|
The one I remember is the laser sound effects being from hitting guy wires with hammers
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
I'd heard many times about the barrel wear and just accepted it as a fact and never actually wondered why, so thanks for asking that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell) quote:Even though the 3 Shiki tsûjôdan shells comprised 40% of the total main ammunition load of the Yamato-class battleships by 1944, they were rarely used in combat against enemy aircraft. The blast of the main guns turned out to disrupt the fire of the smaller antiaircraft guns. In addition the copper drive bands of the rounds were poorly machined and constant firing was damaging the gun rifling; indeed, one of the shells may have exploded early and disabled one of Musashi's guns during the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi quote:During this attack, Musashi fired sanshikidan anti-aircraft shells from her main armament; one shell detonated in the middle gun of Turret No. 1, possibly because of a bomb fragment in the barrel, and wrecked the turret's elevating machinery. Wouldn't bomb fragments in the barrel make any fired round gently caress up the gun?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2019 10:51
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Also the Brits seem to have a long history of hating their tank crews so the increased pain of repairing a multibank was likely a non-issue. Reminds me of how the British had a significantly higher casualty rate than the Americans in their Shermans, because British tankers wore soft berets instead of helmets
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Surviving crew members crowded outside in a ditch while their Firefly burns, somebody mutters 'This would never have happened if we wore our tin hats.' US and Soviet tanker helmets protected the wearer's head from the tank, not from bullets or shrapnel. GotLag fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:This sounds apocryphal. Any difference would surely be swamped by the differences in the fighting they faced on their sectors of the front. It's late and I need to go to bed but I remember the number being somewhere just under 1 KIA per Sherman knocked out in US service, and higher for the British Army. I think Chieftain mentioned it in one of his videos, or it might have been one of the tankfest lectures. I can't remember if they had a figure for Soviet Shermans. Regardless, not having a helmet is going to mean you are more likely to suffer injuries (be they major or minor) from hitting your head during violent manoeuvres, such as losing a track to a mine, or rolling into a ditch, or any of the other exciting things that can happen to a tracked vehicle. SeanBeansShako posted:Most tank crew get the gently caress out fast when things go south so I feel while it does protect you from spalling or debris at certain angles a beret or soft cap isn't going to get caught on a lever or gear stick and cost you those few precious seconds from understanding why your tank is nicknamed a Ronson lighter. "Ronson" is a post-war invention GotLag fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
http://www.big-red-one.org/M1938%20TANK%20HELMET%20INFO%20PAGE.htm <2 lb for the helmet (including headphones and goggles), lighter than I expected
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It depends on the motivation and whether the people leading the revolution think that killing the people in charge is not only okay, but necessary. The American Revolution took place an ocean away from the main government they were fighting against, but the Continental Congress didn't start demanding the execution of loyalists. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson weren't saying to behead the governors who didn't join their side. Seizures of property and exile, yes, but not murder. When the Crown acquiesced to independence, the war was over. British soldiers went home, 80+ million loyalists remained and became Americans. Relations even remained positive enough that both nations engaged in trade and diplomatic relations immediately after the war ended, though the War of 1812 was a rocky moment. That's because the American revolutionary leaders didn't want to dismantle the unjust system, they wanted to take the place of those at the top of it. They were fans of democracy and freedom in the classical sense, i.e. for rich slave-owners
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It was a war over representative government. England had pretty strong democratic traditions (for the time) where men with property could get a say in how they were governed, and the colonies themselves had a number of self-governed institutions, so that's what gave them the idea that there was a reason to not just accept things when England levied some extra taxes and tried cracking down on non-mercantilist trade. It might seem like a smaller thing in the grand scheme of things, but that's what mattered to them at the time. No taxation without representation! Offer does not apply to slaves, natives or the unpropertied
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
I once read an account from a Canadian soldier, relating how he and his fellow soldiers tried and failed to make themselves understood at a Norman village with their high-school French, until the man they were talking to just told them to speak English (he'd been a steward on the liner Normandie).
