|
Ensign Expendable posted:Also compressed air starters. But yes, the worst case scenario is that you get out and crank. The same thing was true for cars until relatively recently. Like... How recently? I've been driving lovely older cars most of my life, was there secretly a hand crank on my old Saab 900 or whatever that I never noticed?
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
Im pretty sure the hand crank went away on most cars by the depression, so "relatively recently" might be just a biiiit of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Im pretty sure the hand crank went away on most cars by the depression, so "relatively recently" might be just a biiiit of a stretch. From some googling, they were still around on some cars in the 60's, and even later in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I know that I've heard a bunch of times that the Iraq war was about oil, although I also know there's a lot more reasons involved that were often even more short-sighted. Certainly oil was a priority. Judging by who got the contracts to develop Iraq's big oil fields I would say not really, but maybe in an indirect sense partially yes? Famously in the run up to the Iraq war French leaders were concerned that if they did not participate, French business would be cut out of the lucrative contracts to redevelop Iraq's oil infrastructure. In hindsight however, it seems like the French were projecting based on their own policies vis a vis their former colonies. The French oil conglomerate Total S.A was award a contract to develop Iraq's Halfaya Field in exchange for a 25% in 2009. From 2007 forward Iraq granted stakes in its oil fields to many foreign oil companies, some American, but mostly from other countries including Russia and China. Of course, just because a company like Shell is headquartered in the Hague doesn't mean Americans can't profit from it. Americans own large stakes in many of these multinational businesses, and for that reason it could be argued that maybe American leaders were acting in the interests of international capital as a whole, rather than just those businesses with headquarters in New York. It's a stretch but the theory the Iraq war was actually about oil has never exactly had its foundation in solid ground. While there's really not much evidence the Iraq war was about oil, it's clear American leadership in the conflict were very interested in spreading economic liberalism around the world. This general desire probably helped motivate those interested in a war, and during the occupation American leaders clearly sought to implement liberalization and support free markets. Relevant to this discussion, those big multinational corporations were able to get stakes in Iraqi oil fields after 2007 thanks to the Hydrocarbon Law. During the Saddam era Iraq's oil resources were nationalized and operated by state oil companies. However the war destroyed much of the infrastructure and caused production to collapse. Getting production back up again was a serious challenge. The Hydrocarbon law allowed foreign corporations to bid for stakes in Iraqi fields in exchange for a share of the profits, and it was written with the assistance of American advisers from the state department. At the time this was extremely controversial in Iraq. There were a lot of people who didn't want foreign firms coming in. Of course the Iraqi state companies still retained control of a lot of production, and foreign businesses were heavily taxed, it went against a lot of people's principles. It was part of a broader push to liberalize Iraqi institutions that came with the occupation, and which was intimately linked to American ideas about how the world's economy should function. Since 2007 however Iraqi state firms have actually taken back control of a larger share of their fields. As far as I'm aware Iraqi fears about foreign domination of oil resources have receded from public consciousness, taking a backseat to bitter disputes over regional autonomy and profit sharing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Im pretty sure the hand crank went away on most cars by the depression, so "relatively recently" might be just a biiiit of a stretch. I have a 1988 car with a crank, but it's a Citroen made continuously from 1948 to 1990 to a 1930s design (the grand unveiling of the new model was scheduled for September 2, 1939 but some minor historical event or other got in the way and the launch was postponed for nine years...) You could still buy cheap cars in the UK in the 1960s (and into the 1970s) with crank handles, but these were only intended for if you'd flattened the battery or for turning the engine for servicing. You could still get light trucks, vans and 4x4s with handles into the 1980s, but usually only as optional fitments. Once cars with transverse-mounted engines became common, the provision of a crank handle became largely pointless because there was no way to get the handle to attach to the engine since the bodywork and wheels were in the way. Once engines had electronic control systems then the crank was entirely superfluous. I'm pretty sure that Ladas and Hindustan Ambassador cars came with crank handles right to the end of their respective production runs in the current decade. A lot of WW2 aircraft had back-up starting cranks too - Bf109, Fi156, P-40 and the Corsair are the ones that spring to mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
