Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
walking

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

feedmegin posted:

I do enjoy how he sometimes bags on Jackson (who knows the square root of poo poo about history) vs Tolkien (literally a professor specialising in early mediaeval English literature) when it comes to tactics, logistics etc in the movie versus book versions. Tolkien knew how early mediaeval warfare worked, and it shows.

the author seems quite complimentary to Jackson in general, i thought. they seem to understand that Jackson is working within the constraints of a different medium to Tolkien, and with flesh-and-blood actors who force a choice between safely or accurately depicting warfare.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
for a good emulation of ww1 flight mechanics I recommend Flying Cirus, an rpg by local goon open_sketchbook.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
it's saying someone is well mannered and learned as a double compliment, not a backhanded insult.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

zoux posted:

How meaningful are ship designations in and between navies? Why did it ever matter if a ship was precisely a battleship or a battlecruiser or a cruiser - just treaty stuff?

Extremely broadly speaking a Battleship is intended to fight fleet battles, a Battlecruiser is intended to hunt cruisers, and Cruisers are intended to do everything else - scouting, raiding, convoys, blockades. The designations are important to anyone who might need to know at a glance the capabilities of ship/fleet/task force/squadron, in addition to being a common point of reference for arms limitation treaties. The designations vary between navies but not as much as they used to.

Tomn posted:

The distinction does get a bit fuzzy with changing technology and fleet doctrines, though. Speaking of which, what IS the modern difference between frigates, destroyers, and corvettes?

size, mostly. in ascending order it's corvettes, frigates, destroyers.

thatbastardken fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Feb 9, 2022

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

ChubbyChecker posted:

if all of this is correct, then why did the us retreat from vietnam? and everyone from afghanistan? morale matters more than what type of machine gun you have

maintaining an occupation is different to fighting a war, and the morale of a nation is different to the morale of an army.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
I'm almost as much grit as oil

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

Turkson posted:

I feel attacked.

right in the Dardanelles

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

Fangz posted:

"why the gently caress wasn't this test done before, and why were BuOrd so precious with their torpedos that they wouldn't do the test when reports started coming back."

because they were expensive and difficult to manufacture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo#Supply_and_production

quote:

NTS produced only 1½ torpedoes a day in 1937, despite having three shifts of three thousand workers working around the clock

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

feedmegin posted:

Farmers with shotguns very much is a thing in the British countryside even today, much more than any other firearm.

and farmer's mums

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
technicals are usually land cruisers though

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

DesperateDan posted:

The in the tank toss?

The old battle rattle?

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
They were the security service, paramilitary to the Waffen-SS's regular military. Initially formed from Hitler's personal bodyguards and street fighting crew.

Ironically in the later war they lost the black uniforms and had to use army grey like everyone else.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

The Lone Badger posted:

Shooting down a single bomber could get you more than five kills couldn't it?

Victories are per plane. Killing the crew is optional.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

Scratch Monkey posted:

Do planes parked on the ground count?
but interestingly planes that are just about to land or take off do count.

The Lone Badger posted:

What about aircraft carriers? Some submarine torpedo men have to be turbo-ace+++ right?
submariners have a different accounting system based on ship tonnage - you don't count the planes or whatever cargo a random freighter might be carrying. if you're sinking an aircraft carrier that's victory enough.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

baaderbrains posted:

Is there an equivalent of battle scarred old guys in monasteries in medieval Europe?

as a historical thing? no idea. as a fictional thing? yeah, absolutely. Brother Cadfael is the first one that sprang to my mind but 'retired crusader/knight/mercenary takes monastic vows' is absolutely a genre.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
Wallenstein must go!

Who must go?


thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
the limiting factor on army sizes throughout history is going to be supplies, not ideology. industrial states can have armies in the hundreds of thousands because they can bring in food by railroad, up till then an army destroys its surroundings by foraging or it starves.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

Tulip posted:

Excluding politics, culture, and society from military history makes the question of "why were armies of medieval Europe so much smaller than ancient armies" really hard to answer, while taking politics seriously makes it really easy to answer. Hell it makes the question of why were Roman armies so able to recover from losses compared to their rivals hard to answer.

not really, the armies were smaller because the states couldn't supply them. the subsidiary question of why they couldn't supply them has complex political, cultural and societal answers, but no matter how motivated or cohesive your military population is they can't fight without food, water and fuel. Rome's ability to raise fresh armies after disaster was reliant on their allied (or subjugated) states for manpower and equipment, but Rome fed them in the field.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

Alchenar posted:

Regardless, I think the assertion that ordinary people couldn't care less if the Assyrians conqured them... questionable.

the dead are hard to poll for their opinion

thatbastardken fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Aug 3, 2022

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

ilmucche posted:

is that a realistic concern? how long does 210 rounds last?

M4 carbine posted:

Rate of fire: 700–950 round/min cyclic
probably you aren't going to dump all 210 rounds in under a minute, but running out of ammo remains a realistic concern for the modern infantryman, yes.

the rest of your question is kind of open ended, there's lots of differences in doctrine even within a given nations military. generally speaking if you're talking about US (or NATO, or NATO-adjacent) forces the infantry will have probably gotten to the firefight in a vehicle, which will probably have extra ammunition stored in it.

on a long-range special forces foot patrol? carry extra ammo and shoot straight.

guarding a base? reach down to the crate of magazines you prepared earlier.

thatbastardken fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Oct 4, 2022

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

Scratch Monkey posted:

In WWII (and I believe Korea too) the amount of ammo and supplies a given unit was expected to run through in a day was a pre calculated number generally called a “unit of fire.” It was moved from storage in the rear in support of planned operations and staged closer to the front so it could be brought up as needed. Here’s a good page on the concept http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/U/n/Unit_Of_Fire.htm

that's a cool article, thanks.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

Thomamelas posted:

Groups that would set up things to look like fake lighthouses/fires to drive ships upon sandbars. Then loot the ship/break it apart for scrap. It's a common bit of local "history" that isn't.

Unregulated coastal salvage is another matter, but false lights aren't a thing that ever really happened. Probably made up by ship owners or insurers to demonize communities that might get a windfall from their misfortune.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
Hitler did love Disney though

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

On a related note, what made the continental harvests during wartime so terrible? Lack of fertilizer? Lack of labor? Just bad luck?

I recall some discussion about German agriculture of the period being heavily reliant on small family farms that used a lot of manual labor instead of machinery. Probably not helped by the delayed movement to a war economy.

Did Nazi Germany have an equivalent of the Land Girls?

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
i think it was this thread talking about tactilol pictures from the american civil war? any, enjoy:


https://www.tumblr.com/qsycomplainsalot/706336132253859840/csa-cpt-samuel-richardson-of-the-2nd-texas-cavalry?source=share

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
RIP chitoryu, condolences sandwich anarchist.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

Xiahou Dun posted:

Do you know of any other German loanwords that start with “y” or a sound similar to that?

ydolf ytler

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

And that in turn reminds me of FIDO, the "Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation". The British Isles have a problem, viz. they are often foggy/smoggy, which is bad if you're a pilot looking for your runway. The solution? Run a pipe down either side of the runway, with jets placed at periodic intervals. Run aircraft fuel through the pipes, and light it on fire. The heat would disperse the fog, improving visibility enough for aircraft to land.

Man, it's a good thing that the UK was able to get fuel from the USA, huh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_Warfare_Department

early war Britain is a land of contrasts

no tanks, but plenty of petrol.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
i thought the user of chocco for australian reservists dated to the militia getting beaten by the ija in png, but it makes sense that it's older than that.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
serco were running Australia's concentration refugee camps for a while, still might be afaik.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
i'm not drawing from any source more reliable than my own biases but i reckon the same (Victorian-era? i think?) historians who derided medieval swords as heavy blunt objects are responsible for the classic weaboo perception of Japanese swordsmithing as superior to the west, when it looks like it was all pretty similar.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
NBC stuff in general seems like it's mostly good for killing civilians rather than armies, if only because it's easier to equip an army with countermeasures.

obvious exception for an actual nuclear bomb, but even then buttoned up tanks and reinforced bunkers make the outskirts of a blast more survivable.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
milhist thread: tohubohu

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
yeah agreed

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
there's a scene in Generation Kill where they get them

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
it ain't called the deescalation of blair mountain

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply