|
Jones was accused of raping a little girl, but in his defense, his friend and he himself said the girl was 12 and not 9 years old (or, speculatively, possibly 14 and looking young for her age?) and totally asking for it. Besides, he paid the girl money and could tell the girl was not a virgin so she's a whore. So not a pedophile, no siree.
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:so how did one beat a tercio/pike square/wha'evz back in the day Squares are just asking for artillery to pound on them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:I have a question about naval warfare. Submarines are well and truly hosed once the enemy starts using active sonar, right? Why don't people use active sonar at all times then? The range at which active sonar can detect a ship is far shorter than that at which a passive detector can detect a ship using active sonar. The active sonar user is listening to echos whereas the passive array is listening to the ship directly, so the signal has to travel twice the distance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I don't have anywhere else to say this but here goes: Explains all the fascists.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Did people do historical re-enactment in pre-modern times?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:if you count people dressing up like people from arthurian legend or romans (etc) during tournaments, yes Wait, really? Isn't that rather tacky?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
A T34-152 would be a sight to behold.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I found a rare archive photograph! EDIT: Seems like the Egyptians were mad enough to make a T34-122 though. http://www.primeportal.net/tanks/tim_roberts/t-34_122_egypt/ 
Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:You can't do this in the ancient period with iron or steel weapons, game of thrones lied to you. With bronze age weapons there is no suggestion of standardization afaik. Wait, what's the issue there? Too much carbon content?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Did any of the guys you study, Hegel, ever consider launching a battle at night?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Plus you would have a bunch of captains having nervous breakdowns trying to form perfect squares and read their root tables in the dark Well, in my mind that's kinda the idea. gently caress up those neat and tidy tercios by turning it into a confused brawl in the dark.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
You also need to figure out how to make your tanks and guns eat people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I have a question probably for HEY GAL and Rodrigo Diaz-- why was it pikes and matchlock muskets rather than crossbows? Are guns in the period simply much more powerful than crossbows? Guns are a lot cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:Medieval/ancient history: Rome.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-06-this-is-what-really-happens-when-swords-hit-armour Nooooooo
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Also the proper term is fuller.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Opposing fullers? Wouldn't that cause the blade to twist easily?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
'Good quality plate' seems to be something that gets thrown around a lot. But would I be right in suspecting that it's a bit misleading as phrasing, because while you can theoretically design plate thick enough to defeat all sorts of things, realistically availability and quality of plate is very variable?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Yes, but also sorta no, I think. Making a single-piece breastplate is tricky business because you first need a big piece of tough steel, and then you need to shape and harden it just right. But on the other hand, making armour was a big industry, and I'd imagine there were a lot of good smiths to go around if you had the money to pay. Well, I think this is a pretty good article that seems to backs up what I mean. http://www.oakeshott.org/metal.html There's a bit where it mentions price differentials between high quality fitted armour and off the shelf stuff on the level of two orders of magnitude or more, which I think speaks to some huge quality variability. Also later on quote:The results of heat treating ran the full spectrum of achievable results. Many munitions armors were iron or unhardened steel, while even some of the early examples of plate armor pieces were achieving 75-430 VPH (less than 6-44 Rc). The Pembridge helm (bef. 1375) testing at 430 VPH on the surface and the Küssnach Coat of Plates(c. 1352) Item No. LM 13367 in the Swiss National Museum, Zürich averaging 390 VPH (about 40 Rc). The Braybrook Helm (bef. 1405)Royal Armories No. AL.30 with less than .1% carbon and left without heat treating, averages 108 VPH.2 Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:My guys are impeccable at pointing out the difference between tanks, SPGs, and armoured cars, but apparently the word "halftrack" didn't gain popularity until after the end of the war, since armoured halftracks are counted as armoured cars and unarmored ones are counted as tractors. I seem to recall someone noting though that in many accounts, every tank is a Panther and every SPG is a Ferdinand?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Did it come out of the same school as AirLand Battle?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
How tricky is it to set a direct fire tank, say, to fire in an indirect role? If you are sufficiently desperate, I mean? Can't you just get out the protractor and a plumb-bob, and use a calculator?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
quote:So let us assume that an arrow uses all its force on an armored target in .01 seconds.This gives us 610 newtons of force. I think 0.01 seconds is a huge overestimate. Consider an arrow travels at 200-300fps, and so averages during deceleration 100-150fps. This means that during their deceleration, you're saying the arrow travels 1-1.5 feet! This isn't an arrow that bounced off any more, this is an arrow that had gone through the poor guy. Divide the distance of deceleration by 10 and you multiply the gee force by 10. Suddenly the situation looks a lot more reasonable to me. Edit: try the following thought experiment. Imagine you are throwing the hammer/firing the arrow at a spring. When the hammer/arrow is stationary, then all the kinetic energy has been transferred into the spring - this means the spring must have compressed by the same amount! Then if you use the formula Work done = Force x Distance You must conclude that the force exerted by the two objects must be exactly the same. What does alter is time this all takes and the rate of deceleration - it all happens a lot faster with the arrow. (Insert relevant disclaimers about how comparable a head on a neck is to a spring, but I don't think it's terrible.) Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Told ya, it's lacking and you're also a sperglord. As I said earlier, the physics is wrong in this post.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I know, I just mean that I wouldn't have thought with the presumed desire for long range and the limitations of the caliber, and the fact that you're presumably firing tank-grade HE rounds rather artillery rounds which are presumably longer and have larger charges, that the actual effect at the far end would be rather minimal? Well, consider that the 76mm and 85mm used by the T34 used the same ammo as their standard 76mm and 85mm field guns.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well, consider that the 76mm and 85mm used by the T34 used the same ammo as their standard 76mm and 85mm field guns. To add though, this differs by nation. The 75mm guns used by the Panthers didn't even share ammo with the Germans' 75mm anti-tank guns. Hey, throwing in an additional ammo type or three shouldn't be an issue for the superior german logistics, rigggght? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The 52-K was an AA gun, the D-44 was an anti-tank gun, neither was made for indirect fire. Alright, only the 76mm varieties then.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Enh, I've seen some compelling videos on YouTube showing people doing long range shots demonstrating that rifle rounds crossing below the sound barrier start tumbling and losing speed rapidly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
I think generally there were also some number of volunteers, since your chances were probably better than if you were conscripted into infantry.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And yet my primary complaint is that the T34 doesn't have a motorized turret. Er, what, the T34 had one of the fastest powered traverses in the war. quote:The vaunted Panther tank had, in its first iteration (Panther Ausführung D), one of the slowest-turning turrets in the war, taking a full minute to traverse 360º. The gearing on the turret was changed in the Ausf. A, the next version, and all subsequent Panthers, giving the tank a competitive 15-second full-circle. But that didn’t last; a November, 1943 decision to govern the engine to a lower max RPM reduced slew rate to 18 seconds on Panthers from that point forward — if the crews didn’t learn about and adjust the governors. This was done to try to increase engine reliability: more Panthers were being lost to breakdowns than to Allied gunfire.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I genuinely thought they were hand cranked, looked it up and wikipedia says some were built with turret motors but not the basic model, and they were apparently not great? Yeah, the 76 did have the electric traverse as well, though it lacked the neat integrated joystick thing. I don't know what you are talking about as the 'basic model'. The 1940 variant?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
What was the rationale for that design? I mean nowadays the dreadnought seems terribly obvious.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
americong posted:Is there any kind of constant answer to "how do you defeat an insurgency"? I'll note that in addition to the 'military' solutions, a fairly large number of insurgencies have been ended or even prevented by a decent negotiated settlement.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
The fact that the Soviets lost a lot of T34 doesn't really say much more that they produced a lot of T34s. When 1-2 thousand new tanks are being shipped to the front each month, what exactly is a commander supposed to do? Line them up in neat lines? No, you use them until they are destroyed. Comparisons to German losses are very silly because the Germans simply did not have a comparable number of tanks to lose. Edit: If the T34 was in a nebulous sense 'better' they would still have lost the majority of tanks they produced - that's the nature of attritional warfare on the Eastern Front. The only difference would be that the war might have ended sooner. The same goes for the germans - you'll note that german tank strength stayed roughly constant even as new tanks were being built - because losses almost exactly compensated. Warfare was just such that in general every produced tank, gun, half-track eventually got destroyed. If they didn't, you weren't using them right. The Germans just happened to produce fewer tanks, in a larger number of different models, and proportionately more of the heavier models (I'm counting the Panther as a heavy here). I mean, by this comparison you must think the Maus is the best tank of the war - I mean, they only lost one. Fangz fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
There's actually a more important supplementary table that provides the explanation - the total disappearance of guns other than the 88 and 75mm from the German arsenal in 1943 onwards, and that the majority of tanks were hit from the side.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Despite the maths making it impossible, even if you could drop all the food how would you make sure the secret police didn't confiscate it? If the secret police is going around trying to confiscate food from civilians that would likely cause civil unrest of its own. Not saying the proposal is totally rational, but I feel like folks are giving it too little credit. It's one of those things that come down to cultural and political factors of how the Japanese would react at different levels, which is very difficult to quantify, really. (For instance, whether the comparison to the legendary Uesugi Kenshin sending salt to his enemies would raise the esteem of the US and reassure doubters of the US's honour) It's not that different to the Hegelian remedy for insurgencies - bribe the hell out of them. Which works sometimes. Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I can't see this happening at all. I dunno, I can see the ordinary edgyptian taxicab driver not really being able to tell the difference. EDIT: VVV I can certainly see it more as a matter of luck than skill. I mean, not running into anyone who knows the German accent would be critical. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
did they ever even make a contingency plan for if the contingency planners turn out to be the enemy? makes you think
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
The ability of the US to mobilise quickly in the event of such a war is also untested, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
In real life it's not generally considered okay to throw away thousands of lives in an operation that has no real hope of success, and which might not be needed anyway. The logic of 'hey you have those ships just sitting around, might as well throw them into the fire' doesn't really work.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 03:46
|
|