GotLag fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Aug 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
If you don't enjoy Battleship you hate fun
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:What would you have charged that guy with? pikes, obviously
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:On the contrary. It's a long book but you should really read The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker. The world today is the safest, most just, most human rights friendly and war free that we have ever known as a species. While we obviously have our problems of the day, millions and millions of people aren't dying in stupid wars for them at anywhere near the same rates we've used to. Violence and rape and crime of all sorts has dropped precipitously. This is the best planet Earth has ever been! And with luck it'll keep on getting better. Pinker's full of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Steven Pinker is a Vincent Van Goatse posted:Oh boy, globalresearch.ca, they're just as wacky as Pinker but from a JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS trajectory. It was late and I was tired and that was one of the top google results for "better angels of our nature bullshit"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 02:16
|
|
alt-right adjacent lying sack of poo poo.
|
HEY GUNS posted:so you posted genocide denial? what the gently caress is this post?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:the thing you posted said that bill clinton withdrew un troops from rwanda deliberately so his allies could massacre people. it also denies the genocide of bosnian people during the war in the former yugoslavia. did you read the whole thing before you posted it It's not denial of the Rwandan genocide to suggest the US was complicit. The Bosnian Book of the Dead gives a figure less than half the 225,000 initially stated by Pinker. Are you going to call the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo denialists too?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
As an immigrant I think I'd have been happier had my family stayed in our home country
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The denialist part isn’t quibbling about the death total, it’s the part where it’s argued that removing them from the ethnic makeup as a matter of policy wasn’t genocide. You seem to be misreading its criticism of Pinker's highly selective use of the word "genocide" for a contention that the genocide in Yugoslavia wasn't a genocide.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:involuntary minesweeping
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I hadn't heard of this "heated ammunition fires further" thing. How much of a difference does it make? Approximately 0.5% increase in muzzle velocity per 10°F increase in propellant temperature
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Did the Germans ever use a heavy machine gun on the ground in WW2?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The main issue with shaped charges is that they have a very focused explosion, so you will get absolutely hosed up if you're standing in front of one when it goes off, but just being slightly off to the side can leave you mostly unharmed, while a HE or frag round would ruin everyone in the blast radius. You can see a bunch of examples of this from Syrian civil war videos where people were sniping each other on hilltops with ATGMs (do not watch these). It might not have all the fragmentation of the purpose-built anti-personnel round, but the HEAT RPG warhead still has four times as much explosive in it as an M67 hand grenade. Sure the HEAT jet might miss you but you're still copping that blast and fragments of the casing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
Timed fuzes were used to make the shell explode at a certain time after firing, hopefully at the same height as an enemy aircraft. The Allies had sufficiently advanced electronics in the latter half of the war to introduce radar proximity fuzes that would explode near an object without having to have a time selected before firing. Artillery firing at ground targets also used time shells in the hope of making them explode just before impact for maximum effect (shrapnel spreading out instead of being directed upwards out of a hole in the ground), this was much easier to achieve with proximity fuzes. On a related note, how much of a hazard was falling shrapnel from AA shells and cartridge cases or bullets from aircraft to civilians beneath who weren't being directly targeted? GotLag fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Sep 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:That poo poo makes me feel that everyone wasn't so much drunk as sleep-deprived I imagine they were used to it, in the way that people can be used to sleeping on hard floors but I would not be able to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Every element heavier than iron (element twenty‐six) has an unstable nucleus, though lead at eighty‐two and most of the things in‐between have isotopes so long‐lived they’re never been observed to decay and likely never will. The light elements are vulnerable to proton decay, but that will happen long after the universe is in heat death and there is no energy around to run a player or a mind to appreciate it. Are you sure about that, and that you're not mixing it up with iron being the end-point of (non-supernova) stellar nucleosynthesis? Tin has 10 stable isotopes, only three of which are suspected-but-not-yet-seen to decay
