Old War/Dad Power: Clancey chat (both types)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Old War/Dad Power: Clancey chat (both types)

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Well, the US were so opposed to the basic principle of the StG 44 (300 m effective range is sufficient and in fact ideal for most combat) that they stuffed up firearm selection of NATO until indeed NATO via the M-16 joined Russia in adopting a ~300 m effective range battle rifle that the STG 44 represented. You are right that not all rifles come from the STG because the M14 came after the war and was a full power cartridge but that selection was more American pig headedness than anything.

I am not sure if Russia / British had separately decided that a mid-power cartridge was the best before assessing the STG 44 but they both definitely refined the idea much further and much earlier than the US did for a long time.

You are using the term effective range but I don't think that's the correct term you are looking for. Effective range (the maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect) is something else of which the M16 and STG 44 both far exceed 300m (I think 500m and 800m, respectively?).

You're thinking of a theory of where most infantry battles are fought at around 300m of which the name escapes me.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 14:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 04:57

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Electric Wrigglies posted:

until indeed NATO via the M-16 joined Russia in adopting a ~300 m effective range battle rifle

An m-16 can reliably hit ipsc plates out to double that. You'd need a ~10" barrel to reduce the effective range to 300m.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 14:52

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Murgos posted:

You're thinking of a theory of where most infantry battles are fought at around 300m of which the name escapes me.

Yeah, you are quite right with the correction. Although it was not only identifying that most battles occur around that range but the cartridge selection (and hence the rifle) should be optimised around that as well.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 15:39

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

I picked up that 1945 to 2001 submarine construction book. It starts right into modular construction of the type 21, and so far it's been a really fun read. I expected it to be drier than it is.

so, it occurs to me that I don't really know what a keel is, in terms of what the actual structure is and what parts of the bottom of the ship are keel and what are not keel. Do modularly-constructed, modern submarines even really have a keel in a traditional sense? did the first submersibles that were more like ships with temporary underwater attack capacity have those traditional structures?

My prior experience with submarines starts and stops with aft engineering and I really don't know anything deep about the structure engineering at all.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 16:58

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Yeah, you are quite right with the correction. Although it was not only identifying that most battles occur around that range but the cartridge selection (and hence the rifle) should be optimised around that as well.

Something to keep in mind about this is that the full-sized rifles were intended to reach out to 2000+ meters. So having something that was "only" effective out to 600-800 really was intermediary, when compared to rifle/MG rounds and pistol/SMG rounds.

For example, here is the rear sight on a German Gew88, the first smokeless powder rifle that they employed.

That v-notch at the bottom flips back and forth between two settings. I forget what it is off the top of my head, but I want to say something like 200 and 300m (maybe 200/400?). Basically that's your combat sight, aka the thing you actually shoot at point targets like the guy in the other trench with. 200/300 (or whatever it is) might seem far out there, but the sights still work fine closer in. I don't know the ballistics of Patrone 88, but I can tell you that the later 8mm Mauser will shoot something like six inches low at 50 meters with a 200 meter zero, and something like 2 or 3 low at 100. Good enough, in other words. I've read that the instruction given to German soldiers in WW2 was to aim for the belt-buckle, as that pretty much guaranteed a decent COM hit anywhere form point blank to 200meters, and past that you have to adjust your sights a bit anyway.

Here's where it gets fun, though: This is the ladder sight. Flip that fucker up for long range fun.

Those numbers are in 100s of meters. That 20.5 notch at the very top, where you've basically said gently caress it and you're just using the top of the sight? That's 2,050 meters, aka better than 2km.

This may all seem very optimistic, but the idea isn't for any single rifleman to be shooting at individual targets at that range. This is for volley fire at area targets. These early bolt action smokeless rifles all came out when machine guns were only just starting to get adopted. Massed rifle fire, usually by company, was seen as a good way to basically do the same basic suppresison poo poo that you do today by spraying a hillside 2KM off with MG fire: create an area that people don't like to be standing around in, distrust enemy movement, keep their heads down, and if you're lucky maybe plonk a few less lucky people. No one is aiming at a point target, your company just has orders to put fire down on "that hill" or "that building over there" etc. And for a rifle like that, a hillside is something you're perfectly capable of hitting over iron sights even at a few KM.

