|
spectralent posted:Yeah but... I mean, is that going to be your NCO checking people's underwear drawers? That just seems bizarre to me. The military is a strange and terrible place, just look at GIP.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:44 |
|
spectralent posted:This sounds particularly amusing given the soviets had women in the army (I know that's probably not what it means but my mental image is funnier). I wonder if a well made hardcore pair of briefs saw action from 1943 to 45?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
In the US Army it is technically possible to buy generic underwear from on post military clothing bldg. No one does this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:16
|
|
mlmp08 posted:In the US Army it is technically possible to buy generic underwear from on post military clothing bldg. Stocks of ten year old underwear just gathering dust in a warehouse somewhere.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah but... I mean, is that going to be your NCO checking people's underwear drawers? That just seems bizarre to me. Welcome to the <military branch in question>. Checking lockers/drawers/kitbags/conducting surprise inspections when the troops may or may not have been dressed and ready, et cetera, is pretty standard. Especially since at some point, an inspection by an officer may loom, and you'd much rather have Schuckatelli & Co. have their poo poo together before the <base/wing/battalion/whatever> commander wanders by. Oh, and in case, y'know, enemy action and you find that they're lightened their loadout by swapping out the mortar baseplate with an appropriately-sized chuck of beaverboard or poo poo like that. I knew an Air Force dude who got outright evicted from the on-base dorms because the First Sergeant did a little pre-inspection before the Wing Commander's one, and found: 1 - multiple bottles/cups of dip spit all over the room 2 - clothes both clean and dirty scattered all over the room 3 - food and 4 - an electric iron left plugged in and operating when Airman Schmuckatelli hadn't been present for roughly 36 hours before said pre-inspection And I'm sure there was more, I'd been there once picking up something from the guy and it was a pigsty. Anyway, the highest levels of this are usually in basic training because that's where you're *supposed* to pound into their heads that uniformity is required, et cetera, but it's present to some level all the way through the ranks. Major General Schmuckatelli doesn't get screamed at by a frothing Gunnery Sergeant, however, just because his underwear drawer is a display case from Victoria's Secret - by that rank, it's assumed that you'll at least *appear* to be within regs. Edit for typo Zamboni Apocalypse fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jun 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Yes, there are health and welfare inspections in the Army. Checking what brand of underwear someone wears is not part of that. Same with socks, except for some regulations about style, color, etc of socks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:That part of the video was very outdated (the rest is excellent, but that part is based on 1950s notions). The nuclear-tipped ABM is no longer a high-yield warhead trying to disable the warhead with an electromagnetic pulse or destroy it with blast. The current paradigm (which as far as I know is only used by Russia, as the US variant was cancelled due to cost concerns even for the single site allowed by treaty) is for in-atmosphere interceptions to use a very low yield enhanced radiation warhead that destroys the electronics with hard neutron radiation, The old paradigm wasn't to destroy it with blast or EMP, either. The idea was instead either that neutron flux from the detonation of the ABM would cause predetonation of the incoming warhead, or the x-ray flux would cause thermal expansion of the incoming warhead sufficient to preclude nuclear yield. The current paradigm is to physically strike the inbound with a purely kinetic projectile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
At mach 25. I know this is getting opseccy but are the major hurdles for terminal interception with rocket tech or computational?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
zoux posted:At mach 25. I know this is getting opseccy but are the major hurdles for terminal interception with rocket tech or computational? From a position of pure sunday afternoon rocket sciencing ignorance I'm going to assume it's about guidance (which I guess falls under computational). We've been doing crazy loving poo poo with rockets for a really long time, up to and including making obscenely high velocity poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The old paradigm wasn't to destroy it with blast or EMP, either. The idea was instead either that neutron flux from the detonation of the ABM would cause predetonation of the incoming warhead, or the x-ray flux would cause thermal expansion of the incoming warhead sufficient to preclude nuclear yield. Reread my post. I was specifically referring to the concepts of NUCLEAR anti-ballistic missile systems. The first generation of nuclear systems (mentioned in the video) used fairly large yield warheads to EMP or blast the warheads. The second generation was what I was referring to, is still in use by Russia (on the AMB-3 batteries deployed around Moscow) was