|
Tekopo posted:Did the Romans ever name their ships? Do we have any record of actual named Roman ships, beyond a classification of which squadron they were in and their number? Apparently the Phoenicians would personify their warships, treating them as living and (allegedly) having to be sated with a blood sacrifice when they were first launched, where they’d have the ship roll over some hapless captive and crush them on its way out to sea. Also the eyes on the bow and all that. So I’m sure they must have given them some names with genuine meaning too.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:The Romans were so loving basic. So you name your ships after your gods? That's, uh, really original. Ours? Oh, we got the names from this insane beggar living in the temple district. We just toss him some sacrificial offal and he yells at us and that's what we call our latest ship. Gods' names is totally cool though, I can see you put a lot of thought into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The janky mustang was designed in 102 days whereas the glorious teutonic Bf-109 was the product of numerous years of detailed and meticulous precise efforts All I can think of now when it comes to the Bf-109's design is a comment from one of the engineers working on a Hispano Buchon at Duxford. I got chatting to him over the rope fence while he had a tea break and asked something to the effect of what the 109 was like to work on. He paused, a pained look came across his face and he sighed "They're built like utter crap." Apparently the famous 'leichtbauweise' construction makes them a nightmare to rig properly. He didn't like the idea of having to go dogfighting in a 109 once he was intimately familiar with how little is holding the wings on or how relatively flimsy the wing spars were, either. I didn't push the point and got talking about the P-40C Warhawk that was nearing completion next door, being finished off in its pre-war polished bare metal USAAF scheme  I mean, I know the priorities of a Luftwaffe ground crew c.1943 and a professional restoration engineer c. 2010 are going to be very different but still. Or maybe he was just fed up of talking to wehraboos?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Or maybe he was just fed up of talking to wehraboos? Relevant: Link. tl;dr: The plane is overly precise and demanding, nasty in the hands of a skilled pilot but dangerous to a new aviator - which is what most wartime pilots are. It fits in with the way they made everything, from tanks to uniforms to submarines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:except he just would not let ideas die and listen to the experts It's his stubbornness that chaps my rear end. He was head of government, he had valuable experience, he was certainly entitled to make suggestions to the military. Once someone walked him through the reasons his ideas were bad, he should have shut up about them. He could never bring himself to do so. He also strikes me as a mediocre gambler. As mllaneza said, the Dardanelles operation could have worked a treat if they'd showed up on day one with all the resources they eventually threw into it. Instead, in both wars, he had unreasonable ideas about what small or medium-sized forces could do. He was prone to reinforcing failure and frittering effort away, and never seemed to fully internalize the importance of picking a decisive place and time and putting everything you could into it. That said, the guy can really write. Yes, there are lots of other primary sources written by heads of state and/or government, but Churchill is the only one I can think of off the top of my head who led a country through a war and set out to write a comprehensive history of the experience. I was going to say something about warts and all, but Churchill was so stubborn that I'm not sure he saw the warts. He seems to have died believing the Allies should have put more troops into Italy and tried to drive to Vienna. Read a map, Winston!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The janky mustang was designed in 102 days whereas the glorious teutonic Bf-109 was the product of numerous years of detailed and meticulous precise efforts Yeah but the Mustang needed a British engine to be good 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:The Romans were so loving basic. The Romans of yesteryear were the pilots of... yesteryear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
There are a few heads of states that wrote history books. A couple of Byzantine emperors wrote history books after they were overthrown about how it totally wasn't their fault and the new guy's heirs are idiots! Constantine Purple-Born wrote a shitload, too, and he was emperor to the end. And there's US Grant, too. sullat fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Apr 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Jeff Davis wrote a history of the Confederacy which I can only imagine is a fair and balanced accounting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:The Romans were so loving basic. Have you seen how they name their humans? The ships are lucky they don't just get assigned numbers or all get the same name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:The Romans were so loving basic. I dunno, there's a certain something about calling your warship Pax. For that whole 'we come in peace' irony...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Jeff Davis wrote a history of the Confederacy which I can only imagine is a fair and balanced accounting. i wanna read it kind of
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Jeff Davis wrote a history of the Confederacy which I can only imagine is a fair and balanced accounting. You can read it here. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19831/19831-h/19831-h.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
It's really astonishing that Davis was just released after while without being punished. I can't imagine that happening today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
