|
So many posts about length and seamen and hogging and no one is gonna say anything? We're just leaving that money on the table?
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
Yeah this is a classic example of "I ate some of the cookies" does not actually make the statement "I ate all of the cookies" false kind of poo poo. (It's called an upwards entailment if you're a math nerd.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:The entire spanish economy runs on massive convoys and they are very serious about it. It's in Rahn Phllips' books: The fact that you used present tense here is hilarious and amazing and I love it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
If you must try to have a one to one relation of words between languages, "werfen" is probably closer to "hurl" than "throw".Gaius Marius posted:Everything in german is named that way though. They have no sense of style or elegance for naming. No they don't and the English word is just a borrowing from French that was then used as a metaphor because it kind of looked like a mortar a la mortar and pestle. This is an incredibly dumb post when you know like half the thread speaks German.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse." Doch kannst du mich am Arsch lecken. Edit : I'm being flippant because this is just stupid and only a hair different from calling the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" or something. It's a bad post and ignorantly making GBS threads on other languages has no place in the MilHist thread. If it was some informed making GBS threads, that'd be another story. But this argument falls apart when you remember that English has the word "firetruck". Xiahou Dun fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Dec 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 06:36
|
|
|
It's a lovely and ignorant joke.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 06:54
|
|
|
I thought that was clanky canteens and wool getting wet. And if that's true the simple solution for the Allies would be to, you know, not do that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Cessna, this is important : do you own a pair of jodhpurs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Cessna, this is important : do you own a pair of jodhpurs. Why are you dodging this question, Cessna. Do you own too many jodhpurs or too few.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Hey I know it's 2 hours and 20 minutes, so I understand not wanting to watch it, but it's a nuanced take and full of citations so maybe just assuming it's all just saying "bomb = bad" isn't good conversation? He could totally be wrong but he is going through primary documents to make his argument and it's more complicated than that. Plus I naturally rankle at people who go, "I'm not reading/watching that but here are my rebuttals on what I assume they say." His fundamental argument is that trying to boil it down to "bombs made war go away yay" is an over-simplification and then he explains that premise in depth forever. Watch it or don't but you can't just decide what his argument is cause you had a vaguely similar argument with someone 6 years ago. (I saw the video and specifically didn't post it cause I worried it'd cause this.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
That's totally fair and a pretty good viewpoint. I specifically wasn't asking anyone to watch the video, just that if we're going to have a giant derail people should watch it and talk about his points instead of points they made up. I do not want another giant derail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but if I must read one I'd like it to even kind of vaguely function as a conversation rather than being the same old points.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
You uh missed most of his points because you didn't watch the video. Not saying you should but even your examples make at least some sense in the larger context. People should either watch the whole video and then discuss it or we should just not talk about it all. I like the latter, and that's as someone who watched the whole video and went "O that's an interesting take."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:This is sort of the mirror universe of chuds saying 'you should watch this 2 hour PragerU video' and then getting annoyed when people don't want to do that, though? Not talking about it at all was the better bet but that's kind of off the table when someone posts that unless you think the whole thread is going to spontaneously practice omerta and just ignore the post altogether. O yeah we're agreed. And there's a reason I watched it and then didn't post it because while it's an interesting take on the bombing and is well-researched, it requires you to watch 2+ hours and that's not great for conversation. He generally does good research and I watch his poo poo anyway, and I think he did a pretty good job about advocating for his argument. Which, specifically, isn't bombs and US bad eeerrrrr, but more like the "simplistic narrative about the bombs being dropped to (in the views of the US) save lives at the time of the bombings is over-simplified and we should examine it." It's 2 hours long cause he's going over primary documents. I ain't never arguing for his point, even if I think it's interesting ; I just want people to engage with it in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The Maginot line did everything it was supposed to and I don’t think there was any overcommitment of useful units there. The best units of the french army, as well as the BEF, moved into Belgium and more or less countered what the germans had until very recently been planning, and for example when 3. and 4. Panzer divisions crashed into the french armoured cavalry, the french got the better of them. Responding to you not in particular but just as a jumping off point : I thought the consensus was that yeah I guess the French weren't positioned correctly but doing any better would've involved magic psychic powers so it's a really dumb point ; their forces were stationed in an entirely logical manner and the German attack only makes sense as a response to that, and even then it only worked because they got lucky as hell. As always I look forward to being schooled like the start of the semester and folded like laundry in order to provide better education for all with my dumb idiocy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
