|
Raenir Salazar posted:I have a question, what exactly do "wingmen" "do"? How do they defend the lead pilot or vice versa? The Germans as I understand it used groups of two, the Soviets and Japanese used triples. I don't recall what the British and Americans used. If someone tries to go after the lead plane or the wingmen do the other wingman break off to try to intercept? So you have the "lead plane" and the "wing man." As two formations of aircraft approach each other in combat, the "lead planes" will initiate their attack, pick a target enemy aircraft and have a go at them. It is the sole purpose of the wingman to cover the lead planes rear end, and to engage with any enemy aircraft that targets his "lead plane." As already mentioned the Germans used a finger four formation, two lead planes and two wingmen and they would try to stick together. Of all the formations tried, the finger four proved most effective. Thatch Weave: At the beginning of the war, the wildcat was totally and completely outclassed by the zero in terms of manoeuvrability. If a wildcat would try to dogfight against a half competent zero pilot, they would lose. The was the "energy doctrine" too, which was to dive into the combat, take a few shots, leg it and repeat. The thatch weave was developed to try and limit the manoeuvrability advantage of the zero. Basically the idea is that the zero *will* get onto one of the planes tails, in so far as how manoeuvrable the zero was, the was an unavoidable outcome. What the the thatch weave allowed for, was that once the zero was on one of the planes tails, it would also be in the gun sights of the other plane involved in the weave. Hardly an ideal scenario but it seemed to work until the US got the hellcat. EDIT: Its worth mentioning that while the lead/wingman concept proved effective, it caused a lot of animosity amongst the pilots. The lead planes, because of the formation, would get many more kills than the wingmen and get much more credit and wingmen would feel like they weren't getting sufficient credit for their efforts. Consider how much value we place on "ace pilots" which are only measure by their number of kills.
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Didnt we pretty much invent the concept of war crimes after the fact in 1945 because the Nazis werent criminals per se? (By whose laws, Nazi Germany)? Meanwhile Im pretty sure armed rebellion by US citizens against the US government is a crime, namely treason. There were international agreements (Hague and Geneva) regarding the nature and conduct of war that existed before WWII, which would form the basis of war crimes. Up until now, following orders of superior officers was an acceptable defense for illegal actions. During WWII this was changed, for the express purpose of being able to charge German war criminals. However ethically appropriate, changing the law and applying it retroactively is always dodgy at best, as was done before the Nuremberg trials.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Nobody tried at Nuremberg was charged with violating the Hague Convention of 1899. That Convention is an agreement between signatories. It makes no conduct illegal, does not prohibit waging wars of aggression, doesn't prescribe any sentences for violating it, and it certainly doesn't set up any courts. And it certainly doesn't touch on the issue of a country rounding up *its own citizens* and executing them en masse. According to Hague and Geneva, the only war crimes committed by anyone tried at Nuremberg were the treatment of POWs and the populations of other countries. There were other international agreements that formed the basis of war crimes, including the London Naval Treaty, and Prize Rules and I am sure there are others.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:International lawyers principally make arguments from Roman legal concepts based on accepted evolving norms of conduct for nations. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact, that there were explicit international agreements regarding the conduct of war, that countries signed, and did not adhere to which formed the basis of many of the war crime charges.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:'whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States' - 18 US Code 2381. Choosing to secede from a union, that was voluntarily entered into, doesn't in my mind constitute an act of war. Wasn't it the Federates who declared war on the confederates?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:This is, uh, kind of the crux of the matter. If you believe this then you believe the Confederacy was a legitimate state and that the Union launched a war of aggression against it, but then you're putting yourself into some pretty dubious company. The Union held that states could not voluntarily secede from said Union - Lincoln specifically said at his inauguration that secession was legally void - and the Union won the war, so it's their view on the matter which prevailed. IIRC, none of the states that chose to secede voted for Lincoln as president. He did not represent their views or interests. There is the legal aspect of it and there is also the ethical aspect too, they often don't align. Legally there should have been an explicit mechanism for leaving the union. That there wasn't, doesn't mean secession wasn't illegal. It was effectively some guy that no one voted for, told them they couldn't secede, that's never going to go down well. There was probably a much better way of handling the situation than the catastrophic war they got.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Levying war on the United States as a US citizen, i.e. by shooting up US troops, is treason, end of. Its a really simplistic interpretation and I wonder about the context of it. I really cannot get behind this interpretation for a secessionist movement. Is the secession really considered treasonous? Did they not cease being US citizens once they seceded?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:this is an argument against democracy No, its an argument against the "tyranny of the majority". When a portion of the population, through majority public vote, force their will on the "minority". It is democratic in the strictest sense of the term but its an awful idea, because it leaves the "minority" angry and feeling repressed and without representation. Unsurprisingly this can result in conflict. Its not "undemocratic" to appreciate this and that its not a good idea to force one's value onto others. Even if they are lovely values. There are better ways than through force. EDIT: I mean, it can be done, but its an awfully good way of starting a war. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 11:20 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:If the South's elite had been liquidated we wouldn't be having problems with them. Completely failing to see the relevance of this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I do think it was wrong for the South to secede, because it did so primarily in order to preserve slavery, and I would hope it's not a controversial position in this thread that slavery is wrong and should not be preserved. You have conflated secession with slavery. Secession is fine. Preservation of slavery is not fine. The motives for secession do not define whether secession is morally fine or not fine, at least in my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Well, then you're of a different mind than the Confederate States, I would certainly hope so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:US independence from Britain isn't really comparable, and even using the phrase "secession" to describe the Revolution is inaccurate, because the US wasn't part of Britain - it was a British colony. Americans did not have political representation in British government, at all. It wasn't an example of being outvoted by the majority, it was an example of having no say at all in the British government dven when it came to policies that directly affected them. Americans didn't have a single vote in Britain, and the colonies were very clearly subordinate to Britain, with limited political rights and power. Comparing that to the Civil War, where the South had plenty of votes, determined and apportioned through a fair method they had previously agreed to, is absolutely an apples to oranges comparison. I completely agree that the issue of representation and comparisons to the war of Independence aren't appropriate. The point that I was trying to make, is that when there is such a stark divide in policy, as there was in the USA at the time, that trying to force a change is going to cause conflict and in this case, cause a very catastrophic war. The North was essentially pursuing a policy framework that was going to completely redefine and disrupt the economy and social construct of the South (which the South did not want). It shouldn't be surprising that this was going to be met with very strong resistance. It should go without saying (and I thought it did), that I find slavery to be abhorrent. The lawfully and democratically elected government of the USA at the time, went about implementing its polices in a particularly jingoistic fashion and unsurprisingly met resistance. Maybe it just wasn't the best way of going about it? I am just left wondering that slavery could have been abolished in the USA without the need of a particularly bloody civil war. Its possible that a civil war was necessary, but the rest of the world managed to abolish slavery without one. Or maybe it really does say something about the character of the Southern states. A fairly comparable example is actually Brexit. Where Scotland unanimously voted to stay within the EU (60% of the popular vote in Scotland iirc). It seems like that Scotland won't let the UK drag them out of the EU and secession from the UK is becoming a much more serious prospect for Scotland. Fortunately this would be possible without violence.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I don't think this is true though, there was nothing within the either the platform or the policy announcement from Lincoln that suggested that a restructuring of the South was going to take place at the time, and the Republican campaign did make a point that it was not going to touch the institution of slavery (much to the chagrin of abolitionists in the North). Unless you buy into the idea that a restriction on the expansion of slavery into the new states was something likely to disrupt the economy and social construct of the South, rather than simply curbing its political power. It appears my history education was somewhat lacking. Did the South seriously fight a civil war over expansion of slavery to new states?! I am pretty dumbfounded at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Another WWII aircraft question, I read that the effect range of the 20mm cannon the Germans used was 1000m, but what was the actual range in which a pilot could/would actually fire and likely to accurately hit an enemy aircraft? 300m is the number I vaguely recall and did this differ between machine guns and cannons? I remember from some doco somewhere, that for the RAF at least, hurricanes/spitfires the official doctrine was to harmonize their guns for 400m. But many pilots harmonized for 300m. Don't know about cannons at all, and is only slightly relevant to your query. :/ Harmonizing: The guns don't all point forward but are slightly angled inwards, so at a set distance all the rounds from all the guns would pass through a single point (the enemy plane), theoretically.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Yeah basically the only game series that handles the Eastern Front well is Men of War, and it's a difficult one to love. The hearts of iron series of games was able to put the Eastern Front into its proper context. Its not a first person shooter but a grand strategy game. And when playing as Germany, when 90% of your efforts and resources are directed towards the Eastern Front and not whatever shenanigans the allies are up to, it was a really educational experience for me. Absolutely nothing for me at least at that time, movies, media documentaries or games were able to put the Eastern Front into its correct context.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Soviet Storm nowadays seems like a pretty good series. Watched it about 3 times, its amazing!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Well the hudson was an excellent patrol aircraft. From the british perspective I can only guess that they realised too late the need for a modern parrol aircraft to develop their own. Why they didnt select the PBY instead I think is a bigger mystery.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Were their instances of aircraft being hit by bombs dropped by bombers in flight? If I recall correctly I think there were at least "friendly fire" instances in the massed bomber formations?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 19:54
|
|