designed around hard radiation kills from ER warheads. For nuclear devices, this is the current paradigm. Everybody except Russia (IIRC China was working on a system, and Britain and France were intersted in the US system) abandoned nuclear ABMs in the 1970s and 1980s, and began developing non-nuclear systems in the late 90s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:From a position of pure sunday afternoon rocket sciencing ignorance I'm going to assume it's about guidance (which I guess falls under computational). We've been doing crazy loving poo poo with rockets for a really long time, up to and including making obscenely high velocity poo poo. Yeah I didn't mean to be overly restrictive there, my question is basically is it a matter of getting the interceptor there fast enough or hitting the target accurately enough. Or something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:30
|
|
Gnoman posted:The British were perfectly eager to fight (on multiple occasions during the war an outnumbered British fleet charged out to meet the French only to see the latter disengage) - they just had an outmoded idea of the best way to go about it. Put simply, a broken line-of-battle was expected to lead inevitably to defeat in detail, so Admirals had developed the hard doctrine of "never, ever break the line". The British were masters of this, and it had held them in good stead during the previous naval war. Rodney realized this was a dead end, and began to focus plans to break the enemy line instead of preserving his own. Problem being though the Royal Navy is the work horse of the war. They need to not only keep that fleet in check, but ensure that the rest of the British dominated Carribean and the soldiers stationed can go both ways to the mainland along with reinforcing, moving and supply the Army via the coast and bringing men and money across the atlantic. Doesn't excuse the achingly slow actions to try and save the army at Yorktown.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Would it be seriously uncool of me to request a paper in this thread? Amazingly, me begging on an internet forum is actually a lot faster and more efficient than waiting for document delivery. PM sent
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah but... I mean, is that going to be your NCO checking people's underwear drawers? That just seems bizarre to me. They made your immediate NCO watch your dick when they did piss tests. When I say watch your dick I mean they literally had to watch the piss come out of your dick into the cup. It was insanely uncomfortable but they had to make sure you weren't cheating. It also meant every NCO saw the dicks of their immediate subordinates. This includes the LT and First Sergeant who had to watch each other's dicks. That means as you get promoted you are forced to stare at dicks... Don't ask me how they did it for the women. I'm assuming it's uncomfortable squatting over a cup while another woman states at your vagina.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
limp_cheese posted:They made your immediate NCO watch your dick when they did piss tests. When I say watch your dick I mean they literally had to watch the piss come out of your dick into the cup. It was insanely uncomfortable but they had to make sure you weren't cheating. It also meant every NCO saw the dicks of their immediate subordinates. This includes the LT and First Sergeant who had to watch each other's dicks. That means as you get promoted you are forced to stare at dicks... I hate to break it to you, but that setup was not just unusual, it's expressly against army regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I hate to break it to you, but that setup was not just unusual, it's expressly against army regulation. I'm just telling you how we did it back in 06. Maybe it's changed since then or we just had serious problems with people cheating. It was more to illustrate how NCOs have to do lovely things to make sure privates are being honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
The dick looking is authorized. Having the immediate supervisor do it every time is a great way for an NCO and subordinate to do lines together and never get caught or to exact favors. Doubly so for LT and 1SG or LT and LT watching each other. It's not a hard and fast rule, but units I've been in have discouraged putting direct leader in charge of watching their own squad to avoid collusion or awkwardness. I've very rarely had units get super serious about staring directly at your dick the entire time, save special missions and predeployment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Ask Us About Military History: the dick looking is authorised
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
From the 1992 Gun Digest, experimental Thompsons: Thompson T2  .30 Carbine  .30-06  The T2 in particular was a cheaper variant intended to replace the original, which was cancelled when the M3 Grease Gun was accepted instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
The thought of a .30-06 Thompson both horrifies and amazes me
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
The T2 looks like some kind of sci-fi space gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Wouldn't a Thompson chambered in .30 Carbine basically be an early assault rifle?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The thought of a .30-06 Thompson both horrifies and amazes me That thing seems like it should be a unique weapon in Fallout: New Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Wouldn't a Thompson chambered in .30 Carbine basically be an early assault rifle? Not quite. .30 Carbine is still a pistol cartridge, and I doubt it'd be selective fire. Edit: There was, for reference, a fully automatic version of the M1 Carbine, the M2, which IIRC got a decent amount of use in Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Wouldn't a Thompson chambered in .30 Carbine basically be an early assault rifle? Not any more than the M2 (a select fire version of the original M1) Carbine was. The .30 Carbine round was too weak for that role, being more of a really hot pistol round rather than a lower-powered rifle round. The effective range just wasn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
30.06 is equivalent to 7.62 right? So why would a Thompson chambered for that be worse than an AK-47?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
zoux posted:30.06 is equivalent to 7.62 right? So why would a Thompson chambered for that be worse than an AK-47? The AK-47 fires 7.62x39. .30-06 is roughly equivalent to 7.62x51, the rounds are entirely different. It'd be more like a full-auto M-14, which was entirely uncontrollable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The thought of a .30-06 Thompson both arouses and arouses some more me Fixed! zoux posted:30.06 is equivalent to 7.62 right? So why would a Thompson chambered for that be worse than an AK-47? Two totally different 7.62 rounds. .30-06 has like half again to twice as much energy, depending on which .30-06 we're talking about. OneTruePecos fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Jun 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The AK-47 fires 7.62x39. .30-06 is roughly equivalent to 7.62x51, the rounds are entirely different. It'd be more like a full-auto M-14, which was entirely uncontrollable. For reference:  Edit: Also 7.62x51 is the equivalent of .308 Winchester, .30-06 is even bigger. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jun 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
I don't know very much about gun stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
zoux posted:I don't know very much about gun stuff. No worries, if nothing else you're in the right place to learn 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
The Thompson was designed for the .45 Automatic Colt Pistol, also known as the 11.43×23mm. It was tolerably controllable with this round, due to the weight of the weapon. .30 Carbine is a 7.62×33mm round with a fairly low velocity. It is comparable to the .357 Magnum cartridge in performance. A Thomson in this cartridge would work wall enough, but the M2 version of the carbine was superior. The AK uses a 7.62x39mm round. This round is considerably more powerful than the .45 ACP or .30 Carbine, and would be very hard to control in a weapon the size of a Thompson. The .30-06 is a 7.62x63mm round. A Thompson chambered in this cartridge would more accurately be described as an anti-aircraft weapon, because as soon as you pulled the trigger the barrel would start pointing almost straight up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:No worries, if nothing else you're in the right place to learn Well I'm glad I found out before the apocalypse happens and I try to load up the AK I got off the body of a Water Raider with deer hunting bullets from Walmart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The thought of a .30-06 Thompson both horrifies and amazes me See how far back you'd need to put your face to keep the buffer tube from whacking you in the nose?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Also the article says the .30-06 Thompson rifle had lubricating pads on the magazine to allow proper functioning (normally indicates very fast and rough extraction) and never had sights applied, suggesting that it functioned too violently to even progress to accuracy testing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Also the article says the .30-06 Thompson rifle had lubricating pads on the magazine to allow proper functioning (normally indicates very fast and rough extraction) and never had sights applied, suggesting that it functioned too violently to even progress to accuracy testing. Reminds me of what a Royal Navy officer in charge of testing the Mars automatic had to say about that particular gun: "No one who fired once with the pistol wished to shoot it again"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Reminds me of what a Royal Navy officer in charge of testing the Mars automatic had to say about that particular gun: "No one who fired once with the pistol wished to shoot it again" Wikipedia posted:"It used a unique long recoil rotating bolt action which ejected spent cartridges straight to the rear." I'm sorry, what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
It poops hot casings at your face from it's bum.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It poops hot casings at your face from it's bum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
The BAR was chambered in .30-06. It's, uh.. somewhat beefier than a regular Thompson (about twice the weight), but that prototype looks pretty substantially up-sized so maybe it's not super uncontrollable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 00:21
|
|