White Coke posted:I tracked down the quote. It's from A World at Arms by Gerhard Weinberg. He says: Could I get this in French? If it's reasonably practical I like to read the original for nuance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Battle Tactics is great. Another thing to consider is Trin Tragula's day-by-day blog about the war https://makersley.com/a-failure-of-oversight/ They dropped it in mid-1916 so it's not the whole duration, and some people might like the day-by-day format and the focus on individual story threads and some people might not, but it's well done and gives a really worldwide perspective. It's not just the experience of the British Tommies that has been covered over and over again, albeit often extremely well. The blog is also for sale as a pair of cheap e-books too which makes for more convenient reading. I know I must've said this before, but for a long time my morning ritual was reading this and having my first cigarette of the day. To the point that my then girlfriend asked me why I was happy at the beginning of the morning but suddenly sad later. That poo poo owns bones.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:
Not being lovely cause we all make typos, but this gave me the hilarious image of French soldiers neatly arranged in pleated dough and stuffed up then fried and served with a scallion soy sauce or like a mala oil and it made me chuckle really hard. You could call it Dim Somme.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
That looks so god drat fun. I wanna get liquored up and throw around/knock over big, inflatable tanks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Milhist goonmeet and it's literally just this plus a certain someone stabbing the tanks with a pike Well if we're gonna do it as a group then we also need to do that bit at the end of the gif where they're "driving" the tank so we can blindly ram into each other. It's important.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
I would've gone with something from Cattulus but sure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
O someone has a mean sense of humor and I might have to merry them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:What did written communiques between the north vietnamese and the soviets look like? I guess what I'm asking is I know about the diacritic heavy latin script and am hoping there's a similar one but cyrillic I just did a cursory search and can't find anything like that ; it seems like it was either in Vietnamese or Russian (and probably Chinese and some other stuff). Which makes sense because it's easier to make a small number of people speak a new language than make a whole new kind of type-setting and alphabet, which is an elaborate pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2020 04:31
|
|
|
That's endemic to older publishing in the West of Asian languages. A lot of the stuff I reference for my dissertation has what are obviously blank-spaces and then someone hand-writing in a character into the space so it can xeroxed or whatever. This even lives on to this day where there are some characters that aren't unicode supported so my current draft has actually typed Chinese with the odd break of very, very carefully formatted tiny jpegs that I hope no one will ever notice. Not that this is just a language thing ; if you grab a random math dissertation from the 60's it's the same.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Nah it's just inertia and how Western printing/computing has worked. It sucks butts and is super annoying but isn't exactly a mystery.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2020 06:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's one of those very interesting oddities where you'd think they'd have worked out a standard but instead its like that one XKCD comic and there's 15 standards instead which is why issues still crop up. Also just hours later, "No." Followed by, "This is dumb. And also no." Please god never talk to me about translation ever again. You were so ridiculous that I circled back to scold you. Just stay in your lane.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
Fair. I'll try to be more polite.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Anyone watched this yet? O my god that looks good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
You rat bastard. Now I have to sell a kidney to get a nerdy game that no one will ever play with me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
O I know, and I hope you appreciate the "rat bastard" part was in jest and not meant harmfully ; it's just the holidays so I immediately had to go to my bank account and start doing math to see if I could afford this. It looks really cool and if I can get like my sister or someone who'll actually play it to go in with me I'm gonna snap it up. Xiahou Dun fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Dec 22, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:And of course the stories of soldiers seeing a bouncing cannonball "slowly" making its way toward their line, so they stick a foot out to stop it... This'd be either the best or worst World Cup. Also this post and your av saying "Hubris" is a great combo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Did anybody see Greyhound? I wanted to watch it, but I don't have Apple plus or whatever it is that would let me actually see it. I've heard good things from people who are both into WWII navy stuff and people who aren't, but I haven't watched it myself cause I'm not gonna get a whole new streaming service for one movie that I don't even think I'd like. (As in personally like because it's not my preferred genre, not that I think it's bad. My interest in milhist movies starts to fade after the 18th century and then just craters post-WWI, but that's not a condemnation or nothing, just my own specific taste.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 07:45
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:possible is really carrying a lot of weight there. How about "reasonably practical" then? ASARP.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
Because of the tank gun rifling/fin chat, I have probably my dumbest question ever : What'd happen if you tried to do that with like a rifle or a pistol or something? I assume there must be some trade-off which is why I've never heard of it (or I'm just ignorant) like it's easier to maintain small arms/they're cheaper or something but just from staring into space for 4 seconds and thinking about the physics I don't see any obvious problems with the change in scale. But, you know, I'm a moron. So why aren't there weird fin-bullets? (We should call them gun arrows.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
O I know about gyrojects. I specifically meant like a literally normal bullet but with fins in a smoothbore. Sorry if I was unclear. I'm assuming there's an obvious technical reason that I don't know and I'm curious. But thank you for the responses.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
Cool, thanks for indulging my random curiosity cause I wasn't gonna go to TFR just for one question. I appreciate learning.Space Gopher posted:carry plenty of mass via their length It's a new thread and too soon to change a good title, but o come on. It's right there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:Watching the Pacific for first time, had two questions: I'm just an idiot chiming in, but depending on how you compared things through periods and who you count as "Americans" in the ACW is going to dramatically change that number at the very least Like an only-Union and we're just gonna go by what it would cost to make a cannon today in a modern factory vs. we're counting all deaths and somehow trying to account for industrial differences with space magic, are going to come up with some wildly different conclusions. (Examples not meant to be accurate to anything, just to highlight extremes to illustrate the point.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
Cessna posted:To continue, in June 1941 the UK wanted to use their soldiers for something other than garrison duty in Iceland and asked the US to take over. Iceland's Allthing didn't give the official okay to this, but the US sent in an army unit and 6th Marines anyway. By the time the war ended over 300 Icelandic women had married Marines and went to the States. Wait. Iceland still has an Allthing? That's amazing and cool and good. P.S. Happy Holidays to everyone and hope you enjoy the season! I got a kit to make a wooden pump-action rubber-band shotgun and I'm stoked. In an O Henry-almost twist I got the singe-action revolver version for my sister so we look forward to drinking three beers and having dumb rubber-band gun fights in the snowy woods in a few days. We are both well into adulthood and have post-graduate degrees but are still secretly small children.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
White Coke posted:A fact that seems to pop up a lot is that the Germans thought that the Russians were going to be unbeatable by 1916, and therefore they needed to go to war as soon as possible while they still had the advantage. Where does this fact come from, and is there any truth to it? I'm not a real historian, just historically-adjacent, so in my classic style I'm going to respond with the assumption that the grown ups will correct me and this'll be a teachable moment. I think this question is ill-phrased because it has two parts : what the Germans thought and what was most likely to happen. The former is theoretically possible to determine assuming you can find, say, a bunch of diary entries by, like, everyone in German high command going, "Yeah, we deffo want to do X," and you have [reasons] to trust that they're accurate ; the latter rapidly gets into weird counterfactuals and you're talking about what various countries are like after multiple years of some of the most brutal war ever done in human history. So there's the question of can we show sufficient evidence that it's likely people believed that was possible, maybe ; can we show that if a bunch of other stuff happened it'd be different ; difficult to gently caress no. But, as always, I'm just an idiot trying to help the conversation along.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
White Coke posted:The reason the question is in two parts is because I've seen the specific year of 1916 pop up often enough that there's probably some source that they get it from, but I can't find it so I don't know how authoritative it is, or if it's even contemporary. As for second part, I asked because I want to know if there's any hard data that could validate the fears of 1916 being some kind of a turning point. Was there a certain amount of railroad tracks that would'v been built, a certain number of artillery pieces that would've been produced, or just that the population would have grown enough to somehow be insurmountable for Germany? Assuming the German General Staff was afraid of how powerful Russia was growing, what was the metric they used to quantify its power? Ultimately, yes there's more to warfare than material superiority, but it certainly helps so I don't think it'd just devolve into counterfactuals about gay, black, Imperial Russia. To the first point, I obviously can't prove a negative, but I've read a decent amount of primary sources and I've never heard of such a thing ; the general idea that Russia might arm up and be a monster, sure, but that's 2 years earlier. Where are you getting this from? And I'm probably going to get absolutely nailed into the ground, but if I gun to my head had to pick a year of WWI that was literally just a slog and nothing was going to change, it'd be 1916. Specifically saying that it was the year when least change could've happened and it was just more churning. I'm probably wrong but it was still more uh sedentary? than 1914 or 1918 for example. And this is ignoring that this would require the Germans to predict something in 1914 that would be true two years later. In a war where everyone had no idea what to do. I must not be following your point and this is a personal failing because I don't understand.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:A whacking big long fing wiv an engine onna front My penis!?!?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2020 02:14
|
|