Fangz posted:

What does this mean?

Cessna posted:

That sort of system is undoubtedly very useful for situational awareness, but my first instinct is extreme distrust. If my vehicle is doing something to make it visible to my command, is there a chance the other side could use it to find where I am? What if one of those devices is taken by the enemy?

Nothingtoseehere posted:

Hot Take: The british army was the most prepared and best out of all the european armies to fight the war of 1914. It's just that the war of 1915 onwards was not that war.

Phobophilia posted:

That blog repeatedly makes mention that the big war horses used by European knights, like destriers, could not be sustained by just grazing on grass. How true is that, really?

Cyrano4747 posted:

IIRC a big problem wasn't clams, but wood-boring marine worms. My understanding is that it was more of a hull longevity thing that had some additional speed benefits than a speed thign.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Sure, but up-thread we've got people citing that they only saw moderate speed increase.

The explanation I've always read (and no, I cna't provide a source right now, probably some books I read a few years ago while doing a job that involved naval research) was that the primary benefit was in making it much harder for wood-boring worms to get into the hull, which was a major problem for ship longevity and the amount of time they could be at sea between drydock overhauls. The sheeting did help discourage other marine growth and helped with speed, but that wasn't the primary concern.

zoux posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI1F5SnkLBs

This is a US produced instructional video on German small arms, specifically the 98K, MP40, and MGs 34 and 42. My question is: Under what circumstances would a US GI be expected to use captured German weapons? I've heard that a lot of guys preferred the MP40 because it was so good, but the US military wasn't training people with the expectation that they would pick up a lost gun and keep and use it right? I can kind of see the use case for say a captured machine gun emplacement, but was this more of a "as a last resort, here's how to use a Mauser if your M1 is broken or out of ammo" but then, why would you need to know how to field strip it?

More generally, how have militaries in the modern era dealt with soldiers using non-standard or captured equipment? Anecdotally, I've heard stories of dudes in Vietnam who liked to use AKs because of the early problems with the M16, but was this something that was explicitly permitted or just ignored by field officers? (or rare and overstated?) What about now, are you allowed to use a different gun than the one you are issued?

Raenir Salazar posted:

It's interesting that despite for the past few years reading about the 30 Years War on and off from Hegel's posting, but I'm learning new things from Extra History's new series which is on the 30YW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaPU1-vMQOI

They've decided to pick a framing device to cover more how the war affected people in general instead of covering explicitly how it started/fought/ended because each of those in their words could be its own multi-part series.

The funniest thing so far is how it all kicked off by the Protestants throwing two catholics out the window; and while I had heard of "defenestration" being talked about I didn't actually look up or see it elaborated what the context was until watching the video!

The interesting bit with the framing they've taken up is how a trend of Apocalypticism appears to have arised from the conflict which I find interesting especially given its relevant modern day resurgence.

e to add: EH usually has a follow up episode to all of their history series called "Lies" where they go over creative licenses taken, mistakes (usually always Flags), omissions, as well as their sources and generally spend about 30 minutes or so going over the series in a retrospective which is also interesting and quite novel as its an approach I haven't really seen before, but mainly to say any inaccuracies are probably going to be covered then.

Raenir Salazar posted:

Hrm, what I mean is; the things that I like about the Sharpe novels; compared to other comparable works of fiction (Clancy) is that I felt that the writing was better. Where I feel that the Sharpe novels were more believable while fictional, in representing the real world. In this case; a nuanced perspective from someone fighting at the front lines about the problems of their own nation, recognizing that there are good things about their enemies; and many of said enemies turned out to be interesting or honourable adversaries lends itself to a more engaging work of fiction. Even better if the cause of the conflict isn't readily apparent to further establish the moral greyness of the conflict.

I don't think something like, "most of the antagonists are people whose status quo is ruined by the protagonists actually getting the support they need to be making progress in winning the war" is something unique to Bernard Cornwell, his place in history and so on; but are a I think a well acknowledged writing technique of writing engaging interest characters, adversaries, and handling conflicts and themes in a satisfying way.

If I had to think of an earlier example, in The Hobbit, the main conflict is actually between the Dwarves/Elves/Humans and their past grudges and acrimony which is at all why Smaug or the orcs are such a threat.