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Chamale posted:For an example of a design flaw that doesn't translate into gameplay, look at the Panther tank. It was a 45-tonne tank with a drivetrain designed for a 30-tonne tank, which meant it was ridiculously vulnerable to breaking down. It broke if the tank made a sharp turn on rough terrain, it broke if the driver switched gears while going downhill, it broke if the tank went 100 kilometres without being checked by a mechanic. But in a video game that doesn't simulate that, the Panther's heavy armour and gun make it an objectively superior tank even though its weight was the thing making it unreliable . And even that nice gun is directly impacted by another flaw that very few games include: the gunner is looking at the world through a drinking straw as he has no 1x sight, and the commander can't override the turret traverse and so has to call out instructions to the gunner until the gunner can see the target in his sights.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:but the smoke from the stacks would interfere with landing aircraft and make recovery extremely difficult, if not impossible (see also the HMS Furious) How would it be worse than any other carrier?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
My favourite Lindybeige is his assertion that the Bren is better than the MG42, and his evidence is that the Allies won the war.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
I broke a bone (fifth metatarsal) in my foot a few years ago. After two weeks in a protective splint it wasn't setting straight (the broken ends were angled downwards), and so a surgeon aligned the two pieces and put a pin through them, which was removed six weeks later. Instead of having a limp for the rest of my life, I walk normally. I've also had impacted wisdom teeth pulled (one of which needed to be broken up in place to be extracted), which was all done with local anaesthesia and sterile instruments. I'm glad I don't live in a roman bust guy's ideal past.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:If you don’t consider that a possibility when joining then I don’t know know what to tell you. There was a time when there weren't forever wars. My brother joined a non-US army on a 20 year contract in 1986 and was somewhat disappointed to be sent to Afghanistan in the last year of his service.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Tias posted:E: accidentally included John Hines, finest loota ever, but it turns out he was ozzie Aussie And so was John Monash Incidentally it was Rupert Murdoch's father who helped the official Australian war historian Charles Bean try to have Monash removed - because Monash's Jewish background didn't fit the narrative that Bean was crafting about the quintessential Australian character. Presumably he wasn't racist enough or something. Edit: as a further aside Monash appears on one side of the $100 polymer banknote (Nellie Melba on the other) GotLag fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Nov 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:old Malleus Scotorum Sack of hammers?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The theory on that project was that they would be given back line jobs and also doing military service would improve their job prospects. I watched that lecture about Project 100,000 the other week and what struck me was that McNamara talked about training films the way politicians talked about computers in the '90s and '00s - as literal magic that would solve all educational problems, with no thought whatsoever given as to how this would occur (or to properly funding it)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2019 08:42
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Nuclear bombs release 35% of their energy in the form of light and heat, 50% as blast, and 15% as radiation. Doesn't this vary wildly depending on yield? Aren't light/head and blast secondary products of the radiation output?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Independence Day was good  Edit: and Universal Soldier
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
He didn't drink leaded fuel. He poured tetraethyl lead over his hands and held a beaker of it beneath his nose for a minute, breathing the vapours. And then had to take a long break from work to recover from lead poisoning. He didn't know CFCs would gently caress up the ozone layer (nobody else knew back then, either), but he most definitely knew that tetraethyl lead was extremely dangerous the whole time he was selling it as a safe additive. GotLag fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Nov 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
Is there an advantage to wetting sails? Edit, book from 1874: The Yacht Sailor. A Treatise on Practical Yachtsmanship, Cruising and Racing posted:Some one suggests "wetting the sails." On this point I would say a few words to you. No doubt wetting swells the threads of the canvas, which then offer a closer surface to the action of the wind ; but if the sails are new they do not so much require it, and the jumping about of the men will do more harm than good. Another disadvantage may arise from their not being wetted evenly, which, in the hurry and excitement of the moment, the chances are they will not be ; Edit 2: a person on Quora says that's not the reason: quote:I’m old enough to have raced dinghies with canvas sails! GotLag fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Did they have explosive shells by then, or was it still solid shot? I know there was a lot of excitement in the middle of the 19th century about explosive shells but I don't know the reason(s) why they weren't in wide use before that time. The latter half of the 19th century was a weird and wonderful time for weapons design. My favourite is the brief popularity of compressed-air-powered dynamite guns from the 1880s until the availability of more stable explosives (that could withstand the shock of firing from a conventional gun) rendered them obsolete. GotLag fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Nov 18, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
I was surprised to see a contemporary newsreel openly talking about - and showing - attacks on Japanese lifeboats (the lifeboats start after 5:20): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azanISsx19c
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 08:20
|
|