|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:i love the mosquito because it was a loving wood and canvas plane in an era dominated by aluminium and steel The Germans were so surprised by the performance that they tried to copy it and failed. quote:By June 1944, the Jumo 213 was finally arriving in some numbers, and a production run of 154 A-1s were completed with these engines. Just prior to delivery the only factory making Tego-Film, in Wuppertal, was bombed out by the Royal Air Force, and the plywood glue had to be replaced by one that was not as strong, and was later found to react chemically, apparently in a corrosive manner, with the wood in the Ta 154's structure. In July, several A-1s crashed with wing failure due to plywood delamination. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_154
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:i love the mosquito because it was a loving wood and canvas plane in an era dominated by aluminium and steel Most of the airframe was made in piano factories out of Birch and Balsawood with Spruce wings so it weighed gently caress all. Then they strapped a pair of Merlin engines on to it which gave it up to 4800hp in a 14000lbs aircraft. Some other successful RAF planes still had wood and canvas construction like the Hurricane which shot down most of the planes in the Battle of Britain and also in North Africa.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
Bernard McFacknutah posted:Most of the airframe was made in piano factories out of Birch and Balsawood with Spruce wings so it weighed gently caress all. Then they strapped a pair of Merlin engines on to it which gave it up to 4800hp in a 14000lbs aircraft. I was about to bring up the Hurricane. There was that crazy rear end rear-firing only one, the Defiant? as well, the Brits did some crazy and cool poo poo with planes back then.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
HomoNeanderthal11C posted:We help materially a hell of a lot more than we did as far as boots on the ground was concerned. Although we liked to say we were neutral, we weren't, we weren't even close to. Defeat wasn't a matter of time for Germany as early as April 1917. They weren't in great shape in 1917, but Russia tapped out in December and Germany was able to focus on the Western Front after that. Worst case for them without American intervention was that they hold their positions against exhausted British and French troops and negotiate a beneficial peace. The arrival of American troops unequivocally won the war, they had over one million troops on the line in the fall of 1918 for the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. Sure the Americans suffered more casualties than they should have because they were inexperienced and attacking beefy defensive positions, but they were the only ones capable of pushing on and paying the steep price required to push the Germans back. The reason the American effort in the First World War gets overlooked is because Europeans discounted the American contribution after the war due to their late arrival and American historians don't give a poo poo about World War One, the money is in the Civil War and World War Two. European historiography naturally focuses on the role played by France and Britain and glosses over that end bit where the Americans showed up in force and slammed the door on the Germans. There were almost two million American troops in France at the end of the war and 10,000 continued to arrive each day. The American manpower contribution to the war was a game changer, anyone that tells you otherwise is either a dirty European or a dingus. Edward Coffman's The War to End All Wars is an excellent book on the American experience in World War One. RichieHimself fucked around with this message at 16:25 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
I don't know where you get the idea that American historians don't give a poo poo about WWI, there's an absolute TON of stuff being published right now on the subject. After Verdun and the Somme, Germany's manpower was effectively tapped. Even if the US hadn't sent troops (who weren't even on the lines in division strength until the very end of 1917) Germany couldn't have fought much longer than they did without mobilizing children. Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:45 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Does anyone know where historiography has settled on Italy in WW2? Depending on the decade of publication I've seen everything from: "They were hopelessly incompetent" to "Lions led by Donkeys" to "Brave but poorly equipped" to "They were betrayed by the Germans strategic blunders" to "Finest fighting force of the war, man to man".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I don't know where you get the idea that American historians don't give a poo poo about WWI, there's an absolute TON of stuff being published right now on the subject. Overall, American historians don't care about WWI. I'm sure there's stuff coming out now to take advantage of 100 year anniversaries, but WWI historiography has been dominated by European historians or historians brought up in the school of thought that the Americans didn't do much. Yeah, Germany was in bad shape in 1917 as I said, but Russia gave up in December 1917 which freed up all the veteran divisions in the East for service in the West right as the Americans started showing up in force.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Does anyone know where historiography has settled on Italy in WW2? all i know is they had the most adorable tanks  
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
