|
Mycroft Holmes posted:That's the exact text of the book. My version will be different, of course, but it's still interesting. Thanks for all the line breaks, it made scrolling through the dreck just so much more pleasant. 10/10 would read thread on my mobile device again. e: lovely snipe  Have an Iowa-class carrier for the new page: 
HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 31, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Drunkenness is ensuing comrades
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You can't really do that. This came up a lot during WWII. Want to plug a 107 mm gun into the IS? Splendid, except all the 107 mm ammunition we have is Tsarist era HE grenades. Want a 130 mm bunker buster? Neato, where are you going to get ammo for it? That's a Navy caliber, stick with a 122 mm gun like we already have. Or if you're the British, you bore out 6pdr guns to 75mm and modify the breach so they can fire American-made 75mm HE shells.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Sorry
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:While discussing calibers, one coincidence that I find peculiar is that both the Soviets and the Brits independently came up with a high velocity 57mm anti-tank gun at roughly the same time, ZiS-2 and Ordnance QF 6-pounder. It seems like the British gun was based on an earlier navy gun but the Soviet gun's caliber was a completely new one? The Tsarist army used 57 mm guns and the caliber for the new high powered anti-tank gun was pegged at 55-60 mm, so I guess they went with 57 mm because it was already an established caliber. C.M. Kruger posted:Or if you're the British, you bore out 6pdr guns to 75mm and modify the breach so they can fire American-made 75mm HE shells. There were Soviet projects to bore out captured German guns, but only for really high caliber stuff and I don't know if they ever ended up going through with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
It's new year we can give drunken posting a break for the night. Happy new year fellow nerds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
lenoon posted:It's new year we can give drunken posting a break for the night. Happy new year fellow nerds. Not yet over here in Mississippi but happy new year European guys!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Headed to the trenches of my Salt Lake City bar for the inevitable lucrative shitshow of NYE. Once more into the breach and all that. Happy New Year, best thread!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The Tsarist army used 57 mm guns and the caliber for the new high powered anti-tank gun was pegged at 55-60 mm, so I guess they went with 57 mm because it was already an established caliber. Aha, nice! Also there were plans for boring captured Soviet 7.62x25mm submachineguns to take 9mm Parabellum, but nothing came of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not yet over here in Mississippi but happy new year European guys! I always thought from your strident defeneses of the empire you were a Brit man! Happy new year
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Ok so now that roughly half or more of the world is officially in 2017, who's gonna die first? My money's on the Queen. Queening is a tough job, and it's worrisome when any 90 year old comes down with a cold that puts them out of action for more than a day or two much less one with a stressful lifestyle. Happy New Year, all. E: Also, London's fireworks were on point. I'm a New York native so you have to appreciate what it means when I begrudgingly admit that someone did New Year's Eve better than us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:There were Soviet projects to bore out captured German guns, but only for really high caliber stuff and I don't know if they ever ended up going through with it. I can imagine it would certainly be worth doing a feasibility study just based on the cost of forging new heavy artillery barrels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Not really. Most gun calibers have a history based on much older designs and the existence of tooling for a specific size bore. The 88 has its roots in a late 19th century naval gun, for example. The decisions that dictate exactly how wide a gun is have more to do with the measurement system used by the engineers, the tooling used to build the weapons, the tooling used to build new tooling, and a whole host of other engineering/production considerations. As far as I know the US 75mm guns were built around the French 1897 howitzer shell, while I think the 76mms were based on naval 3" guns that got used for tank destroyers. Another fun one was the British 75mm that was a 57mm bored out to take the US 75mm shells.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:E: Also, London's fireworks were on point. I'm a New York native so you have to appreciate what it means when I begrudgingly admit that someone did New Year's Eve better than us. I was there and I have no idea what they were supposed to have done, anyone want to help me out? edit: Compliments of the season from Louis Barthas quote:Christmas arrived. The only difference from other days was that we didn’t go out for training. But that day the newspapers, in huge letters, announced the sensational peace proposal of Emperor Wilhelm of Germany. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You can't really do that. This came up a lot during WWII. Want to plug a 107 mm gun into the IS? Splendid, except all the 107 mm ammunition we have is Tsarist era HE grenades. Want a 130 mm bunker buster? Neato, where are you going to get ammo for it? That's a Navy caliber, stick with a 122 mm gun like we already have. Isn't making new ammunition / new ammo types way easier than a new gun? You already have the cartridge dimensions and maximum pressure, so load to that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Isn't making new ammunition / new ammo types way easier than a new gun? You already have the cartridge dimensions and maximum pressure, so load to that. It should be, but it would still take some time seeing as you need to design a new round, tool up production, and then distribute your production to various units. And if you have the option of a 107mm gun and a 122mm gun, why would you go with the 107mm if you'd need to design new rounds for it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So, thread, many people are talking about what a bad year 2016 was, and glad they are to be rid of it. Are there other years people have felt like this? 1666? 1939? 1865? 1815, the year without a summer? i mean we haven't gotten into a world war yet
