|
Outside Dawg posted:The map posted is from 1863, 2 years after the battle, at the time of the first Bull Run, most of the fortifications did not exist, and it's very likely given the state of the Union army's morale, mounting any kind of defense would have been problematic at best. I was referring mainly to Jubal Early's actual attempt on DC, but I agree with Panzeh about the problem of general disorder. Other than the Mexican-American War there hadn't been a major war since the War of 1812, and the troops on both sides were quite green. Changing gears for a minute I found the picture of crossbowmen firing at a high angle I'd been looking for:  It's a 16th century woodcut
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Ed: Could I interest you in some biographies of Philip II? Why are you recommending biographies of the greatest king Macedon ever had (that's right, I said it) if he wants early modern stuff? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:If you look at the quarrels that have hit the ground, all the flights are strewn at odd angles lying apart from the shafts. Could it be illustrating some type of crossbow deployed calthrop (sp?)? The shafts stuck in the ground look like spikes as well. Lol no, that's the shafts breaking. There seems to have been an artistic tradition showing crossbow quarrels breaking, and probably reflected reality. You can see a similar thing in this image from Hans von Gersdorff's Feldtbuch der Wundartzney:  edit: the coolest thing is that all of these wounds were considered treatable (with varying degrees of success of course) Grand Prize Winner posted:What about Flamberge blades? You know the swords what had the wavy bits like the SE Asian Kris knives only they were like 6 feet long? Were those just parade accessories or did people actually fight with 'em? Musta been a challenge to sharpen. I think some people did fight with them but it doesn't provide any particular advantage as far as I know. Someone more familiar with the early modern period would be able to say better. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:According to the internet firearms movie database (why does this even exist) it's this: For questions like this! It rules, I use it a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I've heard it described as "the only successful foreign occupation in history". All things considered they got off extremely lightly. by what rationale were the occupations of West and East Germany unsuccessful? You don't really get military occupations with concerted political aims until the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, so 'in history' is a very short range.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
woops wrong thred
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:The ur-hipster. Some of these guys were Sicilians, and there's a kind-of memorial in Taormina to one of them which is in a beautiful park that is weirdly (thankfully) free of tourists. Here's the pictures I took:     and if anyone wants to struggle through the bad translation to english or german:  There was also this monument to the Taorminese who had died in the two world wars: 
Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:I got a question though, some of the European armors had giant spike things sticking out of them, I thought that they were there to help remove the armor, but why didn't all of the armors have them? Seems odd that some suits and helmets had those spikes and some didn't. Could you be more specific, maybe circle some of what you're talking about? The only armour I can see with an actual spike is a suit clearly designed for jousting, though I do not know if it served a purpose other than looking cool.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:You don't need to see a whole lot while jousting. Presumably you can just take off that big face piece and use something else for actual battlefield use. This is partly right, but I hope you aren't implying that the guy is actually unable to see his target and/or his lance, because that would be ridiculous. The advantage of smaller eyeslits is that by the 16th century lances typically shattered in the joust, and indeed that was one of the main ways of scoring points. What this means is that you have lots of sharp splinters of wood flying everywhere and, occasionally, killing kings. Back to the armour in question: that picture is taken at too low an angle, but there is definitely an eye slit there. However, to use it more effectively one would typically need to lean their body forward. This upper view of a 15th century jousting helm gives a better idea of what i mean: http://collections.glasgowmuseums.com/starobject.html?oid=243290 However, not all helms had cuts of this size or shape, and some jousting helm eyeslits would be very narrow indeed, as seen in this example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipilami/6502394433/ Nenonen posted:I think the point in a tournament was to blindly flail at where you thought your opponent might be until someone landed some hits, like two duelling piņatas. That's really stupid, and here's why: 1. This is armour for the joust not the tournament 2. Tournament helms look entirely different. here are some examples  Notice they provide a ton of visibility, almost as if you need to see what you're hitting. Rent-A-Cop posted:That makes me think that pushing over a knight would almost be funny enough to be worth it considering that after someone helps him up he'll probably stab you. Considering that knights were avid wrestlers and they could do somersaults and leap into their saddles in armour he'd probably rip your balls off. Observe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q Keep in mind that these dudes have not regularly been wearing plate armour since they were 8 years old, as people like the Black Prince and other men-at-arms would have, so they are less capable than their historical counterparts. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Can't remember where, but I remember reading that dug up knight skeletons exhibit pretty extreme bone deformation from being so physically conditioned from such a young age. They would likely have been as fit as high-level professional athletes are today, without the added bonus of modern nutrition and training knowledge. I wouldn't call it extreme but you're probably thinking of Blood Red Roses, the excavations from the battle of Towton. Where and how their muscle attachments developed was particularly striking. On archers the bones were also different from modern men because of how they were trained from youth. What makes you think that modern training for splitting heads from horseback is superior to medieval training? Modern nutrition might be better in terms of constancy of food supply but you can bet that higher-level nobles never went hungry except when at war. quote:In a time-travelling army sort of way, it makes me wonder if you could successfully train a modern SAS soldier or similar to fight with period weapons and beat an actual knight in a duel. I get the impression their physical condition was fundamentally better because of the training from childhood. Like the way the best racing drivers have been doing it since very early teens and it's pretty much impossible to train yourself to that level of skill if you start from a later age. Why an SAS man? Training to shoot people and run around in the wilderness with a heavy pack and jump from airplanes develops extremely different skills than training to cut arms off and wrestle in armour. Moreover, much of Historical European Martial Arts is still a very fledgling discipline. The survival of lots of historical manuals helps, but there's still a lot of hucksters, incompetents, and (ugh) SCA-types out there. That's like saying 'what if we took an NFL wide receiver and gave him some basketball lessons. Would he be able to out-shoot an NBA point guard?'. Maybe in a fluke but not regularly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:There's a distinction between never going hungry, and getting anything close to a balanced diet with a healthy lifestyle to match. What makes you think knights had neither a balanced diet nor a healthy lifestyle? Sugar was rarely available except in the form of honey, and they never smoked, what with having no tobacco. They might drink a lot but the same can be said about modern soldiers of any branches or experience. Common knightly pursuits included:
Lack of modern medical care would be an issue to a point, but that falls outside of diet and lifestyle Koramei posted:It obviously varied, but plenty of nobles would uh, indulge. As Fangz said, getting lots of food doesn't necessarily mean that food is what you should be choosing- although in younger dudes at least that probably didn't matter too much. But nutrition is a literal science these days, and one our professional athletes pay keen attention to, and for that I'd say their diets are pretty indisputably better suited than what old nobles had. Yes but our soldiers do not, typically, pay such careful attention. quote:I dunno about our figure skaters and rhythmic gymnasts and skiiers and synchronized swimmers, but for our boxers and wrestlers these days I don't think there's much of a contest. It is important to disabuse the notion that knights were plodding and useless, but modern professional athletes really are on a league of their own. I dunno about our figure skaters and rhythmic gymnasts and skiiers and synchronized swimmers, but for our boxers and wrestlers these days I don't think there's much of a contest. It is important to disabuse the notion that knights were plodding and useless, but modern professional athletes really are on a league of their own. In their sport but, I cannot stress this enough, stabbing someone through a gusset with a longsword is not their specialty sport. Rent-A-Cop posted:It's amazing how fast fitness science has improved. The average 100m time in the NFL today was a world record a few decades ago. Professional athletes of our generation would be multiple event gold medalists in an Olympics of the 60's. lmao if you don't think this is overwhelmingly the result of performance enhancing drugs. Koramei posted:Okay, yeah if you're talking about literally using a warhammer or axe or whatever then sure That's the only thing we were ever talking about. Slim Jim Pickens posted:Pretty sure military training includes "Ways to kill people". With a gun, yes, but hand-to-hand training is kinda a joke. quote:So many sweeping statements of "This mans could beat these guy", kinda reminds me of Deadliest Warrior. It started off that way and I was trying to keep it off that track but I've failed so I'm going to drop it. All I'll say is my core contention is that 'fighting' is not a general skill that can be transferred across all weapons and circumstances. This is not D&D, and someone who has been trained from youth to fight with swords and lances will be much better at it than someone who has been trained to shoot people with guns. They both kill people, yes, but their skills and physiology are not readily transferable to the other tools. Don Gato posted:Thanks Hegel, it's been bugging me what those things on the armor were for, I had to rush through because apparently my sister isn't as impressed with arms and armor as I am and kept saying we should see the other parts of the museum that don't involve killing people. It's not that the concept 'hadn't reached Germany' but rather that there were preferences as far as the size of the slit. Remember that the front part of this helm (called frog mouths) reaches up almost to block your eyes, but by leaning forward you get a much better view of what's in front of you. With these types of helms you are meant to lean back right before impact so that, in case the enemy hits you in the head, you do not get a face full of sharp and nasty splinters. Additionally that helm is from around 1500, but the Italian one was from the late 1500s. The usefulness of jousting as martial training had rapidly diminished over that time, and there's every reason to assume that the increase in protection was the result of further concern for safety over visibility. quote:One last question, this: There's a wheellock mechanism (you can tell by the square protruding wheel shaft, which would be wound with a key). Why there are two dogs (the vice-shaped things) I don't really know. Maybe one is the main and the other a back-up? There is only one mechanism, since there is no steel for the second dog to strike were it carrying flint rather than pyrite. Sorry I can't help, but Hegel might know.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:But there were plenty of people who wanted to regulate the morality of soldiers, in much the same way that they wanted to regulate the morality of the common people at around the same time. Consider Wallhausen, for instance, who writes that the profession of arms can and should be a lifestyle that is pleasing to God, if the soldier remembers religion. ("You should think of God as your highest drillmaster," he writes, "which is in accordance with Scripture: Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight." Speaking of Wallhausen, here's what he says you should do as a musketeer when the time for musketry has passed (click for big): 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 17:47
|
|
)
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:Knightchat: Having trained since birth to fight, how often would your average knight actually be in a battle where he can use his fancy equipment and training? What do you mean by 'battle'? Do you mean combat of any sort or do you mean what John Gillingham means when he uses the term, which is (in an abridged and less precise form) a singular engagement between the bulk of two opposing forces, away from fortifications, where the aim is to destroy the enemy force? While it earns much praise from troubadours, churchmen, and the like as the purest role of the bellatores, battle of the latter definition was exceedingly rare. Instead, the most common forms of combat were skirmish and siege assault, but in both of these circumstances knights would have plenty of room to shine, since they would not only be able to take advantage of their training and their armour, but use their horses in ways that siege combat does not often allow. I will point out, though, that mounted knights were still used in siege. We know, for example, that many knights were unhorsed while assaulting Breteuil in 1119, and a charge by horse under Ralph of Beaugency disrupted one of the French assaults on Le Puiset in 1112. Horses aside, one of the best examples of the prominence of knights in siege comes to us from Galbert of Bruges, who relates that it was knights of King Louis VI (members of his familia regis, his personal army) that manned the battering ram which knocked a hole in one of the walls of the castle church, and it was they who, therefore, were first into the breach. edit: I'm going to go through and look at one knight in particular and see if I can come up with something close to a precise estimate for engagements he fought, but we have no lives exclusively devoted to gregarii, that is, knights who were not well-off noblemen. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:IMO MacArthur should have been fired/strung up after the Bonus Army/Loss of the Philippines/Retaking of the Philippines. But yes it was his fault Mao got involved at all. Mao and the communists had been issuing warnings through an Indian diplomat since MacArthur crossed the 38th to not come within 20 or 50 miles of the Yalu. He ignored the warnings and PLA entered the war when he got too close to the Yalu. Truman was being sent warnings, and they were to not cross the 38th with American troops. CCF got involved because of a decision that was ultimately Truman's, not MacArthur's. And Truman and Eisenhower were the ones most seriously considering using nukes, not MacArthur. Mac was an idiot but scapegoating him is unhelpful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Not to mention that a siege etiquette developed during the 1600s and 1700s, according to which it wasn't dishonorable to surrender after certain criteria had been met (the first breach was made, the first ram touched the gate, etc) but before the final storm. Saves lives, of course, and resources. This practice is hundreds of years older than the 17th century. The earliest codification I can think of is Las Siete Partidas of Alfonso el Sabio, which are from the 13th century, but there are less-formalised examples from earlier. For a practical example, the whole lead-up to the Battle of Bannockburn came about because of negotiated surrender terms for Stirling Castle. Yet again we find Early Moderns taking something from the Middle Ages and pretending they did it first. See also: Reading Vegetius, using math, thrusting with swords. The Harfleur siege as depicted in Shakespeare's Henry V is actually a surprisingly good representation of siege negotiations in Henry's time. Here's the Kenneth Branagh version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgaZ85nZuRA
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:It's unsettling to get this slow creep of horror as you realize these are pictures of war brutality as experienced by a young kid. And not the semi-sanitized experience of a young kid hiding in subways as London gets the hell pounded out of it. People getting hacked up with swords, run through by cavalry, chased down and slaughtered. All the while this kid is dutifully drawing pictures, seemingly oblivious to the human toll of the world being ripped apart around him. Maybe he actually was a complete blubbering mess, maybe he was a total What the gently caress are you talking about? Also, Fangz, the drawings are 13th century, not 12th. The archaeological excavations put it at 1224-1238.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 16:10
|
|
and wanted to make sure he drew accurate accounts of wanton destruction.
|
Fangz posted:Er. It's not like he's being a war journalist. I imagine he just grew up on stories of awesome warrior dudes beating up bad guys, so that's what he drew. From what we know of this area in this period, things were fairly prosperous - indeed the literacy level was very high, extending to both women and children, and being used for various trivial purposes. That's because he is the dude on the horse. JESUS CHRIST, the Novogorodians were using child soldiers!!! This poor, wretched child!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I was thinking more along the lines of his town being invaded and people just getting murdered left and right, not that he was some jaded soldier. Yes but that is a ridiculous assumption and is not one which someone who has interacted with Human Boy-Children at any point in their life would make.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 20:25
|
|
to find this kid drawing pictures of people getting skewered or hacked up, under the assumption that he was seeing it go on around him. Like some crayon drawing of a house with the kid, his dad, and mom up in the sky because she died a painful and lingering death of cancer or something - that juxtaposition of bad thing happening with childlike naïveté.
|
Davincie posted:The Arabian (which is a somewhat inaccurate term for them really) forces never saw Tours as a big thing or anything, it mostly was light cavalry specialized in raiding. The French mostly was heavy infantry, presumably in formation. The Frankish cavalry was mostly hyping something that didn't happen that much because it fit the chivalric values of the time. Chivalry did not exist in the 8th, 9th, or 10th centuries. Many historians argue it did not even exist in the 11th, though I take the view that it did in a nascent form by the reign of William Rufus at the latest. I really do not know enough about the battle of Tours to comment on it, but this answer is nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Yeah, that's what I was saying. OK, but I still do not see how you could make your argument. I've never come across mention of Tours in my studies of chivalry, and it seems that Tours received so little attention until the 18th and 19th centuries that any interest of 'hyping' the value of horsemen would not transmit. Consider, for example, that the Chronicle of St. Denis, written in the 13th-15th centuries, makes no reference whatsoever to Christian cavalry, and indeed the description is extremely sparse on any details of army composition. More crucially the battle of Tours was completely overshadowed by the heavily mythologized Battle of Roncesvalles which transformed from a (admittedly serious) defeat against Basques into a much greater struggle against the invading Muslims. Thus Luigi Pulci wrote of Roncesvalles, "Again fled the Saracens, never to come to Christendom more" A minor point is that using a battle fought entirely with infantry on the Frankish side as an example of cavalry's efficacy seems unlikely. While popular imagination could certainly twist such battles, as we've seen with Roncesvalles, there were better candidates for popular retelling. As an aside, here's an interesting article on Tours. Seems sound to me. http://deremilitari.org/2013/09/the-battle-of-tours-poitiers-revisited/ Squalid posted:I've read later Carolingian armies were centered around a core of mounted infantry, i.e. men that rode to battle but fought on foot. The author Bernard S. Bachrach in his book Early Carolingian Warfare describes the phalanx as the primary formation of the Carolingian army, and quotes a source which says the Franks line stood like a "wall of ice" at the battle of Tours, although I don't have the book now and can't check his sources. FIghting as a phalanx would make sense for the Merovingians and Carolingians, who had a lot of continuity with late Roman tactics and strategy, although besides that they dismounted for combat I haven't read anything detailed on their tactics or equipment. Be very careful when reading Bachrach. He is inordinately fond of extrapolation from slim evidence, and presents peculiar scenarios based on very questionable reasoning. For example he assumes the ships used in the Norman conquest of England were of the same proportions as the ships used in the Norman invasion of Crete. His obsession with continuity between the Romans and the Carolingians, and his consequent obsession with infantry, makes his views on the presence, value, and versatility of knights questionable as well. quote:Might be better to ask this in the medieval warfare thread, but anyone know how Carolingian armies were levied and organized? How much detail do you want? My copy of Guy Halsall's Warfare in the Barbarian West goes into some, but even he is pretty vague as far as the actual choice of who, exactly, goes or stays. There was a mix of a kind of national service (rather like the Fyrd in England) and mercenaries, as well as personal armies or warbands, to use a term typically applied to earlier periods. I can go into a bit more detail I'd just like to know more of what you're looking for. Or you can pick up Halsall's book from Amazon and read it for yourself. It's well worth the price.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:I'm reading a garrison roll from 1620 and next to one guy's name there is a note: "In a year and a half he has not served watch, and not yet." Is this Hans you're talking about? I fuckin love that guy!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Interesting, I never knew that! have you ever been right in this thread 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
For the curious, here's a little youtube video on gunbreaking a horse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhWCymdwlHE
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
I'm Crap posted:Don't say "problematic" when you mean "criminal." Absolutely. "problematic tactics" is not the same as "repeated atrocities" or "frequent war crimes" if you want to moderate your tone a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I'm not a Habsburg apologist. They are indeed war crimes. I never implied you were. I just said you should use appropriate terms for the subject, and suggested some alternatives. If I thought you were writing apologia I would've told you to get the gently caress out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:"On that forum I go to, WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL said x,y and z. What? She probably has more degrees than the rest of us combined. Stop laughing." 4 of those degrees are on her black belt in competitive hotdog eating.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:You're just mad I took gold in San Marino and you didn't. THOSE DOGS WERE NOT REGULATION SIZE
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:The Cabela's across the street from where I work regularly puts up racks full of old bolt rifles. Almost bought some sillyass rifle with a ring pull bolt, but thought better of it seeing as though the only place I'd be able to fire it is like an hour away and there's only like 4 months out of the year where it'd be warm enough for me to give the most fleeting fraction of a gently caress to drive an hour to pay a bunch of money to bang away with a rifle that probably needs a new barrel anyway. That's not a ring pull. It would have been funny I'd you had tried to use it as such and broken the rifle though. If it was a k31 you passed up one of the most accurate c&r rifles around. A lot of c&r rifles don't need a new barrel, and indeed attaching a new one is usually more trouble than it's worth. I have an M91 with the tsar's eagle on it, as well as Finnish markings. It's beat up but the rifling is still strong, if pitted.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:It was a couple years ago, but looking at the K31 it wasn't that, the design looks completely different. The ring was on the back of the bolt and pulled straight back with no twisting. Related to the K31 I noticed the Schmidt-Rubin, which it almost certainly was, given the description of the action and picture available on Wiki. I was pretty impressed with the unorthodox method of operation at the time, but wasn't about to drop a few hundred on a rifle I would only be shooting a couple times a year, if that. Regardless of which Swiss rifle it was, that ring is a cocking knob and safety (you pull back and twist the ring on both the K31 and the Schmidt Rubin to put it on ). It is not what you pull the bolt with. Instead you use the big handle on the right hand side. If that was missing then that rifle would not function, or at the very least would be dangerous to fire. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I was reading up on bullpup-design firearms, and it occurred to me: Are there any weapons (any weapon across history, not just firearms) that are/were designed specifically for lefties? Any left/right asymmetrical weapon would probably have an equivalent for lefties if out was used outside of a formation context (the hand guards on complex-hilted swords like the schiavona come to mind). For a more modern example, there are plenty of left-side ejecting rifles of an otherwise identical design to the right-ejectors. AR-15s are one example but I think SCARs are also made ambidextrous and there's others I'm sure I'm forgetting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:10 or 15 years ago you could ask your grandparents around here what happened when the Red Army came. This kind of long-after-the-fact oral history is not a reliable method for statistical analysis, especially for things that have such a communal or collective significance. Koesj posted:The whole discussion looks to be in pretty poor taste IMO. Do you guys arguing about potential sourcing problems even know the full historiography behind the subject? I don't think there's anything wrong with treating it carefully, soundly, and respectfully but there's an awful lot of Goon Speculation going on here which is none of those so I'm gonna ask yall to drop it. To keep things going, can someone tell me about Touissant L'Oueverture? What kind of problems did he face in combat, how did he employ his forces, and what external political difficulties did he face in prosecuting war? I know almost nothing about him so anything would be helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yes. The FN P90 is the classic example (mostly because Stargate), which ejects spent cartridges downwards, and is designed to be fully ambidextrous without modification (all the switches and bolt assist are on both sides). Similar story with its sort-of successor, the F2000, which ejects cartridges upwards and to the right, and is again fully ambidextrous. there's also the Kel-Tec RFB which, though not a service rifle, ejects cartridges forward. It's badly made though (because lol keltec) and really I think it's not a very good idea anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:No, I would think the P90 downwards ejection would be the way to go, especially because if you could have it ejecting behind centre of mass it might counteract muzzle rise a little bit. center-of-mass isn't really the term you want but i know what you mean, and any influence that would have on muzzle rise would be marginal at best. quote:But I know very little about guns, so that might be super difficult to engineer (on top of the already screwy top loading mechanism), and I could see hot brass being dropped on to your boots/ground right next to your hands if prone being super annoying. The RFB is a bottom-loader that pushes the spent cartridge cases up into a tube above the barrel and relies on other spent casings to push these out the front of the rifle, though they will fall out normally if you tilt the rifle downward.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Should this live with them 70 years later? (maybe it should?) Yes. Why wouldn't it? Have the victims of Auschwitz been brought back to life since?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Or swordchat, pikechat, bowchat, etc. Swordchat rules and I will cut a swath thorough your nation of lanky albinos to prove it. Hey twoday how did the Dutch establish themselves in the Americas? Did they have to wage war on the natives?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:There has been a recent push for continuation of service after the mandatory term, but the mandatory term has been decreased to 1 year from 3 (my grandfather used to complain that the new enlisted were worthless and couldn't learn anything in a year). This probably resulted in an increase of the officer corps and junior commanders, but the effectiveness of peasant conscripts didn't go up any. 1 year service is actually a serious problem because it is not met with a corresponding, adequate increase in kontraktniki, that is to say professional soldiers. Conscripts already take a significant portion of that year to train, and this leaves them with very little time to integrate with the existing force. This means that (edit: in addition to creating a manpower shortage) the conscripts do not get the time needed to fully acclimate to the armed forces and institutional knowledge takes more effort to communicate because you have fewer people to retain it. Interpersonal bonds also suffer because of this abbreviated conscription. This is also a problem because it means that conscripts cannot really be trained to use complex systems (such as SAMs). edit: Though 3 years old, this post and the linked pamphlet, deal with the manpower problem in more depth than I can http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/the-russian-militarys-manpower-problem/ Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Azran posted:This is the best quote: Thank God this dude died in '71. Cannot imagine being hounded for the last years of my life by someone convinced I was literally Hitler. brozozo posted:I've got a question about historiography. What exactly is the distinction between academic and popular histories? I feel like I know a popular history when I see one, but I'm never quite sure why it's one and not the other. What makes something academic? Is it the use of a certain citation style, the author's credentials, or the work being peer reviewed? ArchangeI has it right in that footnotes are a big sign. Popular histories also tend to (but not always) be narrative, while academic histories tend to be analytical. That said, I've made use of some pop history stuff for essays in undergraduate (Desmond Seward's books, specifically) but only in a very limited capacity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I thought Afghanistan was invaded to satisfy internal American political pressures and that most of the people calling the shots were well aware that it wouldn't achieve anything RE winning the war on terror/finding bin laden? The US Govt firmly believed bin Laden was at Tora Bora and the battle of 12-17 Dec 2001 was a sincere, albeit blundered attempt to capture him. Where have you read different? I also think you underestimate how unprepared the Bush administration was to fight the war, and how idealistic their policies were. Part of the reason they were so blase about going into Iraq was that they had assumed Afghanistan was a victory.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Bad at their jobs I can understand. But I don't see how people can be so badly ignorant today in a first world country. The amount of resources being constantly expended on various intelligence agencies gathering information makes it seem like there's no excuse for being so ignorant, the way there was even during the early 20th century, let alone prior to that. But I guess not. What, exactly, do you think they were ignorant of? You can have as much information at your fingertips as any man alive and still interpret it terribly, or decide to try and cheat the odds. JaucheCharly posted:What could possibly go wrong if you put people like Wolfowitz and Cheney in positions of power? I agree with everything else you say, but don't lump Wolfowitz and Cheney together. Aside from the fact that Cheney isn't a neocon, he was a good sec def! How did he get to be awful? I have no idea!!!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
brozozo posted:Is anyone familiar with the amphibious feint undertaken by the United States during the Gulf War? Was it always planned to be a diversion, or would it have gone forward if things in the western desert didn't go so well? I'm very familiar with it, and will write a bit about it when I get home.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 05:53
|
|