The lesson of WW1 wasn't necessarily that your battles don't take place at those ranges, it was that both modern direct fire (emplaced HMGs and portable LMGs) and indirect fire (mortars, artillery) meant that volley rifle fire wasn't really needed any more. If you don't need your average infantryman carrying something that can lob a killing projectile 2KM then all you really need is something that can shoot about as far as they can aim with the irons, which is where dialing back to that ~600m range makes sense. (Along with all the other advantages like being able to carry more ammo for the same weight, more controllable full auto, etc).

# ? Mar 18, 2021 17:20

ThisIsJohnWayne: Feb 23, 2007; Ooo! Look at me! NO DON'T LOOK AT ME!

You can say that 5.56 is an effective 500 yard cartridge and sincerely believe it, you'll will also get an arguement. Military Review, issue July-August 2012, p. 3: "As previous studies concluded, a truly lethal maximum effective range for an M885, 5.56 mm NATO projectile is about 200 to 250 meters (218-273 yards). Therefore, because half of our firefights occur well beyond 300 meters, our weapons are marginally effective."

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

# ? Mar 18, 2021 18:01

bewbies: Sep 23, 2003; Fun Shoe

855 rounds fired out of M4s were definitely underpowered anywhere that wasn't in a city. I don't think the EPR rounds increased the distance at which you're expected to hit something, but they definitely extended the range at which the round was reliably lethal.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 18:09

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

Warbadger posted:

Unlike the Germans, they didn't throw a bunch of new features on their boats in the middle of the war

They did, but these were improvements. Balaos, for example, had thicker hulls (Gato = 9/16", Balao = 7/8") and a switch to High Tensile Steel, better pumps (the quieter "Gould" pump), better radar, cut-down conning towers (to decrease radar profile), and numerous other improvements over earlier boats.

But, that said, your larger point is correct in that these were incremental improvements rather than complete redesigns.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 18:46

Blistex: Oct 30, 2003; Macho Business
Donkey Wrestler

Electric Wrigglies posted:

You are right that not all rifles come from the STG because the M14 came after the war and was a full power cartridge but that selection was more American pig headedness than anything.

Wasn't the M-14 chosen because the Army's selection process was headed up by some old guy who envisioned", "one shot, one kill" because he refused to look at post WWII + Korea stats that said, ">volume of fire = >kills"?

# ? Mar 18, 2021 19:02

ThisIsJohnWayne: Feb 23, 2007; Ooo! Look at me! NO DON'T LOOK AT ME!

Blistex posted:

Wasn't the M-14 chosen because the Army's selection process was headed up by some old guy who envisioned", "one shot, one kill" because he refused to look at post WWII + Korea stats that said, ">volume of fire = >kills"?

In a nutshell. Then the opposite argument was used for the M-16. Funny that.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 19:25

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

ThisIsJohnWayne posted:

You can say that 5.56 is an effective 500 yard cartridge and sincerely believe it, you'll will also get an arguement. Military Review, issue July-August 2012, p. 3: "As previous studies concluded, a truly lethal maximum effective range for an M885, 5.56 mm NATO projectile is about 200 to 250 meters (218-273 yards). Therefore, because half of our firefights occur well beyond 300 meters, our weapons are marginally effective."

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

Fair enough.

Some places you want a weapon optimized for ~300m engagement ranges and others you want 600 to even 1200 for your infantry. I suppose a 'one size fits all' weapon is probably not realistic.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 20:13

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

ThisIsJohnWayne posted:

You can say that 5.56 is an effective 500 yard cartridge and sincerely believe it, you'll will also get an arguement. Military Review, issue July-August 2012, p. 3: "As previous studies concluded, a truly lethal maximum effective range for an M885, 5.56 mm NATO projectile is about 200 to 250 meters (218-273 yards). Therefore, because half of our firefights occur well beyond 300 meters, our weapons are marginally effective."