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I always thought from your strident defeneses of the empire you were a Brit man! Happy new year Lol. a) I am indeed British and live in Britain. b) I'm a socialist and not a fan of the Empire per se. At best at least we werent the Belgians. c) however, my wife is from Mississippi and I'm over here visiting the in laws for the holidays  Happy new year to you too!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I was there and I have no idea what they were supposed to have done, anyone want to help me out? So, why didn't anyone want to negotiate at the end of 1916? Or did they only want to negotiate a "I won, you lost" level of negotiation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
Comstar posted:So, why didn't anyone want to negotiate at the end of 1916? Or did they only want to negotiate a "I won, you lost" level of negotiation. Everyone had spent far too much money to just walk away and chalk it up as all a big misunderstanding. Somebody had to lose or everyone would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Compare that to the west, where it starts in a similar situation but within a few decades you have established that there was something uniquely hosed up about the way the Jews were targeted. If you want to see an example of this, watch the Twilight Zone episode "Death's Head Revisited" where a Nazi from Dachau gets tormented by the ghost of one of his victims. The Jews as a group are never mentioned explicitly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Isn't making new ammunition / new ammo types way easier than a new gun? You already have the cartridge dimensions and maximum pressure, so load to that. It's not so completely clear cut I'd say. You could probably design a APHE round for the 107 but if the performance is worse than the 122, than what was the point? If you go more modern, HEAT and APFSDS are as reliant on the dimensions of the barrel/shell as anything else. There's a lot of factors involved to making ammo that's actually effective, especially more effective than what came before it. Also, the logistics of tooling up a whole new production line and supplying that ammo to all the combat units that need it alongside all the other ammo types is not insignificant. Streamlining ammo supply lines is uniformly a good thing where possible. Mazz fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i am interested in the fantasy austro-hungarians Imagine if the Austrians were well supplied with modern gear and not commanded by a GHQ full of idiots. Honestly I'd have an easier time imagining sober Poles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Splode posted:Everyone had spent far too much money to just walk away and chalk it up as all a big misunderstanding. Somebody had to lose or everyone would. Wilson was looking toward a peace conference over the objections of a pro-entente Republican congress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Why don't contemporary armies form front units according to blood types, so that when men get pierced by fast moving pieces of metal there would always be plenty of sources for blood transfusion? O- people should probably kept in the rear so that they could donate blood to anyone while minimizing the risk of them getting wounded because they could only accept O- blood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Because you don't want your uninjured soldiers donating blood in the middle of a firefight? That's why you use stockpiled blood plasma packs instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:30
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Because you don't want your uninjured soldiers donating blood in the middle of a firefight? Besides, you'd also need a Orange Juice and Cookies support group attached to each unit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Sounds like a highly ineffective and inefficient way to organize your army. On the front you're not too worried about blood transfusions: you're focused on stabilization and evacuation to higher level care within the "golden hour"
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Just send everyone into battle already hooked up to everyone else. Networked warfare, motherfuckers
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Because you don't want your uninjured soldiers donating blood in the middle of a firefight? Isn't there a risk of running out of compatible blood if you don't plan forward? Like if by chance a bunch of O- dudes were put in the same unit and all got badly wounded, they would quickly use up all of the universal blood reserves, and if you're in a Stalingrad-like situation where you can't just bring in unlimited supplies then you're dependent on organic donors. This would be easy to avoid if companies or battalions were formed around blood types: you'd have A, B, AB and O companies. They wouldn't be even nearly the same size, but that little inconvenience would surely be offset by the gains in efficiency of treating wounded warriors! aphid_licker posted:Just send everyone into battle already hooked up to everyone else. Networked warfare, motherfuckers 
Nenonen fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Isn't there a risk of running out of compatible blood if you don't plan forward? Like if by chance a bunch of O- dudes were put in the same unit and all got badly wounded, they would quickly use up all of the universal blood reserves, and if you're in a Stalingrad-like situation where you can't just bring in unlimited supplies then you're dependent on organic donors. This would be easy to avoid if companies or battalions were formed around blood types: you'd have A, B, AB and O companies. They wouldn't be even nearly the same size, but that little inconvenience would surely be offset by the gains in efficiency of treating wounded warriors! You can always use noncombatants as blood donors, you know. Have all the o- widows and orphans back home donating blood every few weeks and you'll be good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Looking for some movie identification help. I recently got into History Buffs, a channel that analyzes historical movies. In his Last Samurai video, he shows clips from a movie that look pretty interesting that start around this part. Does anyone know what movie those clips of the Japanese soldiers attacking the castle is from? It looks interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Comstar posted:So, why didn't anyone want to negotiate at the end of 1916? There was one leader who genuinely wanted to negotiate, and that was Charles I, who'd just taken the Austro-Hungarian thrones, and was so desperate to get out of the war so he could try to save his empire that he spent a lot of 1917 conducting secret talks with the French, sometimes openly floating the idea of a separate peace against the wishes of his own foreign minister. In Berlin, the attitude of Bethmann-Hollweg nicely demonstrates why peace never had a chance. He'd spent a year and a half thinking about what he could possibly come up with to row back on the Septemberprogramm to a position that might be acceptable to the enemy while also satisfying his own fire-eaters in the Reichstag. The German Empire would keep Alsace and Lorraine, and nicely expand German colonial holdings in Africa; this would be the price for removing their army from France and Belgium. Plus of course reparations for German military losses, etc etc. This was the most reasonable, polite, generous offer he thought he could possible put on the table. To which the Entente response, given that they had just occupied the vast majority of the said colonial holdings and begun really squeezing hard on the naval blockade, would have certainly been some kind of extended wet farting noise, and accompanying sentiments along the lines of "and do you want a shilling from the poor-box for your trouble, too? come back next year if you haven't starved to death or been squashed by our tanks by then". Peace offers are no good if you're only prepared to accept a far-from-defeated enemy's agreement to terms unfavourable to them. Never mind that the enemy's newspapers have spent the last two years screaming about a life-and-death struggle to defend civilisation from the machinations of the villainous Hun, and now their governments are in deep poo poo if they attempt to settle for anything other than an unambiguous victory. That's really not important because the offer was never going to be good enough for them to even start considering "is it worth the political risk to take this deal and cut our losses already?" Britain and France's food problems were nowhere near as bad as Germany's, they had enough men and munitions to carry on slaughtering them for another year at least, a tightening blockade, a clear technological advantage in most aspects of the war except in the air and underwater, some over-optimistic intelligence assessments, and were seemingly on the verge of applying the lessons learned in 1916 to finally move the Western Front an appreciable distance to the east, and so vastly reduce German bargaining power. The only arguments for making peace are humanitarian ones, and at the risk of sounding cynical, if anyone gave a single solitary gently caress about those, the war genuinely would have been over by Christmas 1914. (This of course completely ignores any inevitable complications in the hypothetical peace settlement around what the gently caress you do about Italy and Trieste and wanting to turn the Adriatic into an Italian pond; and the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia; and the German/Bulgarian defeat of Romania; and Venizelos just having finished moving hell and high water to bring Greece into the war, now to apparently no purpose; and Anglo-French desires to replace the Ottoman Empire as chief powers in Iraq and Syria; and the seemingly-unstoppable Russian Army of the Caucasus poised to roll through eastern Turkey from Erzincan towards Kayseri. A lot of those problems didn't get a satisfactory solution at all, despite the overwhelming victory on all remaining fronts that eventually ended the war!)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
A friend's brother in law is selling some WW2 helmets. If anyone is interested I can put you in touch. I have no idea if these are good prices. Hopefully he doesn't just have nazi stuff in the collection  http://imgur.com/a/cmjqK Air raid Helmet $400  Afrika Korps $400  M-35 heer single decal $450 
goodness fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
goodness posted:A friend's brother in law is selling some WW2 helmets. If anyone is interested I can put you in touch If he can deliver any 1940s blood bags I've got  also interested in Hitler's foreskin
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Share your feelings on sinking the Lusitania, re. morality, utility, legality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Murdering civilians is bad even when the laws of war say it's cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Don't use civilians to shield military targets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
The sinking of the Lusitania is one of those situations where I blame pretty much everyone involved in it happening and what lead to it happening except the victims.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:15
|
|