initial few years were really well handled, avoiding an actual civil war and such. Future prospects for SA though aren't great. Still a lot of hatred and violence. There is a lot of fear for what the future holds. Those who can leave, do. (I am one of them)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
WW2 Data And so ends Britain's explosive inventory that I have physical data for, anyways. Under the microscope today are the various explosive charges used by the Army and Navy. What is a Hayrick charge? What kind of Limpet charges do they have? What kind of delay can be achieved, and what color ampoule corresponds to each delay time? What is a General Wade charge? All that and more at the blog! And since nobody voted next set of items is German Projectiles
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Initially there was a lot of hope and the initial few years were really well handled, avoiding an actual civil war and such. I've actually met a few South Africans in Saskatchewan, y'all are welcome
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Texans tend to get annoyed if you point out that Texan armies during the ACW as a rule did not do well and the North didn't consider Texas worth invading because it was a worthless, thinly inhabited backwater. Albert Sidney Johnston though. Also speaking of the Waruh of Nawthern Aggresshun  Not just a crazy facebook opinion but a crazy facebook opinion from a seated NC state rep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:ears
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Initially there was a lot of hope and the initial few years were really well handled, avoiding an actual civil war and such. I'm under no illusions, being a south african myself. This isn't the place for moping about it, though. So, I was discussing with a friend the other day about wether or not the japanese used crossbows. He said they used a sort of light ballista during sieges before they got hold of cannons, but does anyone have any insight as to why they wouldn't the handheld versions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
I'm reading about some Syria stuff from last week, about how the Russians dispatched a frigate to mean mug the two destroyers that launched missiles and it made me wonder: how meaningful are categories like "destroyer" and "frigate" and "cruiser" in modern navies? Is it down to tonnage, role or just the tastes of the individual navies? Is there a treaty or something governing it or can you call your ships whatever? An Arleigh Burke only displaces 800 tons less than a Ticonderoga according to wikipedia, is that that much of a difference?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I think, besides that he never figured out how to deal with the more extremist states rights' types like that governor of Georgia, wosshisname, was that it was very late on in the war that he even nominated an overall commander. The Virginian, Tennesseean and the Transmissisippi fronts never really managed to act in unison, except for that brief period when Longstreet was over in the West. I agree....Lincoln faced exactly the same problem and didn't get around to naming Grant as supreme warlord or whatever until the spring of 1864 (Lee wasn't until early 1865). I think the main reason for this delay was the ridiculous middle school politics surrounding seniority of generals and etc and whatnot. I have no idea why that was such a big deal in that era nor how they allowed it to interfere with the unity of command like they did....
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
In the US Navy it seem frigates are mostly defensive Anti-Air/Missle ships and destroyers are offensive cruise missle platforms. The Cruisers I think are just older Cruise Missle platforms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I agree....Lincoln faced exactly the same problem and didn't get around to naming Grant as supreme warlord or whatever until the spring of 1864 (Lee wasn't until early 1865). I think the main reason for this delay was the ridiculous middle school politics surrounding seniority of generals and etc and whatnot. I have no idea why that was such a big deal in that era nor how they allowed it to interfere with the unity of command like they did....
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'm reading about some Syria stuff from last week, about how the Russians dispatched a frigate to mean mug the two destroyers that launched missiles and it made me wonder: how meaningful are categories like "destroyer" and "frigate" and "cruiser" in modern navies? Is it down to tonnage, role or just the tastes of the individual navies? Is there a treaty or something governing it or can you call your ships whatever? An Arleigh Burke only displaces 800 tons less than a Ticonderoga according to wikipedia, is that that much of a difference? I've thought about this too, and my answer is as to how meaningful categories like "destroyer" and "frigate" and "cruiser" are in modern navies is "not very." In the case of those three, the main difference between them is size and how much firepower they pack, where a frigate is small, a cruiser is large, and a destroyer is somewhere in between. They all have defenses against aircraft and missiles, can hunt submarines, and use missiles, not guns, to engage other surface ships. It's pretty much down to what a nation thinks is appropriate. The names that are much less subjective nowadays are classes that are defined strongly in its basic function, like surface ship, aircraft carrier, submarine, amphibious assault ship etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Also: ship related I did a three part thing in the Cold War thread on the Kirov class battlecruisers, which you can read here if you want. The ship names are mostly spelled right and everything
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I've thought about this too, and my answer is as to how meaningful categories like "destroyer" and "frigate" and "cruiser" are in modern navies is "not very." In the case of those three, the main difference between them is size and how much firepower they pack, where a frigate is small, a cruiser is large, and a destroyer is somewhere in between. They all have defenses against aircraft and missiles, can hunt submarines, and use missiles, not guns, to engage other surface ships. It's pretty much down to what a nation thinks is appropriate. Case in point: the Royal Navy is calling their next class the 'global combat ship' e: though frigates are traditionally specialised towards submarine hunting and destroyers towards general fleet work. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also: ship related "The stray emissions from the main sensor were enough to kill all rats aboard the Ural, and the Ural remained rat-free when the main array was in operation. " I doubt this as much as it is possible to doubt a thing. First, how's this non-ionizing EM radiation managing to penetrate the big metal pieces of hull? And second, if it could do that and was powerful enough to kill rats, it'd make things pretty unpleasant for the crew, as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 21:37
|
|