This is 100% down to barrel length IMO. 500m from a dude with an m16 with an 4x and you're gonna get popped like a loving grape, even with bog standard 55 grain ball. 350m out with a real short carbine is much dicier proposition.

Murgos posted:

Some places you want a weapon optimized for ~300m engagement ranges and others you want 600 to even 1200 for your infantry. I suppose a 'one size fits all' weapon is probably not realistic.

Blackout is the closest anyone's gotten so far, I guess. There's no replacement for barrel length unfortunately.
I've never shot one but an MDR in 300blk with a ~18" is probably the most versatile modern gun I can think of, and it's still kind of up in the air whether it's an upgrade over a good midlength m4.

evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 18, 2021

# ? Mar 18, 2021 20:28

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

Murgos posted:

I am having trouble pinning down your argument at this point. Is it "The US submarine force was not influenced in any significant way by German U-Boat development and any similarities are modest, obvious cribs such as streamlining and moving obstructions out of the flow of the slipstream which any development effort would eventually perform". Or, is it "Any allusion to US submarines being influenced by German U-Boat development is a base canard and should be scorned!"?

Because the 1st one, other than the cover blurbs overly strong language is pretty much Polmars position and the position of everyone who has posted here.

You seem to be vehemently arguing against some argument about US design being wholly derivative of Ze Germans which no one ITT has put forward.

Anyway, after thinking about it over night I have changed my mind that the type XXI undersea performance focus is actually revolutionary. At the moment I am leaning more towards that it's an interesting evolutionary development that was unsupported by the technical capacity of the design to utilize it and was largely a waste of time from a 'winning the war perspective.' Ze Germans issue with the submarine force in 1944 wasn't a lack of underwater performance, improving that aspect of their designs would have had practically no influence on the outcome of the submarine war which was dominated by the allies in multiple facets such as allied air superiority allowing disruption of the german supply chain, radars on large number of long distance patrol aircraft, vast quantities of excellent anti-submarine surface ships with advanced technologies such as sonar and very effective weapons as also the complete vulnerability of the German secure communications system to allied penetration.

If anything once the capability to function for extended periods underwater had been developed (i.e. nuclear propulsion) and the need to operate on the surface had alleviated as a significant design concern things like streamlining down to teardrop hulls would, and did, follow naturally.

Here's where the debate started, since you forgot:

Warbadger posted:

From the amazon description: " For both East and West, the modern submarine originated in German U-boat designs obtained at the end of World War II."

I take issue with this. The US at least wasn't at all hurting when it came to submarine technology and while I'm sure ideas were borrowed (influencing some of the GUPPY upgrades) the US Navy wasn't exactly looking at captured German boats as technological wonders at the end of the war - having boats in many ways more capable. Soviets based a bunch of classes of submarines off the Type XXI so I guess it's more accurate there.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 20:46

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

It's somebody arguing against the publisher's blurb from a great book that they should just read.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 20:48

winnydpu: May 3, 2007; Sugartime Jones

EasilyConfused posted:

It's somebody arguing against the publisher's blurb from a great book that they should just read.

I bought the book based on this thread, and it just showed up. I opened the book at random to a diagram of a proposed submarine tank landing ship. Knowing that is ahead of me is all I need to know this will be a great read.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 22:35

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Cyrano4747 posted:

I'm terrible at judging distances, so I always wonder for these volley sights and other iron sights - how well can someone like me be trained to accurately judge distance

# ? Mar 18, 2021 22:44

Tetraptous: Nov 11, 2004; Dynamic instability during transition.

EasilyConfused posted:

It's somebody arguing against the publisher's blurb from a great book that they should just read.

I haven't read the book--seems neat!--but it would not be surprising if someone at the publisher was like "Can we make this about U-boats? Our audience loves those!"

Like, I'm sure you sell 10 books about WWII U-boats for every one you sell about any other kind of submarine.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 22:50

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Tetraptous posted:

I haven't read the book--seems neat!--but it would not be surprising if someone at the publisher was like "Can we make this about U-boats? Our audience loves those!"

Like, I'm sure you sell 10 books about WWII U-boats for every one you sell about any other kind of submarine.

This poo poo happens quite a bit. A bunch of years back I had a conversation with a historian who wrote a book on post-war Germany and somehow we came around to publishers. He mentioned that he'd had another title planned but the publisher (or the publisher's editor, I forget but more or less the same thing for this) insisted on sticking "Hitler" in the title because that would boost bookstore sales.

Book had nothing to do with Hitler. It was about the post-war era. But it got a Hitler in the title.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 22:59

tangy yet delightful: Sep 13, 2005

Cyrano4747 posted:

This poo poo happens quite a bit. A bunch of years back I had a conversation with a historian who wrote a book on post-war Germany and somehow we came around to publishers. He mentioned that he'd had another title planned but the publisher (or the publisher's editor, I forget but more or less the same thing for this) insisted on sticking "Hitler" in the title because that would boost bookstore sales.

Book had nothing to do with Hitler. It was about the post-war era. But it got a Hitler in the title.

Angela Merkel: Governing in the Post-Hitler Years

The History of the 1990s: A Period of Time After Hitler

# ? Mar 18, 2021 23:15

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Cyrano4747 posted:

This poo poo happens quite a bit. A bunch of years back I had a conversation with a historian who wrote a book on post-war Germany and somehow we came around to publishers. He mentioned that he'd had another title planned but the publisher (or the publisher's editor, I forget but more or less the same thing for this) insisted on sticking "Hitler" in the title because that would boost bookstore sales.

Book had nothing to do with Hitler. It was about the post-war era. But it got a Hitler in the title.

So once upon a time, there was a site called "superman is an rear end in a top hat" (and I'm pretty sure it was an actual site rather than a tumblr or a pinterest, what have you) and it was a series of covers where superman is a dick to draw a reader in. Since there were so many covers like that there were some excellent examples of superman dickatry, lots of superman seemingly murdering Lois Lane, and at least one time where the cover was superman bursting into a room with Lois Lane and some romantic rival of hers, and saying "I'm not marrying either of you because you're both too stupid to realize Clark Kent is me with glasses on."

Anyway, I learned that in the period (50s-60s) two guaranteed draws for comic book readers were 1) a motorcycle on the cover, 2) apes, especially gorillas. The mark of Hitler sounds similar

Now that I'm thinking, I'm pretty sure I've read the three guaranteed cover draws on a book are cats, golf, and Hitler

# ? Mar 18, 2021 23:37

Wingnut Ninja: Jan 11, 2003; Mostly Harmless

Nebakenezzer posted:

So once upon a time, there was a site called "superman is an rear end in a top hat" (and I'm pretty sure it was an actual site rather than a tumblr or a pinterest, what have you) and it was a series of covers where superman is a dick to draw a reader in. Since there were so many covers like that there were some excellent examples of superman dickatry, lots of superman seemingly murdering Lois Lane, and at least one time where the cover was superman bursting into a room with Lois Lane and some romantic rival of hers, and saying "I'm not marrying either of you because you're both too stupid to realize Clark Kent is me with glasses on."

Anyway, I learned that in the period (50s-60s) two guaranteed draws for comic book readers were 1) a motorcycle on the cover, 2) apes, especially gorillas. The mark of Hitler sounds similar

Now that I'm thinking, I'm pretty sure I've read the three guaranteed cover draws on a book are cats, golf, and Hitler

Superdickery, which sadly seems like it was converted into a blog format at some point and is now a little harder to browse through the archives.

