|
Tias posted:MILHIST QUIZ TIME: Slide ruler?
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Yeah, slide ruler is my guess. Or a fixed set of calculations, which is a nomogram. Like the Finnish Fire Correction Circle. Looks like two angles, there's got to be at least one distance, and then bags of powder?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
It was used for measuring and comparing dick sizes. No, I don't think it was made for that. But once you have spent a few weeks at sea, it would be used for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever been in the same room as a slide rule, but I'd guess that was one. When you learn trigonometry, that's a point in math where they don't really tell you how to do the operations that you're doing, they just calculated a bunch of ratios long ago for sines and cosines and give them to you for you to use in your own calculations, and I think that's what they're for. I think it's similar with logarithms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
It's more that, especially for logarithms, it's much more tedious to calculate them by hand than to memorize a couple dozen values, and if you're using logs often enough that knowing a handful doesn't cut it anymore a slide rule becomes a pretty useful tool as a medium step between "guessing" and "using a lookup table." They're rather clever devices, in terms of how much information they convey vs. how difficult they are to use/general complexity. A fun small fact in here is that "calculating new logarithm values for putting into lookup tables" was one of the WPA projects, The Mathematical Tables Project. It employed 450 people and ultimately published a 28 volume set of tables.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
We had a volume of those lying around in my school, it fuckin blew my tiny babby mind that those were a thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
If the original owner was in the artillery is probably a range calculator. Accounting for air resistance when you're firing thousands of My parents both trained on slide rules in engineering school in the 70s and were slightly annoyed that I didn't in the 2000s. Pretty sure both of theirs plus my grandfather's are lying around somewhere still.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Tias posted:MILHIST QUIZ TIME: So it's basically a lookup table of some sort. My Danish is nonexistent and it's the (low) legibility makes it hard to google translate the labels, but it apparently lists two kinds of "caliber" and two kinds of "iern" or maybe "jern", which if google translate isn't lying to me is Danish for "iron". What N. Iron is versus G. Iron, or N. Caliber vs G. Caliber I have no idea. But based on context it leads me to suspect it's a lookup table of equivalences between different weapon loads. Powder charge for different projectiles? I don't know what 1 L is and have no intuition about what it might imply in Danish. It's definitely not a artillery range calculator--I actually own one of those, an old Pickett Model 14, which is a standard slide rule + a couple scales specific for range calculation. I've also seen naval sliderules for computing shot deflection (that is, for calculating lead) and for computing ship length, and it's clearly none of those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
fat bossy gerbil posted:How did the Stug-III fare against tanks in a head on confrontation? I know they made tons of them and generally used them in an ambush or support capacity but if they were face to face with a t-34 or Sherman were they up to the task? The StuG III was actually better than contemporary Panzers in some areas. To quote from Zaloga's M10 vs. StuG III: quote:The antitank performance of the StuG III with the long L/48 gun was reinforced by the crews’ excellent artillery training and better fire-control sights. A report by the Heer’s Waffenamt in September 1943 reported that “the kill rates of assault gun batteries are frequently higher than those of Panzer units even though both are equipped with the same main gun.” Indeed a report to Hitler in August 1943 after the Kursk battles indicated that “the reports from the front submitted to the Führer highlight the exceptional value of the assault gun which in several cases under the prevailing combat conditions proved superior to the Panzer IV.” quote:The StuG III offered excellent antitank accuracy due to better sighting equipment than comparable Panzers. The vehicle commander operated a Scherenfahrlafetten SF 14Z scissors telescope offering 10× magnification, which was superior in resolution to the binoculars available to Panzer commanders. The Selbstfahrlafetten Zielfernrohr Sfl ZF 1a gunner’s sight on the StuG III provided 5× magnification, while that on most Panzers was 2.5×. tl;dr is that the mix of crew training and sighting equipment on the StuG made them very effective tank hunters. The lack of gun traverse was an issue, but this was in some ways cancelled out by the tank's low silhouette, which nearly two feet lower than the Panzer IV.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 02:11
|
|
|
I read a very interesting claim that the StuGs had greater reported effectiveness because infantry commanders praised them, as they were organically integrated with infantry, whereas the PzIV was "foreign" and attached temporarily, if at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
I would also assume a big part of stug vs panzer effectiveness was also due to defensive rather than offensive use? When you're no longer trying to exploit breakthroughs for a grand encirclement on your way to Moscow, you probably don need gun traverse as much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
The Russians developed a fulminating bullet in the 1860s and aside from that they did I haven’t been able to find anything out about it. Can anyone explain what a fulminating bullet is, or how it works? How is it distinct, if at all, from other forms of explosives?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
White Coke posted:The Russians developed a fulminating bullet in the 1860s and aside from that they did I haven’t been able to find anything out about it. Can anyone explain what a fulminating bullet is, or how it works? How is it distinct, if at all, from other forms of explosives? Could it mean an explosive round using this as the explosive; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury(II)_fulminate
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:I would also assume a big part of stug vs panzer effectiveness was also due to defensive rather than offensive use? I don't think that really factored into it—even though Germany was strategically falling back from 42 onward, the StuG III was still used in plenty of counter-attacks, and in the quote I posted above it was compared favorably to the Panzers even at Kursk. Its success really came from the fact that it managed to combine good armor and armaments with training and tools that allowed the crew to make the best use of their vehicle. There's a reason it was the single most produced German tank* of the war. *Assuming your personal definition qualifies it as a tank
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
White Coke posted:The Russians developed a fulminating bullet in the 1860s and aside from that they did I haven’t been able to find anything out about it. Can anyone explain what a fulminating bullet is, or how it works? How is it distinct, if at all, from other forms of explosives? From an extremely brief read of this wikipedia article, it sounds like the main distinction is that a fulminating bullet is designed to deal damage primarily through shrapnel. The high explosive inside the shell detonates on impact (or potentially later, during surgery, or earlier, before being fired) and shatters the shell into fragments. The contrast with an explosive shell is I guess that the explosive shell deals damage primarily through the explosive shockwave (or through spalling introduced by said explosion, I suppose). I will grant it seems like a fairly fine distinction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:From an extremely brief read of this wikipedia article, it sounds like the main distinction is that a fulminating bullet is designed to deal damage primarily through shrapnel. The high explosive inside the shell detonates on impact (or potentially later, during surgery, or earlier, before being fired) and shatters the shell into fragments. The contrast with an explosive shell is I guess that the explosive shell deals damage primarily through the explosive shockwave (or through spalling introduced by said explosion, I suppose). I will grant it seems like a fairly fine distinction. That article was the only thing I could find, and it confused me because it says that on the one hand the Russians developed fulminating bullets to blow up powder barrels, then improved them to work on soft targets, but that the main danger from them is the shrapnel they can cause, especially if they don't detonate on impact but removal or some other unpredictable situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
SubG posted:It's definitely not a slide rule--in order to be a slide rule you need at least two of: stator, slide, cursor (and what we classically think of as a slide rule has all three). Well done! It's a 'measuring block/stave' for cannon loads! L is for 'ladning' or charge, and the rest are weight/caliber and type of cannon 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 09:22
|
|
|
A lot of you asked some great questions last week and my grandfather is working on them but it’s gonna be a minute. Like I said, dude is 91. He was awful at typing even when he was in his sixties. E:he has an account here now and I’m trying to get a photo of him in Korea as his av. Pretty sure he’s the oldest goon by a wide margin. Ugly In The Morning fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Feb 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 10:21
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I don't think that really factored into it—even though Germany was strategically falling back from 42 onward, the StuG III was still used in plenty of counter-attacks, and in the quote I posted above it was compared favorably to the Panzers even at Kursk. Its success really came from the fact that it managed to combine good armor and armaments with training and tools that allowed the crew to make the best use of their vehicle. There's a reason it was the single most produced German tank* of the war. I like to apply Bundeswehr-logic to this. If we're calling our cute little six-wheeler a tank, the StuG III qualifies, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
Tias posted:Well done! It's a 'measuring block/stave' for cannon loads! L is for 'ladning' or charge, and the rest are weight/caliber and type of cannon 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:If they were sufficiently general you could get them printed on coffee cups. Why can’t I get a turn-of-the-century naval gunfire lookup table on my coffee cup? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:E:he has an account here now and I’m trying to get a photo of him in Korea as his av.  I'm looking forward to his responses!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
I posted this in the sagas thread but that 91 year old goon definitely deserves his own thread, I think a lot of people would be interested. Also here’s something my dad found at an auction, I had no idea what it was but the Japanese thread helped determine that it’s a bomb timer.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I don't think that really factored into it—even though Germany was strategically falling back from 42 onward, the StuG III was still used in plenty of counter-attacks, and in the quote I posted above it was compared favorably to the Panzers even at Kursk. Its success really came from the fact that it managed to combine good armor and armaments with training and tools that allowed the crew to make the best use of their vehicle. There's a reason it was the single most produced German tank* of the war. Akin to how a lot of the success of the US TD units being training focused on fighting other armored vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
Snowy posted:I posted this in the sagas thread but that 91 year old goon definitely deserves his own thread, I think a lot of people would be interested. He used to pick up an actual bucket of beer for his father as a random errand when he was a kid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
Latest in old footage colorized and enhanced: HMS Barham, exploding
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Haha technology also oh god.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Why can’t I get a turn-of-the-century naval gunfire lookup table on my coffee cup? Because your local naval gunner's guild is lazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
"the only time a submarine beat the royal navy's destroyer screen" ...who was guarding convoys? the royal coast guard? corvettes only?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:"the only time a submarine beat the royal navy's destroyer screen" I think the implied sentence is "the only time a submarine beat the royal navy's destroyer screen [that was protecting a battleship]"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:E:he has an account here now Hasn't this man suffered enough in his life?! Seriously though, we're all looking forward to whatever he shares
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:I think the implied sentence is "the only time a submarine beat the royal navy's destroyer screen [that was protecting a battleship]" Yeah. Probably the U-boats would have gotten slightly more warship kills if they were focused on attacking warships, instead of shipping as they did. Not that they made the wrong choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
Does anyone know why the USSR turned into a gerontocracy? I have been reading Stephen Kotkin's excellent biographies about Stalin, I recently finished part two which was quite detailed about the purges and one of the underlying motivations seems to have been to get rid of old bolsheviks, give opportunities to new people educated after the revolution, and in general to rejuvenate the communist party. Furthermore, after Stalin, just glancing at Wikipedia it seems like most of the upper leadership started their high-level careers due to purge-related openings but then they just held onto power until Gorbachev. I understand that people are reluctant to let go of power after they get it and that Stalin murdering people instead of retiring them sets a bad precedent. However, does anyone know if there were any serious discussions about rejuvenating the upper leadership before Gorbachev in the politburo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:I think the implied sentence is "the only time a submarine beat the royal navy's destroyer screen [that was protecting a battleship]" Didn't a U-boat torpedo something in Scapa Flow in WWI?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
White Coke posted:That article was the only thing I could find, and it confused me because it says that on the one hand the Russians developed fulminating bullets to blow up powder barrels, then improved them to work on soft targets, but that the main danger from them is the shrapnel they can cause, especially if they don't detonate on impact but removal or some other unpredictable situation. Semi-informed guesswork: What they're talking about is probably a very small amount of explosive, something akin to the primer in a rifle cartridge. That wouldn't be enough to do a ton of damage by itself, but it could easily blow a bullet that's already hitting something into fragments, and fragmented bullets are typically deadlier than whole ones (something that modern small arms ammo does through sheer velocity rather than any kind of chemical explosive effect). And, it's still plenty dangerous to a surgeon who might need to put their fingers right up on the little bit of explosive in a dud - we're talking "lose a couple of fingertips" level injury here, but that's still enough to end a surgeon's career. "Shrapnel" here is being used in the generic sense of "small jagged bits of metal" rather than the specific Shrapnel shell design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Didn't a U-boat torpedo something in Scapa Flow in WWI? WW2, the sinking of Royal Oak. Two U-boots did try to slink in during WW1 but they failed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Pump it up! Do it! posted:Does anyone know why the USSR turned into a gerontocracy? I think it was more about eliminating people with potentially similar stature to Stalin than 'rejuvenation'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I think it was more about eliminating people with potentially similar stature to Stalin than 'rejuvenation'. Yeah, it's no good trying to build a cult of personality if there's lots of people running around who know you from way back, especially if they're not sycophants. In other news, in April it will be 95 years since an Irish lady shot Mussolini in the nose  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56111443
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
It's kinda funny that Brezhnev died at 75yo while Biden is 78, Mitch McConnell is 79 and Pelosi is 80. e: I mean they're all reasonably fit compared to him
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Pump it up! Do it! posted:Does anyone know why the USSR turned into a gerontocracy? 'Rejuvenating' the upper leadership ends up implying that someone's interests in the upper leadership is going to be threatened. By the 80s, the agricultural/industrial/military complexes took up so much of the economy that any kind of reform - rejuvenation - was necessarily going to entail cutting down at least one branch, so why allow it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 22:08
|
|