Dragonlance I think was written at a comparable time to the Sharpe books; 1984 to 1981 and is written in a similar way that I find good. The adversaries are all evil and the protagonists and their "allies" aren't all good, and so on.

While in contrast The Bear and the Dragon is just incredibly boring.

Comstar posted:

The one you want to watch is Extra History, that was started by Rome Total War bankrolling it. It's not perfect, but they delve into periods I had never heard of or expected to be interested in.

I am annoyed by them spending 6 episodes going into detail in the Menji Restoration, something I found illuminating and new to me, but then spend 30 minutes later explaining why they told me the the wrong information during it! Why did you they do that??


But they get full marks for spending a long time saying what actually happened, even if I don't watch those episodes. I don't think ANY other youtuber does that.

2nd Lt. Cecil Arthur Lewis, Royal Flying Corps posted:

Taking off in an Avro 504, with a 100hp Monosoupape that had only two speeds, on and off. He wrote:

"So the 'vital actions' in the cockpit were simple. You turned on the petrol and opened a 'throttle' needle valve which supplied juice to the crankcase. The mechanic then 'sucked in', that is to say, he spun the propeller, so that petrol vapour would pass up through ports in the cylinder wall into the cylinders and there combine with air drawn in through a little suction valve on the cylinder head. This valve was uncontrolled and just sucked air as long as the piston moved down. The resultant mixture was explosive only if the correct amount of vapour had got into the cylinder__ and everything was designed for this to work only when the motor ran full out. So, after 'sucking in' till most of the cylinders were full of mixture, the mechanic called 'Contact!' The pilot switched on, the mechanic heaved on the propeller, there was a roar as the engine caught and you were immediately ready to take off!

But as this was usually impossible straight off the tarmac, it was necessary to taxi. To do this the engine had to be switched on and off and indeed a bellpush, or button switch, had been carefully fixed on the top of the mahogany joystick for this very purpose. So no sooner had the engine 'caught' than you 'pressed the tit', as we used to say, and stopped it again and then kept bursting it 'Brr-rp! Brr-rp!' as you waved away the chocks. Put the rudder hard over: Brr-rp Brr-rp, and the tail was thrown round. Reverse rudder: Brr-rp Brr-rp, and it was straight again. So in a series of Brr-rps you proceeded down wind, swung round, took your finger off the button and let her go!"

Scratch Monkey posted:

I remember hearing on the Saga Thing podcast that there was a form of dueling where each duelist would have an assistant who would hold the shield. The idea was to whack at each other’s shield until it was dropped or destroyed.

Foxtrot_13 posted:

The US made Merlin engines might not of been quite as perfect as the British made ones but the American factories could pump them out much more quickly using much less skilled labour.

Polyakov posted:

Nessus posted:

you don't get a prize for NOT doing a crime.

Hyrax Attack! posted:

[...]far lower levels of export, and the Ukraine even less.

The Lone Badger posted:

Would they all aim for the same point with the assumption that inherent inaccuracies would scatter the shells, or would you deliberately lay out targets for each gun?

Tree Bucket posted:

From a million pages ago, but what exactly is going on with the helmet situation for our friend in the middle?

Cyrano4747 posted:

That said between 1860 and 1870 you have a ton of artillery advancement that basically takes you from muzzle lodes cannon recognizable to napoleonic soldiers to breach losing guns clearly part of the modern linkage. In particular Krupp came out with their C/64 and C/67 (after the year of adoption) guns that were breach loafers and I believe used a multi-piece ammo system (so shell then powder in bags) similar to what you see with really big arty later on. Either way you only needed two crew men to load and fire it and the ROF was way higher. It was also accurate out to something like 3km. That combined with better shells meant that the artillery duels in the Franco-Prussian war were really, really one sided.

Tuna-Fish posted:

The actual sensible choice is failing at navigation enough to fly to a neutral nation that wants to be friendly to both sides, such as Ireland or Switzerland. Then you'll get interned instead of becoming a POW. A lot of people did do that.

SerthVarnee posted:

Perhaps we can remove some loopholes if we include the requirement that that country must be wholly in control of the majority of its municipal services? Stuff like sewage and water treatment, power generation if applicable, public road maintenance, tax collection, bureaucratic nonsense departments, health care administration and postage service.