RichieHimself posted:Overall, American historians don't care about WWI. I'm sure there's stuff coming out now to take advantage of 100 year anniversaries, but WWI historiography has been dominated by European historians or historians brought up in the school of thought that the Americans didn't do much. Military history is hardly popular in the American academy, so from that perspective, of course "overall" they don't care. WWI also didn't really mean much to American society or policy compared to the conflicts before and after. You're coming off the Spanish-American War, where we gained territory, but then you go fight "over there" and bring home horrendously injured men without gaining anything tangible. It was not a high water mark by any means. The isolationists were effectively proven right, and the AEF was primarily effective as a reserve force used to bolster weakened units and lines and raise morale.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Does anyone know where historiography has settled on Italy in WW2? I have no idea where contemporary historiography has settled, but my money's closest on some match between A, B, and C. The Italian Army had four major spheres of combat in WW2 proper--the Balkans, North Africa, Russia, and Italy Proper. The Balkans and North Africa were hopeless shitshows based on what I recall, particularly the Balkans, where the Italians got their asses handed to them by the Greeks. The Russian Front, on the other hand, featured an Italian army of 235,000 that got smashed to pieces during Little Saturn, but managed to extricate half of its fighting men in the face of numbers sometimes reaching 9 to 1, and hold out for nearly three months overall. Italy itself... it's almost impossible to gauge the fighting strength of the Italians there because of what a clusterfuck Italy was, politically. Overall I'd say the Italians were no more strong or weak than any other Axis power as a pure military force, but they suffered early from the afflictions of fascism and Mussolini kept on dramatically overgauging his country's ability to wage modern warfare.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Considering Italy a functional, modern nation-state at the time was a bit of a stretch, too. There were regions that had no idea there was a war going on until the Allies took up occupation, others thought they were Germans because they thought Germany had taken over, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Military history is hardly popular in the American academy, so from that perspective, of course "overall" they don't care. WWI also didn't really mean much to American society or policy compared to the conflicts before and after. You're coming off the Spanish-American War, where we gained territory, but then you go fight "over there" and bring home horrendously injured men without gaining anything tangible. It was not a high water mark by any means. The isolationists were effectively proven right, and the AEF was primarily effective as a reserve force used to bolster weakened units and lines and raise morale. To be fair, one thing it certainly did was ensure American forces would never be placed under control of another nation's leadership on a major scale ever again.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:all i know is they had the most adorable tanks That's the limited run Guns 'N' Roses armored vehicle. Talk about appetite for destruction!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Check out what I got
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
It's all dick drawings with ornate serifs, I assume
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
That is cool as poo poo. Only old book I've got is a 2nd printing of Billy Mitchell's Winged Defense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
this is pretty loving cool quote:Archaeologists have made a sinister discovery at the top of a Greek mountain which might corroborate one of the darkest legends of antiquity. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
If he were carved up I wouldn't expect the skeleton to be lying there looking pretty much intact. Curious if their examination turns up cuts on the bones that don't show up in the picture. Seems strange they wouldn't go for the marrow too, but maybe that wasn't so popular by then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Look at mister eats people and buries their bodies here
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If he were carved up I wouldn't expect the skeleton to be lying there looking pretty much intact. Curious if their examination turns up cuts on the bones that don't show up in the picture. Seems strange they wouldn't go for the marrow too, but maybe that wasn't so popular by then. maybe they boiled him then his meat just slid off the bone 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
loving pre-christ furries make me sick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:maybe they boiled him then his meat just slid off the bone Yeah, that usually involves dismemberment, which is why a complete skeleton properly arranged is weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah, that usually involves dismemberment, which is why a complete skeleton properly arranged is weird. maybe they cooked him in a human sized trough like the thing they found him in. i mean, when youre the sanctioned religion you can get away with some weird poo poo my dude
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:19
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:maybe they cooked him in a human sized trough like the thing they found him in. i mean, when youre the sanctioned religion you can get away with some weird poo poo my dude i'd take kffs word on this. he is an expert at eating greek meat.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:maybe they cooked him in a human sized trough like the thing they found him in. i mean, when youre the sanctioned religion you can get away with some weird poo poo my dude Doesn't make much sense that they cannibalized him, as the meatiest parts of the body are intact. Ritual killing? Maybe. But not likely cannibalism, at least not for food.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:i'd take kffs word on this. he is an expert at eating greek meat. Maybe they just ate that rear end and killed him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:34
|
|
Godholio posted:Maybe they just ate that rear end and killed him. eating rear end is just a prelude to the main event.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
The U.S. Army’s Tank-Destroyers Weren’t the Failure History Has Made Them Out to Bequote:After the war, the U.S. Army concluded tank destroyers were a waste of time. Official histories excoriated the failure of the program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
The last link in that article (This one) is a comprehensive read that's been linked before in the milhist thread. IIRC, it was never the vehicles that were the issue, but the higher level unit doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Man I just visited the Crater at Petersburg and I can't wrap my head around how small a spot could contain 600 dead in such a quick period time. What a monumental gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:05
|
|