He should have been exiled at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:He should have been exiled at least. I mean by the letter of the law every last Confederate soldier should have been executed for armed rebellion against the government, murder of federal soldiers, etc. Politics says otherwise when you're trying to put the country back together again, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Even his proposed Balkans followup to Italy made sense from the perspective someone looking at a map. Once through the coastal mountains, you're on a vast plain with a clear shot at Vienna. If the Western allies had beaten the USSR to Vienna and Budapest, that would have had a big impact on how the Cold War played out. So you have the experts analyst the prospects. If they say no, you don't do it. There's an enormous amount of mountainous terrain with terrible transport infrastructure you have to deal with first though, they weren't about to break through and beat the Soviets somehow. Churchill's desired Balkan adventures were 100% about post-war imperial positioning, with complete disregard for military expediency. The Macedonian front was a massive stalemate in WW1 too, it's not like Churchill didn't know how that was likely to go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:41
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:There's an enormous amount of mountainous terrain with terrible transport infrastructure you have to deal with first though, they weren't about to break through and beat the Soviets somehow. Churchill's desired Balkan adventures were 100% about post-war imperial positioning, with complete disregard for military expediency. The Macedonian front was a massive stalemate in WW1 too, it's not like Churchill didn't know how that was likely to go. Yeah, and it's the same mountainous terrain that had been a meatgrinder for Allied troops throughout the Italian campaign... and then, even though you think you emerge into good tank country, you have to supply all those tanks through the same crappy mountain passes, so your hope of a lightning advance is not real plausible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Yeah, and it's the same mountainous terrain that had been a meatgrinder for Allied troops throughout the Italian campaign... and then, even though you think you emerge into good tank country, you have to supply all those tanks through the same crappy mountain passes, so your hope of a lightning advance is not real plausible. italiansinvadegreece1940.txt 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:It's really astonishing that Davis was just released after while without being punished. I can't imagine that happening today. He’d end up on Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:It's really astonishing that Davis was just released after while without being punished. I can't imagine that happening today. I'm astonished he survived. I think I've read at one point that he was executed for treason. Looks like that long forgotten source must have been quite a bit wonky. Now I'm wondering how much of my memories of the American Civil War are just bullshit. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:All I can think of now when it comes to the Bf-109's design is a comment from one of the engineers working on a Hispano Buchon at Duxford. I got chatting to him over the rope fence while he had a tea break and asked something to the effect of what the 109 was like to work on. He paused, a pained look came across his face and he sighed "They're built like utter crap." Apparently the famous 'leichtbauweise' construction makes them a nightmare to rig properly. He didn't like the idea of having to go dogfighting in a 109 once he was intimately familiar with how little is holding the wings on or how relatively flimsy the wing spars were, either. I didn't push the point and got talking about the P-40C Warhawk that was nearing completion next door, being finished off in its pre-war polished bare metal USAAF scheme It's just kinda funny that the Bf-109 was so amazing in 1934 for being a lightweight monoplane, but 9 years later that's a liability and the Germans struggle to fit enough engine and gun into the drat thing. They had the Italy problem where they set up all their poo poo by 1938 and then got invested in a hellwar and could never afford to divert production to newer stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:It's just kinda funny that the Bf-109 was so amazing in 1934 for being a lightweight monoplane, but 9 years later that's a liability and the Germans struggle to fit enough engine and gun into the drat thing. They had the Italy problem where they set up all their poo poo by 1938 and then got invested in a hellwar and could never afford to divert production to newer stuff. Japan also had this issue. Their kit at the war's opening was amazing, but fell off later in the war as the Americans learned how to beat Japanese aviation and designed planes specifically for that theater. The Japanese resorted to... unorthodox ways of upsetting the table again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Yeah but the Mustang needed a British engine to be good Needed to have Americans fix it for factory production though. http://www.tested.com/art/makers/492418-packard-merlin-how-detroit-mass-produced-britains-hand-built-powerhouse/ quote:In his book “Not Much of An Engineer”, Rolls-Royce engineer Sir Stanley Hooker recalls his introduction to the matter with Ford:
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Sorry for circling back around to the 1632 arguments, but a Chappe-style mechanical semaphore would have been technologically viable basically as soon as somebody built a good optical telescope, right? Was lensgrinding a developed industry by the 1600s? If so, that seems a lot more viable than rigging up a long-distance electric telegraph line.
Reiterpallasch fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Apr 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:It's just kinda funny that the Bf-109 was so amazing in 1934 for being a lightweight monoplane, but 9 years later that's a liability and the Germans struggle to fit enough engine and gun into the drat thing. They had the Italy problem where they set up all their poo poo by 1938 and then got invested in a hellwar and could never afford to divert production to newer stuff. Cythereal posted:Japan also had this issue. Their kit at the war's opening was amazing, but fell off later in the war as the Americans learned how to beat Japanese aviation and designed planes specifically for that theater. The Japanese resorted to... unorthodox ways of upsetting the table again. By that same metric, the Spitfire should also be criticized heavily. Not to mention that this completely side-steps other designs in production, like the Fw-190 or Me-262. They weren't perfect either, but they were certainly capable of building new planes. And Japan had a number of good aircraft designs by the end of the war, some that could hold their own against the allies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Reiterpallasch posted:Sorry for circling back around to the 1632 arguments, but a Chappe-style mechanical semaphore would be been technologically viable basically as soon as somebody built a good optical telescope, right? Was lensgrinding a developed industry by the 1600s? If so, that seems a lot more viable than rigging up a long-distance electric telegraph line. Yes, just. The first functional telescopes were made in the Netherlands in the early 17c, and had revolutionised astronomy in just a few years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Needed to have Americans fix it for factory production though. Fixed or improved? Still awesome though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:It's just kinda funny that the Bf-109 was so amazing in 1934 for being a lightweight monoplane, but 9 years later that's a liability and the Germans struggle to fit enough engine and gun into the drat thing. They had the Italy problem where they set up all their poo poo by 1938 and then got invested in a hellwar and could never afford to divert production to newer stuff. Yes, the Bf109 ran out of development potential towards the end, precisely because it's pared-down, minimalist design left it nowhere to go. But it's to the design's credit (however awful it is to work on and tricky it is to fly) that a plane that first flew in 1935 was still in production and still a formidable fighter ten years later - a decade which saw huge and rapid advances in aviation technology. The Hawker Hurricane (which first flew the same year) was obsolete from its original role as a front-line day fighter in Europe from the end of 1940. The P-40 was never competitive as a fighter in the ETO but did good work as a ground-attack aircraft after being extensively developed. The Spitfire had development potential (and the Allies had the resources to dedicate to it) but a Spitfire from 1945 is a much more evolved and very different machine from a Mk1 from 1939 - much bigger differences than between a 109E and a 109K. The P-51 didn't fly until five years after the 109 was prototyped as is really a whole generation on. The Polikarpov I-16 was a huge step forward in 1933, marking the shift from WW1-style biplanes to modern fighters like the 109 and it was outclassed in Europe by 1939. The Italian biplanes were obsolete from the moment they were introduced due to them learning the wrong lessons from the Spanish Civil War and, as you say, putting all their efforts into perfecting a technology which was about to be surpassed and then having no resources left. The late-war Italian fighters like the Folgore, the Veltro and the Centauro were superb designs but hampered by their reliance on the Bf109's DB601 engine which was in short supply and Italy's struggling industrial base which meant they simply couldn't be built in the required numbers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Reiterpallasch posted:Sorry for circling back around to the 1632 arguments, but a Chappe-style mechanical semaphore would have been technologically viable basically as soon as somebody built a good optical telescope, right? Was lensgrinding a developed industry by the 1600s? If so, that seems a lot more viable than rigging up a long-distance electric telegraph line. spinoza was a lensgrinder as his day job
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Not "Bunte Kuh" or "Adler von Lübeck"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Relevant: Link. This guy is trying really hard to make the BF-109 sound awesome, but a plane that is a maintenance nightmare and actively trying to kill you unless you stroke it just so before you even get off the ground isn't exactly what you want in a airplane, warplane or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:actively trying to kill you unless you stroke it just so
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:that was the sopwith camel as well, which i will not hear a word against Didn't more people die trying to learn to fly it than actually fighting in it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Didn't more people die trying to learn to fly it than actually fighting in it? That’s why training pilots is for suckers, let them fire a few shots in anger at least before they bite it or it’s just wasteful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:This guy is trying really hard to make the BF-109 sound awesome, but a plane that is a maintenance nightmare and actively trying to kill you unless you stroke it just so before you even get off the ground isn't exactly what you want in a airplane, warplane or not. I don't think "this plane will probably kill you if you try to fly it" makes it sound awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
One wonders how exactly a 109 is trying to kill you all the time, I look forward to adding it next to the Russian hordes quote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:And Japan had a number of good aircraft designs by the end of the war, some that could hold their own against the allies. And sweet gently caress all for production capacity and fuel to fly them with that wasn't reserved for kamikaze strikes against the expected invasion of the Home Islands. Japan's industrial capability was woefully inadequate for the war they got themselves into and struggled to replace combat losses even in the early years when the Zero was king poo poo in Asia and the Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
In the other hand just think of how many nazis the 109 killed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:And sweet gently caress all for production capacity and fuel to fly them with that wasn't reserved for kamikaze strikes against the expected invasion of the Home Islands. Japan's industrial capability was woefully inadequate for the war they got themselves into and struggled to replace combat losses even in the early years when the Zero was king poo poo in Asia and the Pacific. Also a serious lack of well-trained pilots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 22:09
|
|