Apparently a lot of comics in those days literally started with the cover and then the writer had to come up with some kind of story to fit around it.

# ? Mar 18, 2021 23:50

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

tangy yet delightful posted:

Angela Merkel: Governing in the Post-Hitler Years

The History of the 1990s: A Period of Time After Hitler

Inserting "Hitler" or "Nazi" into titles for completely unrelated subjects became a common grad school bar game for a while. poo poo like:

"An Island Without Hitler: Cuban Diaspora Literature 1849 - 1877"

or

"Freedom Before Nazis: The 33rd Illinois at the Siege of Vicksburg"

Alternatively we'd just gin up the most click-baity, history-channel esque hypothetical book titles we could.

"Hitler's Secret Occult Executioners: Hidden Nazi spies of the Waffen SS."

Eventually there was a rule that if you accidentally made what sounded like it could be the title of a 70s Nazi-themed porno (think "Ilse, She-Wolf of the SS" type poo poo) you had to buy the table a round.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 00:02

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Nebakenezzer posted:

Now that I'm thinking, I'm pretty sure I've read the three guaranteed cover draws on a book are cats, golf, and Hitler

The version I always heard was the three best selling subjects for books were doctors, dogs, and Abraham Lincoln, and therefore a book titled "Lincoln's Doctor's Dog" would be the best-selling book of all time.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 00:06

shame on an IGA: Apr 8, 2005

Wingnut Ninja posted:

Superdickery, which sadly seems like it was converted into a blog format at some point and is now a little harder to browse through the archives.

Apparently a lot of comics in those days literally started with the cover and then the writer had to come up with some kind of story to fit around it.

I'm proud to own several of these

# ? Mar 19, 2021 00:06

Blistex: Oct 30, 2003; Macho Business
Donkey Wrestler

zoux posted:

I'm terrible at judging distances, so I always wonder for these volley sights and other iron sights - how well can someone like me be trained to accurately judge distance

Get a friend to stand at various distances and compare his apparent size to your thumb and the landmarks on it. Ex. tip of thumb to cuticle.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 00:30

ThisIsJohnWayne: Feb 23, 2007; Ooo! Look at me! NO DON'T LOOK AT ME!

Also if you throw rocks at friend you can practice fire correction call outs! Endless potential

# ? Mar 19, 2021 00:57

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

EasilyConfused posted:

It's somebody arguing against the publisher's blurb from a great book that they should just read.

I mean, the book may be good but the discussion was about the quality of content in pop history so it seemed pretty on-topic to point out a pretty glaring inaccuracy/exaggeration (or what is essentially clickbait) in there. On a related point it bugs me to attribute bunches of leaps forward in military technology to the Nazis - perpetuating the myth of technological superiority there isn't a healthy thing.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Mar 19, 2021

# ? Mar 19, 2021 01:13

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1372060067051175937

Any Aussies want to comment on why you guys gave the friggin army submarines?!? They must be so confused and scared in those!!!

# ? Mar 19, 2021 01:14

Wingnut Ninja: Jan 11, 2003; Mostly Harmless

priznat posted:

https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1372060067051175937

Any Aussies want to comment on why you guys gave the friggin army submarines?!? They must be so confused and scared in those!!!

They're looking for the tanks that someone gave to the Navy.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 01:18

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

�It�s my submarine from army, mother!�

# ? Mar 19, 2021 01:28

TCD: Nov 13, 2002; Every step, a fucking adventure.

ThisIsJohnWayne posted:

You can say that 5.56 is an effective 500 yard cartridge and sincerely believe it, you'll will also get an arguement. Military Review, issue July-August 2012, p. 3: "As previous studies concluded, a truly lethal maximum effective range for an M885, 5.56 mm NATO projectile is about 200 to 250 meters (218-273 yards). Therefore, because half of our firefights occur well beyond 300 meters, our weapons are marginally effective."

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

The article does say this

Some Opinion posted:

...the soldiers themselves used captured AK-47s to better compete in the mountainous terrain

Who knew that 7.62x39 was a sniper at range

This article has a few things wrong with it, and these articles, much like F-22, F-35 suck rear end and the F-15A is a better purchase... etc. always resurface every few years when there's a push for the next DOD procurement.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 01:34

Saint Celestine: Dec 17, 2008; Lay a fire within your soul and another between your hands, and let both be your weapons.
For one is faith and the other is victory and neither may ever be put out.
- Saint Sabbat, Lessons; Grimey Drawer

Cyrano4747 posted:

"Hitler's Secret Occult Executioners: Hidden Nazi spies of the Waffen SS."

Do you have a link to this?

# ? Mar 19, 2021 01:42

TheFluff: Dec 13, 2006; FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE

priznat posted:

https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1372060067051175937

Any Aussies want to comment on why you guys gave the friggin army submarines?!? They must be so confused and scared in those!!!

In the US the navy has an army, but in 18th century Sweden the army had a navy (in addition to the actual navy, of course). Glad to see this practice making a comeback.

Ironically by the way there are barely any significant Swedish naval victories, and the one really big one there is (Svensksund, 1790) was won by the army's navy.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 01:50

PeterCat: Apr 8, 2020; Believe women.

TheFluff posted:

In the US the navy has an army, but in 18th century Sweden the army had a navy (in addition to the actual navy, of course). Glad to see this practice making a comeback.

Ironically by the way there are barely any significant Swedish naval victories, and the one really big one there is (Svensksund, 1790) was won by the army's navy.

The US Army had a Navy, but got rid of it a couple of years ago.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 03:57

NightGyr: Mar 7, 2005; I � Unicode

PeterCat posted:

The US Army had a Navy, but got rid of it a couple of years ago.

Still got some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_United_States_Army#Currently_Active_Ship_Classes

# ? Mar 19, 2021 04:14

Vindolanda: Feb 13, 2012; It's just like him too, y'know?

priznat posted:

https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1372060067051175937

Any Aussies want to comment on why you guys gave the friggin army submarines?!? They must be so confused and scared in those!!!

Submarine looks like a big boot. Army wear boot.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 08:23

thatbastardken: Apr 23, 2010; A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

priznat posted:

Any Aussies want to comment on why you guys gave the friggin army submarines?!? They must be so confused and scared in those!!!

the 9 news reporters were trained wrong, as a joke.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 13:41

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

zoux posted:

I'm terrible at judging distances, so I always wonder for these volley sights and other iron sights - how well can someone like me be trained to accurately judge distance

You'd probably be given the range and adjustments by a noncom or something like that, since you're doing platoon or company volley fire. If you're in a situation where nobody can call out range, you are using the combat sights anyway.

The other thing that is quite common throughout history is range markers. If you know the ground you'll fight on, you can communicate range to key points, or you can even place markers that indicate the range in the ground. Not really possible in a meeting engagement, though.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 17:35

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

TheFluff posted:

In the US the navy has an army, but in 18th century Sweden the army had a navy (in addition to the actual navy, of course). Glad to see this practice making a comeback.

Ironically by the way there are barely any significant Swedish naval victories, and the one really big one there is (Svensksund, 1790) was won by the army's navy.

Tiny brain: Navy

Big brain: Navy's Air Force

Galaxy brain: Navy's Army

Cosmic brain: Navy's Army's Air Force

# ? Mar 19, 2021 17:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 04:57

Valtonen: May 13, 2014; Tanks still suck but you don't gotta hand it to the Axis either.

Sagebrush posted:

Tiny brain: Navy

Big brain: Navy's Air Force

Galaxy brain: Navy's Army

Cosmic brain: Navy's Army's Air Force

Ground attack Air wing of the Space Marines.

# ? Mar 19, 2021 18:05

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Old War/Dad Power: Clancey chat (both types)

«‹›1548 »