Ok fine, cars in made in the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
Squalid posted:While there's really not much evidence the Iraq war was about oil, Besides all the evidence, you mean? Like, in the discussions about the Raj, while the UK may not have turned a profit from the colony, but big segments of the elite certainly made out like bandits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
sullat posted:Besides all the evidence, you mean? Like, in the discussions about the Raj, while the UK may not have turned a profit from the colony, but big segments of the elite certainly made out like bandits. if you would share the evidence i think i would have an easier time understanding your argument
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Like... How recently? Knowing Saab? There very well may be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:if you would share the evidence i think i would have an easier time understanding your argument Myself I think this is one of those things that probably has some truth to it, but gets extended heavily because it is more comforting to think that someone is in charge, even if they are evil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 08:18
|
|
|
Someone profits from any sort of event. If the Iraq war shut off oil production, this would increase profits for oil producers in the US. If Iraq increased oil production, this would increase profits for people who make use of oil in the US. If the US went in carefully and blew nothing up, then it would be suspicious that they were considering the economic effectiveness of the postwar. If the US blew everything up, it would be suspicious because they are creating lucrative reconstruction contracts. I think it's well documented at this point that the Iraq war was mainly causally about Bush's arrogant delusions. Edit: "The oil" may be relevant in terms of making the region geopolitically important though. But that's been the case for over half a century. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Aug 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:On the upside for that particular one, it spun up a flywheel that disengaged from the starter crank when dumping its energy over to the crankshaft so you didn't end up risking having a tanker with a shattered arm Fun fact - the sound of an inertial starter winding down is the sound used in Empire Strikes Back for the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive failing
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 11:51
|
|
|
Way to ruin the magic, jerk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 13:09
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Fun fact - the sound of an inertial starter winding down is the sound used in Empire Strikes Back for the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive failing I actually remember watching a clip from the foley artist working on it. The entire sound effect of machinery failing in the background is actually a mixture of 3-4 sounds (back when this was all done on spools of magnetic tape). The MWEEP-Mweep-mweep-mweep bit everyone remembers is an engine starter as you said. While we're ruining old show sound effects I should mention sound the TARDIS makes appearing or disappearing is a key being run along a piano-wire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:I actually remember watching a clip from the foley artist working on it. The entire sound effect of machinery failing in the background is actually a mixture of 3-4 sounds (back when this was all done on spools of magnetic tape). The MWEEP-Mweep-mweep-mweep bit everyone remembers is an engine starter as you said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
The one I remember is the laser sound effects being from hitting guy wires with hammers
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
The screaming sound of the TIE fighters flyby is a combination of an elephant trumpeting and a car driving past
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Do the different tanks in WWII sound audibly different? I just realised I don't really know what they should sound like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Depends on the engine size and type, the RPM etc.? This was cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z88gEaY0BeY e: gotta say I don't hear that much of a difference but I know nothing about cars
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
The voice of Jar Jar Binks was created by having George Lucas recite the lines with his head deep inside his bum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Do the different tanks in WWII sound audibly different? I just realised I don't really know what they should sound like. There's a story that part of the reason the disguised Panthers used during Operation Greif were unable to successfully infiltrate the American lines was because they were dressed up as M10 Wolverines, which have a diesel engine and sound absolutely nothing like a Panther. And since tanks are loud as hell and you'd typically hear it before seeing it, everyone just went "Oh poo poo, there's a Panther nearby." At least, so the story goes. For reference: M4 Sherman engine sounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__K2BzxR2BY Panther: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsodIneQGzI Wolverine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlWPPGcNw3c
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Which noise dominates more, engine or tracks? Does this change over distance? Are tanks with steel-only treads (or roadwheels) significantly louder on paved surfaces?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
A few questions about the US in the Pacific: -Were PT boats worth the bother? In Neptune’s Inferno it seemed they would swoop in, ineffectively fire torpedoes, then flee. Did they get more useful later? -Why were Japanese shipments so unprotected? It’s crazy to read a list of “lives lost at sea by individual ships” and see how many overloaded troop ships they lost. Did they just never figure out convoys? -How often would a US sub go out and simply never be heard from again? Was the policy to write them off after a month or so?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
i'm hesitant to show my face in here after my recent transgression, but I need a recommendation. Does anyone know of any books about british colonial troops in the second world war? I ask because their contributions seem to be glossed over despite their widespread use in the cbi theater.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
This may have been covered in the previous thread, but does anybody have opinions on Drachinifel as a Youtube historian? He did a video recently on "French Pre-Dreadnoughts - When Hotels go to War" and I just can't hate anybody with a video name like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
It’s worth noting that the Sherman specifically had a multitude of power plants, including a gas V-8, several different gasoline radial engines, a gasoline 30 (!!!) cylinder engine comprised of five inline sixes, twin inline diesels, and a diesel radial engine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
So I have a question. I once read a description of the air attacks against the Bismarck, that stated that the germans were firing the main guns against the incoming swordfish. this was explained as an attempt to create waterspouts in front of the planes they would fly into and crash. At the time I shrugged it of as an improvised desperation tactic, if it even happened. A few weeks ago I was on vacation in northern norway, and came across a small museum about the sinking of the Tirpitz. They claimed that the Tirpitz had been firing its main guns against the attacking bombers and even had pictures of a dud shell that had been found some 35 km distant. Was this an actual doctrine of the german navy? I can't imagine that guns like that would have anywere near the prescision to engage aircraft, although they would certainly destroy any plane they hit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
There were cases of allied AOP planes being "shot down" early in the Normandy campaign as the air turbulence caused by a bunch of 16" shells from naval support gunfire is enough to properly gently caress up an Aster or Piper Cub's handling. It's a desperate thing to try, but you may as well if that's all you've got.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The broad argument here isn't that "the United States" got the oil from Iraq, in the sense that oil prices were cheaper, but that some large companies/institutional investors/very wealthy individuals in the US benefited from the impact of the Iraq war on the oil trade. Similarly, the Raj may not have turned a profit for "the UK in general," but may well have had a similar effect in the UK. maybe to be more specific, there's not much evidence taking control of Iraqi oil production was an objective of the war, nor was creating profit by forcing Iraq to give concessions on oil fields to American firms a motivation for the invasion. What was a motivation for the war was a general fear that Saddam's Iraq was a continuing threat to stable oil production and export from the Gulf. Given Saddam's history of invading neighboring oil rich countries it's hard to say this concern was without merit, although by 2003 his ambitions seem to have been pretty well contained. This belief was frequently expressed by influential neoconservatives like Robert Kagan. Oil was absolutely on American policymakers minds in the lead up to the Iraq war. They just that they were primarily interested in insuring a stable international supply, free from price shocks induced by pointless conflicts, rather than profiting American firms. Yeah. . . hard to say that panned out. That said creating and spreading a liberal order was absolutely seen as in the interests of American businesses, and once boots were on the ground I'm pretty sure profit seekers began influencing the course of the occupation. It just wasn't a primary motivator.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Popular analysis of the Bush administration, like a shitload of historical organisations, seems to forget a key fact: no matter how silly the idea may seem, many people were true believers. E: this seems to hit especially hard when it comes to most moderns talking religious conflict. Everything absolutely must be cackling Scrooges manipulating the masses because it is impossible that anyone ever genuinely cared about Catholicism vs Orthodoxy vs Protestantism vs Islam vs... And of course the peasants of Merdeville murdered my ancestors because of usury and not because they had any religious conviction. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Aug 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Medium Tank M3 in Soviet service Queue: HMC T82, HMC M37, GMC M41, Archer, T-29-5, Avenger I, FIAT 3000, FIAT L6-40, [M13/40, M14/41, M15/42], Carro Armato P40 and prospective Italian heavy tanks, Grosstraktor, Panzer IV/70, SU-85, KV-85, Tank sleds, Proposed Soviet heavy tank destroyers, IS-2 mod. 1944, Airborne tanks, Soviet WWII pistol and rifle suppressors, SU-100, DS-39 tank machinegun, Flakpanzers on the PzIV chassis, Sentinel, Comet, Faustpatrone, [Puppchen, Panzerschreck, and other anti-tank rocket launchers], Heavy Tank T32, Heavy Tanks T30 and T34, T-80 (the light tank), MS-1 production, Churchill Mk.VII, Alecto, Assault Tank T14, S-51, SU-76I, T-26 with mine detection equipment, T-34M/T-44 (1941), T-43 (1942), T-43 (1943), Maus development in 1943-44, Trials of the LT vz. 35 in the USSR, Development of Slovakian tank forces 1939-1941, T-46, SU-76M (SU-15M) production, Object 237 (IS-1 prototype), ISU-122, Object 704, Jagdpanzer IV, VK 30.02 DB and other predecessors of the Panther, RSO tank destroyer, Sd.Kfz. 10/4, Czech anti-tank rifles in German service, Hotchkiss H 39/Pz.Kpfw.38H(f) in German service, Flakpanzer 38(t), Grille series, Jagdpanther, Boys and PIAT, Heavy Tank T26E5, History of German diesel engines for tanks, King Tiger trials in the USSR, T-44 prototypes, T-44 prototypes second round, Black Prince, PT-76, M4A3E2 Jumbo Sherman, M4A2 Sherman in the Red Army Available for request:  T-44 prototypes T-44 prototypes second round T-44 production NEW Soviet HEAT anti-tank grenades PT-76 modernizations T-34-85M  German anti-tank rifles 15 cm sFH 13/1 (Sf) Oerlikon and Solothurn anti-tank rifles  Lahti L-39 Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Aug 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Medium Tank M3 in Soviet service You know I gotta request that Soviet Sherman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
If people want to see the True Believers in action, read Fiasco. It really was a case of people being put in charge of major Iraqi institutions because of their ideological purity to the neocon ideal rather than any kind of competence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
CoffeeBooze posted:Knowing Saab? There very well may be. Arban posted:So I have a question. The Japanese also had gigantic "beehive" rounds for battleship main battery guns that were supposed to act like giant incendiary shotgun shells against incoming aircraft. They didn't really work out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Thanks for the answer, That's one of the big things I've always wondered about the Iraq war, although many politicians wrap themselves up in elaborate fictions, so it's hard to say what the exact motivations inside their heads is in relation to how it ends up in the physical world (like they could have wanted to do a theft and they're just bad at stealing). George Weidman, who you may remember from his video on WW1 videogames, made an interesting video on videogames teaching history that I think this thread would find interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_kfcYRdIQw
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:A few questions about the US in the Pacific: PT boats were a massive threat to ships compared to their cost and had to be dealt with. Torpedoes are dangerous and PT boats cheap but very fragile. However ocean handing capabilities and need for a forward base limited the threat. I think they were much more useful before the advent of long range air patrols.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:
The soldiers onboard were part of the IJN's most hated enemy, the IJA FrangibleCover posted:The Japanese also had gigantic "beehive" rounds for battleship main battery guns that were supposed to act like giant incendiary shotgun shells against incoming aircraft. They didn't really work out. I've heard this before, both that they tried it and it didn't work. Presumably the USN could have did the same thing but with radar built into the shells so they could be used as a gigantic VT fuse, right? Milo and POTUS fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Aug 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:PT boats were a massive threat to ships compared to their cost and had to be dealt with. Torpedoes are dangerous and PT boats cheap but very fragile. However ocean handing capabilities and need for a forward base limited the threat. I think they were much more useful before the advent of long range air patrols. Now I'm wondering if anyone ever tried to make a "PT boat carrier" to deploy swarms of them while out at sea (assuming the water allowed for it of course). It'd have to have been before we got aircraft carriers really figured out, which is a pretty narrow window.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Now I'm wondering if anyone ever tried to make a "PT boat carrier" to deploy swarms of them while out at sea (assuming the water allowed for it of course). It'd have to have been before we got aircraft carriers really figured out, which is a pretty narrow window. It was actually in the small window between practical torpedoes and practical submarines, but not far off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
Aha, thank you! I guess I was thinking of using the PT boats in a fleet conflict, forgetting of course that direct fleet conflicts are very rare in warfare and commerce raiding is a much more effective use of your weapons. Submarines are pretty clearly superior for the commerce raider role.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 00:07
|
|