|
SeanBeansShako posted:1853 Enfield (Rifled Musket) Mid 19th Century: 2,000 yards. Most of the time you are certain to hit something standing still now.
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 19:58
|
|
especially with a scope in the trained hands of a marksman.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:If you're cavalry: Go towards them, stop a way in front of them, fire your pistol/carbine at them if you have one (this is period-dependent, of course), run away, run toward them, stop a way in front of them, fire your pistol/carbine at them if you have one, run away....
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Sounds like a lot of
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 01:17
|
|
. Why not just park a pair of T-34s and an artillery piece or two on a river barge / ferry and blast away?
|
ArchangeI posted:If you are 70 and still in the job of stabbing dudes in the face with a pike you did something fundamentally wrong along the way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Or was it all down to the Athenian navy being badasses off-stage somehow?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:As has been demonstrated by both sides during WWII, sometimes having the toys AND the time still wasn't a guarantee of success. Stalingrad, Leningrad and Metz could theoretically just been pounded flat but none were.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You aren't remembering your physics right. F = Mass x Acceleration. No way to calculate the force without knowing how long the acceleration of the bullet took. 810 grn bullet, at 3000 fps out of a 35lb gun.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Taps is the signal for lights out, Retreat is still played on US bases at the end of the duty day. The specific time is up to the installation commander, but it's usually 4:30 or 5pm. My last base changed it to 5 because it was completely loving up traffic flow as everyone raced to go home (if driving, you're supposed to stop during Reveille and Retreat). On Navy bases it's at sunset goddamnit. Also nobody goes home at 4:30.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
LeadSled posted:I've been on a book binge lately, and having burned myself out on the second world war was wondering if anyone had recommendations for books on WW1. My knowledge of that conflict doesn't extend much beyond trenches and mass slaughter, and it can't be much more depressing than Beevor's Stalingrad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
NAVSEA made a series of videos on the subject of how common building materials stand up to gunfire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSqdTLLZBWw The tl;dr is that the average structure is concealment, not cover.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:that depends on what you mean by 'average'. The big brick row houses you can find in DC, Baltimore, and Philly (among other places) are more than 1 layer of brick, and the tenements you'll find in UK cities are also drat thick. I mean yeah if you are living in a house with load-bearing drywall then bullets are going to zip through, but not everyone does. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:cf. Afghanistan, where literally everything in the southern half of the country is effectively a small-arms proof bunker.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Yeah but that's an artillery vehicle, essentially, that isn't really meant to be shot at, whereas a tank that can't withstand small arms fire is pretty much retarded, since then what's the point of putting the rockets on a tank instead of just a truck or half track?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
uPen posted:Man that dude standing on his cape is a huge dick.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:If it's not jousting armor, it'd be your rear end, since combat armor was less unwieldy than you'd think; there's one early modern king of France (forget which one) who could do backflips in full harness. veekie posted:If you're in armor which makes you incapable of regaining your footing, something has gone seriously wrong. Rodrigo Diaz posted: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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:There are methods of comparing baseball players across different eras, and it turns out that even Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig would only be about as good as an average modern major-league player. Simple athletic activities, like sprints and freestyle swims, have seen steadily improving times since the first modern Olympics. I find it hard to believe ancient athletes had better overall fitness than modern stars, although of course they were probably better trained at specialized activities of their eras.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:For London, I strongly suggest the Imperial War Museum. Azathoth posted:As someone who knows nothing about firearms, could someone please explain to me in what circumstances such attachments would end up being used? It looks to me like they tried to turn a pistol into a heavier weapon, but I don't understand why someone would carry around all those attachments instead of just carrying a second heavier weapon entirely. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Well they can do lots of stuff with tiny rifle calibers in machine pistols these days!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Could someone please give me a little run-down on why the US intervention in the Vietnam War became such a clusterfuck boondoggle? I know the conflict is a ton more nuanced than that since its basically one long period of war from the First-IndoChina War to the Fall of Saigon but something would be nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
uPen posted:You could use this to describe Korea without changing a single word. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Every game about naval combat in the Age of Sail I've played featured round shot, chain shot and grape shot. My question is were there any more types of ammunition in use? How did artillery munitions develop over the centuries? The first cannon shot was carved stone. Early guns were often artisan-built one-offs of widely varying sizes and calibers so stones had to be hand carved to match individual guns. This was extremely labor intensive and made logistics a real problem. As metallurgy improved multiple guns could be cast to the same dimensions and so iron shot could be mass produced in standard sizes. Though stone shot remained for some time in areas that lacked the industrial capacity to produce iron shot and modern guns. Iron round shot remained the mainstay of naval gunnery until the development of the Paixhans and Dahlgren guns in the in the early to mid 1800's. A gun that could fire a reliable and safe shell at high velocity over a flat trajectory made wooden ships obsolete and ushered in the age of the ironclad. As technology in metallurgy and chemistry progressed naval shells were loaded with progressively larger quantities of progressively more powerful explosives. A race between shells and armor continued until the Second World War when it became clear that aircraft were going to replace the big guns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So, what was the purpose of basically razing a city to the ground? Like, what would their mentality have been? It seems like an unsustainable lifestyle, to me it would make more sense to keep raiding so you never run out of food/riches/whatever instead of utterly destroying the source of your livelihood.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Wait, I think I'm going to need a flowchart for this one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
KildarX posted:So how does NATO actually work as far as chain of command? Lets say for some reason Russia invades Germany during the cold war. How do the NATO countries coordinate? Is it pretty much the nations sign off on a general to head strategic planning?Some sort of council/parliment? For the non-Clancy scenarios the countries involved work something out. Usually some kind of rotation where each major participant brings in a headquarters unit for a set amount of time and then rotates out. Sometimes it boils down to whoever brought the most dudes gets to be boss. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
KildarX posted:I saw earlier someone wanted an effort post about freshwater navy stuff. This has also peaked my curiosity as I really don't know much of this stuff. As far as I am aware what you have now is small attack boats right nothing like Iron Clads during the ACW which where heavily armored heavily gunned is this correct? Do countries even have a fresh water navy any more it seems you'd do better with close by airbases and attack helos?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Not effective at all in a real modern battle; WWI style artillery would blast it to poo poo overnight. As a bunch of guys with light arms hiding from other guys with light arms and mortars? Probably pretty great.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Monte Cassino is a hill (Monte is Italian for 'Mount'). And there's no castle on it, there is a monastery.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It does kill everyone in the defensive position though. If you let enemy troops back into the rubble after you shell it then you have a problem because you now have to combine urban combat with earthquake disaster recovery, but everyone in a castle when it gets shelled is going to die.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Azran posted:At the very least you could say that controlling the Cabo de Hornos (southern-most part of South America, links the South Atlantic with the South Pacific) would be important, but even then it wouldn't be precisely a NATO affair.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Azran posted:That reminds me, what's the situation with Gibraltar? I've heard it has to do with controlling the entry to the Mediterranean, but it really, really sounds like something out of a high school history book. While time has diminished it's military importance somewhat it's still a formidable fort situated on an important waterway. The fact that the USN is such a massively overpowering force sort of makes controlling major sea lanes an obsolete concept for anyone else though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Also relevant is that having a port and holding in Gibraltar requires that the straight be patrolled which conveniently gives the holders a good idea of what ships go in and out. Such as, for example, the Black Sea Fleet. The Suez Crisis was in part about a similar issue. But there is always the chance the French might try to take over the world again so it pays to keep an eye on them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Japan took a look at invading Hawaii, but determined that even if they did manage to take the island, there was no way they could keep it supplied. Hawaii couldn't grow enough food to sustain itself, and would have required a massive logistical operation to keep supplied, and the Japanese was just not up to the task of supplying the island. Even if they had tried to supply it, the constant flow of supply ships in and out of there would have made a very tempting target for U.S. submarines who, as has already been pointed out, absolutely wrecked Japan's naval supply lines. Basically there's a strong possibility that the defenders of Midway would have massacred the Japanese landing force and the IJN would have been forced to either lay siege to the island or leave.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:You have to make a distinction between amphibious landings and amphibious assaults. The IJA was capable at the former, indeed, innovative (check out the Shinshu Maru), but decidedly not prepared for the latter. The Japanese invasion plan for Midway was suicidal. It actually involved stopping at the reef to disembark troops from landing craft into rubber boats because none of the landing craft could cross the reef. This was supposed to happen in broad daylight a few hundred yards in front of a dug in defending force with heavy automatic weapons, tanks, and dozens of concealed 3", 5" and 7" guns. Not to mention air support and submarines loving about all over the place. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Libluini posted:That's kind of interesting. Do you mean they were used as some kind of improvised thing, were people climbed over the mill and swung lamps around or something?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:The coral reef keeps getting mentioned. Ecological catastrophe aside, I take it they're not the kind thing you can blow up and sail through? You hit a reef with your ship and you're lucky if you just get stuck. You try to put swimmers or men in small boats over it in anything but a glass-calm sea and a lot of them are going to end up dead. In even a moderate swell anything in the water gets pounded mercilessly onto the top of the reef.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Another point to make is that until fairly recently the only way for a captain to know how deep the water was was to sail over there and drop a weight on a rope. Nobody but a government spends a lot of time meticulously charting a place like Wake or Midway and governments don't like to share. If you were loving about around someone else's island there's a good chance that whatever charts you had were hopelessly out of date or even intentionally misleading.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why are there a bunch of dudes just dead in a field? There don't appear to be any artillery craters nearby, and machineguns weren't widely used in the civil war AFAIK. Were they just told to charge across a bare field or something? Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I understand all this but didn't they have semi-modern rifles, not muskets? As in, I can see it working when accuracy, range and visibility are piss-poor, but the weapons they were using were the predecessors of modern guns. Was it a case of tactics not having yet caught up with technology? Or am I seeing this wrong completely?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:Would Patriot be able to damage said slug enough to break it up or something? Last I checked, nuclear warheads were a bit more finicky than slugs of metal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 01:31
|
|