So if such systems exists they should be directly controlled through the majority of the chain (including landfills, treatment plants, medical centers, power plants, postage offices, large building containing pencil pushers.

Alchenar posted:

The Nazi generals rated Patton

ChubbyChecker posted:

not surprising

it was written by the hornblower guy, and his characters suck

Vahakyla posted:

40k Harley

Nenonen posted:

Cavalry or dragoon? I didn't know there's any units called ratsuväki left but rakuunat still exist.

Or maybe it is ratsujääkäri? The translation for that appears to be chasseurs a chevalier or Jäger zu Pferde. poo poo's complex.

Marshal Prolapse posted:

I think I may have had the oddest viewing experience of Downfall ever. I just found the movie utterly hilarious. It wasn’t that the acting was bad or the production, all were first class and Bruno‘s portrayal of Hitler was excellent. So I don’t want people to think I’m about to say means it’s a bad movie, just my own reaction to it.

The thing was with the exception of some children and arguably most of the civilians everyone in the movie is a detestable piece of garbage and watching them get killed, trying to coup each other, and Hitler acting like a delusional child most of the time delusional, was for me, pretty funny watching them all get owned in 5000 different ways. Also all the German officers shooting themselves in the head could be kind of like a meme, just put all of it together in one clip and add the Benny Hill music. I did face for the Goebbels killing her kids scene, Mostly because I was trying to finish the movie at around 3 AM and I already had known but it happened for years anyway, so I didn’t feel like going to sleep after watching that. That also was a reason why I fast forwarded a few parts of the movie. I do think it’s funny that even Eva Braun manages to talk about kicking the dog, ensuring that the audience feels no sympathy for her and serves as a reminder that these are all pieces of poo poo and who got what was going to him.

Also Ernst blowing up himself and his family of the grenades at dinner was absolutely hilarious, because of all the goofy looks the actor kept making and because it’s so over-the-top, even with it being exactly what happened in reality.

Cessna posted:

As far as Nazi long-long term plans, there's also their idea of Ruin Value.

tl;dr, build impressive buildings that will make impressive ruins in future millennia to inspire later Nazis.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

hanger

PeterCat posted:

Kind've an odd question, but did someone use surplus shells/drop tanks for bollards outside this shop?

Nenonen posted:

There's exceptions though where weapon differences had major impact.



"The introduction of needle guns to Reuss-Schleiz-Greiz-Lobenstein-Eberndorf

1. A new rifle -
2. loaded from behind -
3. without cock -
4. it requires new regulations."

Nenonen posted:

The author, an American

vuk83 posted:

The idea was that ideally the whole squad would launch rifle grenades at once, for a salvo effect.
The problems with rifle grenades is like the problem with muzzle loading firearms, a god drat number of steps required to be in sequence, under fire and immediate tank threat.
A soon as single use man portable anti armour rockets appeared, people ditched them.
Laws and at4 are a bit heavier, but piss easy to use.

thatbastardken posted:

because they were expensive and difficult to manufacture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo#Supply_and_production

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

The US managed to hit itself with those bat guided bombs once. Dunno if the birds had success.

Chamale posted:

The Bat Bombs accidentally burned down several buildings when a few of them roosted under a large fuel tank.

Rascar Capac posted:

The 1944 Nazi propaganda film Theresienstadt was about how wonderfully Jews were being treated in the Theresienstadt ghetto, and by extension how well they were being treated in the rest of the Nazi-occupied east.

quote:

The film was not intended to be shown in Germany; the Nazi propagandists hoped to distribute it in neutral countries to counter Allied news reports about the persecution of Jews.

Defenestrategy posted:

I was watching some old WW2 era military films, this one was on the Yorktown and was shot sometime in 1944.

The Narration refers to a clip shot in 1943, the USS Yorktown gets an admiral who is described by the narrator in the following manner "besides our skipper, we have an admiral aboard, a seadog whose been a naval flyer for over 20 years." so according to this documentary this dude's been flying naval missions since what? 1923/24? I didn't think naval aviation was that old, I would assume no one in the US Navy at least was doing naval stuff until maybe the 30s, am I unaware of the Navy doing aerial stuff in the 20's besides maybe doing experiments?

Acebuckeye13 posted:

It seems like an interesting paper, I'll have to read more of it. Quoting from the apparently relevant section: