Youtube comments of (@neutronalchemist3241).
-
8000
-
5700
-
4600
-
4000
-
3800
-
1900
-
1100
-
956
-
738
-
679
-
660
-
538
-
534
-
533
-
524
-
495
-
The Madsen LMG is an industrial tool. Like a lightbulb assembly tool, or a barbed wire assembly tool.
The kind of complete control it has over the cartridge (“the piece to be worked”), with one element (and sometimes two, see the lever-actuated recoil spring) performing one action (the rammer pushes the cartridge into the chamber, the tilting bolt locks it, the hammer/striker fires it, the tilting bolt unlocks it, the tilting extractor extracts it…), is typical of that kind of tools.
In that kind of tools, where there is a single machine in the factory to work a million pieces a week, simplification doesn’t matter.
That’s why it works. Because that kind of tools work.
The downside is the cost, and the work of who has to service it.
492
-
485
-
447
-
@lucaswinsor4469 Actually that's exclusively Ovid's version of the mith. He invented the whole rape and curse thing because he was writing a book called "metamorphosys", that was about shape-shifting miths (so he needed a shape-shifting, and, since the book is about changes, he didn't care about changing the miths themselves) and because he loved to depict autorities in a bad light, so, in his versions of the miths, gods always play with mortals without caring abouth them.
In the original Greek mith, Medusa was simpy born a monster, one of the three gorgons (along with Stheno and Euryale), that were daughters of Echidna and Typhon. Ironically, all three had the same aspect and powers, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.
443
-
433
-
411
-
408
-
397
-
388
-
371
-
364
-
344
-
335
-
306
-
280
-
277
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
Aeschylus' turned it into an advertising for Athen's legal system. Even if the goal was not much to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but that, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail.
275
-
269
-
Feigning a surrender IS A WAR CRIME. it implies "perfidy".
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
262
-
257
-
237
-
222
-
217
-
215
-
213
-
209
-
203
-
200
-
198
-
About the utility of chariots as "battle taxi" there is a revealing passage in the Iliad where Aenea questions the renowed archer Pandarus (an ally of the Trojans) why he wasn't targeting Diomedes that was salughtering the Trojan first line. Pandarus answered that he hit Diomedes from afar, with no effect, and complained that, having left his chariots and horses home when he departed for Troy, fearing for them to starve in a siege, he couldn't get close to fight him, and so he felt to be useless.
In a warfare based on personal duels between heavily armoured and perfectly armed heroes (while infantrymen just had a shield and a one-anded spear, or a mace), not having a chariot was a huge disadvantage. You had to run, in a heavy armor, to reach your target, only to see him carried somewere else, and without possibility to escape if things got bad. An hero with a chariot instead could dictate the time of the battle, since he could decide to fight when, and where, he thought to have an advantage.
197
-
191
-
189
-
182
-
177
-
174
-
163
-
159
-
157
-
155
-
154
-
151
-
151
-
150
-
150
-
143
-
We have a first hand account of the functioning of this rifle in Maj. Luigi Gucci book "Armi portatili" year 1915, p.58, and of the reasons it was not adopted.
"The tested model, very simple, rugged, as handy as the M91, had shown a reliable, predictable and effective functioning, and it has a relatively low cost for the transformation. However, although the weapon could be assigned to some special troops, it's not convenient to adopt it for the entire army".
The reasons were that the cost effectiveness was only apparent. In adopting a semiauto rifle for all the army, the price of the rifle was, in the end, marginal in respect to the price of the same cartridges for it (the price of a brand new semiauto rifle, not a conversion was estimated in 60L, that of a single Carcano cartridge was 0.1L, so a semiauto rifle costed like 600 cartridges), So it made little sense to adopt a solution that, "however ingenious, simple and well designed is, it's anyway a stopgap and, as such, it can't fully comply to all the requirements of an excellent infantry semiautomatic rifle."
141
-
138
-
138
-
133
-
132
-
130
-
127
-
125
-
121
-
118
-
118
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
104
-
96
-
96
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
89
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
85
-
84
-
83
-
82
-
81
-
77
-
To me, the definition is fundamentally flawed.
It would be better to define three classes of RIFLE ammunitions. Defined by the energy at the muzzle, with a reasonably sized barrel.
1) under 2200 joules (7.92mm Kurz, 5.56 NATO, 7.62X39... practically the almost totality of the intermediate cartridges effectively adopted). They are optimal for individual automatic fire, decent for SAW, unsuited for GPMG.
2) from 2200 to 3000 joules (all the classic 6.5mm service rounds, 30-30, .30 Remington, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 LICC...). They are decent for individual automatic fire, optimal for SAW, decent for GPMG.
3) over 3000 joules (7.92mm Mauser, .303 British, 30-06, 7.62 NATO, .277 Fury, 6.5mm Creedmoor...). They are unsuited for individual automatic fire, decent for SAW, optimal for GPMG.
77
-
76
-
75
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
@jessefanshaw8948
Also the classical Greek Apollo was probably the sincretization of several gods. An Anatolian god of plague, that was also invoked to end them (Aplu. Also Apollos' Mother, Leto has Anatolian origins), a Minoan sea-god of divination (the dolphin is a typical Minoan depiction, and Cretan priests are said to have built the sanctuary of Delphi), a Dorian family/community god (Apellai, Apellaion), and probably several others.
What came out of it anyway is the god of civilization. Of what makes life worth living, beyond pure survival. The arts, medicine, divination (that, by then, was a way to control the arbitrariness of nature). That's why classical Greeks considered him the most "Greek" of all the gods. Because he was not the god of a force of nature, of a state of mind, or of a particular craft, but of civilization itself.
His sister (and it had been a good call to make them siblings) is instead the goddess of anti-civilization. Of hunting, of wild animals, of wild places...
The fight between Hera and Artemis is not that much a "Worf effect". Artemis can't refuse fighting, it's her nature, but Hera's words are true. "Your father made you a lioness among mortals", but Artemis' powers are shallow if used against an immortal, that doesn't fear beasts or illness. While Apollo wisely declined to fight Poseidon, as the god of sea and earthquakes would have mopped the floor with the one of civilization.
63
-
trauko1388
Actually is well reported in Ludendorff's diaries. "In Vittorio Veneto, Austria did not lose a battle, but lose the war and itself, dragging Germany in its fall. Without the destructive battle of Vittorio Veneto, we would have been able, in a military union with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, to continue the desperate resistance through the whole winter, in order to obtain a less harsh peace, because the Allies were very fatigued."
And that was the general opinion of the western allies too. Still two weeks before Vittorio Veneto Foch took for granted that the war would have ended only in 1919. For the same reason, the Americans made only a very limited use of the BAR rifle in first line despite having many in the deposits. They seen that the fall offensive was losing momentum, and wanted to spare the best weapons for the operations of the following spring.
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
So, for mistakes, let's start with the title.
First of all: "betrayed" implies a moral judgment that, in this case is completely out of place. Austria-Hungary broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again. Even the German mediators considered the position of Austria-Hungary unreasonable on that point) and, over that, war was declared to Austria-Hungary on 23/05/1915.
Second: why "German Empire"? I know that Germany is more famous, so better suited for a title, but the question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not the German Empire. The German Empire at that point was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the weird belief that it would have made a war with Russia easier to win. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARE WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
So the real question is: why you wrote a title stating something that didn''t even happen?
As for the content: the main part of the video is dedicated to a not-so-related Italo-Turkish war of 1911-1912, nothing to the real content of the Triple Alliance Treaty, and almost nothing on the negotiations of 1915 (see for example the mission of Von Bulow)?
59
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
+HamsterPants522 The reliability index rating of Warrantydirect, an insurer that puts its own money on it, put FIAT on 15th position among car manufacturer, ahead of Hyundai, Subaru, Citroen, Mitsubishi, Volvo, Volkswagen, Saab, BMW, Mercedes, Audi...
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
@calvinfernandez1956 Italy, like any other WWII power at the start of the war, had some very good equipment, some not so good, some bad and some abysmal. The average quality was not worse than the German, French or British. Italian problems with the equipment in WWII had always been of quantity, not quality. In 1939 Italian industrial production was just 1/4 of that of the United Kingdom and in wartime, without an empire, or the US, supplying it, that could only worsen.
47
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
@studentaviator3756 It's an exceptionally well thought-out gun that ended up being exceptionally poorly built.
The problem was that the Santa Barbara Arsenal had not mass produced anything for decades before the AMELI (the problem with state-owned arsenals, that made so they went out of fashion, except for maintenance. You can’t really stop and resume, at years distance, making firearms, and expect acceptable quality standards, or to iron-out all the industrialization problems). Something happened between the industrialization and the production phases, that made so the production guns were flimsy and out of specs.
Yeah. Had a proper gun manufacturer put its hands on the design, it could have ended up differently.
In an alternate world, Beretta, instead of acquiring the production licence for the Minimi, could have acquired that for the AMELI.
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
You are welcome, and thank you for the video. Knowing Gucci's book without having seen the rifle he was talking of, I was very curious about it.
Seeing the rifle, it's easier to understand his reasons. IE, Gucci talks specifically of the barrel. The reason of the conversion is mainly to reuse the existing barrels (that are left untouched) as well as the receivers (that have to be remachined), the stocks (that have to be slightly reworked), and the magazine. At the cost of a new bolt, a recoil spring, and some minor parts.
But Carcano barrels have been designed for a bolt-action rate of fire. Gucci, talking of a generic rifle's barrel of his time, says that it's internal reaches 450° after 80 rounds of rapid fire, and says that it has been estimated that the barrels of the converted rifles, due to the more rapid fire allowed by the semiauto operation, would have been worn out after about 2000 rounds. So there is little sense in using a less than optimal rifle to reuse a thing that is however destined to wear out quickly.
We can make a similar consideration for the stock too. To save the receiver-barrel assembly, the shooter has the recoiling mass of the receiver directly ahead of his eye, and above his thumb. Although that's not really dangerous, it's surely discomfortable. the situation could be improved with a new stock, with the receiver a little farther from the shooter's eye and a more pronounced pistol grip that moves the thumb away from the receiver. But, that way, you don't save the existing stocks any more. Ecc... ecc...
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
Tychohuybers In Slovenia there are four linguistic groups, Croats, Hungarians, Italians and Slovenians, that were historically majoritarian in different regions of the actual Slovenia. A fifth, the Ladins, around year 1000 occupied all the Isonzo valley, but are now virtually extinct. During the second half of 19th century, The Austrian Empire, in response to the Italian Risorgimento, favoured the Slavic component in Croatia and Slovenia. Despite this, for example, in the 1900 census, in the city of Koper (then Capodistria) there were 7205 Italian residents, 391 Slovenians, 167 Croats and 67 Germans.
"we were there before" is only modern nationalistic bullshit.
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
Moreover, according to Dyatlov, the RBMK reactros were already working, unknowingly for their operators, in conditions that the same RBMK Chief Designer, N A Dollezha, considered incontrollable. Infact, with 2% enrichment of the fuel, special absorbers should have been inserted into the channels to contrast positive void coefficient at low power levels. In reality the commercial RBMK worked with 2% fuel enrichment, no special absorbers, and none of the operators even knew that those absorbers should have been present.
It's typically Soviet. The chief designer states that, if made in a certain way, the reactor is safe and can rise power from any energy level.
The designers of the plant remove safety measures (maybe simply implying that low enrichment fuel would not have been used), but mantain the statement that the reactor is safe and can rise power from any energy level.
The operators only know that the reactor is safe and can rise power from any energy level.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
+Freeman Matthews
The law that ban "military" calibers from civilian use is not made to not allow civilians to use "too powerful" rounds. .40 S&W is legal, .357mag is legal, .44mag is legal, 10mm is legal, and so on.
The law is intended to not allow military personnel to privately purchase ammos for their issued weapons.
However, sorry, but Michele had not been accurate.
5 rounds restriction is for hunting rifles only. The limit for semiauto pistols is 15 rounds. The limit for sporting rifles (that comprehend "black rifles" like M4, AK47 and so on) is 29 rounds (STANAG magazines modified to accept 29 rounds instead of 30 are legal). BTW, .223 Rem is legal.
Knives of every dimensions are legal, if there is a reason to carry them. You can carry a machete in a forest, not at the stadium. You can carry a folding knife almost everywere.
To carry firearms outside your house or workplace, you must have one of three kind of permission:
1) hunting licence. You can carry hunting rifles and ammos, the rifles have to be unloaded during transport, until you are in a place where hunting is permitted.
2) sporting licence. You can carry every kind of rifle and pistol and their ammo to and from a range. Weapons have to be unloaded during transport.
3) defence licence. You can carry loaded pistols. This kind of licence is harder to obtain than the former two (that are pretty easy, they only requires a bit of paperwork, a medical examination, a payment and the attendance of a single theoretical and practical lesson at a range).
The kind of licence does not restrict the kind of weapons you can purchase.
Weapons are not required to be disassembled during transport in any case.
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
The SR2 bomb was filled with 32gr of TNT, into an iron case, and with an iron spiral around it to ensure fragmentation. The explosive filling was inferior to the later (from 1944) US MKII hand grenades, but superior to the earlier ones, so I wouldn't deem them as "ineffective". The bomb was designed to contain it's effects in a 50m range, and so the shooter was instructed to not shoot at closer distances (see "Istruzione provvisoria sull'uso della bomba S.R.2 con governale"). It was not the bomb, simply they decided to ditch the whole idea.
It was replaced by the Brixia mortar, that, being able of direct ant indirect fire, and having a far higher ROF, was deemed to be a better solution.
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
The Isard spring has 28 twists, the 1911 32, the Astra 27. The thickness of the wire is about the same. In all likelyhood they had about the same stiffness when new.
The stiffness of the mainspring has practically no importance in keeping the action of a blowback handgun closed for enough time to safely eject the case. It's the mass of the slide that does all the work. The only real function of a stiffer mainspring is to mitigate the felt recoil and the force with which the slide slams into the receiver at the end of it's travel, so a stiffer spring prolongs the life of the frame/slide. However, the force that has to be absorbed is the same for blowback and short recoil pistols. Infact, IE, the Hi-Point mainspring has the same stiffnes of the Glock. More than pointing to the dimension of the spring, Ian should have measured the stiffness of the spring. A smaller spring can have the same stiffness of a bigger one, it wears out quickier, and so has to be replaced more often, but the durability of the spring was probably not the main concern of the designers of this handgun.
26
-
@storagebox1793 No. the first invasion was a massive three-pronged expedition led by the two most renown Mongol generals and a son of the Gran Khan himself. Only at Mohi the Mongols had 70.000 cavalrymen, plus infantry, auxiliaries, chinese engineers, servants, etc. The expeditionary force in Hungary alone easily exceeded the 100.000 men. Then there was the second column, that raided Poland with 10.000 men (one tumen), and the third, that followed the Danube. 20.000 men (two tumens) were only the ones that pursued King Bela in Croatia, and had been defeated in a series of ambushes, because the Dalmatian terrain was not favourable to Mongol tactics.
Plagues tend to be lethal for the siegers too.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
@-Zevin- From the point of view of the infantry rifle, 6.5mm proponents were right.
You can see how, after more than a century of development, 6.5mm "tactical" ammo still gravitate around their energy level (6.5 Grendel is a little less hot than 6.5 Carcano. .264 USA / .264 LICC is a little hotter...).
BUT, among the 6.5 users, only the Italians made a MMG in 6.5, used it in WWI, and decided it was underpowered (it was not an impression. The 6.5 Carcano bullet has exceptional penetration on anything softer than lead, but very poor on anything harder). So they made the 8mm Breda cartridge exclusively for MMG use. Swede and Norwegians developed the 8X63 and 7.92X61 for the same reason, the Dutch adopted the 8mm Mauser for their MGs.
However, from a logistic standpoint, it's better to have a cartridge for infantry rifle and one for belt fed MGs than two for infantry rifles (.30 carbine, 8mm Kurz...)
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
@eduarddoornbos2409 Not really. Littorio's salvo shown a single turret 1.7% distance longitudinal spread in real battles fought in 1940-1941. Any navy of the time would have considered 2% acceptable to good in action.
US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of peacetime tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal, will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
Thus being born as a sincretization of several gods. An Anatolian god of plague, that was also invoked to end them (Aplu. Also Apollos' Mother, Leto has Anatolian origins), a Minoan sea-god of divination (the dolphin is a typical Minoan depiction, and Cretan priests are said to have built the sanctuary of Delphi), a Dorian family/community god (Apellai, Apellaion), and probably several others, Apollo is the god of civilization. Of what makes life worth living, beyond pure survival. The arts, medicine, divination (that, by then, was a way to control the arbitrariness of nature). That's why classical Greeks considered him the most "Greek" of all the gods. Because he was not the god of a force of nature, of a state of mind, or of a particular craft, but of civilization itself.
His sister (and it had been a good call to make them siblings) is instead the goddess of anti-civilization. Of hunting, of wild animals, of wild places... and so of the arbitrariness of Nature itself.
The fight between Hera and Artemis is not that much a "Worf effect". Artemis can't refuse fighting, it's her nature, but Hera's words are true. "Your father made you a lioness among mortals", but Artemis' powers are shallow if used against an immortal, that doesn't fear beasts or illness. While Apollo wisely declined to fight Poseidon, as the god of sea and earthquakes would have mopped the floor with the one of civilization.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
Canto IV
>"il maestro di color che sanno" ("the master of the ones that know") Aristotle, Greek.
>"Omero, poeta sovrano" ("Omer, sovereign of the poets"), Greek.
Dante used the characters of the Omeric poems in the Inferno not because he despised Greeks, but because, other than the contemporary characters, for contrast, he needed characters that were not contemporary but still well known by the people, and that, in Dante's time, meant saints and characters of Greek mitology. But he couldn't put saints in hell, so he had to overuse Greeks.
BTW, the oldest surviving complete translation of both the Iliad and the Odissey in latin is that of the Calabrian scholar Leontius Pilatus, whose works were known both by Petrarch and Boccaccio.Dante missed him by half a century more or less.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
Historically they didn't inflict those casualties. And this has little to do with using the phalanx correctly. The phalangites were not using the sarissas incorrectly.
Flat terrains are not so common in Greece. If you can accept battle exclusively in flat terrains, and cannot move from there, you are going to lose anyway.
Some centurion (not "the Roman Commander") did so, and, the fact that some centurion did so talks of the fact that they were frustrated, not frightened for the losses. As already said: "In all the engagement between the phalanx and the developed (not early time) legion, at first the phalanx advanced, because the legion couldn't break through a perfectly formed phalanx, but the legion suffered negligible losses. Then something happened, and at that point the legion adapted and slaughtered the phalangites". Fact is tha the phalanx needed TOO MUCH THINGS going its own way.
Had the Generals maintained control and kept the Phalanx stationary then the battle would have been inconclusive in the best case, OR the legion would have outflanked the phalanx (you must keep contact with the enemy to prevent it to manuver, and that was important for the phalanx, since the legion was faster and easier to manuver).
I've not talked of "Greece". However Rome used a fraction of his forces in the Macedonian wars, and the legionaries at that time were conscripts as well. However, as said, having a cavalry so dominant that it could dispatch the enemy cavalry, then regroup and invest the back of enemy infantry WAS NOT A GIVEN, it was not like the others didn't know the horses. To the roman cavalry was not requested to be so dominant, it was enough for them to keep the other occupied (a goal that you can accomplish even with an inferior cavalry)
21
-
21
-
21
-
@44R0Ndin Yes and no.
Factories and workshops of the time were not clean places.
WWI HMGs, like the Vickers, the MG08 and so on, were built with the same concept, and had been among the most reliable self loading firearms ever.
Because, like the industrial tooling of their time they were massively overbuilt. It was like they couldn't be bothered by the simple energy of a cartridge firing. And, in their frame, there was a lot of void space, so the dirt had a lot of places to go before locking the mechanism.
The Madsen LMG was kind of a smaller version of that. As that, it was a little more sensible to elements and dirt, but no more (and maybe less) than any LMG of the time (Hotchkiss Portative, Lewis Gun... not to talk about the Chauchat).
21
-
So, for mistakes, let's start with the title.
First of all: "betrayed" implies a moral judgment that, in this case is completely out of place. Austria-Hungary broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again even the German mediators considered the position of Austria-Hungary unreasonable on that point) and, over that, war was declared to Austria-Hungary on 23/05/1915.
Second: why "German Empire"? I know that Germany is more famous, so better suited for a title, but the question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not the German Empire. The German Empire at that point was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief that it would have made a war with Russia easier to win. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARE WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
So the real question is: why you wrote a title stating something that didn''t even happen?
As for the content: the main part of the video is dedicated to a not-so-related Italo-Turkish war of 1911-1912, nothing to the real content of the Triple Alliance Treaty, and almost nothing on the negotiations of 1915 (see for example the mission of Von Bulow)?
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
Infact. Thus being born as a sincretization of several gods. An Anatolian god of plague, that was also invoked to end them (Aplu. Also Apollos' Mother, Leto has Anatolian origins), a Minoan sea-god of divination (the dolphin is a typical Minoan depiction, and Cretan priests are said to have built the sanctuary of Delphi), a Dorian family/community god (Apellai, Apellaion), and probably several others, Apollo is the god of civilization. Of what makes life worth living, beyond pure survival. The arts, medicine, divination (that, by then, was a way to control the arbitrariness of nature). That's why classical Greeks considered him the most "Greek" of all the gods. Because he was not the god of a force of nature, of a state of mind, or of a particular craft, but of civilization itself.
His sister (and it had been a good call to make them siblings) is instead the goddess of anti-civilization. Of hunting, of wild animals, of wild places... and so of the arbitrariness of Nature itself.
The fight between Hera and Artemis is not that much a "Worf effect". Artemis can't refuse fighting, it's her nature, but Hera's words are true. "Your father made you a lioness among mortals", but Artemis' powers are shallow if used against an immortal, that doesn't fear beasts or illness. While Apollo wisely declined to fight Poseidon, as the god of sea and earthquakes would have mopped the floor with the one of civilization.
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
@jmiquelmb Many people talk of "most something" when trying to find a justification for their very personal beliefs. Actually that only the elites were literate (and used this as a "weapon" to keep the lower strata subjugated) is the old school, represented, IE, by W.Harris. Most modern historians refuted that view, exactly for what I said. There are too many surviving inscriptions specifically destined to the lower classes and/or written by them. Even the bricks were often numbered to mark their pre-planned place in the construction (many Roman buildings were "prefabricated"), but that means that the bricklayer could read numbers.
In middle age, graffiti were the exception, and they were different kind of graffiti. Mostly left by people that were evidently educated to record their passage somewere. In Rome, like in the present world, graffiti on the most trivial matters were the norm. Martial wrote "There’s no place for a poor man to think or
rest. Schoolmasters disturb life in the morning, the bakers at night, the coppersmiths hammer all day". Street schools were so diffused that the lessons disturbed people like the other artisanal activities.
Harris counters these arguments by citing the poor quality of the graffiti, noting that quoting (or more often misquoting) Virgil’s Aeneid on a tavern wall does not make a man literate. Maybe, but it makes him able to read and write.
That's the key. When stating that in ancient Rome the "literacy rate" was "only" from 10% to 20%. Scholars refers to something else than the simple ability to read and write. The ability to read and write at an elementary level (what Petronius in the Satyricon called the ability to "read stone letters") was MUCH more diffused.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@federicogiana Columbus was backed by the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is.
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
The Isard spring has 28 twists, the 1911 32, the Astra 27. The thickness of the wire is about the same. In all likelyhood they had about the same stiffness when new.
The stiffness of the mainspring has practically no importance in keeping the action of a blowback handgun closed for enough time to safely eject the case. It's the mass of the slide that does all the work. The only real function of a stiffer mainspring is to mitigate the felt recoil and the force with which the slide slams into the receiver at the end of it's travel, so a stiffer spring prolongs the life of the frame/slide. However, the force that has to be absorbed is the same for blowback and short recoil pistols. Infact, IE, the Hi-Point mainspring has the same stiffnes of the Glock. More than pointing to the dimension of the spring, Ian should have measured the stiffness of the spring. A smaller spring can have the same stiffness of a bigger one, it wears out quickier, and so has to be replaced more often, but the durability of the spring was probably not the main concern of the designers of this handgun.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@XShifty0311X The ammos were in perfect spec, and infact they worked fine with every other weapon, bolt action or automatic, chambered for them. Simply the manufacturer of the rifle, knowing the real dimensions of the cartridges, said the rifle was fine that way.
"Every man wielded an Mk III Ross rifle, with some unease. Overseas, the gun had jammed in close combat during the Second Battle of Ypres. It was claimed the rifle was too finely made to tolerate mud and rough handling. There is truth to this, but the fatal flaw was a specific and avoidable mistake. Before the war, the British re-designed the .303 cartridge, rechambering their Lee-Enfields to a slightly larger size than the Ross. Canadian experts said the chamber of the Ross was already large enough to take the new British ammunition in a pinch, and the tighter fit could only increase accuracy anyway. The chambers were not reamed out. It was all about the money. Besides, the experts said, the men would have Canadian ammunition of the right size, so it hardly mattered." https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=4114
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
The Isard spring has 28 twists, the 1911 32, the Astra 27. The thickness of the wire is about the same. In all likelyhood they had about the same stiffness when new.
The stiffness of the mainspring has practically no importance in keeping the action of a blowback handgun closed for enough time to safely eject the case. It's the mass of the slide that does all the work. The only real function of a stiffer mainspring is to mitigate the felt recoil and the force with which the slide slams into the receiver at the end of it's travel, so a stiffer spring prolongs the life of the frame/slide. However, the force that has to be absorbed is the same for blowback and short recoil pistols. Infact, IE, the Hi-Point mainspring has the same stiffnes of the Glock. More than pointing to the dimension of the spring, Ian should have measured the stiffness of the spring. A smaller spring can have the same stiffness of a bigger one, it wears out quickier, and so has to be replaced more often, but the durability of the spring was probably not the main concern of the designers of this handgun.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@luisnunes3863 Drachinifel is simply wrong. Or better, Drachinifel does not read Italian, so he has to rely on what he finds in English. Second hand sources, wartime propaganda, etc... A common problem between self-made historians. The only source for the problem with Italian naval shells was Adm. Iachino, that had to justify his fiasco at Gaudo / Cape Matapan, and had been debunked by other sources, IE Adm. Emilio Brenta. Reality is that in the conditions of the clash at Gaudo, no WWII battleship would have hit anything.
As a matter of fact, the Italian 152mm and 203mm are the only Cruiser naval guns that obtained some +20km hits during WWII (even twice in the same battle, so it was not a fluke). Tests conducted by the allies after the war simply concluded Italian shells were more reliable than German ones. Italian 381 had not been tested by the Allies for accuracy.
13
-
Sorry, but those are only modern day guessings. The ones above were the opinions of the ones that had to DAILY use those guns in combat.
It's not the first time that real world observations contrast to popular harmchair beliefs. IE it's often repeated that the bottom opening of the Manlicher magazine design was a problem, cause it allowed dirt into the mechanism. In real world that had never been a problem, and contrast with what Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov (the designer of the Fedorov Avtomat) observed in the Russo-Japanese war. He then observed that, in those extreme conditions, the Moisins quickly became single shot weapons, cause the magazine was stuck with mud and ice, while the passing of the en-block clips kept the action of the Steyr rifles tidy.
Other than how much dust and dirt can get into the action, an even more important thing is how much dust and dirt is needed to lock the action. An action with very tight tolerancies needs very few dirt to be stuck. A "wobbling" action (even more a wobbling action with an heavy bolt and firing pin, so with a lot of momentum) is not stuck that easy, and is largely self cleaning.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@thetabletnonya948 It's not a problem of hollow point. They want to control how much ammos a cop shoot and where. It you give a cop 50 rounds for his service weapon, outside the training range, at any moment he must have the 50 rounds you gave him, or report when, where, and why he had to shoot the missing ones. IE, if in a protest rally, where there are many cops, many protesters, and the situation is tense, someone is shot, the public autorities and the judiciary have to know if it had been a cop that lost his head and now tries to hide it.
12
-
12
-
12
-
The Isard spring has 28 twists, the 1911 32, the Astra 27. The thickness of the wire is about the same. In all likelyhood they had about the same stiffness when new.
The stiffness of the mainspring has practically no importance in keeping the action of a blowback handgun closed for enough time to safely eject the case. It's the mass of the slide that does all the work. The only real function of a stiffer mainspring is to mitigate the felt recoil and the force with which the slide slams into the receiver at the end of it's travel, so a stiffer spring prolongs the life of the frame/slide. However, the force that has to be absorbed is the same for blowback and short recoil pistols. Infact, IE, the Hi-Point mainspring has the same stiffnes of the Glock. More than pointing to the dimension of the spring, Ian should have measured the stiffness of the spring. A smaller spring can have the same stiffness of a bigger one, it wears out quickier, and so has to be replaced more often, but the durability of the spring was probably not the main concern of the designers of this handgun.
12
-
12
-
@SevCaswell First, to counter the "100 years" argument.
Around 140 AD Marcion of Sinope wrote his own "single" gospel, largely copying that of Luke. It' wouldn't have made sense to copy a text that was less than 10 years old.
The muratorian fragment (the original dated around 170) estabilishes the canon on the basis of the antiquity of the writings, saying, IE, that the Shepherd of Hermas was too recent to be included in the canon. The Sheperd had been composed in the first half of second century at the latest. It wouldnt have made sense to include in the canon the four gospels if they had been written in the same years.
The Papyrus 52, a fragment of John's Gospel, is dated at around middle second century. Since the fragment is separated from the original autograph by at least one copy, the date of composition of the Gospel of John cannot be later than a few years before the production of P 52 ; this date must be further moved back to allow the original work to spread from the place of composition of the gospel to that of the production of P 52. In this case P 52 would confirm the traditionally accepted date for the definitive redaction of the Gospel of John, the end of the 1st century. Note that in John's gospel is already reported that many others had written about the life of Jesus.
Papia of Hierapolis wrote about the gospels in the years 95–110 AD, stating that Mark was an interpreter of St. Peter. So Mark's gospel was already old and well known in his time.
The author of Luke's gospel is largely considered to be the same of the Acts of the Apostles. Not only the Acts described a church in it's infancy, that was no more relevant in second century, but they end before the inprisonment of Paul (around 64 AD). There are not many explanations for the abrupt end of the Acts other than the author could no more write after that date.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
In all likelyhood the Iliad is based on a real war, but Troy being the city on the Hisarlik hill is debatable. We know it was considered that in Hellenistic and Roman period, but we also know that it was a tourist attraction. In Hellenistic period, in "Troy", there were, IE, the tombs of heroes that didn't even die there.
There's no guarantee that the entire city wasn't a tourist trap.
The city had been abandoned at the start of the Iron Age. It's entirely possible that, at the end of the "Greek dark age", when the poems on the Trojan war had become famous, people started to search for the city sung there in the region of the Troad, but the memory of the real location had been lost. Then the people that lived around Hissarlik hill reasoned "look at the fine ruins we have here. The shore, the rivers, all seems pretty similar to the poem. And all these people are searching for Troy. Let's THIS be Troy." and proceeded to make Santa Claus' village. Then Santa Claus' village influenced the later narrations of the poem, so the location and the poem became even more alike.
Infact the location is pretty similar, yes, but none of the Hisarlik's city strata really line up with the events of the poem. We have to mix up two separate levels to have a big city in the Mycenean period (but destroyed by an heartquake, not a war), and a city destroyed by a war (but too late for the Myceneans to have done that).
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
"What about Hartman and his 351 kills? Was this propaganda too?"
Not propaganda, claimings, and every party in WWII overclaimed heavily. The "confirmed kills" not only of Germans, but of British, US, Italians etc. pilots, had been ridiculed after being compared with the actual losses of the enemy. Many times the numbers were so inflated to not be compatible with mistakes made in good faith.
Add to this that the 351 kills of Hartman, like that of all the late war German aces, were not even confirmed, since, at the end of the war, the German confirmation process was still counting the kills of 1943.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
+May your swords stay sharp! (mysss29) To have access to the gas chamber and the gas ports (that's the thing that requires cleaning, there is not actually much that could happen to the piston and op rod) you only have to remove the muzzle cover. To inspect the recoil spring, you can remove it from the trap door. To remove the bolt you only have to remove the dust cover and the rear buffer ("when the dust cover is off, it just slides out") and it comes out from the rear of the receiver. It isn't needed to remove the receiver from the stock.
Like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then, this rifle is not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock. While the parts that require cleaning, and/or have to be replaced more often (for the second case, almost universally the recoil spring and the firing pin) are very easily reachable.
An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To reach the firing pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have several small parts flying around you).
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Infact the "Vesuvius" we know, the central cone visible at 2:18, didn't exist back then. What existed, and the Romans called "Vesuvius" was the semi-circular ridge of Mt. Somma, also visible there. It was there that, for example found refuge the rebels of Spartacus, and it was its internal, very steep, slope (while the external slope was covered in vineyards) that they descended using vine branches as ropes.
that of 79 AC had precisely been the last of a series of explosions, thousands of years apart, that destroyed the old vulcanic edifice of Mt. Somma.
The Romans didn't, and couldn't, recognize the Vesuvius as a Volcano. Because it had nor the shape, nor the activities they could attribute to a volcano.
While the "campi flegrei" shown continuous signs of volcanic activity, even without erupting (hence the name) the Vesuvius didn't. It was absolutely quiet.
The current central cone formed in the subsequent two millennia of effusive eruptions, and infact it was lower than the ridge of Mt. Somma still in 18th century depictions.
See R. Cioni, R. Santacroce e A. Sbrana, "Pyroclastic deposits as a guide for reconstructing the multi-stage evolution of the Somma-Vesuvius Caldera".
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
IE Vegetius "It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any incumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city" "Let them be exercised in the use of the bow, in throwing missile weapons and stones, both with the hand and sling, and with the wooden sword at the post; let all this be continually repeated and let them be often kept under arms till they are tired." In several ancient battles the use of slings by the Romans had been reported to be decisive (IE at Magnesia) and in ancient Roman encampments and battle sites sling bolts are often found.
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
+DWSimmy Yes. IE Nuova Jager imports AR15, AK47 AK74, and sells 29 round magazines for them, on the italian market.
As said, to obtain a defense licence is harder than a sport or hunting one. You have to do some kind of job that puts you at risk, or to be in danger for other reasons, so security guards, jewelers, someone that had been threatened in the past, employees that normally carries big sums of money, even taxi drivers and gas station attendants. If you have it, you can carry one or more loaded pistols out of your house or workplace. If concealed or not, it doesn't matter.
Mind that a rifle, in the EU, is a weapon that is longer than 60cm and has a barrel longer than 30cm. Below those measures, in Italy, the weapon is not prohibited. It's simply considered a pistol. So, a Fabarm Martial Pistola 11" (a 11" barrel, pump action, shotgun) is a pistol.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@CJCroen1393 Or:
Hades: Yo, Zeus.
Zeus: Yo!
Hades: You know your daughter Persephone?
Zeus: Yeah, what about her?
Hades: Well, I think I might be in love with her.
Zeus: That's great!
It was time for you to find someone, and Persephone is such a pretty girl. Had she not been my daughter... uhhh... well, that's another story.
Hades: But her mother, Demeter, seems to not been OK with that. She doesn't even let her see me.
Zeus: Oh, yeah. She didn't take very well what I did to her... and Poseidon for that matter... I guess she extended her grudge to the third brother as well. People are so resentful sometimes...
Hades: So, what could I do about that?
Zeus: What? Transform yourself into something and bang the girl, for myself!
Hades: ...
Hades: Ok, I'll go somewere else for advices. Thanks bro.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
For the Italians, not really. When Italy entred in the war, in 1915, they initially purchased a batch of Adrian helmets from the French ("elmetto Adrian mod. 15"), but they were not satisfied with the strenght of the design, so, starting form the subsequent year, they started to manufacture an helmet ("elmetto Adrian mod. 16") that had the same overall shape, but was stamped in one piece of thicker steel sheet, with the crest welded on it and without insigna (that were simply painted with black paint). The French adopted a similar helmet in 1926. The weight of the M15 is from 670 to 750gr, that of the M16 is from 750 to 800gr.
It has to be noted that the crest on the Adrian helmet was not really aimed to deflect the shrapnels. You can see at 3:00 - 3:04 that it' has openings on the sides. It covered a small hole in the top, so that the hot air could escape, like in a chimney, but the rain couldn't enter.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Paladin1873 Fact is that almost all the rifles, SMGs, LMGs, HMGs etc... that are not ambidextrous have the charging handle on the right side, M1 Carbine included (maybe because right handed shooters doesn't find it so convenient to place it on the left side?). To say that Beretta's charging handle is: "bassackwards" when is exactly where the same M1 carbine have it...
"intuitive" in weapons is a WAY overused word. People are supposed to know their weapon and there is no rule, or intuition, "forward for fire, rearward for safe". The safety is bigger, more easy to operate (especially with gloves), to see and to remember than that of the M1 carbine.
The push button magazine release of the M1 Carbine is supposed to be used with the right hand tumb when at the same time the shooter is pulling out the magazine. Those are two completely different movements to do at the same time. With the paddle lever of the Beretta carbine, you only have to grab the magazine to activate the paddle. It's ambidextrous and simpler, so nothing had been " flubbed". You can see in the actual video that the magazine doesn't need to be "rocked" at all. It goes straight in and out. You are tinking of the M14, not of this gun.
A peep is what you want, not necessarily what's better. Many rifles have no peep sights. To judge the sight picture without having handled the rifle makes no sense at all. Many successful rifles/AR have the rear sight further forward than this one. An open notch sight MUST be placed further forward than a peep sight.
9
-
Little is known that the poet Dante Alighieri was also a knight (In the Italian comuni you could be a knight without being a noble), and fought at least three battles, first Campaldino in 1289, where he probably gave good proof of himself, infact he was among the 400 selected Florentine knights that were then sent to participate to the siege of Caprona (his last one had been in 1303 at Castel Puliciano).
At Caprona, he knew another, full fledged, knight, Vanni Fucci, the cadet son of a noble (Fuccio de' Lazzeri), that chose the profession of arms.
They were on the same side, but Fucci's acts of senseless cruelty shocked his allies too. Later Dante, in the Comedy, put him in hell, among the thieves (for a robbery he made, in a church), a punishment more humiliating than that reserved to the violents.
Fucci is one of the most powerful characters in hell. The only one in the entire poem to nominate God (none in hell does), to curse him.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Ugly_German_Truths Four times, and there are even divine interventions.
In the Chanson de Roland, Roland tries to break his sword hitting a rock with it, but he breaks the rock instead. That's not how a high medieval sword worked.
To say that in Homer there is a realistic depiction of how chariots were used, IT DOESN'T NEED THE ENTIRE POEM TO BE REALISTIC.
It's pretty likely that the truth of the bronze age warfare had been mantained in the depiction of a normal moment in a normal battle, while, in the depiction of the final duel, there is much more of poetic licence.
It had been long estabilished that in Homer real elements of bronze age armors, weapons and tactics are mixed with the ones contemporary to the writing of the poem. Exactly because the chariots are not contemporary to the poet, it's likely that the accounts on how they have been used are realistic, because they had not been contaminated with what the writer personally knew about them.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Actually that would be the most useless part.
Much of those old designs required handfitting, because the admitted tolerances were so that, in a batch of supposedly identical parts, the right ones had to be chosen and coupled for the weapon to work. Worse, there was the "cascade matching" problem. When you took, IE, three parts that matched toghether, because they were all at one end of the tolerance scale, and then there was no fourth part that matched with them, because it should have been beyond the scale. It was a so common issue that, for the Winchester .224 prototype (the competitor of the AR15 in the CONARC competition) Winchester explicitly stated that they designed their rifle so that it couldn't happen. And we were in the late '50s. It was still a severe problem for the M60 MG.
Modern CNC machines can't work like that. so the modern designer has to come out with his own completely different, set of admitted tolerances.
Not to say that steel of the original composition is often unobtanium.
The REAL problem is that most of those designs were not that great to begin with. Even the most successful ones, (IE, the M1 Carbine, to say one) were good FOR THEIR TIME.
But the eventual purchaser of a modern repro would expect form it MODERN reliability and durability, otherwise "This is shit! The manufcturer scammed me!".
For the designer of the repro, it's like a nightmare. To him is like designing a completely new weapon, with the adjunctive constraint that he can't chose the solutions he KNOWS will work flawlessly. He has to keep it consistent with original solutions that he know work "so-so".
That's why modern repros mostly dont' have part interchangeability with the originals.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
Aeschylus' turned it into an advertising for Athen's legal system. Even if the goal was not much to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but that, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail.
8
-
8
-
Really not. 352 are those he wrote in his personal logbook. The Luftwaffe confirmation process was dead by the time Hartmann obtained most of his victories. To claim a victory, Luftwaffe required to the pilots to fill in a module, writing the day of the kill, the hour, the kind of aircraft shot down, the location, the quote of the engagement, and the name of a witness. Hartmann himself said that he didn't always followed the rules. In much of his claims, from nov. 1944 on, the hour, the location, and the quote of the engagement are not even reported.
8
-
Is not lying, is claiming, and every faction in WWII overclaimed heavily. Unfortunately, the "natural" overclaiming of all the WWII air forces was inflated in the Luftwaffe by the absence of a confirmation system in the second part of the war, and by the "experten" system, that gave huge incentives to the pilots to exagerate the claims, cause, in a very difficult situation, where the pilots had to fly until their death, the pilots with more kills got the best of everything, starting with the aircrafts. It was a matter of survival.
Actually the "experten" system affected the German war effort in several ways. IE, from the German pilots' logbooks, we see that they shot down a disproportionately high percentage of fighters. In the German +100 pilots' killing lists, bombers are near to non existent. Of Marseille's 152 credited killings only three were bombers. While Rommel's supply lines were mauled by British bombers, Marseille was shooting down exclusively fighters. Why? Cause to shoot down a bomber was more difficult and dangerous, and it still counted as "one".
That not means that the "+100" German aces were not exceptional pilots. They were. And that not means that they did not shoot down much more aircrafts than any other. They did. And there are good explanations for that. We heard them in the clip. Target rich environment. A lot of combat mission flown. And the simple natural selection. Germany manufactured a huge number of fighter aircrafts, and instructed a lot of pilots. A lot of newbies were shot down in their first mission, but few "superpilots" emerged.
Only, you have to keep in mind that those lists were claimings, not actual killings.
8
-
Well, no. There is no way to "fully confirm" a claim. "Fully confirmed" means only that, when he claimed an aircraft, the allied lost an aircraft, not necessarily of the same kind he claimed, roughly at the same time in the same place.
Problem is that he had not been the only one that claimed a kill in that engagement. IE, there had been 1 allied fighter shot down for 4 claims. So, if you give it to Prillers, three other pilots overclaimed. So, who was lying?
An example.
On 18 December 1939 (when the confirmation system of the Luftwaffe still worked), the RAF decided to mount a raid on the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven and orders were drafted for 24 Wellington bombers to carry out the raid. 9 aircraft from 149th Squadron, 9 from 9th Squadron and 6 from 37th Squadron were selected to "Attack enemy warships in the Schillig Roads or Wilhelmshaven. Great care is to be taken to ensure that no bombs fall on shore". While 24 Wellington's took off, 2 from 149th Sqn returned to base early leaving 22 to carry on. The bombers managed to successfully fly over the German Fleet, but their orders about bombing German soil caused the abortion of the raid, as the leader decided the ships, tied up in port, where too close to shore to be bombed. After they turned for home, the German fighters attacked.
The ensuing massacre saw the shooting down of 10 Wellingtons, nearly 50% of the attacking force, however the German pilots claimed 34 victories. Over 150% of the total attacking force. After that, since the confirmation process was still working, OKL pruned this down to 26 "confirmed" kills, still more than the total of the enemy aircrafts.
So. For example, if Josef Prillers had been in this engagement, and claimed up to 10 kills, Someone that compared his claims with the actual RAf losses could only conclude that it was possible, cause the RAF lost 10 aircrafts.
But that's possible only if none of the other pilots hit anything, and all of them lied about their acievements.
And that's not realistic.
When you compare the claims of the German +100 pilots wit the actual recorded losses of the Allies, that's exactly what happens. The kills were generally (but not always) actually possible, but only assuming that other 100 German fighter planes present on the site, were doing nothing other than occupying space. Cause you have to assume that all the Allied actual losses were inflicted by a single pilot.
And that's not realistic.
Why this happens? It's cause, in a frantic, swirling battle, it wasn't hard to ASSUME your shots had caused the fatal damage. You make your run, score solid hits, flash past at 300mph+, when you turn you see a 'plane fall out of the sky, It MUST be yours, and your wingman confirms it, as he sees the same thing, and, even if he had not seen it, he confirms it anyway, cause he is the guy that works with you.
8
-
+b33lze6u6 He really was a genius, way ahead of his time. Mind that he had to fight (usually obtaining great victories) with what he had at disposition. Few african hevy infantry, the rest mercenaries from Gaul, Spain, Balearic Islands, Numidia, all with different fighting styles, often not really reliable, but he managed to extract the best from every one of them often using even their weakness at his advantge, and always perfectly using the environment as a weapon that worked for him.
But, like Napoleon centuries after, he, in the end, trained his own enemies. The Roman generals of the late part of the war were wastly superior to those of the early part, cause they grew up studyng Hannibal's strategies. At Zama, Scipio simply made that Hannibal could'nt invent anything. The final disposition of his men, in a long line, was to avoid every surprise, to prevent any outflanking maneuver, and rely only on the strenght of the heavy infantry.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Is not that modern armies fight guerrillas intensively using MBTs that could withstand RPGs. Instead they intensively use wheeled vehicles that are even lighter than the Centauro.
Cause MBTs are expensive, manteinance intensive, too heavy for much infrastructures and, even if they are hard to destroy, damaging them means to inflict A LOT of damage to their owners anyway, cause they are VERY expensive to repair, when repairs are possible. They are not fit for the daily work.
AND, even if well armoured, MBTs are not really made to stand in the open and take punishment anyway. The employed tactic is almost always to find cover, and shoot from there. It's true that, moving from a cover to another, a Centauro is more vulnerable. But it's faster too.
8
-
8
-
8
-
Contrary to popular belief, in western Europe it had not been the pike formation to end the heavy cavalry. They ended togheter. The pike formation at the Bicocca, in 1522, and the heavy cavalry at Sesia, in 1524. After those two battles, the battlefield was dominated, by pike and shot formations on one side, and light cavalry on the other. The light cavalry used variations of the flexible tactics made famous by the Stradiots (attack without giving to the infantry the time to form up, during travel, at night, avoid the main formation and attack the enemy camp...).
The Polish Hussars remained successful due to their high level of discipline and training. Their charges started loose (so not giving a clear target to artillery) then closed and became extremely tight just before hitting the enemy formation, so saturating the ability of the pikes and muskets right in front of them to stop them.
Obviously they required a pretty open battlefield to do so, but this kind of battlefields were more common in eastern Europe.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@alessandrorona6205 You are still stating your very personalpreferences.
If those are your criteria, you should have listed the Enfield above the Mauser, since it's smoother, faster to cycle, and at least equally reliable and easy to operate. The Mosin is back of the line.
In respect to the Mauser, the Carcano M38 has a little rougher action, is equally fast to cycle and reliable, faster to reload, easier to field strip, and lighter (Pretty important, since the rifle has to be carried much more than used).
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
There was not an Italian spy in the US Embassy in Cairo. In September 1941, when the US were still neutral, The Italians managed to secrtetly stealing the "black code" (the US diplomatic code) from the US embassy in Rome (they managed to make a mold of the key of the safe of Col. Norman Fiske, that kept the code, penetrated in the embassy by night, made pictures of the code and put all back in place). In dec. 1941, after Pearl Harbour, US Col. Frank Bonner Fellers was appointed as military attaché of the US Embassy in Cairo, and begun using that code to transmit to Washington valuable military informations about the British movements, for the joy of the Italians.
Unfortunately for the Axis, some months later, Mussolini, to show the proveness of his secret services, transmitted some decrypted message to Hitler. At that point, having the decrypted messages and the original ones, the German decipherers reconstructed the code themselves, begun to decrypt the US messages from Cairo, and had the "good" idea to transmit the decrypted messages through Enigma.
Since the Brits had already decrypted Enigma, they did read the same mesages, immediately realised they were written by a third party that had good knowledge about British movements in Egypt, so they understood they were written by the US diplomatics and informed the Americans, that quit using te black code.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@henochparks No limit to your idiocy.
I asked " With what kind of instrument the diameter of this hole thad been measured?", because, obviously, to measure a fraction of millimeter, you need an instrument capable to measure a fraction of millimeter.
The hole in the scalp (not the bone, the skin over it) had been described at being 6X13mm (not 6.1X12.9mm, or 5.9X13.1mm, but 6x13mm) so, if the killing didn't happen in a bubble of improbability where bullets leave holes of only exactly round numbers, it's evident that they were not measuring the fractions of millimeters.
But, further: "As for the wounds caused by rifled weapons, the size of the wound is not always helpful in determining the caliber or type of weapon (pistol, revolver, rifle). In fact, the size of the wound can be misleading (Fig. 8-2). The diameter of the wound may be smaller, greater or equal to the diameter of the bullet. Therefore, one must give a guarded opinion about the caliber of the bullet from the examination of the wound (Fig. 8-3)." (Abdullah Fatteh "Medicolegal Investigation of Gunshot Wounds", Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1976, p. 84)
So, if you know nothing about forensic, as it's evidently the case, why are you typing like an idiot, again in capitals like an idiot? (easy answer)
8
-
@henochparks Had you really read that report, you would have known the wound had been measured on the scalp, the skin that cover the skull bones, not the bones. but obviously, other than not knowing what you are talking about, you read only conspiracy sites. And buy anything.
So, again, there's no limit to your idiocy.
I asked " With what kind of instrument the diameter of this hole thad been measured?" (not what kind of super-duper-best-in-the-world instruments you THINK the Bethesda hospital owned), because, obviously, to measure a fraction of millimeter, you need an instrument capable to measure a fraction of millimeter.
The hole in the scalp (not the bone, the skin over it) had been described at being 6X13mm (not 6.1X12.9mm, or 5.9X13.1mm, but 6x13mm) so, if the killing didn't happen in a bubble of improbability where bullets leave holes of only exactly round numbers, it's evident they were not measuring fractions of millimeters (despite the super-duper-best-in-the-world-oh-my-god-how-fantastic instruments you THINK the Bethesda hospital owned).
But, further: "As for the wounds caused by rifled weapons, the size of the wound is not always helpful in determining the caliber or type of weapon (pistol, revolver, rifle). In fact, the size of the wound can be misleading (Fig. 8-2). The diameter of the wound may be smaller, greater or equal to the diameter of the bullet. Therefore, one must give a guarded opinion about the caliber of the bullet from the examination of the wound (Fig. 8-3)." (Abdullah Fatteh "Medicolegal Investigation of Gunshot Wounds", Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1976, p. 84)
So, if you know nothing about forensic, as it's evidently the case, why are you typing like an idiot, again in capitals like an idiot? (easy answer)
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"the rifle can by cycled with virtually zero movement, allowing the sniper to remain very well concealed in his shooting position"
The Ross was surely a superb sniper rifle, but the video above disproved this last statement. The Ross rifle has a "long" action (that's a necessary evil for straight pull actions with rotating bolt heads, as part of the rearward movement of the bolt serves to disengage the bolt head from the receiver), that forces the shooter to move his head, so losing the point of aim, when cycling the action. And this is also the reason why a not properly assembled rifle was dangerous. Even if the bolt was not coming out of the receiver, the shooter would end up with an inch of metal in the skull.
Other rifles, as the Lee enfield, or the Carcano, have a "short" action, that allows to cycle it without losing the point of aim.
However, for a sniper, this was a minor inconvenient, as he was supposed to shoot a single decisive shot, not to fire repeatedly at the same target in a short time.
7
-
7
-
7
-
The SR2 bomb was filled with 32gr of TNT, into an iron case, and with an iron spiral around it to ensure fragmentation. The explosive filling was inferior to the later (from 1944) US MKII hand grenades, but superior to the earlier ones, so I wouldn't deem them as "ineffective". The bomb was designed to contain it's effects in a 50m range, and so the shooter was instructed to not shoot at closer distances (see "Istruzione provvisoria sull'uso della bomba S.R.2 con governale"). It was not the bomb, simply they decided to ditch the whole idea.
It was replaced by the Brixia mortar, that, being able of direct ant indirect fire, and having a far higher ROF, was deemed to be a better solution.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The reason of the Moschetto TS is that there are a series of jobs in the army (passing artillery shells, load and unload mules, ecc...) that are not compatible with a long rifle. If you give a long rifle to the men that had to do those activities, they'll put them somewere while they do their "main" job, with the result of not having the rifle at hand the moment it's really needed.
A Moschetto TS is small and light enought to be worn while doing other manual activities, and it had a bayonet, not cause those troops were really expected to use it for combat, but cause they needed it as a tool (can opener, wooden box opener, lever, ecc... the real main use of bayonets in both world war) even more than normal infantry.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
First of It had been Austria-Hungary that broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It had not been Italy that left it. So no "betrayal" included.
Simply Austria-Hungary decided a course of actions that would have broken the treaty it had with Italy, and so exposed itself to a war with the same country (it was no secret that there were many unfinished business between the two powers). Even more refusing to agree on the compensations required by the same Art.7 of the Treaty. Even the German mediators stated that the Austrian position (they were not willing to give Trento to the Italians, even if they would have obtained Belgrade in exchange) was unreasonable, and their wavering positions (Austrian foreign Minister Berchtold was initially willing to concede a part of Trentino to Italy, only to be contraddicted by the new foreign Minister Stephan Burián when he took office on 13/01/1915) were undermining the efforts of the German diplomacy and the Italian neutralist politicians.
Then: Why the "German Empire"? The question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not the German Empire. The German Empire at that point was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief that it would have made a war with Russia easier to win. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARE WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Paladin1873 Maybe you mean "I have never heard a right-handed shooter praise a right-side charging handle, but I have heard many complain about it." Obviously those that speaks are those that complain. Those that are fine with it take it for granted.IE the Beretta ARX100 has switchable charging handle. How many right handed shooters have switched it to the left side to you? On military rifles, made thinking to right-hand shooters, the charging handle is on the right side for two reasons:
1) A right hand shooter mantains the alignment of the rifle with the left (forward) hand, so better mantain the alignment of the rifle, and use the most able hand to reload.
2) If the right hand is reloading, there is no risk of the shooter pulling the trigger until the operation is complete.
Infact, when you say "forward for fire, rearward for safe" you are not talking of "intuition", you are talking of what you are used to. For someone that don't practice regularly, "forward for fire, rearward for safe" and "forward for safe, rearward for fire" are completely indifferent. Motion memory are formed through practice, and soldiers practice with their weapons. For someone used to the AK-47, the AR-15 controls are awkward at first, and the AR15 was not a thing in 1957 anyway. The safety on the M1 Garand and on the M14 is "forward for fire, rearward for safe", but at the same time is easy to engage, but not easy to disengage (to push forward that little lever with the trigger finger is really not natural). Many shotguns have a cross-bolt safety but, when a cross-bolt safety shows up on rifles or pistols, many complains about it, not because it doesn't work as well as a lever safety, but because it's not what they are used to.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
Aeschylus' turned it into an advertising for Athen's legal system. Even if the goal was not much to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but that, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
sharebear421 German confirmation process, and only in theory, required a witness, that could be the wingman of the same pilot that claimed the victory. Decisely not the higher confirmation standard of the war (IE, the Soviets did not considered the witness of the wingman. Not that this saved them from overclaiming). That was in theory, since, in practice, some units habitually submitted unwitnessed claims and these made it through the verification process, particularly if they were made by pilots with already established records.
An example regarding Marseille's JG 27. Those are all "confirmed" kills, since, at that time, the Luftwaffe confirmation process still worked.
12 Oct 1941
Allied losses: 2 P-40's were shot down, 1 crashed on landing, 1 crashed inside Allied lines.
Luftwaffe: 4 kills were awarded, 2 to Marseille, 1 to Sinner & Franziket. German overclaiming 2:1.
30 Oct 1941
Allied losses: 2 P-40's and 1 damaged
Luftwaffe: 4 kills awarded, 3 to Schulz, 1 to Schacht. German overclaiming 2:1
22 May 1942
Allied losses: 1 P-40 shot down, 1 missing and 1 crash landed at base.
Luftwaffe: 5 kills awarded. German overclaiming 2,5:1
1 June 1942
Allied losses: 1 P-40 shot down, 1 damaged
Luftwaffe: 3 P-40's awarded, 1 Hurricane awarded despite not being present. German overclaiming 4:1
3 September 1942
Allied losses: 2 P-40's shot down, 1 crash landed at base.
Luftwaffe: 6 kills awarded, 3 to Marseille & 3 to Stahlschmidt (including a Spitfire, not present). German overclaiming 3:1
5 September 1942
Allied losses: 2 Spitfires shot down, 1 P-40 shot down and 1 damaged
Luftwaffe: 9 Kills awarded, 4 (All P-40) to Marseille, 2 to Stahlschmidt and 3 to Rödel. German overclaiming 3:1
15 September 1942
Allied losses: 6 Kittyhawks (of which one shot down by "friendly" AA fire:
Lufwaffe: 19 kills awarded. German overclaiming more than 3:1.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Ferrari had been weighted as well, but that didn't "artificially level the field" with Porsche and Cadillac. They seemed to have gained performances over the competition instead. Maybe Le Mans is a different race than the three before (you know, 24hours, night, rain, more cars on the track, most important race of the calendar...), and maybe, maybe, that a constructor freshly arrived on a serie has more to learn than one that had competed for years, and so progresses faster.
Compared to Ferrari, Toyota gained 12 kg more on over a ton of car, and 2mjoules for stint more than Ferrari to balance that. The BoP was known before the start of the season. If they designed a car whose balance is completely ruined by 12 kg of weight it's their fault.
And you didn't wonder why "Is not the same as last years where the only big team was Toyota"? You didn't wonder why other big teams, like BMW, want to enter? Maybe, maybe, it' has something to do with the rules?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Moreover, the "Vesuvius" we know, the central cone visible at 2:18, didn't exist back then. What existed, and the Romans called "Vesuvius" was the semi-circular ridge of Mt. Somma (also visible in the picture. It was there that, for example found refuge the rebels of Spartacus, and it was its internal, very steep, slope (while the external slope was covered in vineyards) that they descended using vine branches as ropes.
That of 79 AC had precisely been the last of a series of explosions, thousands of years apart, that destroyed the old vulcanic edifice of Mt. Somma.
The Romans didn't, and couldn't, recognize the Vesuvius as a Volcano. Because it had nor the shape, nor the activities they could attribute to a volcano.
The current central cone formed in the subsequent two millennia of effusive eruptions, and infact it was lower than the ridge of Mt. Somma still in 18th century depictions.
See R. Cioni, R. Santacroce e A. Sbrana, "Pyroclastic deposits as a guide for reconstructing the multi-stage evolution of the Somma-Vesuvius Caldera".
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@knurlgnar24 Yes and no.
Yes and no.
Factories and workshops of the time were not that controlled environments, they were not clean places, and they could be hot, cold, and anywere in between.
WWI HMGs, like the Vickers, the MG08 and so on, were built with the same concept, and had been among the most reliable self loading firearms ever.
Because, like the industrial tooling of their time they were massively overbuilt. It was like they couldn't be bothered by the simple energy of a cartridge firing. And, in their frame, there was a lot of void space, so the dirt had a lot of places to go before locking the mechanism.
The Madsen LMG was kind of a smaller version of that. As that, it was a little more sensible to elements and dirt, but no more (and maybe less) than any LMG of the time (Hotchkiss Portative, Lewis Gun... not to talk about the Chauchat).
6
-
6
-
@NoName-hg6cc For the time, he was quite educated. Not in classical studies, but more than the average infantry officer that came out of the military academies of the time (the first ones had just been estabilished), not to say the ones that simply bought their rank (a practice the Duke of Wellington was a big advocate of). He knew at least five languages (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, English. Some source report he knew German too). He had a sea Captain's patent, and, during his years in South America, when he wasn't fighting or trading, he earned his living by teaching maths.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"assassins"?
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@davidvarnes7708 For 1934 It was simple to make too. The BAR, BREN, MG34 and Type99 (and both the BREN and MG1934 had been selected in 1938, the Type99 in 1939) had more complex machining. Among the most used LMGs of the time, Only the DP28 could be considered simpler to manufacture.
But generally, though I like it, it seems like a promising prototype put in production before all the elements had been figured out throughly.
Very good and simple operating mechanism, barrel change mechanism, general ergonomy, controls, gas settings…
But three sets of lugs? That bipod (I’ve seen better in WWI)… no handle to grab a scorching hot barrel… And that magazine…
It could have easily been so MUCH better.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@RandomUser-cx9kn In the post-war years Bernardelli had a lot of know-how on making guns, but only of estabilished patterns, while the market required something new. Unfortunately the small company had not experience in designing new weapons and, as an engineer that worked there at that time recalled, even the access to specialised literature was very limited, especially in foreign languages. So they simply copied what they could put their hands on. They put their hands on a SVT and "oh, whe can make a shotgun out of this".
Later the situation was different. Thus not being Beretta, The Bernardelli 60 had been quite a success, and the P0.18 too. Unfortunately the company invested heavily in the Italian Army AR trial, but it had not been the only one. Franchi did it too with the 641 (derived from the H&K G41), and SOCIMI with the ambitious 871 (piston driven, reciprocating charging handle AR15).
The P.One evolution of the P0.18 was an exceptional firearm, that today would probably have it's place in the market exactly for it's "classic" features (all forged steel slide and frame, 1911 style safety but with a decocker too, like modern CZ and Taurus), unfortunately it was released in the worst possible moment for an all-steel pistol.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The most expensive part of a knight's gear was the horse. A warhorse was completely different from the horses used to pull the carts. It was like a modern supercar compared to a city car, for purchase and maintenance.
Compared to that, swords were cheap. And infact many not-knights had swords as well.
Using a sword or a mace was a question of choice, and often knights had both, or two of them. One kept on themself, one on the horse (infact there was the sidesword and the saddle sword, and both could be replaced by a mace, a warhammer or a waraxe).
IE we have the list of the gear used by the Italian knights at the challenge of Barletta, a chivalric challenge between 13 Italians and 13 French knights happened during the siege of Barletta in 1503. Being a group challenge, the gear had been estabilished by the parts, but it was similar to the one they would have used in battle.
Every knight had a lance, two estocks (one on themselves, one on the saddle) and one axe (the chronicler Giovio tells specifically that, instead of waraxes, the Italians chose to use "peasants' axes" way heavier).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@dreamerthief2216 It's significative that Dante previously put both Averroes and Saladin (a muslim scholar and a muslim general, Dante does nothing by chance, he wanted to depict them there) among the not-baptized virtuous. Averroes with the likes of Socrat and Aristotle, Saladin, the man that took away Gerusalem from the Christianity, with the likes of Caesar. Because for Saladin, to fight Christians was his work, and he did it in an honorable way.
Mohammed instead is among the schismatics for having divided Christianity, and Ali, at that point, for having divided Islam. The point was not Christian or Islamic religion, but to have caused discord.
6
-
6
-
6
-
WhiteCavendish Since the movement made by bolt head is about the same (first rotate 90°, then slide rearward for the lenght of the cartridge), the movement of the hand is not so "quantitatively" different. In the Mauser it's divided in two distinct actions "high - rear", while in the Ross it's a single, longer, one. As for the effort, that's probably true for sniper rifles, adeguately cared and that tend to shoot fewer ammunitions than infantry rifles. One of the problems of the design as an infantry rifle infact was it's tendency to require more and more effort to cycle the action as the rifle keep shooting, as a result of tight tolerances and dirt (unavoidable in trench warfare). Another superbly accurate and smooth straight pull, the Schmidt-Rubin, especially in it's K31 incarnation, if used in the same conditions would have probably suffered of the same problems (that were repeatedly reported in training) for the same reasons.
It's worth to note that another widely used (the most widely used of them all actually) straight pull, the Steyr-Manlicher, although being far less smooth than the previous two at first shot, did not suffered from the same problems. The famous Russian weapon desiger Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov (the father of the Fedorov Avtomat), in his reports from the battlefields of the Russo-Japanese war noted infact that the Manlicher design was even less sensible to mud and snow than the M91 Moisin-Nagant.
5
-
To say that fluting strenghten the armor is, unfortunately, an oversemplification.
1) For the same area covered and the same thickness, a fluted plate is heavier.
2) For the same area covered and the same weight (that's the real limitation of what a man can carry) a fluted plate is thinner.
3) For the same area covered and the same weight, a flat, or almost flat, fluted plate, is stiffer, less prone to be bent, so is a better protection against blunt weapons.
4) For the same area covered and the same weight, a flat, or almost flat, fluted plate is more prone to be pierced, cause is thinner, and cause the flutes are less likely to deflect the blows, and more likely to offer them an orthogonal surface where they can have the maximum effect, so is a worst protection against piercing weapons.
5) the stiffening effect of fluting decreases as long as the curvature of the plate increase (infact the section of a sphere is naturally resistant to be bent, think of the helmet, or the pauldron), until, for a certain curvature, the effect is reversed, and flutes actually makes the plate less stiff.
5
-
5
-
5
-
The founders were two businessmen that, until the late '30s had an activity of import of bananas from Somalia (they owned two ships that they used for that). In the late '30s their business was nationalized by the government, and they (that were also two enthusiast hunters) used the indemnity to found, in the city of Cremona, a manufacture of weapons expressely meant for the army, so the name "Armi da guerra - Cremona" (Weapons for war - Cremona) then contracted in "Armaguerra". The manufacture was founded in 1939. The rifle was their first indipendent design, and had been immediatly succesful, winning the competition of Beretta, Breda and Scotti. However, during the war, the Armaguerra mainly produced Carcano rifles and Beretta Model 1934 pistols.
5
-
You are welcome. One of the thing that could be of interest, is why the two choose the city of Cremona for the plant. Infact they were both of Genova, and Cremona was then a little, not industrialized, city, famous, like now is, for its luthiers. One can only speculate, but is often said that it was cause Cremona was the city of Roberto Farinacci, one of the leading figures of the fascist party. Building a manifacture there, they thought they could gain public procurements more easily. In the end, it was an excessive caution, as the plant started to work in 1939, and, since 1940, everything that could manufacture a rifle had no shortage of procurements.
In the end, in its brief life (the plant made weapons only from 1939 to 1945) the Armaguerra was higly innovative. It not only designed the winning semiauto model for the Italian Army, but also the OG43 and OG44, the first "second generation" SMGs.
Although not used productively for decades, the Armaguerra Plant is still existing. Recently the asbestos roof covers had been replaced by photovoltaic panels (even those that are still not covered in the picture, had been later), so it's currently a photovoltaic plant. http://nextia.ch/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/armaguerra-1.2bn.jpg
5
-
***** Really not. Probably you don't understand English very well. There were no US troops in Italy at all at the time of the Battle of the Solstice, and only one regiment operated in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto, they fought gallantly and conquered one machineguns' nest, but it was really a marginal action in a battle where millions of men were involved. Moreover, you have to consider that, for every allied soldier in Italy there was more than an Italian soldier on the Western Front helping French and British. A total of 100.000 Italian soldiers, an entire corp (the 2nd), operated on the western front. They. for example, fought the second battle of the Marne, stopped the German Attempt to encircle Reims, and took part in the general offensive that repeled the Germans east of the Meuse in october 1918.
All in all, your point of view seems very peculiar. You seem to take pride in the fact that many Slavics fought for the Empire, then in the fact that, in the end, they decided to betray the Emperor and deserted.
In the same time, you seem to mock who fought the Empire for the entire lenght of the war, winning it in the end, like they fought the Empire for the previous 100 years, winning their nation on the battlefield.
One might think that the Slavics that were under the Empire have to be at least a bit grateful to the Italians, for having kicked their asses so hard to convince them to stop being Franz Josephs' bitches, flee form the battelfield, and leave the same Italians to give them a nation. Instead what one has to read? Whining and more whining.
5
-
Today it can seem strange, but, in the first half of XX century, to design a detachable magazine that was at the same time so cheap to be discarded on the field, and so well and consistently built to not cause feeding problems was really an issue. The BAR and the BREN were plagued by jammings caused by defective magazines, and those had been built by countries that had not raw materials shortages. The British actually designed a fixed magazine for the BREN, loaded with two 15 rounds clips (they didn't adopt that, but it was really awkward compared to the Breda one).
So, in 1924, FIAT came out with a LMG design (FIAT 1924) that had a fixed magazine on the left of the weapon, loaded inserting a 20 round clip (similar to that of the subsequent Breda) from the right. In exchange of a little time lost in recharging, all the feeding problems were avoided.
The flaw was that, to load a MG inserting a clip from one side, the gunner, or the servent, had to expose himself a little, and, laterally pushing the weapon, they can move it, loosing the line of sight.
So the Breda had the subsequent evolution. By tilting the magazine, in exchange of a little more time lost in recharging, the gunner could load the gun (and change the barrel, for that matter) without changing position at all.
In the end, ten years later, at the start of WWII, it was an already outdated design, but it was actually not that bad. There is a tendency, on the net, when a weapon had some defect, tho extremize them, concluding that "it's the worst gun ever made!", "I would have rather fought naked than carrying that piece of junk!" and things like that. But those are modern days shenanigans. The contemporaries of the weapon, those that had to fight them daily, and reuse the captured ones, thought it was not that bad.
From Tactical and Technical Trends (the magazine of the US Intelligence) No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942 "Use of Captured Italian weapons" :
"Breda Light Machine Gun: The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun. It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions. It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun. It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon. Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting".
Mind that, to use 4 spare barrels (the number the Italians deemed to be necessary after having used the gun in combat), you have to fire at least 800 rounds in quick succession. So much for the gun not being capable to really provide automatic fire.
5
-
5
-
*****
Really not. 352 are those he wrote in his personal logbook. The Luftwaffe confirmation process was dead by the time Hartmann obtained most of his victories. To claim (not to confirm, since the German confirmation process, as said, was dead by that time) a victory, Luftwaffe required to the pilots to fill in a module, writing the day of the kill, the hour, the kind of aircraft shot down, the location, the quote of the engagement, and the name of a witness. Hartmann himself said that he didn't always followed the rules. In much of his claims, from nov. 1944 on, the hour, the location, and the quote of the engagement are not even reported.
Show less
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
In the Trentino offensive THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY SURPRISE, if not in the scale of the operation. The Italian high command begun the preparations for the defence of the Trentino in the second week of March (suspension of the transfer from Trentino of the brigades "Ivrea" and "Sicilia", and sending in the brigade "Valtellina"). In the first week of April three new brigades were sent in the sector, then the 9th division was transferred at Bassano, the 10th at Schio, 10 alpine battallions and 6 mountain artillery batteries at Marostica. 6 batteries of 149mm guns, 6 of 105mm, 3 mechanized batteries of 102mm cannons and 3 batteries of heavy howitzers were put in reserve on the Tagliamento river. At the end of April the 44th division was transferred from the Albania to Desenzano, and further 7 divisions (27th division, X and XIV Corps) were put on reserve on the Tagliamento. In his visit in Trentino of late April, Cadorna was there to inspect the preparations for the incoming battle. The real difference between Cadorna and Brusati is that Brusati wanted to held all the ground his troops conquered in the first weeks of war. Cadorna, judging the Trentino sector not so important, only wanted to held the third line of defense.
So why the Austrians advanced so much?
Well, they did not actually. In many sectors the preparations had not been actuated very well, but, in an offensive like that, it was almost granted that the first line of defense would have been overrun. The artillery preparations almost always made them not defensible. Only the second, and more often the third line of defense could be held (the lost ground would have then be taken back with counterattacks). But in mountain warfare the placement of the lines was dictated by the ground. First and second line could be so close to not be really distinct, the third could be really far away.
The tactic to stop a large scale attack was to fix the wings of the attacking army, so progressively narrowing the line of advance, and putting he advancing formations progressively at risk to be hit at the flanks, and that was done. The Austrians overrun the Italian third line at Asiago, but they did it only there. At that point, the Trentino offensive was over, and the Austrians rethreated almost to the starting line to avoid to be counterattacked while being so exposed.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@angry_ike7628
7.65mm Parabellum produces 412 Joule of energy, not ft-lbs. Those are 304 ft-lbs. Not really different than the 8mm Roth-Steyr (that would easily surpass it with a bullet of comparable weight).
Overall lenght:
.30 Super Carry, 29.7mm,
8mm Roth-Steyr, 29,0mm
7.65X20 Longue, 30.24mm
Bullet diameter:
.30 Super Carry, 8mm,
8mm Roth-Steyr, 8.16mm
7.65X20 Longue, 7.85mm
Base diameter:
.30 Super Carry, 8.8mm,
8mm Roth-Steyr, 8.85mm
7.65X20 Longue, 8.53mm
Bullet mass:
.30 Super Carry, 100gr,
8mm Roth-Steyr, 113-116gr
7.65X20 Longue, 77gr
Energy:
.30 Super Carry, 470J
8mm Roth-Steyr, 390-410J
7.65X20 Longue, 297J.
So I confirm, the .30 Super Carry is more similar to the 8mm Roth-Steyr, both for dimensions and energy than to the 7.65X20 Longue, that shoots a much lighter bullet with much less energy.
The 7.65 Parabellum has very similar performances to that of the 8mm Roth-Steyr, especially considered that the 8mm Roth Steyr would develop more energy with a 100gr ball (a la .30 Super Carry) and even more with a 93gr ball (a la 7.65mm Parabellum).
5
-
5
-
Is difficult to find datas for Germanic people of Roman times, but Viking males, form skeletons found (usually we find burial of high-class people, so the average height is probably overestimated, since in ancient times they tended to eat better and so be taller than the average peasant) had an average height of 172cm. We already talked about legionaries but, from skeletons, the average male population of Herculaneum (and there are no class differencies there, since they all perished in a natural disaster) was of 169cm, so the Germanic people were probably on average taller than the Romans, but nothing so dramatic.
Several Roman sources said of one or another Gaul or Germanic population, that they were very tall, but often the Romans first seen the warrior elite. People that eat very well since childhood, and so were taller than the average.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dailyvideoforpatriotism5371 There is no shooting of prisoners here. There are no prisoners.
Feigning a surrender IS A WAR CRIME. it implies "perfidy".
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
5
-
That's what happens when an inventor gets enamored of an idea.
At a certain point, he realizes it's impractical in respect to other, established, solutions, but he wants to make it work.
However, let's not exagerate. The functioning is complex, but the individual pieces are rather simple to make.
For a comparison, the Zb. vz 26 / BREN was simple in its functioning, and had less moving pieces, but the bolt and carrier are the nightmare of a machinist.
Fact is that too many moving pieces are a problem by itself, since it multiplies the things that can go wrong.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@bkjeong4302 The source of the inconsistency of the shell as an explanation for the inexistent excessive dispersion is Iachino too.
On the dispersion of the 381/50 in battle at Gaudo (that's the example always taken of an excessive dispersion of those guns), we have both the direct testimony of the 1st Fire Director of the Vittorio Veneto, Capt. Luciano Sotgiu that, in his relation, in contrast with Adm. Iachino, did not see any out of the ordinary in his guns' salvos, and the pictures taken by the British of the salvos aimed at the HMS Gloucester that, knowing the dimension of the ship, and the range (from 23 to 26 km) clearly show a longitudinal dispersion of about 2% of the distance, that was pretty good considerig that the Vittorio Veneto was steaming at 28 knots.
The Vittorio Veneto did not hit anything at Gaudo because, firing from 23.000 to 26.000m on a pair of light cruisers entering and leaving the smokescreens, it could have hit them only for a lucky chance. It had been already amply demonstrated that, even at far closer distances and with much more rapidly firing guns, it was practically impossible to hit a ship that was only manuvering to not being hit, if not firing some thousands of shells.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@nathanaelsallhageriksson1719 Your is a 20th-21th century point of view. "Arminius, savior of the Germanics" is '30s narrative. A 1st century Germanic didn't reason like that. For him there was his family, then his clan, then his tribe and that was all. There was not a Germanic word to indicate Germanic people. It had been the Romans that classified them like that.
For the Western Germanics it was a question of who they had to become tributaries to. The Romans or the Svebian confederation, east of the Elbe. That's why there were pro-Roman and anti-Roman (that were pro-Svebian) factions among them. As already said, among the Same Cherusci the pro-Roman faction will prevail in the end, and they'll end up aiding the Romans, and being aided by them, vs. other Germanic tribes. They dind't prefer the Svebi to the Romans because the Svebi were Germanics. That distinction had no sense for them. In the same Svebian confederation there were the Semnones, that were Celts.
"Justification" and Excuse" are words you used now. I've not to justify or excusing anything, and the Romans hadn't to. Those that decided to destroy three legions made their bet, bringing to the table their life and those of all their fellow tribesmen.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Two Italian Marines who killed two indian fishermen"?
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@UCDVcxMDIug9M5_YY98jp3qA Charon is not a man, is the son of Erebus and the Night, while Minos is a demigod, son of Zeus, and both Virgil and Claudian stated that Minos was a judge of the underworld, so he was related to hell already in classical miths.
Dante needed to put in the afterlife both well known contemporary people than well known people of the past. "well known people of the past" in medieval Europe meant Saints and characters of the Greco-Roman mithology, he couldn't put saints in hell, so...
What other references should he have used? Those to modern-day archaeology?
Jason is a man, so no reason to not include him between the men. The Sisters of Fate were cited as poetical symbols (of the given lenght of life), but never put anywere. Adonis' mother, Myrrha is a woman, that tricked her own father into sleeping with her, and got pregnant that way. She is in the tenth bolgia because her most serious sin was not incest, but deceit. Dante used them because their stories were well known, so it was not hard for the people to link the character with his sin. Cerberus is a monster, Pluto a God, so, not being real, they are not damned, but demons.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@hannibalkills1214 if... if... If the enemy was not armed with firearms, an MG wouldn't have been needed at all. "Reality doesn't work like that". The German army's reality was that they had to adapt to the situation like everyone else, and a tool that limits your ability to adapt is a liability.
The BAR was suboptimal because it's firepower was very limited in respect to it's weight (among some other problem) due to the fact of not having a quick exchange barrel. All in all, with all it's limitations, the Breda 30 was a better LMG. Simply the US had the industrial capability to "throw more BAR to the problem". Also the ability to "call for Arty" made so that MG tactics had always been neglected by the US Army (still today). IE, in a British squad, every grunt was instructed in how to use the BREN and, had only one remained alive, he was supposed to use the BREN. In a US Army squad, only the BAR gunner and his assistant were trained in using it.
The GPMG concept (and the centrality given to the MG tactics by the Germans in WWII), did born because the WWI peace conditions limited the number of both LMGs and HMGs for Germany (and practically banned mortars and artillery). To have an MG that could cover (even with some limitations) both roles, in a certain sense, doubled the allowed nuber.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
devildog1982z In China bronze, iron and cast-iron weapons had been used alongside for centuries, and even in Europe, bronze armors outlasted bronze weapons and provided protection from iron weapons for centuries. We have found tons of Corinthian, and other Greek style, helmets (much more than Roman helmets, thus much more Roman helmets had surely being made) because, being made of bronze, they didn't rust.
The first iron weapons were almost surely no better, or were just marginally better, than the refined bronze ones they replaced. They replaced the bronze ones only because, once you know the technique, iron is MUCH cheaper and doesn't require to have two different metals available (that was a problem in dark-age Europe/ Mediterranean, while it was much less in China).
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
***** Thanks, but what you are saying is, not surprisingly, inaccurate for an ignorant.
With the withdrawal of Russia from the war, and the Serbia Campaign already ended in november '15, The Empire had no more multiple fronts, All of it's strenght was focused on the Italian Front, and was even helped by German troops there. On the contrary, Italy was fighting on the Italian and on the Western fronts. Despite those facts, Italy had been, in all evidence, able to win over the Empire, infact it won, and the Empire surrendered.
"Simple operation against a weeker enemy" are, obviously, your opinions. Given how much you know of the war you are talking of, you can imagine how much credible they sound.
4
-
***** In the English Wikipedia (and every English source for that matter) is listed as "Battle of Caporetto", whine to them if you want.
Secondly, the country existed when the war started. It had been the war that made it disappear, so the answer is "Yes".
The war of Rome Vs Carthage, for example, had been higly successful for the Romans, that clearly won it, since Carthage ceased to exist.
And, as alredy said, it seems that the populations that obtained a country thanks to the fact that the Italians won the war for them, should be at least a bit grateful to them.
Unless they preferred to be under the Empire, obviously, that's legit.
But, in that case, they have been even more defeated.
4
-
***** The Empire was still expanding in 1908 when annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina. You can tell to yourself that it was dead in a date of your personal preference, but that's only your personal preference. There is nothing to back it, and, in this case it's to be explained why the Slavics soldiers were still eager to obey to their German officers so many years after the supposed "death" of the Empire.
You are trying to communicate in English, and, in every English source, the battle is called "Battle of Caporetto", regardless to what's the current name of the place, like there is a "Battle of Zama" regardless the fact that there is no more a place called "Zama" there. Live with it. And, oh, according to the then Austrians masters of the Slovenians, the place was known as "Karfreit".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
When Italy entred in the war, in 1915, they initially purchased a batch of Adrian helmets from the French ("elmetto Adrian mod. 15"), but they were not satisfied with the strenght of the design, so, starting form the subsequent year, they started to manufacture an helmet ("elmetto Adrian mod. 16") that had the same overall shape, but was stamped in one piece of thicker steel sheet, with the crest welded on it and without insigna (that were simply painted with black paint). The French adopted a similar helmet in 1926.
It has to be noted that the crest on the Adrian helmet was not really aimed to deflect the shrapnels. You can see at 3:00 - 3:04 that it' has openings on the sides. It covered a small hole in the top, so that the hot air could escape, like in a chimney, but the rain couldn't enter.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+franzlimit Not by chance, the Irredentists' motto was: "Trento e Trieste", not "Trento, Bolzano e Trieste".
"So why did Italy want this land?", cause, as the war itself amply shown, to fight wars going uphill is double the effort, and the South Tyrol happens to be between the Italian speaking regions and the watershed (natural border).
"and why was it granted by the allies?" Cause, if the South Tyroleans were Austrians, they were on the losing side, and so they have no much a say in the matter. Same thing for the Italian speaking Istrians at the end of WWII (and we can say the South Tyroleans had been a little more fortunate than them).
"This province had nearly no Italians in it (before Musolini started to change this)". Yeah, but it had nearly no Italians in it cause the Austrians changed it, with a policy of forced germanization between 1861 and 1914, so to reitalianize it a bit was seen as simply fair. None is innocent.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The complain about the dispersion at Gaudo had been made by Adm. Iachino, but he had to justify his fiasco of the subsequent night someway. We have the direct witness of the Fire Director of the Vittorio Veneto, that didn't considered the dispersion of the salvos to be anything out of the ordinary.
Simply the Vittorio Veneto fired from very long distance, in two different actions of 10 and 19 salvos each (between the two, the British ships were completely covered in smokescreens, so the Vittorio Veneto had to re-adjust the aim when it spotted them again) vs. two ships that, with a time of flight of the shells of over 40" could manuver to avoid the shots when they spotted the blasts.
The Battle of the Espero Convoy already demonstrated that, even at half that distance, it was nearly impossible to hit a ship that was performing evasive manuvers (or in the battle of Denmark Strait, when POW decided to break the contact, the Bismark wasn't able to land a hit any more).
4
-
4
-
The reaction of the eastern European powers to the battle of Legnica and Mohi, that ultimately led to the repulsion of the Mongol attempts to invade Europe, was that to increase the number of heavy knights and crossbowmen in the army and decrease that of light cavalry and foot soldiers, precisely cause the heavy cavalry and the crossbowmen, despite teir small number, proved to be very effective at Mohi.
The mounted archers infact seems to be a higly flexible force, but really have many limitations. They need a lot of space to be effective (infact a mounted archer, to fight a knight, has to throw the arrows while retreating), and are mostly useless in night battles, while a formation of heavy cavalry need only 100m of plain ground to launch a charge, and crossbowmen can be shielded from arrows and be lethal for the horses.
Another innovation was to not be involved in huge pitched battles, where the superior coordination of the Mongols would have given them the high ground over the undisciplinated European nobles, but to fight them in smaller skirmishes, where a big coordination was not needed.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Like in Game of Thrones, other than the two giants, there are many interesting characters to focus on. Hannibal's brothers, the other Carthagenean generals, Scipio's father, Fabius, Marcellus, Nero, the Numidians, Archimedes... and many locations other than Rome and Carthage (Syracuse, Capua, Cartagena...). There is material for many seasons.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Actually that's exclusively Ovid's version of the mith. He invented the whole rape and curse thing because he was writing a book called "metamorphosys", that was about shape-shifting miths (so he needed a shape-shifting, and, since the book is about changes, he didn't care about changing the miths themselves) and because he loved to depict autorities in a bad light, so, in his versions of the miths, gods always play with mortals without caring abouth them.
In the original Greek mith, Medusa was simpy born a monster, one of the three gorgons (along with Stheno and Euryale), that were daughters of Echidna and Typhon. Ironically, all three had the same aspect and powers, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
That's bureocracy for you.
Simply extermination camps, like Sobibor, didn't have an hospital, because prisoners didn't remained alive enough to need one.
Auschwitz was an extermination and labour camp, with tens of thousands of inmates, and several satellite camps whose inmates were not supposed to be killed immediately, and it needed an hospital, to not let diseases spread.
Once that there is an hospital, are the doctors to decide who needs medication and for how much time, and those doctors were not the same that made the selections, and, even if they were the same, they had not the same function when they run the hospital.
So an inmate could stay at the hospital for weeks, be discharged once healed, and be selected to be killed the next week.
4
-
4
-
@222TripleJ the only problem with the Italian classification is that people consider the one used only by the US "right" by default.
The Italian classification was done exclusively by mass. A tank was light under the 10 tons, medium between 10 and 20 tons, heavy over 20 tons. L6/40, light tank weighting 6 tons adopted in 1940. M14/41, medium tank weighting 14 tons adopted in 1941. P26/40, heavy tank weighting 26 tons adopted in 1940.
The Brits classified their tanks light , cruise and infantry.
the Germans didnt' have a classification, they only numbered the models (Panzer II - III - IV).
The US classification was so good that their "Heavy" tanks were so heavy to be scarcely useful, had been practically unused in WWII, and the entire concept had been replaced by that of MBT later but, for some reason, the P26/40 being a heavy tank was "laughable".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@CtrlAltRetreat The Italians wanted to adopt the 7.35X32 (not the 7.35X51, that came later) because they wanted to adopt a semiauto rifle (the Terni 1921) and correctly recognised that, for semiauto fire, an intermediate cartridge was better, hence the 7.35X32.
The conservatorism of the high brass prevented the adoption of the Terni semiauto, bu they still wanted a semiauto, in a full blown cartridge, so a new rifle, and tested many,
In 1938, still testing semiauto rifles, they recognised the convertion to a semiauto would have likely required a long time, but they didn't want to fight the next war with long worn-out, WWI Carcano rifles, so they adopted the M38 short rifle, that was a new rifle anyway.
BUT there is a trick. You can take an old, worn-out, 6.5 long rifle barrel, and turn it in a brand new, 7.35 short rifle barrel, only cutting and reboring it.
You can't turn an old worn-out 6.5 long rifle barrel in a brand new 6.5 short rifle barrel. Even cutting it, it will remain worn out.
So, since they had to manufacture new rifles and new ammos anyway, to adopt the 7.35x51, was economically convenient in respect to adopt a 6.5 spitzer.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@niks17 The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
For some obscure reason of any fighter engine usually is stated the emergency or takeoff power. For the FIAT A.74 is stated the normal power.
The emergency power of the A.74 was 960hp, and it was pretty conservative, since the manual stated it could be mantained for half an hour.
The difference between the 960hp of a FIAT A.74 and the 1200hp of a P&W R-1830 (that powered the first line of American fighters still in 1942), was that the P&W engines used 100 octane fuel. The Axis one had to use 87 octane one.
More than engines, it was the Regia Aeronautica decisions about engines that "let their WWII aircraft down". Traditionally Italian firms designed inline engines (both FIAT and Isotta Fraschini had built over 1000hp commercial aerial engines already in the '20s) but at the beginning of the '30s (exactly when DB, Rolls Royce and Allison started the development of the most famous inlines of WWII) the Regia decided to switch to radials, forcing the designers to work on a field they didn't know.
They however managed to close the gap, and in 1939 was homologated the radial 1500hp Piaggio P.XII. A world class engine at the time. But at that point the Regia already decided to switch back to inlines, but they didn't want traditional V, only inverted V, so cutting off existing Isotta Fraschini engines and forcing FIAT to redesign the 1400hp A.38.
That's why Alfa Romeo had to acquire the licence to produce the DB601.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@briant5685 Feigning a surrender IS A WAR CRIME. it implies "perfidy".
There is nothing "Russia should reciprocate". They are UN certified war criminals ALREADY. If the Ukrainians follow international war conventions, is not because Russians aren't animals.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@androkguz I watched it, but, believe it or not, Red didn't provide the first definition of the Mary Sue trope, and I'm not bound to agree with her. It had been described and defined thousands of times, and the best definition of a Mary Sue is, "a central character that's not challenged by the plot".
Because he's so superior to the story he's in, that the plot can give him only minor nuisances, not real challenges.
That's why Rey is a Mary Sue, and Goku is not.
Resting on Star Wars, Red doesn't know the source material very well also. It has been estabilished IN MOVIE that "wonderboy pilot" Luke had experience in piloting starfighters (T-16) BEFORE joining the rebellion. It's not like he became a pilot out of nothing, like Rey became an engineer, a gunner, a swordfighter and a jedi out of nothing.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1. Doctrine. The Italians wanted a major engagement, so didn't want to divide their fleet in smaller sections to defend the Adriatic coastal cities, even more so because the Austrian actions didn't make substantial damages. The Austrians instead formed raid parties for rapid actions against them, that's why they were usually in numerical superiority in those early actions.
2. Amnesia of the author. Some situation not so favourable to the Austrians had been omitted. IE:
a) contemporary to the initial Austrian raid on the Adriatic coast of Maj. 24 1915, the Italian destroyer Zeffiro penetrated in "Porto Buso", destroyed the ships present, bombarded the installations and captured the Austrian garrison (11 dead, 48 captured). It probably made more damages alone than the entire Austrian expedition.
b) In the morning of Dec. 29 1915 the Austrian light cruiser Helgoland and four destroyers attempted to force the port of Durazzo. Welcomed by a new coastal battery they didn't know the existence of, attempting to manuver to avoid the fire, they ended on a minefield. The destroyer Lika, struk by two mines that caused the explosion of the magazines, sunk immediately with the loss of 71 men. The destroyer Triglav, struk by a mine and crippled, was abandoned by the crew and later sunk.
c) In 1916 The Regia Marina finally commissioned the kind of ship more fit to operate in the Croatian coast, the MAS. In june 1916 begun the operations of the MAS boats against the Austrian ports, with the sinking of several transport ships.
etc...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@andyrihn1 Uh, no. In the service life test only the 92F and the H&K P7 reached the 7000 rounds threshold with all three pistols intact. The P226 cracked a frame at 6523 rounds fired, but was allowed to pass, since the requirement was just for a service life, on average, of over 5000 rounds.
the P226 failed the dry mud test, with only 79% reliability in those conditions. Being that significantly lower than the 1911 control weapon, it should have been eliminated due to the rules of the competition (notice that instead, in the XM17 trials, there was conveniently not a M9 control weapon around to be seen). It was allowed to keep on competing, because the Army wanted at least two manufacturers to compete on price, so it was simply decided that the dry mud test result was "not so important" and the result was simply not considered.
So, not counting the result of the tests were the 92F performed better than the P226, then the P226 performed better than the 92F.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nanashipersonne4151 Unfortunately Korra is the only thing in the show that works. It's all that's around her that doesn't.
None of her team GROWS. So Mako, Bolin and Asami are boring characters.
Also the villains never grow beyond being cartoonishly "bad guys". Their ideas may have had some merit, but they are only extremists. While, in ATLA, team Zuko and Team Azula were part of the family. You knew MANY things about their lives, and why they acted like they did. Even Jet was written better than the best villain of LOK.
The worse is in the first book. Where the chi-blockers are only an army of faceless minions, led by a masked guy that only in the final episode is revealed to be a never heard before brother of another character (who was revealed to be a bloodbender, son of anoter bloodbender we've never heard before, three episodes before). It cant' be shallower than that. Why should we care of those guys?
The setting is static. ATLA was a road movie. LOK is centred aroud a city. If you don't like it, so bad. There is not going to be another setting in the next episode.
LOK lacks balance. In ATLA 2/3 of the strongest team for most of the show was composed of non-benders. In LOK bending superpowers (lightningbending, lavabending, metalbending, bloodbending, fire propulsion...) are cheap, and non benders don't have a chance. That also doesn't make sense. During the 100 years wars, to be a strong bender was a death-life decider. Why peacetime benders should be so much stronger?
Etc.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A shame Drachinifel contributed to spread that bogus info (he never stated the quality being "all over the place, generally trending towards bloody awful. Ocasionally in spec", but that's internet). Infortunately he does not read Italian, so he has to rely on what he finds in English. Second hand sources, wartime propaganda, etc... A common problem between self-made historians.
The only source for the problem with Italian naval shells was Adm. Iachino, that had to justify his fiasco at Gaudo / Cape Matapan, and had been debunked by other sources, (IE Adm. Emilio Brenta, or the same Fire Director Officer of the Vittorio Veneto ad Gaudo). Reality is that in the conditions of the clash at Gaudo, no WWII battleship would have hit anything.
As a matter of fact, the Italian 152mm and 203mm are the only Cruiser naval guns that obtained some +20km hits during WWII (even twice in the same battle, so it was not a fluke).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
For 1934 It was simple to make too. The BAR, BREN, MG34 and Type99 (and both the BREN and MG1934 had been selected in 1938, the Type99 in 1939) had more complex machining. Among the most used LMGs of the time, Only the DP28 could be considered simpler to manufacture.
But generally, though I like it, it seems like a promising prototype put in production before all the elements had been figured out throughly.
Very good and simple operating mechanism, barrel change mechanism, general ergonomy, controls, gas settings…
But three sets of lugs (it's a nightmare to match bolts and receivers)? That bipod (I’ve seen better in WWI)… no handle to grab a scorching hot barrel… And that magazine…
It could have easily been so MUCH better.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
+besternamedensgibtxd When the round is fired, in the barrel, between the bullet and the bottom of the case, that lay on the bolt, it develops a very high pressure, that locks the walls of the case against the chamber, so preventing the hot gasses to be driven back to the face of the shooter.
If the bolt begin to travel backwards too early, when the pressure in the barrel is still high, then the thin metal of the case is stretched between the chamber (since the walls of the case are still locked to it by the pressure) and the bolt that is travelling backwards. That way the case can break, and the hot gasses and brass splinters can hit the shooter's face, with unpleasant consequencies.
3
-
This gun has never been designed to be an aircraft SMG. It only happened that the first 350 samples (of over 14.000 produced) had been given to the Air Force (that, at that time, was a branch of the Army) cause the Army wanted the weapon ready to be mass produced first to start to field it. The MGs used on the aircrafts had a different mounting, without the round plate and with normal aerial sights. The round plate was intended to be used on the field with the shield. When used with the shield, the plate was integral part of the protection, and the hole sight was the only opening in it.
Its rate of fire serves the same purpose of the 1200 rpm ROF of the MG-42. they both had not been designed for suppression fire (heavy MGs were intended for that role), but to cover obligatory passages (through the barbed wires, or the mountain trails) and fire only when you actually see the enemy. Since the enemy is no stupid, he is visible only for a brief time, and, for this, a huge ROF is required to hit him.
In 1916 Capt. Bassi, creator of the Arditi, begun to use it, without the shield, to clear the enemy trenches. A stretch ot trench is 20m long at best. With a single burst of the Villar Perosa you can saturate it without even seeing. That's useful, since the assaults were often performed at night.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Italians also had gas masks first than Caporetto. The gas attacks were normal on the Italian front. The infantry masks weren't effective vs the phosgene, and the use of that gas (for the first time on the Italian Front) by the Germans had a part in the breaktrough, but it wasn't only the phosgene. The gas was useful only to pass the first line of defense. But on the Italian front, at that time, too many soldiers were simply stuck on the first line, while the second and third lines of defense were less effective (a weakness already seen during the 1916 Austrian offensive on the Asiago Plateau). And the units were too dependent from the central command, for orders, as personal initiative was discouraged.
Diaz's staff adressed all those problems. and finally gave up with the entire trench warfare, adopting instead tactics of mobile defense, with indipendent small units allowed to move and call for the support of the artillery. Practically an anticipation of IIWW.
As for the tactic used by the Austrians on the Battle of the Solstice, mind that it came after months of failed attempts to repeat Caporetto's success on Mt. Grappa. They needed to try something different.
As for the location of the attack. The problem of an attack trough the mountains was still the same correctly outlined by Falkenhayn in 1916. On a map it seemed easy, but was only an illusion. On the ground it was a logistic nightmare. Once reached the Po valley, the attackers would have faced an army able to move for internal lines, with excellent roads and railways. The Attackers instead would still have to be supplied through alpine trails. In practice, the attackers would have reached the plains only to have their backs to the wall.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Helghastdude Beretta 34, M91, MAB38, Breda PG, Breda 37, Breda 38, Breda SAFAT, Breda 20/65...
No really successful semiauto rifle had been designed until the end of the 30s. IE, until the end of the 20s John Garand wasted ten years playing with a quirky primer acutated blowback design, then switched to gas actuated, the rifle was adopted, after seven years of ironing out problems, in 1937, but the M1 became really reliable only with a last modification done three years after its introduction, in early 1940.
Probably this rifle is closer to be a good service rifle than a M1 prototype of the same year.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The original Glisenti load was almost identical to the original 7.65 Parabellum load (since, like the 9mm Parabellum, it derived from that cartridge, but the designers of the MBT, differently from those of the DWM, didn't took advantage of the larger case to enhance the load), so, 1/4 less than the 9mm para load (literally, 3.3 grains Bullseye is a good 9mm glisenti load, and 4.4 grains Bullseye is a typical 9mm para load).
However, during WWI, 9mm Glisenti loads had been enhanced, since the cartridge was primarly used in the Villar Perosa SMG, and blowback SMGs are pretty strong actions. For example, USCco, during the war, made for the Italian Army a batch of 84 million Glisenti cartridges loaded with 4 grains bullseye, that's only 10% less than a typical 9mm para load.
Those "hot" cartridges were not especially marked, and were in the Army magazines, so, a 9mm Glisenti pistol made in the '20s had to be safe to shoot them too.
So, what happens if you tries to shoot a load that's 10% hotter than what the pistol is designed to handle? Nothing extraordinary. We are still in the safety margins of any pistol design. When the Beretta designers declared that the pistol could handle a 9mm para cartridge (obviously not +P or +P+, that didn't existed at that time), they were not mad or irresponsible. Simply YOU ARE PUTTING UNNECESSARY STRAIN IN AN ACTION THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR MILDER LOADS, and that is 90 years old too. In the long run, you'll almost surely have some damage in the action. Most likely in the slide. Moreover, if the recoil spring has weakened with time, you'll probably have some overpressure problem with the cases, and even some case head failure.
3
-
+Adrian Larkins
First, there is brand power. Mauser was very good at selling his products, that were generally good, but sometimes not so exceptional, and the C96 is a sample of the latters.
Second, the C96 was a 1896 design, when semiauto pistols were in their infancy. In 1910 there were many other design to compete with.
Third, concauses. The C96 had not been really a success until WWI (it won contracts only for 7000 guns until then), but the fact that it had been round for 20 years (known design), the fact that Mauser had the capability to deliver them, and the hurry of the war made that the Austrian and German governments ordered 50.000 and 150.000 guns respectively in 1916. At that point the success of the broomhandle was secured, while in 1916, the Vitali 1910 was already a forgotten prototype.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
At the end of WWI the studies of the Italian Army concluded that the bolt action rifle was obsolete and almost useless. The submachinaguns demonstrated to be much more useful in trench warfare, so the suggestion was to replace the bolt action rifles with "moschetti automatici" ("automatic carabines") as soon as possible.
They first started to design a real assault rifle (Terni mod 21, 7.65X40mm intermediate cartridge, select fire, 25 round magazine), but the commission that tested it, probably mainly composed by traditionalists, found it unsaticfactory ("this weapon has all the inconvenient of the automatic weapons without having their advantages"). At that point they thought the semiauto rifle to be a good compromise between the bolt action and the automatic, so made the first concourse for a semiauto rifle, in the early '30 (Beretta M.31, MBT 29 and Scotti Mod. X). The Scotti Mod X won that, but, first that it could be officially adopted, the army decided to switch cartridge, from the 6.5X52 to the 7.35X51. Then they decided to have another concourse (Scotti Mod X, Beretta M37, Breda 1935 PG and Armaguerra 39) this time won by the Armaguerra.
At that point the war had already started, and it was too late to adopt a new main battle rifle (even the Soviets had to stop to produce the optmal SVT 40 and revert to the Moisin). "Better is the enemy of good."
3
-
3
-
3
-
+burger1690 Cause the mistake was not in the rifle, but in the cartridge. It was clear from the start (and I mean the start, from the Federov Avtomat, if not from the Cei Rigotti) that "select fire", in a weapon with the weight of a rifle, required an intermediate round to make the burst controllable. For that reason the British, after the war, proposed the 7mm British as the universal NATO cartridge. But the US Army didn't accept a round less powerful then the 30-06, so the 7.62X51 was adopted instead. The British, discouraged, adopted the FAL in semiauto only, cause, with the 7.62X51, the possibility to control the burst was only theoretical. The Italians made the BM59, with a complex muzzle brake and an integral bipod, to make it's burst at least a bit controllable, and the US replaced the M14 as soon as they realized that the guy with the M14 was outgunned by the guy with the AK-47.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
***** Unfortunately there is an attitude between commentators of military equipements, being them "experts" or not, that could be described as "if there is something different to what we are used to, then there has to be something wrong in it". That "wrong" was rapidly "theoretically" identified, and then passed from a commentator to another as a "fact".
An example is the manlicher clip fed system for rifles. Almost every description of it's efficiency contains a statement like "the bottom opening for the discharge of the spent clips was prone to let debris and dirt enter in the mechanism".
Unfortunately, the only real-life comparative study of the efficiency of this system VS the closed magazine (the observations of Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov, the designer of the Fedorov Automat, on the battlefields of the Russo-Japanese War), showed the exact opposite. On the winter battelfields, frozen mud and snow rapidly get stuck into the magazines of the Moisin Nagant, quickly rendering them single shooters, while the passage of the clips kept the action of the Steyr Manlicher clean and functional as repeaters.
All in all the Chauchat was an exceptional design. A design that permitted to produce 262,000 of them during the war in a partly invaded country, VS only 50.000 Lewis Gun produced in both UK and US. As a single soldier, maybe I would prefer to have a Lewis Gun in my hands, but as an army (and as a soldier too) I would greatly prefer to have five times more LMGs on the frontline.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aker1993 They were considered to be very effective. Despite not being a Nazi, or even a Fascist, Calosi was awarded the Order of the German Eagle, and the German GK3 pistol copied his own. After the Italian Armistice Calosi was hiding, to not be deported in Germany, and he was considered so important that the Allies devised the "Operation McGregor" (later recalled in the book and movie "cloack and Dagger") to exctract him form the German occupied part of Italy.
The operation was successful and Calosi, on his own request, was employed in the Newport torpedo Station, to develop a countermeasure to his own pistol. As recalled in Stanley P. Lowell book "Of Spies & Stratagems" Calosi gave spectacualr demonstrations, in live tests, of the effectiveness of his countermeasure in making the torpedoes explode off-target, but I don't know how much it had been employed by the US during the war since, a that point, we were pretty late in it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@romeob.8369 So according to your very personal bias.
That "vast difference" in endurance, discipline and dutifulness between East Asians and Westerners, in favor of the Asians, has yet to be seen in in any conflict outside of your head.
N.Korean soldiers being malnourished and in bad physical shape, if looking at those lads is not enough, had been noticed in any case of desertion of N.Korean border guards to the south. And I'm not comparing them to westerners here, I'm comparing them to other Koreans, only better fed, because they dont live in a dictatorship like the one you like so much.
Dear Ivan, that joined YouTube on Feb 26, 2022.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SidneyBroadshead The bullet was not unstable in flight and didn't have a wandering zero. Any spitzer bullet has the center of gravity displaced towards the back of the bullet, but that doesn't make it unaccurate.
The the aluminium tipped bullet was designed to be even more unstable, and so tumble more easily INTO THE BODY, not in flight. The Brits used the same trick in the .303 Ball MKVII, adopted in 1910, that served as standard issued cartridge through two World Wars, the Korean War and countless other smaller confrontations until the end of military use of the .303 British. Actually the Ball MKVII had a higher percentage of the bullet made out of aluminium, so was even more unstable, and none ever noticed it having a wandering zero. Today plastic tipped bullets are normally used for hunting.
The aluminium tipped bullet was also lighter than the original 6.5, so to have a faster muzzle velocity, and so a flatter trajectory in the first 300m of flight, so making the fixed 200m sight more useful.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@danielefabbro822 I already stated that the accuracy of the 381/50 was not worse than the main calibers of other powers, and that they barely hit anything (they did only in the second battle of the Sirte) because they had been used, or at extreme ranges, or on targets that were only manuvering to not be hit (in this case, it had been amply demonstrated that, even at far closer distances, and with much rapidly firing guns, you can hit something only spending thousands of shells).
But there is a reason why about 25.000m is the longest battleship hit ever recorded in action. Beyond that distance the salvo, not only the Italian, but of all the WWII battleship guns, were too disperse to have real chances.
Mind that, IE, in the battle of Denmark Strait, all the battleship hits happened between 18.500 and 15.000m distance.
3
-
3
-
@timmedcalf1357 Strange "think" indeed, since ACE publicly released a statement to the press accusing the COR to not have honor or respect for the host country.
That because the COR prefers to race by the rules.
Again. Since any change of rules is not neutral, the host can cautiously explore with the teams the possibility to change them, with anyone agreeing with the change, as it had been done with the wind limit.
But, if there is not that possibility, if one of the teams feels to be damaged by the change in any way, then rules are rules, and the proposal shouldn't even be publicly mentioned.
Instead of accusing of unsportmanship the ones that prefer to run the competition by the existing rules. THAT'S WHAT ACE PUBLICLY DID.
None entitled Tina Symmans to give people patents of "honor showing".
So:
1) Tina Symmans has no ground trying to postpone what COR36 is organizing. ACE is a logistic organizer and not the event organizer of the Prada Cup;
2) Tina Symmans, has insulted Luna Rossa team and COR36 to be dishonest and much more. See her childish statements released 5 mins before today's press conference;
3) Tina Symmans knew since November 2020 that in case Level 3 is lowered to Lever 2 the races had to re-start immediately without delay. The races could have restarted today and did not due to ACE fault. Could have restarted tomorrow and that's not possible due to ACE fault. Races are scheduled to be restarted on Saturday with 48 hours of delay unless, according to some rumours, something else will happen tomorrow to further postpone the races, due to ACE fault;
4) Tina Symmans should know that her own government is allowing citizens, residents and tourists in Auckland and New Zealand to walk without masks, eat in restaurants and do a normal life with the famous social distance. Masks are mandatory only in public transportations;
5) Tina Symmans should know that her own government is allowing sporting competitions to be held without problems;
6) Tina Symmans instead can not ensure that Level 3 is not going to come back again, after Friday 26th further postponing the Prada cup;
So Tina Symmans can go kick rocks. Who behaves like that does't deserve any further communication.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her (not really girl-hating, is it?), and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tylerellis9097 1) Oh, yeah, it was only a small massacre, How could the Byzantines think that the Venetians could care of it?
2) So Genoese were fair game?
3) Had they massacrated Byzantines? (and, with the benefit of hindsight, why not, if they had been able able to vanquish the Empire in the end?)
4) So, when you are not satisfied of some State's assistance, the normal thing to do is massacrating the citizens you can find?
The massacre of the latins simply demonstrated to the Venetians that the Byzantine Empire was an unstable and unpredictable commercial partner, and that, if they wanted to carry on their business without being at the mercy of some mad emperor, they had to do it through THEIR ports and THEIR fortresses, not asking for permission. In the end, it had been the right move, so yes, the massacre, for the byzantines, backfired a little.
The way Byzantines could die to Turks is by dying to Turks. They already lost Anatolia before (stable? Please...), and there were no more Crusaders Kingdoms to take the brunt of the muslims' expansion efforts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In Rome beard came in and out of fashion several times (you can see wih the bearded and shaved Emperors), but the beard was always associated with the sacerdotal status and with positions of particular power and wisdom (Jupiter was always depicted bearded). That's why i had been finally adopted for Jesus. Among the bearded Jesus images, the author missed the 4th century (very early 4th century for some scholar) "Christ between Peter and Paul" in the catacombs of Marcellinus and Peter. It can be older than that of the Catacombs of Commodilla, and it's quite evident the resemblance with images of Jupiter.
However, after the fall of the Empire, medieval depictions of the saints (Christ with the beard, John the Baptist covered in animal skin, Mattew with the lion, Luke with the eagle...) were made like that not because the artist believed John the Baptist was always covered in animal skin (a symbol of him being an hermit), but to make them canonical, and so recognisable by people that generally couldn't read. Bearded Christ was a convention, and artists knew it was a convention, that sometimes they decided to not follow (IE Michelangelo's Christ in the Last Judgement is beardless).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@heycidskyja4668 Fact is that there were practically two classes of service cartridges at the time. The "7-8mm, over 3000 joules energy at the muzzle" (30-06, 8mm Mauser, .303 British, 7.62X54r...) and the "6.5mm, from 2200 to 3000 joules energy at the muzzle" (Carcano, Arisaka and so on).
Modern service "intermediate" cartridges are below 2200 joules power, so it wouldn't be a problem, but practically all the cartridges proposed to solve the 5.56-7.62 dualism belong to the old "6.5mm 2200-3000 joules" category. So the problem. Are, IE, 6.8 SPC, or 6.5 Grendel, intermediate cartridges? They are made to be shot from an AR15 platform. But, power wise, they are in the "old service 6.5 rounds" category.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Looking at the Emperors that died for natural causes in the firts two centuries, Augustus lived 77, Tiberius 79 (maybe his death had been "accelerated" by Caligula, but he was in his deathbed), Claudius 64, Vespasian 70, Nerva 67, Trajan 63, Hadrian 62, Antoninus 74, for an average age of 69.5.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nathanaelsallhageriksson1719 It seems you are convincing yourself. You need an "instigator". A villain and a victim that successfully fights back. That's Hollywood, not history.
Many of the Germanics didn't see any invasion, oppression or forcing to change cultural practices. Actually there were many pro-Roman tribes in Germania. The Cherusci were one of them, until Arminius took power (and still there were a strong pro-Roman faction in the tribe, that will prevail in the end, killing Arminius and asking the Romans for a client king). Arminius was a Roman citizen, an Equites, and a commander of the Roman army, in charge of the scouting cavalry at Teutoburg, so a traitor, even for modern standards. Him leading an anti-Roman coalition that treacherously exterminated three legions was obviously going to cause an harsh retaliation. Those that decided to destroy those legions made their bet, bringing to the table their life and those of all their fellow tribesmen.
Unfortunately the arguments stands now like they stood the first time. You like it or not.
3
-
"easier to train" was the reason crossbows became the ranged weapon of choice on northern Italy, the land of merchant municipalities. It was great for citizen's militia, since a shopkeeper, training on sunday after the mass, could kill a trained and fully kitted knight.
Obviously, once you have a lot of crossbowmen available, the professional ones are better, and the Genoese were professional.
However, if you see the recruitment standards, the Genoese companies recruited among the lower strata of the population, or among artisans in economic difficulties, that decided to became mercenaries (even if the Genoese crossbowmen were not really mercenaries, since only the Republic of Genoa could sell their services), even for just a period. So people without, or with little, experience were recruited and intensively trained in a short period. The same with archers was nearly impossible. An archer was the son of an archer, that trained since childhood.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@justforever96 As already said, loading belts "was a backline activity". If you believe Germans loaded their MG belts in first line, you should check your brain (or, better, having it checked by someone with a functioning one) before talking of the intelligence of others.
As for logistic, as already said: "the Volkssturm was armed with a pletora of different weapons, that had different spare parts and would have required different training that none could give to the militians."
The idiocies you are "sure of" are your business only. Simply the Germans had grandiose (that was quite usual for them late in the war) plans to distribute HUGE quantities of rifles to the militia. For that quantity, convertion was convenient, and so they started to convert. But that quantity was also completely unrealistic given the conditions of their industry. "For one and half million rifles, ammo availability would have been a problem. For 15.000, 50.000 or even 200.000 rifles, there were plenty of ammos already available. Better issuing a repeater with 400 rounds and call it a day (hardly a Volkssturm militian would have survived enough to fire all of them anyway) than issuing a single shooter even with 10.000 rounds."
"you don't also want to be digging out warehouses of captured enemy ammo and distributing it to units all over a chaotic front with the limited transport you have left."
So, you already dug into those very same warehouses FOR THE RIFLES, and ignored the crates of million rounds sitting there already packed and ready to be transported. Then, "with the limited transport you have left" you carried the rifles to arsenals to be converted to single shooters, so consuming THE LIMITED INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY YOU HAVE LEFT, to make a single shooter out of a repeater. Then "with the limited transport you have left" you carry those single shooters to "a chaotic first line" WITHOUT SPARE PARTS OR TRAINING FOR THE GUNSMITHS, believing they could be good for something, instead of taking the rifles, the ammos for them, and simply delivering the rifle along with the ammos.
Now, let's see what the Volksturm really had.
On 15 January 1945, for example, the Volkssturm in Gau Bayreuth had a total of
1,148 rifles Model 1888 ( needed obsolete 8mm "88 patrone" cartridges),
1,265 rifles Model 1898 (from World War One),
543 Karabiner 98k,
5 Gewehr 43 (semi-automatic rifles),
17,562 Italian Carcano rifles,
1,974 French captured rifles,
64 Russian rifles (Mosin-Nagant),
1 Romanian rifle,
34 Dutch rifles,
129 Belgian rifles,
134 Czech rifles,
13 Polish rifles,
2 British rifles,
34 Austrian rifles,
173 9mm pistols,
2,038 7.65mm pistols,
982 6.35mm pistols,
1 Italian pistol,
19 French pistols,
25 Belgian pistols,
3 MPi 40,
2 MG 13,
4 MG 34,
2 Polish machine-guns,
2 Czech machine-guns,
1 French machine-gun,
1 Austrian machine-gun,
2 Czech heavy machine-guns,
1 mortar 5cm,
1 mortar 8cm,
1 French gun,
4,436 pieces Panzerfaust,
690 grenades Eierhandgranaten,
720 grenades Stielhandgranaten.
So, surprise surprise, not talking of all the OTHER calibers. Only the Volksturm of a single German region of 2.2 million people had more Carcano rifles than the entire production of converted rifles of Krieghoff and FNA Brescia.
So, surprise surprise, the Germans dug into those warehouses in search of ammos after all.
So, surpsise surprise, to add a logistic supply line of converted 7.92 Mauser single shooter Carcano rifles to the already existing and vastly preponderant supply line of 6.5 repeater Carcano rifles, only complicated the German logistic.
Who would have told?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
NGSW is DOA. It's adoption is far from "inevitable".
BTW
The M14 was the choice of the Ordnance corp. Like the XM7 is.
The M16 was an oddball side project of the CONARC, like this is of the AMU and the IWTSD. The Army didn't "didn't back down". To the Army was given the M16 because, with the Springfield Arsenal closing down, there was no way to manufacture enough M14 up to spec., so the Ordnance Corp had to accept the M16.
The soldiers didn't hate 5.56, they weren't happy with the M16, because it was unreliable, and it was unreliable because the Ordnance Corp hated it (it wasn't their idea) and ACTIVELY sabotaged it.
Once solved the issues (M16A1) none missed the M14. Because the lighter rifle that allowed to carry more rounds was what ANYONE wanted.
Everyone happy? No.
Nobody came out of Vietnam asking for a heavier, longer M16 with more complicated sights that’d be a bitch to clean and maintain. Nobody. Yet, what'd the Ordnance Corp prepare for them? The M16A2, a rifle optimized for Camp Perry matches.
And then what happened, when the Infantry saw the M4 carbine, which was only ever supposed to be this thing carried by support troops, to make their lives a little easier while performing manual labor under arms? Yeah; none of said “supporting arms” saw their M4s up until the early 2010s. Infantry instantly grabbed every one of those things they could put their hands on and discarded the M16A2. Because the lighter rifle that allowed to carry more rounds was what ANYONE wanted.
The Ordnance Corp lives in the mith of the lone "one shot, one kill," long-range rifleman, not in the reality where 99.9% of the rounds shot in battle miss the target.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In their defense, Mussolini was an example of political interference in military affairs made ignoring any strategic or logistic consideration.
1) Attacking France from the Alps in 1940. Carl von Clausewitz compared it to "lifting a rifle by grabbing it by the tip of the bayonet". A similar attack would have needed months of preparation, since the French forts had to be destroyed using artillery or mines to make any advance, instead Mussolini informed his generals of his decision just 12 days before the attack (and only for a delay, otherwise it would have been 7 days).
2) Attacking Egypt. Graziani argued in any way that the Italian African army wasn't prepared. The numerical superiority was shallow. Lacking tanks, AT artillery and trucks, they could just advance in a straight line along the coast, and would have been open to any counter-attack from a more mobile force coming from the desert. But he was forced to attack anyway. (what he had foreseen puntually happened, but, it has to be said, he didn't anything to prevent it).
3) Greece. An attack in late-autumn/winter on the mountains between Albania and Greece, without a clear numerical and technical superiority was doomed to fail. The ineptitude of Visconti Prasca in anything regarding logistic turned what could only be a stalemate until spring into a disaster.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
First of all: "betrayed" implies a moral judgment that, in this case is completely out of place. Austria-Hungary broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again) and, over that, war was declared on 23/05/1915.
Second: why "Germany"? I know that Germany is more famous, so better suited for a title, but the question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not Germany. At that point Germany was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief that it would have made a war with Russia simpler. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARED WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@belhaddim5116 Ferrari had been weighted as well, but that didn't "artificially level the field" with Porsche and Cadillac. They seemed to have gained performances over the competition instead. Maybe Le Mans is a different race than the three before (you know, 24hours, night, rain, more cars on the track, most important race of the calendar...), and maybe, maybe, that a constructor freshly arrived on a serie has more to learn than one that had competed for years, and so progresses faster.
Compared to Ferrari, Toyota gained 12 kg more on over a ton of car, and 2mjoules for stint more than Ferrari to balance that. The BoP was known before the start of the season. If they designed a car whose balance is completely ruined by 12 kg of weight it's their fault.
And you didn't wonder why "Is not the same as last years where the only big team was Toyota"? You didn't wonder why other big teams, like BMW, want to enter? Maybe, maybe, it' has something to do with the rules?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It has to be said that, in the '70s, many decocker-less DA/SA designs appeared. CZ75, the original Beretta 92, Bernardelli P018...
In all those designs, like in the B76, the half-cock position was intended to be the "safe" option for decocking, since you could hold the hammer (or put a finger in front of it), pull the trigger, allow the hammer to move only slightly, and at that point, releasing the trigger, the hammer would have seated safely on half-cock position.
Only later it appeared to be clear that, for a service SA/DA pistol, a decocker was almost mandatory (It's revealing that, while the original CZ75 retained the 1911/style safety, the "clone" Tanfoglio TZ75 of the early '80s already had a Beretta-style slide mounted decocker).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@joemama.556 Because it had been tested and it failed, and by simple physics. A plate that’s made to resist to an a AP, steel-core, 165gr bullet fired at 850 m/s at point blank, is not going to be penetrated by a lead, or steel-core, 135gr bullet fired at only 60 m/s more at any reasonable combat distance and, even in the case, to slightly change the specifics of the plates to regain protection is IMMENSELY easier than changing the service rifle.
It penetrates with tungsten penetrators, but so do 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO, so what's the point?
"Army came out hard with the program’s aims and expectations, unreasonably so, practically declaring a War on Physics from the outset. Unfortunately, like so many other antecedent programs Army has lost the war again, badly."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
They stole the "black code", the US diplomatic code, that the US Consul in Alexandria used for his communications to Washington, telling them (and to the italians at that point) precious informations about the British movements in N.Africa and the Med.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the Italian Intelligence, Mussolini handed some decrypted page of communications to Hitler. At that point, having the originals and the decryptions, the Germans broke the code, and were able to read the US communications as well.
Unfortunately for the Axis, the Germans had the idea to transmit the decrypted messages through Enigma, that the Brits were already capable to read. Reading the messages the Brits understood that they were written by a third party that had a deep knowledge of what was going on in Alexandria, so the USA embassy, alerted the Americans that changed the code.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Just to be clear.
The AR10 / AR15 system is as much as a “real direct gas impingment system” as this one. Only the point of application of the pressure of the gas changes (from the top of the bolt carrier to directly behind the chamber), not, in any way, the way the gas is used, pushing directly the bolt carrier.
In the AR, like here, in the bolt carrier, there is a cup, a “blind hole” where the gas ends and the pressure applies. If you call the one of the AR “a cylinder”, then that “cup” of the Rasheed is a cylinder as well and, if you call the back of the bolt head of an AR a “piston” (that is not) then what you call in the Rasheed an “open gas tube” is a piston as well.
3
-
Moreover, the "Vesuvius" we know, the central cone visible at 2:18, didn't exist back then. What existed, and the Romans called "Vesuvius" was the semi-circular ridge of Mt. Somma (also visible in the picture. It was there that, for example found refuge the rebels of Spartacus, and it was its internal, very steep, slope (while the external slope was covered in vineyards) that they descended using vine branches as ropes.
that of 79 AC had precisely been the last of a series of explosions, thousands of years apart, that destroyed the old vulcanic edifice of Mt. Somma.
The Romans didn't, and couldn't, recognize the Vesuvius as a Volcano. Because it had nor the shape, nor the activities they could attribute to a volcano.
The current central cone formed in the subsequent two millennia of effusive eruptions, and infact it was lower than the ridge of Mt. Somma still in 18th century depictions.
See R. Cioni, R. Santacroce e A. Sbrana, "Pyroclastic deposits as a guide for reconstructing the multi-stage evolution of the Somma-Vesuvius Caldera".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Italian had been popularized in literature by BOCCACCIO, more than by anyone else (surely much more than by Machiavelli). His Decameron had been a massive success. Written a century before printing, it was copied not only by professionals, but by normal people that wanted to have their own copy, all over Italy (that Italy didn't have a meaningful use for a standard national language until the late 1800s is simply wrong. Anyone who traveled, IE merchants, needed, and used, a standard language. "literary" Italian, the language of Boccaccio, was not something only literates used in their writings).
It's commonly said Dante is the father of Italian language, but in reality is the grandfather. Boccaccio is the real father. Being, among the "tree crowns" (Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio) the one that wrote in prose, it had been Boccaccio that gave to the Italian vocabulary and grammatical rules, and the success of the Decameron cemented it so much that every modern Italian can still read and understand every sentence of it (not so much the Divina Commedia, that requires more than a bit of attention to be understood by a modern Italian).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@renettedescartes "Yes, you don't need a professor to know Romans were shorter than germans"
But you need some research to know of how much.
Is difficult to find datas for Gauls and Germanic people of Roman times, but Viking males, form skeletons found (usually we find burial of high-class people, so the average height is probably overestimated, since in ancient times they tended to eat better and so be taller than the average peasant) had an average height of 172cm. We already talked about legionaries but, from skeletons, the average male population of Pompeii and Herculaneum (and there are no class differencies there, since they all perished in a natural disaster) was of 168cm, so the Germanic people were probably on average taller than the Romans, but nothing so dramatic. The difference in average height between Italian and Scandinavian males today is of about 4 cm.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1) First crusade. Gerusalem had been taken only with the arrival of the Genoese. Among them, the crossbowmen, that neutralised the Mameluc archers.
2) 1192, battle of Jaffa. Richard, a far better military commander than Philip VI, deployed the crossbowmen, by far the most numerous troops he had, behind a defensive hedge of spears. From there, the crossbowen destroyed Saladin's cavalry, that outnumbered the Christians 4 to 1.
3) 1248, battle of Parma, Holy Roman Emperor Fredrick II decisively defeated by the Lombard league (with the complete loss of the army, camp, crown, banner, scepter and seal), among them, the Genoese crossbowmen.
And obviously many naval battles, (Meloria, Curzola...).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The reasons why Falkenhayn advised against the Trentino offensive were pretty simple. In his own words, anyone that had seen a map of Italy's northern border would have been tempted by such a move. But it was only an illusion. To reach the plain was not impossible, but, even after having done that, the army would have still to be supplied through those same mountain trails that made the preparation of the attack so difficult. The defenders otherwise, would have been supplied through the roads and railwais of the Po valley. In the end, the attackers would have reached the plain only to find themself with their backs to the wall.
As for Cadorna, I'm starting to wonder why this channel, when there is to say something about him, decides to leve all pretenses of historical accuracy in order to make him look as a bigger idiot than his counterparts on the western front?
In the Trentino offensive THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY SURPRISE, if not in the scale of the operation. The Italian high command begun the preparations for the defence of the Trentino in the second week of March (suspension of the transfer from Trentino of the brigades "Ivrea" and "Sicilia", and sending in the brigade "Valtellina"), In the first week of April three new brigades were sent in the sector, then the 9th division was transferred at Bassano, the 10th at Schio, 10 alpine battallions and 6 mountain artillery batteries at Marostica. 6 batteries of 149mm guns, 6 of 105mm, 3 mechanized batteries of 102mm cannons and 3 batteries of heavy howitzers were put in reserve on the Tagliamento river. At the end of April the 44th division was transferred from the Albania to Desenzano, and further 7 divisions (27th division, X and XIV Corps) were put on reserve on the Tagliamento. In his visit in Trentino of late April, CADORNA WAS THERE TO INSPECT THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE BATTLE. The real difference between Cadorna and Brusati is that Brusati wanted to held all the ground his troops conquered in the first weeks of war. Cadorna, judging the Trentino sector not so important, only wanted to held the third line of defense.
So why the Austrians advanced so much?
Well, they did not actually. In many sectors the preparations had not been actuated very well, but, in an offensive like that, it was almost granted that the first line of defense would have been overrun. The artillery preparations almost always made them not defensible. Only the second, and more often the third line of defense could be held (the lost ground would have then be taken back with counterattacks). But in mountain warfare the placement of the lines was dictated by the ground. First and second line could be so close to not be really distinct, the third could be really far away. The tactic to stop a large scale attack was to fix the wings of the attacking army, so progressively narrowing the line of advance, and putting he advancing formations progressively at risk to be hit at the flanks, and that was done. The Austrians overrun the Italian third line at Asiago, but they did it only there. At that point, the Trentino offensive was over, and the Austrians rethreated almost to the starting line to avoid to be counterattacked while being so exposed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
It depends on what "Germans" you are speaking of. In 1st century Arminius, being the commander of the Roman cavalry, simply led Varus legions into a trap, but it had been a "one of".
During the migration era, the number of German tribes pushing on the limes was too high to simply repel all of them. The Romans had to decide whom admit, romanize, and use to defend the same limes, and which fight. In the end, however, the same existence of extremely strong Roman armies near the border, that were linked to the same territory (cause much of the soldiers had there their families and tribe of origin), accentuated the separatist tendencies, of the external parts of the empire.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For the first part, Yes. From the beginning of the war, until the Austro-German offensive of nov. 1917 he was in the small village of Martignacco, near Udine, at less than 20km from the front, and he often visited the first line. He was in fact closer to the front not only of any other Chief of State, but of many generals. IE Svetozar Boroević, that, among the many nicknames earned during the war ("the lion fo the Isonzo, ecc...), had also that of "the absent general", since he spent the war at Postojna, 30 km from the front.
For the second part, despite the attempts of depicting him as a particular kind of idiot (even plainly lying, IE talkig of the Battle of Asiago as a "surprise attack" when there had not been any surprise, and the Italians begun to prepare the defence since mid March. In his visit of the sector at the end of April, Cadorna was not there for a pleasure trip, he was inspecting the preparations for the incoming battle) Cadorna was not really any worse than his counterparts on the western front. Someone exonerated Haig after the Somme? After Passchendaele? After Cambrai? At the end of the war he was deemed as a great general. Criticisms begun only in the late '20s, and he still has defenders.
Cadorna was stubborn, and not particularly brilliant, but battles, on the Italian front, tended to be breif and furious affairs. He was partly justified thinking "if next time I manage to deploy more men and more guns, I'll break through". On the western front, were battles were less intense, but lasted for months, a general could not really think that, on a certain day, he was using more men and guns than the day before, or the day after. And still they sent wave after wave of soldiers to die for a daily gain of few yards of land. Every week of the battle of the Somme, or of Verdoun, count as an Isonzo battle.
2
-
2
-
"probably after advancing..."
That had something to do with the fact that BOTH the Breda 30 and the BAR were used by 3 men crews?
"Oh, and don't forget..."
Really the Allied used them, The Brits even stamped an English manual for the British gunners equipped with the Breda 30. That's what the Tactical and Tecnical Trend (the magazine of the US Intelligence) No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942 "Use of Captured Italian Weapons" said of it :
"The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun. It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions. It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun. It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon. Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting."
That was what the contemporaries, the ones that had to DAILY fight the weapon and use the captured ones, tought of it. Not the armchair opinion of someone that saw it once on a video. No hints of the oiler or the dust cover, or the loading procedure, to be problems at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robosoldier11 To me, as a technical enthusiast, both the Scotti action (the one you see in the Model X, it had been scaled up to 37mm automatic cannons) and the Breda gas action (the one you see in the Breda PG, that too had been scaled up to 37mm automatic cannons) were very good. The Scotti bolt was made of four pieces, with little precision machining required. The Breda of five, with only straight cuts. The Scotti rifle only required to fire from a closed bolt and a magazine to be a very good semiauto, and it's difficult to imagine a simpler one.
But in 1939 Italy had 1/4 of the industrial output than Great Britain. There were budgetary constraints. France, that had other economic possibilities, adopted a new bolt action in 1936.
In the same period, the US had something like 42% of the world's industrial output.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Roose Bolton is a northerner. Is he trustworty?
Ned, on the other hand didn't even grew up in the north. He had been raised in the Vale, and the lords of the Vale are no less scheming than the ones of King's Landing.
Ned already played that game. He fought and won a war where the lines of loyalty were blurred. Yet, since the moment he left Winterfell, he spectacularly failed to discern friends from foes, and that led to his demise.
That's because his grasp on the north was based on personal relationships. He knew any of his bannermen, paid frequent visits to them, and so he knew what to expect from any of them.
He had not that kind of relationships in the south, and had not time to build them, so he made his biggest mistake HE SELECTED HIS POTENTIAL ALLIES BASED ON HOW MUCH HE FELT THEY WERE SIMILAR TO HIM.
Varys could have been a powerful ally. Their goals were very compatible, but he never trusted him, because Varys was very different form him.
Renly was the best player around (not by chance, he's the only one that had been killed by a supernatural being, his position was too strong for him to loose otherwise) and offered him his alliance for nothing. Ned refused, because the flashy and vacuous Renly was very different from him.
Littlefinger instead was austere, he grew up in an environment similar to that of Ned (even geographically close). He knew both ned's brother and wife, so Ned thought he was SIMILAR TO HIM.
And that had been his mistake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Bojan Milankovic When the Italians designed the cartridge, round nose was the only option, since the spitzer rounds wee introduced later. Surely they could have switched to pointed cartridges at a certain point (spitzer rounds were used for marksmanship competitions), but, since the 6.5x52 cartridge had ever been on the verge of being replaced (first with the 7X40 of the Terni M.21, and then with the 7.35X51) the change has always been postponed.
As for the power of the cartridge, with 2572J is perfectly comparable to other 6.5 service cartridges of the time as the 6.5 Arisaka (Japanese service cartridge), 6.5X53R (Romanian/Dutch service cartridge), 6.5X54 Mannlicher Shonauer (Greek service cartridge), not surprisingly, since many of them were direct copy of the 6.5X52 design (that's particularly true for the 6.5X53R and 6.5X54, That Mannlicher obtained from the cartridges' samples that were given to him to compete in the concourse for the design of the Italian service rifle), with only the 6.5X55 Swedish/Norwegian being slightly more powerful. More surprisingly, it's power is perfectly comparable to that of several of the most modern 6.5 rounds, as the 6.5 Grendel, or the 264 USA, that The US Army Marksmanship Unit is studying to replace both the 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm NATO, and whose case is even obtained from a shortened Carcano case.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Risto Mladich Actually, quality problems in wartime Soviet production were well known, and did not affect only rifle production. Artillery ammunitions, engines, aircrafts, were affected as well. Simply, quantity was more important that quality, and many of the production sites had to be hastly transferred, since the original factories were overrun. Whatever the theory is, the reality is that the Germans tested every captured SVT40, used those of acceptable accuracy, and discarded the others, and the others were a good percentage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
On the other hand, in respect to it's disadvantages, the advantage of bullpups desing compactness in tansport is often void if compared to standard designs with collapsible stock (that bullpups can't have).
Comparing the FAMAS and the Steyr AUG with another 5.56 NATO European design of the same years (the Beretta SC70/90), we see that the SC70/90, with the stock collapsed, is 756mm long with a 450mm barrel. The FAMAS is 757mm long with 488mm barrel, The AUG is 790mm long with 508mm barrel.
So, the lenght advantages of the FAMAS and AUG designs, for the same barrel lenght, are of mere 36mm (1.4 inches) and 24mm (1 inch) respectively. Hardly noticeable when the rifle is carried by a soldier in a truck.
The French are leaving these not cause the project is faulty, but cause they have no more a state-owned small weapons manufacturer. To hire a foreign contractor to redesign the weapon to the most recent standards (large use of polymer in the receiver to contain weight and adding the rails, redesign of the action to reduce the ROF and provide a smoother extraction, redesign of the bolt to reduce the time required to switch the ejection to left/right) and produce it, will be more expensive than selecting a modern assault rifle already on the market.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In the Trentino offensive THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY SURPRISE, if not in the scale of the operation.
The Italian high command begun the preparations for the defence of the Trentino in the second week of March (suspension of the transfer from Trentino of the brigades "Ivrea" and "Sicilia", and sending in the brigade "Valtellina").
In the first week of April three new brigades were sent in the sector, then the 9th division was transferred at Bassano, the 10th at Schio, 10 alpine battallions and 6 mountain artillery batteries at Marostica. 6 batteries of 149mm guns, 6 of 105mm, 3 mechanized batteries of 102mm cannons and 3 batteries of heavy howitzers were put in reserve on the Tagliamento river. At the end of April the 44th division was transferred from the Albania to Desenzano, and further 7 divisions (27th division, X and XIV Corps) were put on reserve on the Tagliamento. In his visit in Trentino of late April, CADORNA WAS THERE TO INSPECT THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE BATTLE.
The real difference between Cadorna and Brusati is that Brusati wanted to held all the ground his troops conquered in the first weeks of war. Cadorna, judging the Trentino sector not so important, only wanted to held the third line of defense.
So why the Austrians advanced so much?
Well, they did not actually.
In many sectors the preparations had not been actuated very well, but, in an offensive like that, it was almost granted that the first line of defense would have been overrun. The artillery preparations almost always made them not defensible. Only the second, and more often the third line of defense could be held (the lost ground would have then be taken back with counterattacks). But in mountain warfare the placement of the lines was dictated by the ground. First and second line could be so close to not be really distinct, the third could be really far away. The tactic to stop a large scale attack was to fix the wings of the attacking army, so progressively narrowing the line of advance, and putting he advancing formations progressively at risk to be hit at the flanks, and that was done. The Austrians overrun the Italian third line at Asiago, but they did it only there. At that point, the Trentino offensive was over, and the Austrians rethreated almost to the starting line to avoid to be counterattacked while being so exposed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This gun has never been designed to be an aircraft SMG. It only happened that the first 350 samples (of over 14.000 produced) had been given to the Air Force (that, at that time, was a branch of the Army) cause the Army wanted the weapon ready to be mass produced first to start to field it. The MGs used on the aircrafts had a different mounting, without the round plate and with normal aerial sights. The round plate was intended to be used on the field with the shield. When used with the shield, the plate was integral part of the protection, and the hole sight was the only opening in it.
As for the rate of fire, it serves the same purpose of the 1200 rpm ROF of the MG-42. they both had not been designed for suppression fire (heavy MGs were intended for that role), but to cover obligatory passages (through the barbed wires, or the mountain trails) and fire only when you actually see the enemy. Since the enemy is no stupid, he is visible only for a brief time, and, for this, a huge ROF is required to hit him.
In 1916 Capt. Bassi, creator of the Arditi, begun to use it, without the shield, to clear the enemy trenches. A stretch ot trench is 20m long at best. With a single burst of the Villar Perosa you can saturate it without even seeing. That's useful, since the assaults were often performed at night.
2
-
Blair Maynard The MG42was arguably the most advanced MG of WWII. This is WWI, and had to be compared with other MGs of WWI. However, the MG42 was usually fed with a 50 rounds belt.
The job of a defensive MG in WWI was:
1) the enemy artillery barrage begins. You have to rapidly dismount the MG and take cover. The Villar Perosa was light and apt for this.
2) the enemy artillery barrage ends. You have to rapidly redeploy the weapon, cause the enemies are already running at you. The Villar perosa is light and apt for this.
3)The enemies are approaching, not from were they wants, but through obligatory passages that had been opened through the barbed wire, or through mountain trails. You have to aim at those. But the enemies are not idiots. Any of them is visible only for few instants. In those instants you spray a short burst at them and saturate that position. The Villar perosa has an high rate of fire, and is apt for this.
In defense, the Villar Perosa acts as a long-range shotgun.
As for the offensive role. From 1916 to 1918. the Villar Perosa was not "good" or "bad". It was THE ONLY ONE. It was, and by far, the best thing around for the SMG job, whithout any competition. Infact the Austrians copied it, double barrel, tripod and all. They didn't thought it could have been done better. Cause it was already the best.
But if you prefer to jump into an enemy trench with a bolt action rifle, your choice. I'll go with the SMG, even if it's not perfect.
Besides, 2 seconds for a 20m trench are an eternity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sorry, but it's MrOpellulo comment, like any generalization, to be ignorant and misleading.
In the Italian army, like in any of WWI there were stubborn idiots that knew nothing of the modern warfare, and there were intelligent and prepared generals (Etna, Capello, Reghini, the firsts that comes in mind). Cadorna was stubborn, and not particularly brilliant, but it was not really worse than his western counterparts. Yes, he fought 11 battles using the same tactic, and still expecting it could work. But battles on the Italian front tended to be brief and furious affairs. He was at least partly justified thinking "if next time I manage to assemble more men and guns, I can break through". He never gave up to the mindset of the war of attrition.
On the western front, were battles were less intense, but lasted for months, there was not even that justification. At the Somme, or Verdun, a commander couldn't reasonably think that he was using that day more men and guns he had used the day before, or he would have used the day after. And still they sent, day after day, thousands of men to die for a daily gain of a yard of land. Every week of those battles counts as an Isonzo battle. And still on 31 jul. 1917, they begun the Battle of Passchendaele with exactly the same mindset of 1915.
As for the "barbaric conditions", contemporary observers often noticed that trenches and soldiers on the Italian front tended to be cleaner than on the western front (and that high officers tended to spent more time in first line with their soldiers than their westen counterpart).
As for the discipline, summary executions were much more usual among the French. In 1934 an investigation of the newspaper "Le Crapulliot" found that between 1914 e il 1918, 1.637 french soldiers had been executed, (compared to only 675 official death sentences). The Italians had 770 death sentences, and about 50 summary executions after Caporetto.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimbob1427 150 Rounds in a minute is what you could fire with the BAR, first to have to stop and take cover for five minutes, waiting for your weapon to cool off while the other guys fought.
BREN gunners were expected to fire a magazine a minute (30 rounds theoretical, 27 real). At the start of the war it was contemplated a "rapid" fire, to use in emergency situations, of 7 magazines a minute. During the war, due to the practical experience on the field, it was REDUCED to 4 magazines a minute (120 theoretical rounds, 108 real), and keeping in mind that the entire provision of the LMG squad was of 20 magazines, so only 5 minutes of fire at that pace.
That's why, in Allied reports on the Breda 30, and instruction given to the Allied soldiers that were ISSUED with the captured ones, the rate of fire and the reload time HAD NEVER BEEN DEEMED AS PROBLEMS.
RL is quite different form movies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Many range competition firearms have an electric trigger for that reason. It's the finest imaginable.
But on a field weapon it has problem with batteries, sealing, EMP...
For a bullpup to have a more than decent trigger only needs to transfer not the movement of the trigger to a sear that's behind the magazine, but to keep the sear above the trigger, and only transfer the movement of the hammer behind the magazine (so, not a long trigger group, but a long hammer group). Ammo don't care if the movement of the hammer that hits them is creepy, or mushy.
The Kel-Tec RDB is the first bullpup made that way, and the comment is that, out of the box, it has a trigger that's "marginally better than a stock 'milspec' AR-15 trigger". So, good for adoption.
2
-
2
-
0.1mm tolerance is nothing to write home about. Valve clearance of my bike, IE, has to be between 0.15mm and 0.20mm, so with a tolerance of 0.05mm, and it's not anything "racing". That doesn't mean this is, to me, a viable product. I see many sealing problems. Compressed air and air/fuel mixture simply has too many passages to do, and having, like in the Wankel, a "hot" and a "cold" part of the engine, worsens sealing problems.
Liquid Piston engine doesn't seem a to have anything wrong actually.
2
-
There is a revealing passage in the Iliad where Aenea questions the renowed archer Pandarus (an ally of the Trojans) why he wasn't targeting Diomedes that was salughtering the Trojan first line. Pandarus answered that he hit Diomedes from afar, with no effect, and complained that, having left his chariots and horses home when he departed for Troy, fearing for them to starve in a siege, he couldn't get close to fight him, and so he felt to be useless.
In a warfare based on personal duels between heavily armoured and perfectly armed heroes (while infantrymen just had a shield and a one-anded spear, or a mace), not having a chariot was a huge disadvantage. You had to run, in a heavy armor, to reach your target, only to see him carried somewere else, and without possibility to escape if things got bad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm sure they'll be pretty good with their karma, since the same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.45mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible with the findings is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Is difficult to find datas for Gauls and Germanic people of Roman times, but Viking males, form skeletons found (usually we find burial of high-class people, so the average height is probably overestimated, since in ancient times they tended to eat better and so be taller than the average peasant) had an average height of 172cm. We already talked about legionaries but, from skeletons, the average male population of Pompeii and Herculaneum (and there are no class differencies there, since they all perished in a natural disaster) was of 168cm, so the Germanic people were probably on average taller than the Romans, but nothing so dramatic.
Several Roman sources said of one or another Gaul or Germanic population, that they were very tall, but often the Romans first seen members of the warrior elite. People that eat very well since childhood, and so were taller than the average.
2
-
2
-
@Kreatorisbackyt Not even close to be "the gun most unaccurate gun of WW2".
Also "wear and tear" was not a problem. All the Italian naval guns, from 152mm on, were made for cold barrel swap (the rfling was changed without dismounting the gun from the cradle). So their barrel life was 1/2 of the others (due to the higher speed of the shell, not "poor linings"), but the time needed to change the barrel was 1/30.
It only needed a pair of days of work in port without any special facility to change the barrels of all the main guns of a ship while, for who didn't design his guns that way, it needed to remove the roof of the turret, remove the guns from the cradle, file the barrels in a gigantic lathe, put the guns in a specially built vertical furnace, insert the new internal barrel, etc...
2
-
2
-
@Kreatorisbackyt Facts are more important than anyone's opinions, or pretended reason why something should happen, if it didn't happen in reality.
In the battle of Denmark Strait, the supposedly super-accurate POW guns, scored a grand total of two hits in 21 salvos, fired from 20.000m to 12.900m range, on a battleship that was not manuvering to not be hit, that's pretty crappy (Hood didn't score a hit in 10 salvos from 24.300 to 14.000m range). And yes, it had problems with the output (all the KGV had, still in 1943). In the first 18 salvos it fired 55 shells out of 74 ordered. But it fired a significative number of shells anyway.
Bismarck against POW obtained 4 hits in 5 salvos from 14.000m to 15.000m range, out of about 36 shells fired, that's more or less what you should expect at that distance.
Italian 15 inch gun shown a1.7% range single turret spread in real actions fought in 1940 (and that's what the pictures taken during the clash at Gaudo shown), that any navy at the time would have considered average. We have pictures of larger (about 2.1% of the distance) single turret spread from the Gloucester and Liverpool at the Battle of Calabria.
Italian cruiser guns are the only ones that obtained +20 km hits in WWII, and several of them, not a single one like the British battleship guns, being them single cradle or not. BTW, to indipendently elevate the guns of a turret is a pretty useless feature.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The "carmina triumphalia" (the legionaries making fun of their general during the triumph) also have another explanation.
Pre-Marian Roman army was a militia of free citizens. Yet when the army assembled out of the city walls, in front of the temple of Mars, to go to war, one citizen was given an absolute power over the others.
That was a necessity, but was in contrast with the Roman "usual" mindset.
During the subsequent triumph, into the pomerium, at the end of the campaign, the general was celebrated but, at the same time, he was stripped of that power. He returned a citizen among the other citizens, and the carmina triumphalia underlined that. They reminded to the former commander he had no more the power to punish his former men.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
After the invention of agriculture, invaders are often only a small percentage of the invaded. Infact they tend to leave only traces of their genome in the general population. That's possible because, in a little diversified society, like that of the Terramare, Vikings or Mongols, every male was supposed to be a warrior. In more "advanced" societies, like the Mycenean one, there was a caste of warriors, while peasants, the vast majority of the population, were not supposed to fight at all, and had no incentives in doing that because, for them, it made little difference if the ruling class was replaced.
2
-
2
-
Pure short recoil systems (like those used in handguns) and long bottleneck cartridges don't match well.
In a short recoil system, in the moment the barrel stops, the case, in respect to the chamber, abruptly passes from "0" to the max speed. Long rifle cases have a lot of surface that's stuck to the chamber's walls, so, even if the pressure isn't high, with this abrupt acceleration there are high chances to damage the cases, sometimes break them, and so jam the action.
To avoid this, there are several possibilities. To unlock the bolt from the barrel first than the rearward motion of the barrel ends, so allowing the residual pressure of the gasses to start extracting the case first than the barrel stops ("chiusura labile", like in the Fiat Revelli 1914). To use a lever action to ensure that the bolt recoils slightly faster than the barrel ( Browning M1919, Brixia 1920, Breda SAFAT...). To reduce the locking surface of the case (fluting the chamber). Or to reduce the friction between the case and the chamber (lubing the case).
However this is not the only example. The Japanes Type 96 LMG had an oiler, and the Hispano Suiza Hs 404 cannon, and it's derivates in use up until today, has an internal oiler as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually the armies of the western front are a lot more "guilty" than Cadorna.
WWI Battles on the Italian front tended to be brief and furious affairs that ended as soon as some gain was achieved, or was clear that no gain could be achieved. They had NEVER been intended to be attrition battles, and Cadorna was, in a certain sense, "justified" in thinking, "if next time I'll manage to use more men and materials, I'll break through".
This excuse can't work on the western front, where battles lasted with the same intensity for months, and generals couldn't realistically think , using the same tactics and number of men, day after day, to conquer the same trench, to have different results than the day before. Every week of the battle of the Somme, or Verdoun, count as an entire Battle of the Isonzo.
Garibaldi was modern in refusing frontal assault tactics (those that were popular in his time, and will be even more popular in WWI), favouring surprise and flanking.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Russian report was pretty confused. According to it, the ship was attacked by the He 111 from the left side, while the torpedo hit it on the right side. The torpedo hit the ship at 01.26, and at the same time the Molotov shot down the aircraft, that crashed near the ship at 01.33, that's full seven minutes later.
At the same time, the Italian report is pretty clear, describing the attack of the MAS 569 from the right side of the cruiser, the torpedo hitting the ship at 01.30, and, after the MAS evaded, another explosion on the same spot at 01.34 (also seen by MAS 573), that the Italians concluded was the secondary explosion of the magazines, signaling the sinking of the ship (in reality it was the explosion of the He 111 shot down).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ciarandolan7695 That's a 21st century point of view.
In the first four centuries there wasn't any generational war going on. There weren't the "Germanics". That was an umbrella term that the Romans invented for those that lived east of the Rhine, but it didn't exist a Germanic word to indicate the Germanics. There were the Alemanni, there were the Bructeri, there were the Alani, there were the Marcomanni and so on. Many of them were allied of the Romans, even ruled by client kings.
Once every twenty or thirty years, one of those tribes raided some territory into the limes (often because they had been expelled out of their own territory by another tribe). Four or five legions were sent, and the invaders were destroyed or repulsed beyond the limes (where they often starved to death, because they no more had a territory east of the Rhine). The situation on the eastern border seemed MUCH more serious, because there were organised enemies there, and four or five legions may not be sufficient to solve the situation.
Western Empire fell due to internal problems, not due to hordes of invincible invaders. Still Emperor Majorian, in three years from 458 to 461, defeated the Burgundians, the Visigoths and the Suevi, reconquering most of Gallia and Hispania, and practically bringing back the Empire to the borders it had under Augustus.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Arminius saviour of the Germanics is '30s narrative. A first century Germanic didn't think like that.
For him, his world was his family, then his clan, then his tribe, and that's all. There's no a Germanic word to indicate the Germanics. It had been the Romans that classified them as such.
The Cherusci were a pro-Roman tribe (one of many) where there was a strong anti-Roman faction. Arminius valued there was enough discontent in the Cherusci and in the nearby tribes to lead the anti-Roman faction and take power, if he could serve them a victory and, being in charge of the Roman scouting cavalry at Teutoburg, so effectively leading the army he wanted to destroy, he could obtain it.
In the end, the pro-Roman faction took power back among the Cherusci, killed Arminius, and asked the Romans for a client king.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The first sentence should be "thank you".
Because Italy can very well not provide you of any port to disembark them at all. The nearest safe port, for almost all this "rescue" operations is in Tunisia, then Malta. You decided to not go there. By the maritime law, Italy has no obligation to give you a third safe port to carry on your migrant ferry activity disguised as rescue operation. No more than Iceland, or the US, have.
By starting with "thank you", may be you'll be able to obtain more than being confrontational and trying to shame the other part in giving you something he has no obligation to provide.
Then, if you ask for a port, it means you are in a state of necessity and, if you are in a state of necessity, you shouldn't be able to stroll around rescuing other people. As long as you are able to do so, you don't need any port and shouldn't stress a country's facilities by asking for one.
Finally, I really cannot see what's so shaming about providing the refugees infos about the asylum asking process, and collecting the names of those that eventually want to apply. It's only a way to speed up the screening process once landed, making it less stressful for the refugees themself. It seems that you prefer to treat them like cargo, to toss overboard the fastest possible and with the less involvement possible, so to make room for the next load.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@antonw-uw4ov So you are a French and own a gun? No, because you are reading a wikipedia page.
So You are pretending that your pretended gun ownership modified your brain so that now you are better than others at reading wikipedia pages about laws of places you don't know?
That's why I'm not answering to your requests about my personal infos. Because what you pretend to get from yours is funny enough.
First of all, I have to remind you that, to you, the purchase of the Benelli instead of an AR15 was due to different regulations for the two rifles.
My reply was that the Benelli and the AR15 were purchased AT THE SAME CONDITIONS.
Now you are stating that in France "both an ar15 and benelli mr1 is in category B, which means..." ...that they are purchased AT THE SAME CONDITIONS.
And that already invalidates your entire argument.
Then, again, your statement: "in most countries in Europe you do have to belong to a sport shooting club to own a military style semi auto, and the clubs generally require you to compete regularly to get a membership and to keep it".
My reply: "a licence for sporting purposes is a licence that allow you to buy and own the rifle, and to bring it to a range WHEN AND IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT. Nobody forces you to attend a range. YOU CAN SIMPLY KEEP THE RIFLE IN YOUR CLOSET IF YOU WANT."
In France, to have an autorization for "tir spotif" the shooter must be older than 18 (12 if he's really a competitive shooter), have attended at least 3 shooting sessions with an instructor, have a medical certificate and a licence of the "Fédération française de tir" (€60,00/year for an adult) . The shooter then receives a 5-year authorization to purchase and own Category B firearms. This autorization allow him to buy and own the rifle, and to bring it to a range WHEN AND IF HE WANTS TO DO THAT. Nobody forces him to attend a range. HE CAN SIMPLY KEEP THE RIFLE IN HIS CLOSET IF HE WANT.
Notice that, if the shooter really competes, the required age is only of 12.
In Czech Republic there is a theoretical and practial exam to obtain a licence for that matter but, once you have it, nobody forces you to attend a range. YOU CAN SIMPLY KEEP THE RIFLE IN YOUR CLOSET IF YOU WANT.
etc. etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrTelecasterIV It was supposed to be a four pronged attack, from the right to the left, Italian infantry column, italian tank column, German tank column, German Infantry column (so infantry at the wings, and tanks at the centre). Unfortunately both the infantry columns had been blocked by Allied armored units (but that was expected, since, that way, they stopped those units too and prevented them to act against the Axis tanks) while the German tank column (that had heavier Tiger thanks) was slowed down by the charateristics of the terrain, so they reached the shore, but too late to link with the Italian column that reached the city before.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bsport320 Maybe, but I remember the Ferrari F1 2009, that was the successful 2008 bodywork, without the fins, banned by the new rules.
Unfortunately, the fins were the thing that made that bodywork successful.
More, if someone wanted to copy the Mercedes 2021, the car was there for all to see. Someone chose a similar approach, someone else didn't, but the ones that didn't, took another approach because they thought to have some advantage in going another direction, not because they didn't know they could make a car like the Mercedes 2021. They may be right, they may be wrong, but it seems a little off to say that the car that least changed since last year is "one step ahead".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
They did.
Piaggio P.XII approved for aeronautical use in 1939 (and fitted the same year on the Cant Z. 1018 Leone prototype), rated at 1500hp. It was top class for that year. Practically no engine using 87 octane fuel could match its performances. At 3500m (critical altitude) it was even a bit more powerful than the 100 octane fuel burning BMW 801D.
The 97 octane fuel burning version, the Piaggio P.XV, was rated at 1700hp.
When comparing Allied and Axis engines, you have to mind that the Allies had high octane fuel available, up to 100/130 octane (that stand for "100 octane fuel that performs like 130 octane"). That way it was easy to enhance the power just changing the settings of the compressor. IE, no RR Merlin version ever obtained more than 1100 hp on 87 octane fuel.
Axis had 97 octane fuel at best, and not much of it. So, if they wanted more power, they had to manufacture new, bigger and heavier engines, that required new, bigger and heavier fuselages.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The weapon had been higly successful both in the defence and attack role. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to adopt the MAB18 (that was nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, it's war crime, and yes, the perpetrators had been punished immediately.
It's a Russian war crime, and the Russians died.
Feigning a surrender IS A WAR CRIME. it implies "perfidy".
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The FBI adopted the 10mm for a short time, but had soon to move to lighter loads, and then they replaced it with 40S&W, that had the same load they were using, but, being shorter, could be used on standard 9mm frames.
It was not a question of small hands. it's a question that agents are not gun enthusiasts. When the 10mm was adopted, the FBI standard issue was the 357 mag revolver, but much agents, with permission, loaded them with .38 Special +p ammos, because they didn't like to train with the 357 mag. That's the problem. When you adopt a round that's uncomfortable to shoot, agents reduce the training time to the bare minimum, and that degrades their performances on the field much more than the more powerful caliber can enhance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's an often repeated mith. The Littorios almost always fired few shots at extreme ranges. Had they hit something, it would have been by far the longest range hit in history.
Only in two occasions they fired more shots.
At Gaudo the Vittorio Veneto was steaming at 28 knots and trying to hit, from 23 to 26 kms distance, two light cruisers that were entering and exiting smokescreens and only manuvering to not be hit. At that time it had been already amply demonstrated that it was practically impossible to hit a ship that was only manuvering to not be hit, even at far closer distances and with far more rapidly firing guns (see the battle of the Espero convoy) if not firing thousands of shells.
The second battle of the Sirte had been fought in a storm, and the Littorio had been the most accurate ship of both parties in that occasion.
The pictures taken by the Brits at Gaudo show, for Vittorio Veneto's salvo, a consistent single turret spread of 1.7% of the distance. Any navy of the time would have considered 2% acceptable to good in action.
US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of peacetime tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal, will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and reduces the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's pretty interesting.
It has to be noted that Pirrhus, a refined and valued Hellenistic commander, faced a very "fresh" legionary model. The Romans had just adopted it, in the Samnitic wars, that had just ended when the Pyrrhic war begun.
At that time, the Romans used the manipulary system as a way to fight frontal battles on rough terrain. there was not really a tactical use of the maniples.
On the other side, having noticed that, in Italy, battles were not fought only on plains, Pyrrhus adapted the phalanx, intermixing the squares of phalangites with the more mobile formations of his Italic allies.
As a result, Pyrrhus generally managed to inflict to the Romans more severe losses that he suffered, but not to gain a decisive victory, and his losses were less replaceable.
Hannibal, that was an admirer of Pyrrhus, noted this weakness, and he made sure to fight vs. the Romans only "annihilation battles", where the entire enemy formation was destroyed for little cost of his own. If there was not that possibility, he preferred to concede a limited defeat that to gain a costly victory.
Unfortunately (for the Hellenistic rulers) Hannibal "trained" the Romans to use their maniples tactically. To move them sideways, to encircle, to make faints and ambushes.
As a result, when the Romans, right after the second Punic war, clashed with the Hellenistic rulers in Greece and middle east, it seemed a clash between professionals and amateurs. The phalanx could still held its own in a pure frontal battle, but too many things had to go its way for it to work and, as soon as something got wrong, it ended in a massacre.
And those were still Republican Roman armies. A militia of citizens.
In the last clashes, when the post-Marian reform professional Roman army clashed with the last phalanxes in the east, the legionaries won with ridiculous ease.
2
-
@eloiseharbeson2483 More than they taught Physics and basic grammar in your evidently.
For the second, I said "MORE similar", and there's no doubt than the 8mm Roth-Steyr is MORE similar to the performances of the .30 super Carry than the 7.65X20 Longe. You can check the meaning of "MORE".
For the first, muzzle energy is 1/2massXsquare of the speed.
.30 super Carry 100gr, 380m/s, 470Joule of energy.
8mm Roth Steyr, 116gr, 332m/s, 409 Joule of energy.
It's not that much of a difference, especially considered that the speed of the bullet, for a given pressure tend to increase linearly with the reduction of the mass, while the energy increases with the square of the speed, so, with a 100gr bullet, the 8mm Steyr Roth would develop more energy.
Also 45.000 psi is not "three x" of 21.500. So your elementary school was not that good for math as well it seems.
2
-
@eloiseharbeson2483 Because you should be someone "who knows more"? Without understanding basic math, physics or even having really learnt to read? You are a blatant example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, aren't you?
I already told you what the performances of the two cartridges are. It's not my fault if common pistol cartridges' performances in general have not increased much in the last century. It has to do with human anatomy. 8mm Roth Steyr was nothing exceptional in 1908, like .30 Super Carry is nothing exceptional now.
As for "knowing so much about the performance of .30 SC", I don't know much. I only know a little more than the "nothing" you do. I just cared to know enough about ballistic to understand what I read and, knowing enough about ballistic to understand what I read, I can explain you (or better, I can explain. Unfortunately you can't comprehend) WHY having more than doubled the case pressure in respect to the 8mm RS resulted in a so meagre increase in the performances of the .30 SC, when the external dimensions of the cases are so similar.
Do you know what's the difference between a 21500 psi case and a 45000 psi one?
Brass thickness.
But increasing the brass thickness of a rather small case, you significantly reduce the internal volume, and that hampers the effect of the increased pressure, because the initial spike in pressure decreases more rapidly as son as the bullet starts moving.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Rex and the Conte di Savoia had been built at the same time (but in different shipyards, the Rex at Genoa, the Conte di Savoia at Trieste) for two competing companies, the Italia Flotte Riunite (Rex) and Lloyd Triestino (Conte di Savoia). While the Italia flotte Riunite wanted a classic style for the Rex, similar to a bigger version of the previous Roma and Augustus, Lloyd triestino wanted the Conte di Savoia to be very modern, outside and inside, and infact it's interiors, designed by the architect Melchiorre Bega, were very modern in their disposition, and pure art decò in style, with one exception, the "Colonna" saloon, that was furnished in baroque style, fearing an excessive modernism could displease some passenger.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Gli arresi devono restare arresi. Tutti.
Fingere una resa è un crimine di guerra. Implica "perfidia".
Se uno esce fuori sparando, l'intera unità nemica si suppone che abbia finto la resa e combatta. Non è che si sta a guardare quale nemico ti sta sparando e quale non ha ancora iniziato a farlo. A quel punto si deve guardare alla sicurezza della PROPRIA unità.
Ai nemici combattenti, si spara. Non è che stanno giocando a paintball.
Se lì per terra, con la mitragliatrice, a tenere sotto tiro gli "arresi", ci fosse stato, non parliamo neanche di un americano, ma un soldato italiano, professionista, perfettamente istruito sulle convenzioni internazionali di guerra, mi aspetto che avrebbe tirato il grilletto per rilasciarlo solo in uno dei seguenti due casi:
1) quando fosse stato sicuro che nessuno dei nemici più si muoveva.
2) perchè era finito il nastro.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ "direct impingment" doesn't exist. Pressure doesn't work that way.
The supposed "open tube" of the Ljungman and of the MAS49/56 has an esternal diameter so much bigger than the gas key of an AR 15 (despite the gas pipe being practically equal) because they are pistons, like the piston of an M1 Garand. What pushes the carrier rearward is pressure for surface of the piston. A smaller diameter "gas tube" (mantaining the diameter of the gas pipe, so with exactly the same quantity and speed of the gasses carried) wouldn't have worked, because the pressure would have been there, but not the surface.
"direct impingment" is an expression that Stoner used in his patent, referring to the patent of Elklund, to artificially separate that one to his "internal gas piston". But in reality, the only thing Stoner patented, are the gasses in contact with the bolt (while, in Elklund's patent, the gasses are only in contact with the carrier). Both are piston actions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@patrickhenry1249 it's an often advertised charateristic. Unfortunately it doesn't take into account the shorter range of the 57mm Bofors. So it fires a little more explosive per minute, yes, but it has to engage the targets closer to the ship, and so has less time to fire before it's too late.
Also, RL tests demonstrated 75-76mm is the smallest viable caliber to sink a ship (while 127-130mm is the largest viable for AA work, that's why most of the navies in the world use one of those two calibers, to have a dual-purpose gun).
Also, there are extended range guided ammos for 76mm and 127mm, that practically turn those guns into a further missile launcher.
The problem with 127mm guns is that, while the 57mm and 76mm guns can be simply bolted over the deck, or (to have more ammos) have a magazine that occupies a level under the gun, the 127mm gun occupies TWO LEVELS under it.
That means that, a ship that use a 127mm gun (like the Italian PPA for example) has to be designed around it, and has less space for other things.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It was supposed to be a four pronged attack, from the right to the left, Italian infantry column, italian tank column, German tank column, German Infantry column (so infantry at the wings, and tanks at the centre). Unfortunately both the infantry columns had been blocked by Allied armored units (but that was expected, since, that way, they stopped those units too and prevented them to act against the Axis tanks) while the German tank column (that had heavier Tiger thanks) was slowed down by the charateristics of the terrain, so they reached the shore, but too late to link with the Italian column that reached the city before.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nero was the offspring of two very ancient, noble and incredibly rich families (gens Julia and gens Claudia). He grew completely detached by the common people. Didn't know them and didn't understand them. He "loved" a version of them that didn't exist in reality.
We, as modern people, can appreciate his effort to promote poetry, singing, or other form of sport, as an alternative to gladiatorial games, that he didn't like, or his appreciation for Greek culture in general. But the common people disliked what Nero liked, and they disliked the fact that a good chunk of the city of Rome was Nero's personal property, and ostensibly so.
Not by chance Vespasian (an equites, so a rich plebeian, that even worked as a livestock merchant), razed Nero's "domus aurea" and built the Coliseum on the site of Nero's private lake. He knew what common people wanted.
2
-
It's a way to say "no evidences at all".
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bluelemming5296 All is relative. According to Santarini, the OTO 351/50 of the Littorio were anyway more accurate than the 38 cm SK C/34 of the Bismarck at normal engagement distance (someone extended the study to the Sharnhorst, obtaining even worse results).
So why the Bismarck hit the Hood and the Prince of Wales?
Because it fired, from 18.500m to 15.000m distance on targets that were not trying to evade.
The same moment the POW steered to break the contact, the Bismarck ceased to hit anything, even if the target was at less than 16.000m distance, and quit firing at only 18.500m distance.
In the same engagement, the Hood did not hit anything at all, even firing several salvo at less than 20.000m distance and, according to the same Santarini, the POW shown a marginally better gunnery than the Bismarck, but not enough to change the outcome of the clash.
Mind that, having the fastest muzzle velocity than any WWII battleship gun, all things equal, the 381/50 should have a larger horizontal dispersion for purely geometrical reasons (firing two shots with a given error in vertical angle difference, the fastest shell with the flatter trajectory will fly more between the two horizontal drop points), but that has little practical effect, since ships are not only horizontal targets (the same Santarini, IE, calculated that the Hood was a vertical target three times larger than an horizontal one) and the same flatter trajectory of the fastest shell reduces the vertical dispersion (other than the error in bearing, by reducing the flight time).
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bluelemming5296 I stated there was nothing wrong with the ammo quality. Santarini agree with that.
I stated it had always been fired at extreme ranges and/or on smaller ships that were manuvering to not be hit (in that case, it had been amply demonstrated that it needed thousands of shells to hit something). And infact Santarini found WWII battleship guns that had worse dispersion, without anyone complaining about that, and that had been quite effective, because they had been used on shorter ranges and on ships that were not evading.
Those guns had been used against ships that, according to Santarini, had among the better dispersion patterns of all WWII powers, and that had been throughly beaten. Mind that, the Brits, in the Battle of Denmark strait, opened fire at 24.500m, but them too didn't hit anything as long as the range had been over 20.000m (and the Hood didn't hit anything at all).
So, it doesn't seem that the 381/50 dispersion pattern could cause any real problem in actual engagement conditions.
A thing is a statistical analysis, another thing is complaining. It's like complaining of the 3MOA average accuracy of the M4 carbine, when there are 1-1.5 MOA DMR rifles. Firing on human-sized targets at actual fighting range, it doesn't make any real difference.
2
-
2
-
Firearm manufacturers don't design rifles to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. They want to make money with them.
There are reasons much of those systems are not used any more. IE tilting bolt (SVT40, STG44, FAL...) are no more used because they require a robust link, in the receiver, between the front of the bolt and the rear of it (where the locking surface is), and that makes the rifle heavier. That's why a modern AR MUST have front locking lugs (so that the rest of the receiver can be made of light alloy, or plastic).
It's necessary to make them multi-lug rotating bolt?
No. The Breda rising bolt (the one used on the Breda PG, IE), to say one, would work perfectly.
BUT, to design a modern AR with a rising bolt system, you should start from a white sheet.
An AR18-style multi-lug rotating bolt, instead, you KNOW that it works, as long as you respect some dimensions. It spares design time, and so design costs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@timmedcalf1357 Covid rules signed by all the teams and ACE in november provided the races to be run with level-2 alert. They should have thought of it then. Had they thought hosting the America's Cup to be such a burden, they should have handed it so someone else. There would have been a LONG, VERY VERY LONG, row of cities that would have PAID to host the competition, with or without public ashore.
Even in november. Even in december. Even in january. They didn't. Now it's up to them to host it by the rules.
Since any change of rules is not neutral, the host can cautiously explore with the teams the possibility to change them, with anyone agreeing with the change.
But, if there is not that possibility, if one of the teams feels to be damaged by the change in any way, then rules are rules, and the proposal shouldn't even be publicly mentioned.
Instead of accusing of unsportmanship the ones that prefer to run the competition by the existing rules.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Law is law. Feigning a surrender is a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are no more keeping prisoners. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Err... no, The Steyr 1912 is a semiauto pistol, not a SMG or a machinepistol.
The name you are afraid to write, because it'll expose how clueless you are is Repetierpistole M1912/P16, that's BASED on the Steyr 1912 pistol, but was adopted in 1916 (with a 16 round magazine).
The Villar Perosa had been adopted in 1915, and is not based on anything existing before. It's not a pistol with the disconnector removed. So, other than having been adopted before, it had a longer development time.
So no, Austrians didn't start experimenting with machine pistols first than the Italians delivered the first true SMG, and your insulting others only exposes your lack of arguments more.
Sorry, but, even with the 32 rounds drum magazine, the Lange Pistole 08 was not capable of full auto fire.
The first full auto capable versions of the C96 appeared only in the '20s.
So, another time, you don't know what you are talking about.
Obviously you can remove the disconnector to any semiautomatic weapon and obtain a full auto one, but "experimenting with machinepistols" is another thing than doing bubba works in a garage.
Maybe you could have seemed less clueless even being only capable to google, had you know how to do it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
An estoc is a specialised anti-armor sword. It usually has no cutting edge, because the possibility to cut a man in armor is negligible. It has instead a thin, sharp tip, to be able to trust trough armor gaps. It can be used with one hand, two, or half-swording The knight's impact spear is an entirely different thing. The infantry spear is much less accurate when used one-handed, it offers no protection for the hand, and its large head is less capable to pass trough gaps. The spear-ish competitor of the estoc is the spetum(spiedo)-ranseur(brandistocco). Infact they were used in the same period.
Bludgeoning weapons often requires many hits to be effective against a good armor, and are of little use in grappling.
From several chivalric challenges-duels fought during the Siege of Barletta (1502-1503) we know that the estoc was a favourite of the fighters when armors had reached the highest point of their evolution. IE, in the most famous of those challenges (the one that saw 13 Italians vs. 13 French) the equipment of the Italian knights was: A knight's spear, two estocs (one to the saddle, one to the belt), and an axe (specifically an heavy "peasant's" axe, not a waraxe). Several spetums were stuck to the ground, to be eventually used by the knights that had lost the other weapons.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was infact not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In a certain sense, in this case, selecting the ammo was selecting the rifle.
Textron ammo only works in Textron action. A standard action can't even extract it from the chamber.
True Velocity ammo is attractive, due to it's backup compatibility with any 7.62 NATO firearm, but to provide the requested performances in the NGSW it requires a longer barrel, so a bullpup, to comply with the required dimensions, so it would have been a competition for the best bullpup.
SIG ammo can be used in various configurations, but, choosing it, you decide to not explore further the advantages of polymer cased ammos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@drewberg1361 The US, not the allies, determined the intermediate rounds availabe were "inadequate", because they wanted a full blown cartridge despite everyone else knew full blown cartridges, even the existing 6.5 ones, couldn't fire controllable bursts in rifle-sized weapons. They knew it since the '20s and already developed their AR accordingly. Once determined that nonsense, the US imposed the decision to the NATO allies, even triking FN, to which they offered the adoption of the FAL by US in exchange of supporting the 7.62 NATO.
You said: "the US were the ones primarily testing it in actual combat rather than theory". That's false. The AVT 40 (full blown cartridge) was used operationally and the Soviets determined it was not viable WAY before the US used the M14 operationally. The STG44 (intermediate cartridge) was used massively, with almost half a million samples built, and it was impressive enough that the Soviets built the AK47 after it. If the US decided to ignore other's FIELD experiences, it's only their fault.
Anyone can invent a ballistic goal an intermediate cartridge can't reach and estabilish it as a "minimum requirement". That's what the US did. The .223 Remington has nothing special, it was not adopted following ANY competition but only due to war needs. Actually ballistically is a quite inefficent round, with a poor sectional density that makes it loose speed faster than other intermediate rounds. "Supersonic at 500 feet"? Are we talking of a pistol round? It's a goal so low to be ridicolous other than being completely arbitrary. The .280 British was already consistently supersonic at 500m (not feet) even if fired by a short barrel, and faster than the .223 from 400m on. so it exceeded those "ballistic goals" before someone invented them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@drewberg1361 The 7.92X33 Kurz unable to mantain supersonic speed at 500 feet? And you want to pass ars an armorer? LOL!
The 7.92X33mm kurz was supersonic up to 400m (not feet).
The 7.92X41mm CETME, a direct derivate, was supersonic all the way to 1000m thus being controllable in full auto. The Brits were interested only in performances up to 600m, since infantry rifles were practically never used past 500m on the field, and even the early milder recoil versions were comfortably supersonic at that distance. Even in its more powerful iteration, the .280/30, the .280 provided 2/3 of the recoil of the .308 Win while at the same time being supersonic at 800m. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer, but you are reasoning like Colonel Studler did "IT HAS MORE POWAH! YEAH! WHO CARES ABOUT RECOIL? WE NEED MORE POWA!", with the result of adopting the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history. You (a supposed armorer, LOL!) are not even taking the weight of the weapon into account.
They were nowere to be seen, because there had been no request like the one you are babbling about.
2
-
@drewberg1361 Maybe you didn't read, or understood, "rifle sized". Full blown cartridges being controllable in 10kg MGs is not exactly a wonder. Those are in active military service because, surprise, the ballistic marvel you described, the .223 Rem, is not that great of a cartridge in the MG role so, once adopted it, the 7.62 was still needed for MGs, demonstrating that all the need of the infantry rifle cartridge to be supersonic at ranges were no infantry rifle were used for was not that important in the end.
Lessons that other learned before pretending to issue select-fire rifles in .308 win. But the US didn't listen.
A demonstration is not a trial. The Winchester prototype was was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15, the Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958, were tested, and the report of the tests was released in september of the same year. The AR15 was praised for reliability and the Winchester rifle for accuracy, but both were deemed to be inferior to the M14 anyway. Wound ballistic was not even taken into account.
Your opinion. Surely the Soviet didn't rush, in replacing the 7.62X39 since its still in service. But the .223 Rem was introduced as an answer to the 7.62x39 and the 5.45X39 as an answer to the .223 Rem. Had the US troops in Nam already had an intermediate cartridge when they encountred the 7.62X39,, they would have introduced the .223 Rem in response to... what exactly?
Because of 2/3 the recoil of a .308 Win (or less in the early iterations) while at the same time exceeding all the ballistic nonsense you are obsessed with. The .280 Brit is controllable in full auto, the .308 Win is not. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer, but you are reasoning like Colonel Studler did " THE .308 HAS MORE POWAH! YEAH! GO WITH MORE POWAH!", with the result of adopting the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history. You are not even taking the weight of the rifle into acount.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Only full citizens could fight in the army, and to be a full citizen you must have a certain income.
The Spartan laws on inheritage were bound to reduce the full citizens (Spartiates), and so the army since:
1) Spartans could only own land, not commerce.
2) inheritance had to be equally divided among sons.
3) Spartiates had to sit in a Syssitia, and each member was required to contribute monthly with 77 litres of barley, 39 litres of wine, three kilograms of cheese, 1.5 kilograms of figs, and ten Aegina obols, so you had to be pretty rich to sit in one.
This way, families with many sons (that could have contributed to the army) became too poor to be full citizens, while the wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer families with few sons.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@geordiedog1749 I'm sorry that this is proving so problematic for you, emotionally. Your "moral supremacy" kicked in long ago. It kicked in already when you decided to start talking about "moral supremacy" instead of facts and telling people they were "cherry picking" when they talked about episodes YOU specifically mentioned without any selection. Not having even noticed that simple fact demonstrates YOU were enough emotionally involved to ignore facts, or in bad faith. Choose one.
I suggest you to learn to differentiate facts from narrative (especially dubious moral narrative that, in your view, should change facts) and quit trying to adapt the first ones to the second.
Then you found a history book that tells at Sirte 1 the Brits DIDN'T flee the battle. DIDN'T end up on an Italian freshly laid minefield they didn't suspect the existence of, (but maybe they CHOSE to end on it). DIDN'T lose two ships and 830 seamen and DIDN'T have to retire the rest of the Malta Strike Force, In exchange for the the Regia Marina not having a single casualty?
You found an history book that tells at Sirte 2 the Brits DIDN'T have several ships badly damaged (The Kingston and Havock had been effectively lost) in exchange for no damages for the Italians. DIDN'T leave the merchants on their own. Then DIDN'T have the convoy almost entirely destroyed? I'm curious to know who wrote them.
What you consider "decent" is an opinion of you (and, if you consider decent the narrative above...). Vincent O'Hara is surely an historian and just told Pedestal had been a defeat. James Sadkovich is surely an historian and called it a disaster. Jack P. Greene is surely an historian and called it an Axis victory.
If Pedestal had been a "strategic success" for the Brits, then how PQ 17 hadn't? More ships get through, and PQ 18 followed at only 2 months distance. The strategic outcome of PQ17 had been than most of the shipment dind't arrive where it was expected to,. The strategic outcome of Pedestal had been that most of the shipment didn't arrive where it was expected to and several warships had been sunk or badly damaged as well. Involving "strategic victory" is like saying "but in the end the Allies won the war".
Maybe people want to discuss stuff without seeing it polluted by laughable moral considerations used to change obvious facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If he was right in aircrafts being the trump card in future sea battles, the way to sink ships with them had yet to be found.
IE high level bombing with heavy bombers, like the B17, proved to be highly ineffective. From high level, even a stationary ship was a relatively small target, and the probability to hit it with a bomb was marginal.
For example, on Apr. 10 1943, 84 B17 bombers, the biggest concentration of heavy bombers used that far in the war, each one carrying 12 500lb "battleship buster" bombs (1008 bombs in total) , hit the port of La Maddalena, in Sardinia, where the cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were at anchor. All that they scored had been three bombs on the Trieste (that sunk) and two on the Gorizia (that remained afloat), a 0.5% score probability. Similar bombings performed on the three battleships at anchor at La Spezia (Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma) only slightly damaged the ships.
Also aerial torpedoing proved to be much more effective in ports (see Pearl Harbour, or Taranto) than in navigation, where even large warships could quite easily evade torpedoes when they had not been launched from "suicidal" distance.
Not by chance, Germans enforced a strict rule to use aerial torpedoing only against merchants, and only dive bombing against warships.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aaronwilkinson8963 And how many ammos does it has with two people carrying gun, tripod and ammos?
What's the effective firing range from the bipod, if you choose to not carry the tripod?
If you are limiting an MG to the number of rounds two (or one!) people can carry along with the gun and tripod (and a spare barrel I hope), you are seriously misusing it.
Reality is that the FN MAG, today, is rarely seen not placed on a fixed position, or mounted on a vehicle, but today is not WWII. In WWII the thousands of rounds a MG could fire in a single action had to be CARRIED BY SHOULDER.
And, as soon as a vehicle is no more available, that's still true today.
Of that 9 men crew, three carried the weapon, the spare barrel, the tripod and all the accessories needed to mantain the weapon. The other six were ammo bearers AND any of them had a carbine and ammos for it. It's not that, while the ammo fired and two people (gunner and loader) were servicing it directly, the others were doing nothing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tanfoglio (imported in the US by EAA with the name "Witness") is the oldest CZ75 "cloner". They introduced the "TZ75" in the early '80s and started developing the design from there, often introducing the improvements before CZ did (firing pin block in 1988, .45 ACP in 1992, large frame in 1995, polymer frame in 1997...) Almost all the CZ75 clones out there (Jericho 941, Baby Eagle, Sarsilmaz, Springfield, Armscor...) are infact Tanfoglio clones, often made, at least at the beginning, locally assembling Tanfoglio parts. Long story short, all the Witness lineup (bar the 1911) is available in 10mm already. See https://eaacorp.com/guns/handguns?pid=1:tanfoglio&search=&order=i.name&dir=asc&cm=0#tlb
2
-
2
-
?
Actually the rifle is very simple. Apart for the burst mechanism, that's an added part, not required for it to work, the parts count is the lowest it could be, and the field strip can be made in seconds without tools, that was not a given at that time.
To have access to the gas chamber and the gas ports (that's the thing that requires cleaning, there is not actually much that could happen to the piston and op rod) you only have to remove the muzzle cover. To inspect the recoil spring, you can remove it from the trap door. To remove the bolt you only have to remove the dust cover and the rear buffer ("when the dust cover is off, it just slides out") and it comes out from the rear of the receiver. It isn't needed to remove the receiver from the stock.
The bolt is made of just five parts, included one that doubles as charging handle. The trigger group is very simple too.
Like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then, this rifle is simply not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock (that's why they were secured with screws). While the parts that require cleaning, and/or have to be replaced more often (for the second case, almost universally the recoil spring and the firing pin) are very easily reachable.
An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To reach the firing pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have several small parts flying around you).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Consent had always been needed.
Infact Isabella's previous marriage had been annulled on the basis of the fact that she had been kidnapped by Raynald of Châtillon when she was 8, locked up in the fortress of Kerak for three years, forcefully married to Humphrey of Toron, godson of Raynald, when she was 11 (too young for the ecclesiastic law) and, above all, she never expressed consent during the ceremony.
One noble, present to the ceremony (made in haste, when the fortress of Kerak was under siege) testified that and, when Humprey instead said that there had been consent, he challenged him to a duel to estabilish who was right. Since Humphrey refused to fight, the question was settled and the marriage annulled.
Isabella then had not been "forcefully married" to Conrad. She had been persuaded by HER MOTHER (she had been the one that "kidnapped" Isabella from her husband infact. With the death of Raynald of Châtillon she could finally reunite with her daughter) to marry him, and she clearly consented during the ceremony.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith.
Aeschylus' goal was not to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but to promote Athen's legal sistem where, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail. When the votes of the judges are equally divided, Athena ALWAYS votes for the defendant.
BTW According to Euripides' version, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tylerstevenson8085 At this point I don't know if you can think. What "the majority" has to do wit the topic now? The majority of trade is made with, and the majority of travels are done in, the immediate proximity. That means that trading and traveling outside the immediate proximity is impossible? The majority of what you eat is not pepper. That means pepper doesn't exist?
I already said, we were talking of seafaring capability in Roman times, not if you could navigate the entire route from te city of Rome to India. Egypt was Empire too. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE STARTING POINT OF THE VOYAGE WAS AS LONG IT WAS IN THE EMPIRE. To keep on argumenting that Rome is in the Mediterranean, so part ot the trip from India to specifically the city of Rome had to be done overland, at this point, is beyond stupid (it was even at the start, really). So stop being beyond stupid and using dumb arguments.
Majority of trade between Rome and India was made by sea. Is "by sea" even if the goods were disembarked at Mios Hormos, on the Red sea, shipped on the Nile to Alexandria, and then put on another ship to Rome. Or if they didn't reach the city of Rome at all. THE EMPIRE WAS NOT ONLY THE CITY OF ROME.
The original comment was about the supposed inability of the Romans to navigate the ocean. In reality Romans happened to navigate the ocean.
When Egypt was not part of the empire, the same route was followed by someone else. The goods were transported mainly BY SEA anyway.
Yeah. The problem is EXACTLY that, with "Rome" you mean only the city. Otherwise you had not came up with that nonsense of " a completely sea bound route from India to Italy was impossible" (and so? What it has to do with the ability of navigating the Ocean?)
2
-
2
-
2
-
It was supposed to be a four pronged attack, from the right to the left, Italian infantry column, italian tank column, German tank column, German Infantry column (so infantry at the wings, and tanks at the centre). Unfortunately both the infantry columns had been blocked by Allied armored units (but that was expected, since, that way, they stopped those units too and prevented them to act against the Axis tanks) while the German tank column (that had heavier Tiger thanks) was slowed down by the charateristics of the terrain, so they reached the shore, but too late to link with the Italian column that reached the city before.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He talked about average, and that's the average. On average, for the same body weight, men are about 1/3 physically stronger than women and, since men are on average bigger and heavier, that difference is closer to 50% IRL.
That's reflected on high level competitions, where men and women train the same.
In weightlifting, the discipline that's closer to be of pure physical strenght, there are two categories 55kg and 81kg where the body weight limit is the same for men and women, so are directly comparable.
The current world record for 55kg category, snatch, clean& jerk and total are: men 135kg, 166kg, 294kg; women 102kg, 129kg, 227kg.
The current world record for 81kg category, snatch, clean& jerk and total are: men 175kg, 207kg, 378kg; women 127kg, 158kg, 283kg.
So, when technique don't really count, men are around 33% stronger for the same body weight.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelsommers2356 After I provided the source, you stated: "That does not show that the Italians stopped using Enigma."
Your statement makes no sense. Of what "that" are you talking about? Do you know the source? Evidently not. So how can you talk about what it shows or not?
The Italian Navy didn't use Enigma at all. It adopted the C38m since 1940. In three years of war, before the armistice, only few hundreds of C38m messages had been decrypted by Ultra, most of them after several days and of no military value. IE the one relating to the loss, in December 1941, of a bag of shirts destined for the Governor of the Aegean, Admiral Campioni, message regularly noted by the British after a week of cryptoological efforts.
Better results the Brits had with the C35, used by the Regia Aeronautica, but with no practical value, since: "The time span between the interception of C35/38 traffic in the Middle East and his Typex encryption averaged 36 hours. They were followed by '50 hours on average' for radio transmission from Middle East to the United Kingdom, with the addition of other 4 hours between the receiving station and the Admiralty and further 4 hours from the latter to the decyphers".
At that point, the value of every message of the Aeronautica had long expired.
For the really important messages, the Italian Navy used manual cyphers, There were 14 kinds of them. Ultra managed to decypher some of the messages encrypted with the minor ones, but never broke the two really important ones during the war (SM16 and SM19) and completely gave up in 1942.
2
-
2
-
2
-
First of all, it had been Austria-Hungary that broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again) and, over that, war was declared on 23/05/1915.
Second: Why the "German Empire"? The question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not the German Empire. The German Empire at that point was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief that it would have made a war with Russia easier to win. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARE WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
2
-
I prefer Austria-Hungary, or simply Austria, for Austria-Hungary, and German Empire, or simply Germany, for the German Empire. At this point in the story, they were not the same thing. Anyone of them had to independently decide what to do.
It had been Austria-Hungary that broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It had not been Italy that left it.
Austria-Hungary decided a course of actions that would have broken the treaty it had with Italy, and so exposed itself to a war with the same country (it was no secret that there were many unfinished business between the two powers). Even more refusing to agree on the compensations required by the same Art.7 of the Treaty. Even the German mediators stated that the Austrian position (they were not willing to give Trento to the Italians, even if they would have obtained Belgrade in exchange) was unreasonable, and their wavering positions (Austrian foreign Minister Berchtold was initially willing to concede a part of Trentino to Italy, only to be contraddicted by the new foreign Minister Stephan Burián when he took office on 13/01/1915) were undermining the efforts of the German diplomacy and the Italian neutralist politicians.
In this story there were not "central powers". There were different countries with different foreign politics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Athena and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, it's a piston. It's not an open tube. Elklund's patent describes it as a piston, and it has the same external diameter than a standard gas piston (IE that of the M1 rifle) because it's a gas piston, while what's in the carrier is a cylinder.
"Direct impingment" doesn't exist. What pushes the bolt carrier back is pressure (of the gasses) for surface (of the piston), like in any gas action.
That means that, had that piston had a smaller diameter (mantaining the same internal gas tube) the action wouldn't have worked. Because the pressure would have been the same, but the surface wouldn't have been enough.
Most rifle pistons (IE, again, that of the M1 rifle) have "no gas sealing mechanisms" or "rings". The machining is accurate enough to retain enough pressure for the action to work. In this case, also, there is the protruding cylinder of the carrier going into the receiver, and making very difficult for the gasses to escape.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimmiller5600 To further clarify, the French Adrian was made in four pieces (dome, crest, front and back brim) riveted togheter. It was very fragile (it was enough to hit it hard to disassemble it, and nowadays is hard to find a sample with the dome not dented or pierced).
At the start of the war, The Italians acquired some tens of thousands of French Adrian, but were not satisfied with its shortcomings, so they started to manufacture an improved version two pieces (the entire helmet, stamped, and the crest) welded toghether. That was the Italian M16 helmet, that had been replaced by the M33. Some rear echelon unit still had the M16 in WWII.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
the Revelli 1914 was, all in all, a good HMG. The 1935 conversion not so much (it fired from a closed bolt, that's indifferent for a water-cooled MG, but not so good on a air-cooled one) despite having at least a good feature, an ultra-modern disgregating metallic belt, but it was intended as a cheap stopgap. The ones that had been converted, had not been in exchange to other models, but simply to have more MGs on the field.
The 7.35 carcano cartridge was developed to completely replace the 6.5 one but, as the war broke out when the conversion just started, the plans were cancelled and the 7.35 cartridge simply had not been used on the field.
Austrian captured weapons had been used almost exclusively in AOI (Africa Orientale Italiana, Italian Eastern Africa, that means Ethiopia, Eritrea and Italian Somaliland). Due to the geography, those lands would have been completely cut off from the mainland in case of war with the British Empire (like they infact did), and the local troops would have had to use only what they already had there up to exhaustion, so logistic was less of a issue.
The easiness of servicing was among the things Allied reports of the time praised about the Breda 30.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The second. In theory, with the legs closed, the gunner, or servent, was supposed to be able to grab the scorching hot barrel to swap it (already the fact that, in the middle of the action, he was supposed to close the bipod and extract the barrel, while the open receiver had to be laid down, on sandy or muddy terrain, because there was no more a bipod to hold it, demonstrates how retarded the design was. Any other LMG design sorted that out since the late '20s)
In practice, asbestos gloves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
CipiRipi00 We'll never know if the Bismarck hit the Hood EVEN ONE SINGLE TIME.
It was well known that the initial salvoes of the British ships were often off by kilometers.
In the clash with the POW, opposed to a BB that had HUGE teething problems, that reduced it to a single working gun, the Bismarck received worse damages that it inflicted.
None ever said that the POW had good groups. BB cannons had to be TESTED, for LONG to obtain good grups, and the POW was completely new.
The best groups are NOT the tighter ones but the ones that give the best probabilities to hit the target AT LEAST with a shell for every salvo at the optimal fighting range. IE Analyzing the results of the battle of Leyte Gulf, the US Navy concluded the Japanese had not understood how dispersion worked. Their salvoes were so tight that the inevitable error in estimating bearing and distance of the target made so that they were all misses.
Fact is that the Italian BBs NEVER had an enemy BB at less than 25 km, so any comparison with the battle of the Denmark Strait, fought from 20km to 15km, is completely useless.
In the battle of Gaudo, that's the one cited to "prove" the scarce accuracy of the 381/50, the Vittorio Veneto, steaming 28knots, fired on a couple of light cruisers, that were laying smoke screens and steering to not be hit, not at 15.000m, but from 23.000m to 26.000m. At that distance the Bismarck didn't even TRY to fire at a much bigger target that was not steering. It had been already amply demonstrated that, even at much shorter distances, and with much more rapidly firing guns, it was practically impossible to hit a target that was only manuvering to not been hit, if not firing thousands of shells (see the battle of the Espero convoy).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tatumergo3931 Not really.
The concept of the automatic weapon as the centre of the infantry formation came form the observations on WWI, and is typically European. In WWII it was not only of the Germans, but also of the Brits and even of the Italians. The weapons were different, but the concept was the same. That's why, IE, all of them concentrated more on the development of the automatic firearm than on the infantry rifle.
From this concept comes that the automatic weapon is a crew-served weapon. All the infantry squad is a squad of ammo and spare parts bearer for the automatic weapon.
The American concept, that still persists, is that of the infantry squad as a squad of riflemen with the automatic weapon as support.
That's why, IE, the US, in WWII, had an exceptional rifle, and a subpar LMG.
That's why the XM250 had just been selected as SAW for the US Army. The ideal of the Ordnance Corp is to have the MG served by a single men. The XM250 doesn't even have an attachment point for the tripod, because none is going to carry a tripod, nor a quick exchange barrel, because none is going to carry a spare barrel. The MG gunner is going to carry all the belts for the gun, and the 400 rounds he can carry in total are not going to overheat the barrel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nothing had been "screwed up". The weapon had been higly successful, so much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, tripod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to develop the OVP18 and the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's bullshit. This is an actual report of the effectiveness of various Italian artilleries vs. various Soviet tanks. http://www.icsm.it/articoli/daicsm/2gm/artit34.html
All the 75mm guns (the old 75/27, and the modern 75/32 and 75/97/38) were effective vs. the Soviet light tanks, even without using armor piercing ammunitions (in this case, the old 75/27 could have problems vs the frontal armor of the light tanks). Both the 75/32 and the 75/97/38 had no problems in piercing the T34 armor, even the frontal one, using HEAT ammos.
BTW, the Italian cavalrymen shouted "Savoia!" and only when they were already charging (because the correct succession of the orders is "trotto; galoppo; carica!", "trot, gallop, charge!", then, during the charge, there is the war shout). If your soldiers don't shoot while part of the enemies are already shooting at them (infact a third of the Italians were fixing the position of the enemies with rifles and gunfire) because the ones that are charging at them shout something vaguely similar to "friendly", I would question their mental faculties.
2
-
2
-
There had been two separate issues.
A pair of cases on the SEALs 92SB, and yes, that was due to very high round count and firing an unprecised mix of ammos.
Then on some Army M9, tested for endurance in 1988. 12 had been tested. Generally they reached a very high round count, but a pair of them had the slide cracked at low round count.
Initially the Army determined it was due to the steel alloy of the slide, requested it to be changed, and Beretta modified the slides so that even a cracked one could't be projected out of the gun. However Beretta technicians were not persuaded. They were selling 92 series guns to military and police forces all over the world, and only the M9 of the US Army seemed to have problems. They analysed the results of the test, and noticed all the low counts slide cracks happened only when a single batch of Federal Cartridge ammo was used. Once tested by independent labs, it was determined those rounds developed pressure in excess of proofloads (Beretta sued the US government at that point, and the lawsuit was settled with them receiving further $ 10m). Ironically, the 92 remained known for the "slide cracking" problem, while, at that time, its slides were arguably more robust than those of any Browning design competitor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nokky Sorry to burst your bubble, but "so much land" had been occupied in the first hours of the conflict, more than two months ago, because, to not "provoke" Russia (like the Russians are able to understand anything else than being hit hard on the head) Ukraine didn't mobilize, and for the first few days the Russians had been faced only by special squads and rapid response forces.
Since then, the Russians lost WAY more territory than they gained. They retreated from Kiev, they retreated from Sumy, They had been pushed back from Mikolaiv, and now they retreated from Kharkiv.
They keep on retreating, "coz russia is soo incapable".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers. To try to speed things by dividing the army and attacking many fortresses at once, meant to loose the biggest advantage the Mongols had, their command chain, able to cohordinate tens of thousands men during a battle. It had already been noted in the first invasion that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements, when cohordination was much simpler. And infact, in the subsequent Mongol attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that. they built more fortresses, increased their mounted units, and divided the campaign in multiple small scale engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
2
-
The problem was the number.
Mongols conquered many fortified cities, and many fortresses located in strategic points. Because they were important and worth the effort.
Because even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers.
In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses whose garrisons were capable to resist for weeks or months against far larger armies, and dividing the horde in multiple small columns to attack many fortresses at the same time was a bad idea. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them.
In the subsequent attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. They built more fortresses, increased the number of mounted units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
Then there is the fact that in Europe, praires ends in Hungary (that's why both the Huns and the Hungars came there before the Mongols). Western Europe was more forested, and so much less favourable to steppe riders.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
in the Souda Bay raid on 25 mar. 1941, six motorboats were employed, the extremely valuable modern heavy cruiser York (the Brits had few of them) and the 8000t tanker Pericles sunk.
In the Malta attack, on 25 lug. 1941, eight motorboats were lost for no losses for the Brits.
On April 16, 1945, off the coast of Liguria, a single motorboat damaged the French destroyer Trombe beyond repair.
The lesson learned was that the explosive motorboats could be very effective, but only in a limited range of occasions. To attack an heavily defended port was suicidal. The target had to be standing still, or very slowly moving, in a not well protected area. Ships that were assisting a landing or an evacuation, were the ideal targets.
On 19 oct. 1948, two former Italian explosive motorboats that the Israeli obtained, sunk the Egyptian flagship El Amir Farouq and damaged a BYMS-class minesweeper beyond repair.
2
-
There was a minimum height to join the legion.
Surely there was some potentially exceptional warrior among the ones excluded but, since, once into it, the legionaries were all trained the same way, it was more efficient to train the ones that were more phisically gifted from the start, that wasting resouces to train the weaklings, and then selecting few exceptions among them.
In ancient warfare, strenght and stamina counted A LOT, and weapons, as well as training, are expensive items, you want to give them to the ones that are likely to use them more effectively.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
All those pistols, like the Bernardelli P08, and this one, have the half-cock position. That's what was intended to replace the decocker, as, if you hold the hammer, pull the trigger, allowing the hammer to just slightly move forward, and release the trigger, the hammer will safely seat in half/cock even if you suddenly release it.
From half-cock, the first double trigger pull is more pleasant too (same weight, but shorter pull).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually the M240 choice had been casual. The one exposed is an explanation "a posteriori"
As said, the US army selected the M60, that's more of a "PKM" style machinegun (but way less durable), light and way less apt to sustained fire than the M240.
The M240 had been selected as vehicular MG (where weight has no importance) only due to the utter failure of the domestically designed M73 and M279.
Then the Marines equipped themselves of M240 dismounted from vehicles simply because their M60s were worn-out beyond usability.
Then the Army followed the Marines without even a real competition, because to keep the M60 operative was becoming way too expensive and time-consuming.
The M240 is heavy only because it has a riveted construction and a BAR style bolt. In respect to a monolitic construction (like for the PKM) a riveted one must be heavier for the same durability, and a BAR-style bolt, locking on the rear of the receiver, requires a more sturdy receiver than a rotating bolt. so yes, the M240 is very durable, but made differently it could have had the same durability weighting less.
Also mind that many NATO countries (Germany, Italy, Turkey,Greece, Spain, Portugal...) use the MG3.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Heeroneko Deadpool had not been created to represent anyone, bar a parody of Spiderman's habit to talk while fighting. His description, given by Cable himself, that first hired him, was "a lethal idiot" (and he was not meant give idiots a representation). Him, or any other character, being "something" is not "representation", is simply having some charateristic, which I think is more so what you meant.
A character made for representation instead, IE, is the defunct "Snowflake", whose introduction described as being "not binary". Because obviously the first thing I want to know of a superhero is who he/her wants to fuck...
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Heeroneko That's representation. The character is meant not to have a personal trait. Is meant to represent. To be an example of. Characters that are meant to represent are bound to be abysmal, because there's no way to decently write a character that's meant to represent a community.
Unfortunately, a lot of people make this mistake. Critics tend to acritically (isn't that funny?) exalt characters made like that, because they "spread the right message", regardless of the quality of the work, and who dare to object is labeled as a homophobe, misogynist, and worse. And, among those who label, other than the aforementioned critics, there are the members of the minorities. Not the members that really read the comics, yeah, who KNOWS the media, KNOWS that those characters are terrible, but you don't need to really read comics to be vocal on twitter about "how they should be made".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This rifle is actually very simple, with a very low parts count. The filed strip can be made in seconds without tools (that's not a given at that time). Simply Ian decided to do a complete disassembly. That's another thing.
To have access to the gas chamber and the gas ports (that's the thing that requires cleaning, there is not actually much that could happen to the piston and op rod) you only have to remove the muzzle cover. To inspect the recoil spring, you can remove it from the trap door. To remove the bolt you only have to remove the dust cover and the rear buffer ("when the dust cover is off, it just slides out") and it comes out from the rear of the receiver. It isn't needed to remove the receiver from the stock.
Like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then, this rifle is not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock. that's why they have screws. While the parts that require cleaning, and/or have to be replaced more often (for the second case, almost universally the recoil spring and the firing pin) are very easily reachable.
An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To reach the firing pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have several small parts flying around you).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1) There's nothing wrong in making a documentary / series even on the only known sample, until it's also higlighted that's the only known sample and not the norm. Yasuke, Abram Petrovic Gannibal... why not? Someone wants to make a TV series on the life of a fictional Black African (from a group Living in North Africa, or coming from south of the Sahara with a caravan) that enlists as an auxiliary in the Roman Army, participates in one or more campaigns, earns citizenship, becomes centurion, is honourably discharged, starts living as a civilian Roman citizen in some part of the Empire and even obtains some minor public office (more was impossible without having followed the cursus honorum)? Good, as long as is historically accurate.
2) In a documentary, you can highlight the various possibilities. In a series, when you can only make a choice, it's better to stick to the most widely accepted interpretation, but the interpretation of a minority of scholars, as long as it's a legitimate and discussed scientific theory , is acceptable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thanks to you.
Unfortunately, Ian decided to disassemble the rifle (that was required to show the burst mechanism) without showing first how a field strip (that covers all the usual manteinance of the rifle, and 99% of the emergency operations) was supposed to be done. That gave the impression of the design to be complicated.
Field strip (remove the muzzle cover and expose the gas ports, chamber and piston for cleaning; remove the recoil spring for inspection/replacing; remove the bolt assembly for cleaning/replacing the firing pin) is actually very easy and can be done in seconds without tools.
Disassembly requires more time, but it has to be said that almost all the bolt action and semiauto rifles' designs until that point, and several later, were not supposed to have the receiver and trigger group removed from the stock that often. That's why they were screwed to it. When Ian reviewed the Gew. 41 and 43 for example, he didn't remove them. Otherwise there would have been several screws to remove as well.
An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To remove the bolt from the receiver, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and pay attention to several small parts).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deathknight75 Not really.
Dante put Averroes and Saladin among the not-baptised virtuous. Averroes between the philosophers, with the likes of Aristotle and Plato. Saladin with the likes of Caesar. It had not been by chance. Saladin was the man that took Gerusalem away from Christianity, but he did it in an honorable manner, so he was not at fault more than Caear was at fault for being a pagan.
Mohammad was put among the schismatics because Dante believed to the tale, diffused in medieval Europe, that Mohammed was a Christian bishop who created a new religion "mixing that of Moses with that of Christ". He's among the bearers of discord because he brought discord into Christanity. The Muslim's Saladin job happened to be to fight Christians, so he was not at fault in doing that. While Mohammad's job was not to create a new religion "dividing the Christians", so he's among the schismatics.
Mind that Alì is there for the same reason. To have caused a schism, this time among the Muslims. for Dante it didn't count Christians or Muslims. counted if one brought discord or not.
Greek heroes are there only because, to make the comedy interesting, Dante needed popular figures, alternating between the well known contemporaries and the well known historical figures (IE, in Canto XXVI there is Odysseus, in canto XXVII Guido da Montefeltro). But well known historical figures in middle age Europe were saints and characters of greek mithology. He couldn't put saints in hell, so...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@АндрейКаминский-г9в Or, in case of the Russian, before the war swearing there is not going to be any war, then, after having attacked by surprise, forbid to call it a war under treat of prison, then, when the war is approaching one year lenght, scold your citizen for not having still understood that's a war not with Ukraine but with NATO (that curiously had not yet employed a single soldier, ship, tank or aircraft).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
+Jeffery Wells
The armors shown are not intended for foot soldiers. They were incredibly costly items that only a few could afford. The level of craftsmanship involved in their making was so high that fluting or not the plates was only a question of preferred style, not of cost. A well equipped foot soldier of the same period would have worn a brigandine over a mail shirt, or a simple breastplate, with a single piece, or a simple two piece, helmet as a complement.
The fact that a flat surface is more apt to deflect blows, while the flutes are less likely to deflect the blows, and more likely to offer them an orthogonal surface where the blows can have the maximum effect, means exactly that the flat surface does not need to be thick enough to stop the weapon, but only enough to deflect it. Once the blow (of the quarrel, spear, pollaxe, halberd...) is deflected, it's power had not been absorbed by the armor, but is simply directed elsewhere. The percentage of the force that the armor has to absorb is higher the more the incoming angle of the blow is closer to 90 degrees.
1
-
+Jeffery Wells Please. First, is sufficient to look at the sabatons of the gotic armors to see that they were not made for someone that had to walk. Those armors were not only only intended only for cavalry, but specifically for heavy cavalry.
Second. The man who could pay for a complete armor like the ones shown could easily equip himself not only with one, but with several war horses, so why on he earth should he have to fight on foot? To die more easily?
Third. Hardly any of those armors were designed for real fights at all. The armors survived until now were primarly parade armors (and that's why they survived), and secondarily joust armors. On the battlefield, even the knights tended to wear far lighter armors (IE the Italian corsaletto. Not by chance Giovanni de Medici was buried in one). Even more, since, at the same time those armors were developed, the heavy cavalry was at it's end. Following the example of the Venetian Stratioti, the european armies were relying more and more on light cavalry, and this led to a lightening of the armors (that soon would have consisted only of a curiass and an helmet).
1
-
-- For the same area covered and the same weight, a flat, or almost flat, fluted plate is more prone to be pierced, cause is thinner, and cause the flutes are less likely to deflect the blows, and more likely to offer them an orthogonal surface where they can have the maximum effect.
Note thet the flutes on the frontal pieces of historical armors are not horizontal (so more likely to deflect the tip of the piercing weapons away from the body) but vertical, so likely to direct the tip of the piercing weapons towards the throat or the groin, exactly where nobody would want them to go. That means that, in all likelyhood, they started as simple hornanents and demonstrations of the ability of the blacksmith.
1
-
1
-
As I said: "for the same area covered and the same weight, A FLAT, or almost flat, fluted plate, is stiffer".
Unfortunately there are not flat surfaces on an armor. The stiffening effect of fluting decreases as long as the curvature of the plate increase (infact the section of a sphere is naturally resistant to be bent, think of the helmet, or the pauldron), until, for a certain curvature, the effect is reversed, and flutes actually makes the plate less stiff. The stiffening effect of a very moderate fluting on an already curved surface is minimal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It had been MUCH useful as it was.
In attack, first, a sling that allowed to use it while walking, or running, designed by Col. Giuseppe Bassi, was added, then it was used a wooden stock that allowed to use the weapon on shoulder, and the MG had been extensively used for clearing trenches starting from 1916.
Maybe it could have been done better for that role, but remember that, since1916 to late 1918, it was the best thing around for that role anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Herodotus,The Histories, Book V.22; Alexander I of Macedon (ancestor of Alexander the Great') wanted to compete in the games, but the other athletes opposed to it, since the games were for Greeks, and not for barbarians. Alexander was finally allowed to participate, after having "demonstrated" (read: "invented a story that") his dynasty originated from kings of the Greek city of Argos, but that was valid only for him, not for the Macedonians. They were still barbarians.
Moreover, Dio Chrysostom (Discourses, 2.23) wrote that Alexander I nickname was "philhellene" ("friend of the Greeks", so not a Greek himself).
Still Thrasymachus (On Behalf of the Lariasaeans) called Archelaus, grandson of Alexander I "a barbarian".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The SR2 bomb was filled with 32gr of TNT, into an iron case, and with an iron spiral around it to ensure fragmentation. The explosive filling was inferior to the later (from 1944) US MKII hand grenades, but superior to the earlier ones, so they were not really "flash bangs", they had been designed to be lethal. Italian grenades, in general, were designed to fragment in smaller pieces in respect to the "pineapple" designs. That way the lethal radius was smaller, but the pattern was more uniform (cast iron "pineapple" grenades tended to fragment in few pieces, so they hit at random, maybe killing someone distant from the bomb, and sparing someone close to it).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As the clip says, the Arditi were supposed to take a trench and hold it until they were relieved by regular troops. They were effective in this. They could, take a trench much more easily than a "human wave" assault, but that tactic could bring only to very limited territorial gains.
In 1917 (not first) the Germans developed the right tactic for the Stormtrooper to work more effectively "do not stop. Do not worry about the pockets of resistance that you leave behind. Keep going forward. Aim for the backlines, communication and supply lines".
In 1918, the Arditi used the same tactic against the Austrians.
It has to be noted, however, that the same Germans and Austrians tried to use the same tactic after nov. 1917, in the subsequent attempts to break through the Piave line, and failed, as the Italians at that point had learned to have much deeper defensive lines and less dependent to central command. So that, in June 1918, in the last attempt to broke the Italian defense (Battle of the Solstice) the Austrians had practically gave up to use that again, and resorted backto the massive attack.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks to you for the kind reply :)
The BAR was not really an LMG. It wasn't apt for firing in prone position, it wasn't apt for sustained fire (there was a reason if the Italians carried two spare barrels for the Breda 30, and then enhanced them to 4 spare barrels. How much the thin and fixed barrel of the BAR would have lasted in the same conditions?), it was difficult to field strip and clean, and, if not cleaned properly, it jammed easily. The only really improved version, with a quick detachable barrel and an effective bipod, was adopted by the Swedish only in 1937.
It has to be noted that, to use 4 spare barrels, you have to fire at least 800 rounds in quick succession. So much for the gun not ben capable to really provide automatic fire.
That said. To not be misunderstood, the Breda 30 had really been, all in all, a less than satisfactory weapon. And the Italians would have done better adopting the ZB vz. 26. (that they tried).
But there is a tendency, on the net, when a weapon had some defect, tho extremize them, concluding that "it's the worst gun ever made!", "I would have rather fought nacked than carrying that piece of junk!" and things like that.
Reality is that the weapons was actually not that bad, and the contemporaries, those that had to fight them daily, and reuse the captured ones, thought it was not that bad.
From Tactical and Technical Trends (the magazine of the US Intelligence) No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942 "Use of Captured Italian Weapons" :
"Breda Light Machine Gun". The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun. It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions. It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun. It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon. Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It has to be said that, in respect to it's disadvantages, the advantage of bullpups desing compactness in tansport is often void if compared to standard designs with collapsible stock (that bullpups can't have).
Comparing the FAMAS and the Steyr AUG with another 5.56 NATO European design of the same years (the Beretta SC70/90), we see that the SC70/90, with the stock collapsed, is 756mm long with a 450mm barrel. The FAMAS is 757mm long with 488mm barrel, The AUG is 790mm long with 508mm barrel.
So, the lenght advantages of the FAMAS and AUG designs, for the same barel lenght, are of mere 36mm (1.4 inches) and 24mm (1 inch) respectively. Hardly noticeable when the rifle is carried by a soldier in a truck.
Obviously armies could have good reasons to prefer fixed stocks over collapsible ones (economy, ruggedness...), but, compared to the drawbacks of the bullpups...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+David Brandon It's a rather recent evolution. In the first half of 19th century 10 years were considered acceptable nearly everywere in western societies, and pre-pubescent girls were available in every brothel. In the UK the legal age was raised to 13 years only in 1875, and to 16 in 1885, in the US it was at 10-12 (7 in Delaware) still at the end of the 19th century, and was raised in the early 20th. In most of the continental Europe the age was raised in the same years.
Really, it was the same modern concept of "childhood" that was absent then. If a a child could work in the mines, then he could work in the sex industry too. The situation changed when the concept of "right to childhood" appeared.
However, I have to say it's rather funny to see so much scandalized comments here, raised especially by US citizens, about the situation of women and slaves in ancient Rome (where the law required the sposes to be able to generate to be legally married, and the slaves have right of life and personal property), when the situation in the US was far worse for both until few generations ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The oplite phalanx relied on his "pushing" power, so the oplites usually did a brief run, mantaining the formation, first to clash with the enemy line. Exactly in the same moment, the legionaries threw their pilum at once.
Imagine the scene. Much of the oplite shields become unmaneuvrable, with one or more pilum stuck to them. Many oplites of the first line die. The ones behind them stumble on the dead bodies and on the spears on the ground, then, without the time to regroup, the legionaries arrive.
As for the Macedonian phalanx, the Romans lured it on rough terrain, where it could not mantain it's unity. Once divided the phalanx, the sarissas were only a bother.
1
-
As the clip says, the Arditi were supposed to take a trench and hold it until they were relieved by regular troops. They were effective in this. They could, take a trench much more easily than a "human wave" assault, but that tactic could bring only to very limited territorial gains.
In 1917 (not first) the Germans developed the right tactic for the Stormtrooper to work more effectively "do not stop. Do not worry about the pockets of resistance that you leave behind. Keep going forward. Aim for the backlines, communication and supply lines".
In 1918, the Arditi used the same tactic against the Austrians.
It has to be noted, however, that the same Germans and Austrians tried to use the same tactic after nov. 1917, in the subsequent attempts to break through the Piave line, and failed, as the Italians at that point had learned to have much deeper defensive lines and less dependent to central command. So that, in June 1918, in the last attempt to broke the Italian defense (Battle of the Solstice) the Austrians had practically gave up to use that again, and resorted back to the massive frontal attack.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+pypy1986820 And, thinking about Caesar, we have to think about it's enemies.
At Alesia he reportedly faced 85.000 armed Gauls barricated into the city and 240.000 outside it. We know, from the aftermats, that the first number was quite accurate, the second can be exaggerated, but, even admittting he doubled it, that means that the Romans were facing 200.000 armed men. Those were not professional soldiers, but probably most of them had already fought in battles or duels in their life, since disputes and skirmishes were common between the celtic tribes. Their equipment was usually composed of a long iron sword or an axe, a shield, a spear, a helmet and, at least for the wealtier of them, a mail armor (the Romans actually adopted the "lorica hamata" and the helmet with cheeckplates from them, centuries before). They could use (and used in the Gallic War) javelins and bows as well, and had a cavalry, altough not efficient as a medieval one (no stirrups).
A similar army, at Agincourt, would have walked over the English due to the sheer strenght of numbers, longbows or not. Probably they could have walked over the English and the French at the same time.
1
-
Sorry, but I've never talked about impossibilities or combat capabilities. I was talking about numbers. "Romans could field tens of thousands of professional soldiers in armor". Medieval armies were "huge" when they reached, or barely passed, 10.000 men.
"When numbers are similar" a heavy medieval knight is a great weapon, but heavy medieval knights are extremely expensive items. Numbers will not be similar, since 10.000 knigts were more or less all that a powerful medieval state could deploy. 10.000 legionaries were a relatively small contingent.
However, it had been the legionaries that made those fortifications. They didn't found them there. Do you think they would have been incapable to make the battlefield impracticable to horses? Is not that they didn't know how to dig, or sharpen poles. The English did, and, with all the due respect, they were not 45.000-50.000 Legionaries capable to build 16 km of double fortification around the city.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Long story short, the Germans failed to develop a good long range escort fighter. The Bf109 could escort the bombers only for few miles over Britain. Not having an escort, German bombers had to rely on night bombing, and night bombing was not accurate (see the wikipedia page on the "battle of the beams" for further informations on the attempts to overcome this limitation), so, instead of targeting British war factories, Germans had to rely on terror bombing over big cities, that had spectacular, but not really useful effects over the British war effort.
Having their factories unaffected, the British could trow more and more fighters against the German bombers, that suffered increasingly high loss rates. Given those conditions, it was only a matter of time before the Germans had to give up, due to simple attrition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Roose Bolton is a northerner. Is he trustworty?
Ned, on the other hand didn't even grew up in the north. He had been raised in the Vale, and the lords of the Vale are no less scheming than the ones of King's Landing.
Ned already played that game. He fought and won a war where the lines of loyalty were blurred. Yet, since the moment he left Winterfell, he spectacularly failed to discern friends from foes, and that led to his demise.
That's because his grasp on the north was based on personal relationships. He knew any of his bannermen, paid frequent visits to them, and so he knew what to expect from any of them.
He had not that kind of relationships in the south, and had not time to build them, so he made his biggest mistake HE SELECTED HIS POTENTIAL ALLIES BASED ON HOW MUCH HE FELT THEY WERE SIMILAR TO HIM.
Varys could have been a powerful ally. Their goals were very compatible, but he never trusted him, because Varys was very different form him.
Renly was the best player around (not by chance, he's the only one that had been killed by a supernatural being, his position was too strong for him to loose otherwise) and offered him his alliance for nothing. Ned refused, because the flashy and vacuous Renly was very different from him.
Littlefinger instead was austere, he grew up in an environment similar to that of Ned (even geographically close). He knew both ned's brother and wife, so Ned thought he was SIMILAR TO HIM.
And that had been his mistake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
D8W2P4 "Wrong, it's poorly designed trigger groups"
So, for you, it only happened that all the bullpups have poorly designed trigger groups?
The crappy trigger of the bullpups is due to the fact that the trigger is distant from the hammer/striker, so the movement of the finger has to be transferred for a greater distance. That means that the levers of the trigger group are heavier, and the leverage has more total lash. It's an unavoidable defect of the design.
"Conventional rifles are a problem for lefties"
Some of them are, but not at the level of having to be shouldered on their wrong shoulder to avoid eating brass. Even with bolt action rifles it had been noted how, operating the trigger with the left hand and the bolt with the right one, lefties are often faster than right handed people.
"try using a conventional rifle with say a 24" barrel in a tight space."
And why on the earth should i do it? No service 5.56 NATO bullpup I'm aware of is issued with a 24" barrel. Even cause the ballistic gain over a 20", for the .223 Rem, is practically nihil even for long range shooting, and, if you are not doing competition shooting, everything over 17" is an overkill. It's true that, in action, a bullpup will always be shorter than a conventional design, but the relative advantage is lower as the barrel is shorter and, in tight spaces, long barrels are pretty useless anyway.
1
-
D8W2P4 There is some other difference actually, and, if bullpups in intermediate cartridges are pretty rare, bullpups in full power rifle cartridges are almost non existent. Why? Cause those rifles are not made for close quarter fight (so the only advantage of bullpups is moot) and, first of all, being them necessarily heavier than a AR, the balance disadvantages of bullpups become evident, then, being them usually marksman rifles, crappy triggers are a big disadvantage.
Again, some conventional rifles can be problematic for lefties, but not at the level of having to be shouldered on their wrong shoulder to avoid eating brass. That's a specialty of bullpups.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sam Moon "I cannot prove"
So it's not a "fact". What's a "fact" is that the Germans came up with an official accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) to accept the rifles to be used by their soldiers. That shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control.
An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance.
"it is fact that the Germans tested EVERY piece of captured equipment they intended to use".
So what's the official acceptance test, to say one, of the Scotti 20/77 (renamed 2cm Scotti by the Germans)? To test a weapon, to simply see if it works, and to have an official acceptance test to pass are two different things.
"It is not my invection"
"the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'" Your invenction.
"you said the percentage was 'good'"
An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance.
Instead you said it's a "fact" that those that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number"
Where are your sources?
"This line confirms to me you're just making stuff up; "Germans had not th(sic) tooling to make that rifle"
You're kidding, right? The Germans absolutely had the tooling to produce whatever small arms they wanted"
So you are stating Germans produced SVT 40? Good to hear. You have a source stating it, right? Otherwise it's another invenction of your.
1
-
Sam Moon "Did I say the Germans produced SVT-40s, or did I say they had the ability..."
Do you really read the comments first to answer to them? The "ability" and the "tooling" ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. The tooling are the machinery and facilities required to specifically produce something, not the ability to make them. It's obvious that the Germans had the techical knowlege to manifacture SVT40, or M1 Garand for that matter, but they didn't made the tools to do so, so they had not the tooling.
"Also, I said I cannot prove a negative"
You clearly stated it was a "fact" that the rifles that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number". It's a positive statement, that, if true, can be proved. Were are the sources of that "fact"? What's that "not significant" number?
It's not that you "cannot prove a negative", is that you stated to be a "fact" something that you don't know. And are now stating that the fact that you don't know the number is a proof that it was small.
Sorry, but ignorance is not proof.
What's a "fact" is that the Germans came up with an official accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) to accept the rifles to be used by their soldiers. That shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control.
An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples would have been out of tolerance.
"Here, I'll even show you..."
...that you are good at googling "1384/42-AHA/In(VII)". Learned something?
1
-
1
-
+buckwheat219970 In Italy still survives the expression, when someone is in a close dispute, "essere ai ferri corti" ("to be at the short irons", were the "short irons" are the short bladed weapons, like the daggers). It originates exactly in that period, when, in most cases, after the knights grown tired and can't lift the sword (or mace, hammer, axe...) any more, the final blow was given by the winner with the short blade through the openings in the plates (armpits, neck, eyes...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eragon is, and will always be, Star Wars with dragons. It's not possible to extract an original plot and believable dialogues from the original story, since it has neither.
Catwoman is, and will always be, a side character.
There will probably be other movies on Alexander and Pearl Harbour. It's not "remake", is history.
There is nothing really wrong with Sphere and Lemony Snicket's.
I don't see a remake of Resident Evil, Super Mario or Spawn coming (and, for the first two, why they should? They are not great stories to begin with).
Avatar TLA only need to be a) animated and b)have lenght of 120 minutes. Get rid of all the fillers of the first season ("The Waterbending Scroll", "Jet", "The Great Divide", a good part of "The Storm", "The Fortuneteller", "Bato of the Water Tribe", "The Northern Air Temple", and so on...) and you have the script of the required lenght.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There had been variations, with the katana made in wartime that thended to be less sharp and more resistant, but in general japanese swords are more brittle and prone to breakage than a European sword of the same size, in exchange of them being sharper. Katanas are not really made for parrying, they are made to bring a single deadly slash to an uncovered part of the enemy's body, or to die in the attempt.
Samurai doesn't use shields cause, for most of their history, they had been mounted archers that used the tachi / katana as their secondary weapon, and mounted archers (see Parts, Huns, Mongols...) doesn't use shields (you can't use it while throwing, it doesn't cover the horse...).
Other than the samurai, the foot soldiers were mostly conscript peasants, and those were rarely armed with more than a spear in Europe too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, when this MG had been adopted (1930) the only design around that was really demonstrably better was the ZB vz. 26.
Today it could seem strange, but, in the first half of XX century, to design a detachable magazine that was at the same time so cheap to be discarded on the field, and so well and consistently built to not cause feeding problems was really an issue. The BAR and the BREN were plagued by jammings caused by defective magazines, ant those had been built by bountries that had not raw materials shortages. The British actually designed a fixed magazine for the BREN, loaded with two 15 rounds clips (they didn't adopt that, but it was really awkward compared to the Breda).
So, in 1924, FIAT came out with a LMG design (FIAT 1924) that had a fixed magazine on the left of the weapon, loaded inserting a 20 round clip (similar to that of the subsequent Breda) from the right. In exchange of a little time lost in recharging, all the feeding problems were avoided.
The flaw was that, to load a MG insrting a clip from one side, the gunner, or the servent, had to expose himself a little, and, laterally pushing the weapon, they can move it, loosing the line of sight.
So the Breda had the subsequent evolution. By tilting the "fixed" magazine, in exchange of a little more time lost in recharging, the gunner could load the gun (and change the barrel, for that matter) without changing position at all.
In the end, ten years later, at the start of WWII, it was an already outdated design, but it was actually not that bad. There is a tendency, on the net, when a weapon had some defect, tho extremize them, concluding that "it's the worst gun ever made!", "I would have rather fought naked than carrying that piece of junk!" and things like that. But those are modern days shenanigans. The contemporaries of the weapon, those that had to fight them daily, and reuse the captured ones, thought it was not that bad.
From Tactical and Technical Trends (the magazine of the US Intelligence) No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942 "Use of Captured Italian Weapons" :
"Breda Light Machine Gun". The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun. It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions. It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun. It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon. Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting.
Mind that, to use 4 spare barrels (the number the Italians deemed to be necessary after having used the gun in combat), you have to fire at least 800 rounds in quick succession. So much for the gun not being capable to really provide automatic fire.
1
-
1
-
+MacNutz2
That's totally wrong. Mussolini left the Socialist Party in october 1914 to found an interventionist newspaper, "Il Popolo d'Italia", and, when Italy finally entred in WWI (may 1915), he voluntereed, served as a "Bersagliere" (elite light infantry corp) Private, was promoted Corporal for merit (official motivation: "Attività esemplare, qualità battagliere, serenità di mente, incuranza ai disagi, zelo, regolarità nell'adempimento dei suoi doveri, primo in ogni impresa di lavoro e ardimento", "Exemplar activity, fighting qualities, serenity of mind, does not care of discomforts, zeal, reliable in the fulfillment of his duties, first in every enterprise of work and bravery"), and ended his military career being seriously wounded by the explosion of a grenade launcher during a training exercise in february 1917.
All in all he had a rather exemplar military service. Not that the service in the trenches gave him some quality as a strategist, obviously, but he was a brave man.
1
-
1
-
Until at least the Gulf War the general consensus was that the M16 was a defective rifle, and the direct gas impingement was the main responsible. The Beretta AR70/90 came out as the Italian Army Assault rifle from a competition were one of the competitors, the Socimi AR-831, was an AR15 (bolt, bolt carrier, recoil spring, recoil spring guide, magazine catch and hold-open device, trigger group, fire selector, general receiver and plastic furnitures design), with a AK47 style gas piston (The subsequent AR-871 used an AK47 recoil spring too, so to have a fully collapsible stock), yet, the Beretta design was chosen.
Every army has its specific requirements. French and Brits wanted a bullpup. The Italians, like for the previous BM59 and the subsequent ARX-160 wanted a select fire LMG.
1
-
1
-
Design costs. If you use a system used by one hundred other manufacturers, you doesn't really have to design anything new. All the weights, forms and tolerances are in the books, or you can more or less copy it from an existing design, and you concentrate on aestetics and/or secondary features.
If you use a new system, you have to really design every bit of it starting from a White sheet. The dimension of the gas ports, their position in the barrel, the dimension of the gas chamber, all relative to the weigh tof the slide...
Add that delayed blowback systems are slide-weight sensitive. Usually they comes in only one form (there is not a Compact HK P7, a compact Steyr GB or a compact Benelli B76) cause to design a different dimension of the same pistol, is like designing a new pistol.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bring me Peter pan "m14s were full auto?"
Yes and no. They could have, or not, the selector installed. Originally the M14 was intended to replace the M1 and the BAR with a single design, but the conception was still that of the riflemen squad, with the M14 in semiauto only, supported by LMGs, that were M14 with the selector and the bipod.
But, when the soldiers begun to fight enemies armed with assault rifles, many formations switched all their M14 to full auto. At least to have a higher volume of fire.
To hit what you was aiming at, was another story.
The problem in using a full power cartridge like the 7.62 NATO in full auto is triple. There is the recoil, there is the muzzle flip, and there is the spin that the bullets give to the rifle (the reaction to the bullets being put in rotation by the rifling). The shooter, instinctively, tend to compensate the muzzle flip, so the burst tend to widen in a spiraliform pattern.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Around 12.000 FAMAS had been upgraded to the FELIN standard (new 1/7" Beretta-made barrel, new piticanny-rail carry handle, new sights, new bayonet, front pistol grip option...) but, with the newest base rifles to convert that are around 40 years old, it seems kinda like beating a dead horse.
To be competitive with the newest designs, the rifle needs to be completely redesigned (a new bolt less picky about ammos, much more plastic in the body to keep the weight down, faster ambidextrous features) and, since the Manufacture d'Armes de Saint-Etienne closed in 2002, there is none to do the job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All in all the Swiss squares were not that different from the Macedonian phalanx, that the Romans defeated easily even before the Marian reform. Obviously, in that case, the tactic was not to directly attack the front of the enemy formation, but to lure the enemies on rough terrain, where they could not mantain it, or to take advantage of the superior mobilities of the cohorts to attack the flanks. The Swiss were much more disciplined than the average infantry formation of medieval time, but not more disciplined than the oplites or phalangites.
After the marian reform, we have to take in account military engineering too. Even on a seemingly favourable terrain for the pikemen's squares, Romans could easily dig or build obstacles that would have made impossilbe to mantain the formation. That's an often overlooked topic. A battle vs a legion was not only a battle vs shield and short sword. It's a battle vs a military system that in no time could build fortifications, trenches, traps, and make a terrain impracticable for the enemy.
That doesn't mean that the Roman victory would be a given fact, obviously. Even the Romans had their bad days. But, assuming both the formations to have a capable commander, one that know how to get the best from his men, to me the legion had more possibilities.
1
-
*There could be, and had been used, multiple phalanxes. The pikemen had always more columns cause they came from different places, and, like for the oplite phalanx, the unity of a column depended from the fact that its members came from the same place and thrusted each other. Furthermore, among the Swiss, every column was free to decide wether to attack or rethreat. The coordination was scarce.
*To have different kind of soldiers into the same formation is not necessarily an advantage. If you have not enough pikemen to keep the enemy infantry at bay, and not enough swordsmen to fight them in close quarters, it will end in a slaughter anyway. Furthermore, phalangites had swords as well, and they had been easily defeated.
*The legion evolved a lot during the years as well. But, until the advent of firearms, I don't see advantages in the pikemen squares over the legion.
*Is like saying that, since a AA station can shoot down an attack helicopter, while a tank will have a hard time versus it, the AA station will easily win versus the tank. It doesn't work that way. The pikemen squares evolved exactly to counter the cavalry, but they generally never fought vs other kind od organized infantry. Legions instead fought vs many kind of organized infantry. Pikemen would have been nothing new to them, only a variation of the Oplite-Macedonian phalanx they knew well.
And, as said, there is the military engineering to take into account. At the Bicocca the Swiss were defeated mainly by the mere presence of a sunken road transverse to the battlefield. To make better obstacles would have been child play for the legionaries.
That's my opinion.
1
-
*Pike squares put togheter men of the same origin. For this cause, often there had been competition, and not cohordination, between the Swiss columns on the same battlefield.
*Gauls too fought in close formaftions of spearmen. Formations of spearmen were nothing new for the Romans. They saw it before.
*Is not a question of numbers, but of numbers for the same area. In a certain area there could be only a certain number of men. Too few pikemen, and the enemies will find their way to fight in close quarters, and at that point the pikemen will be only an hindrance. Too few swordsmen, and they will not make any difference. If combined formations would have been ALWAYS an advantage, the Romans would have kept the hasta between their squares, or the phalangites would have kept the oplites between theirs. They didn't cause it was not an advantage.
*I never said the Romans were invincible. I said: "That doesn't mean that the Roman victory would be a given fact, obviously. Even the Romans had their bad days. But, assuming both the formations to have a capable commander, one that know how to get the best from his men, to me the legion had more possibilities."
*Infact, once other organized infantries begun to appear on the battlefield, initially copying the Swiss (cause they were then the only example of efficient infantry available) the pikemen square formation begun to change, incorporating more and more other kind of soldiers (cause heavy cavalry was no more the primary threat) and resembling less and less a pikemen square, until the ones that remained more faithful to the original formation had been the first to be throughly and repeatedly beaten. It doesn't seems a demonstration of strenght of the pikemen squares vs other forms of infantry.
*The phalanx could too. There is simply a trade-off between lenght of the spear and number of lines of soldiers employed, and so the effectiveness of the defense, and time employed to change formation.
After the harquebuses became the main infantry weapon, the pike remained in use only to protect them from the cavalry charges. It had been abandoned as soon as the bayoned was invented, and a musket with a bayonet is a short spear. So short spears and no shields are the best formation ever? No. Simply shields were useless vs firearms.
And, as said, there is the military engineering to take into account. A battle vs a legion is not only a battle vs shield and short sword. It's a battle vs a military system that in no time could build fortifications, trenches, traps, and make a terrain impracticable for the enemy. Historically the pikemen squares did nothing similar, and did not cope well with natural or artificial obstacles.
Thanks to you.
1
-
The civilizations that relied on the shield-spear combination , almost always used a variation of the "shield wall" tactic, with the two opposite formations in close contact, pushing one vs the other, the shields locked, and the spear used to hit in the spaces left between the shields.
It's a formation that doesn't need much training to be effective. It only needs it's memebers so thrust eachoter (infact it was good for the citizens of the same city-state, ot the inahbitants of the same fiord).
On the other hand, this formation is not very deadly. The slaughters se saw in the Greek wars almost always happened during the cavalry's chase after one of the two formations was broken.
The Romans used the shield offensively. Their shields were not locked, but used to hit the enemy, or cover his field of view. In this case the gladium gives to the soldier more possibilities. He can instantly decide to hit the enemy's foot, or the leg, ot the shoulder, every square inch of bare skin, without having a long rod behind him to hinder his movements. Furthermore the gladium's blade can't be grabbed if the thrust fails to hit, and the gladium is lighter than the spear, so it's wielder can hit faster and more times first to be tired.
This way of fighting was much deadlier. A legion was not a pushing machine with a secondary thrusting capability. To go against a legion with the idea of pushing it back was like to go against a chainsaw with the idea of pushing it back.
On the other hand, this kind of formation needs much more training to be effective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Those are .380 ACP, or 9mm short. A less powerful cartridge that was designed to be used with blowback designs.
In theory, every cartridge can be fired by a simple blowback design, and 9mm lugers had been, and are, fired by blowback pistols (Astra 400, Hi Point...). But, in a blowback, the only thing that prevent the action to open too early (when there is too much pressure in the chamber, the walls of the cartridge are stuck to that of the chamber, and so to pull out the cartridge can cause a case rupture) is the weight of the bolt. The more powerful the cartridge, the heavier the bolt, and that means an heavier pistol, with an odd (top heavy) balance.
1
-
As the clip says, the Arditi were supposed to take a trench and hold it until they were relieved by regular troops. They were effective in this. They could, take a trench much more easily than a "human wave" assault, but that tactic could bring only to very limited territorial gains.
In 1917 (not first) the Germans developed the right tactic for the Stormtrooper to work more effectively "do not stop. Do not worry about the pockets of resistance that you leave behind. Keep going forward. Aim for the backlines, communication and supply lines".
In 1918, the Arditi used the same tactic against the Austrians.
It has to be noted, however, that the same Germans and Austrians tried to use the same tactic after nov. 1917, in the subsequent attempts to break through the Piave line, and failed, as the Italians at that point had learned to have much deeper defensive lines and less dependent to central command. So that, in June 1918, in the last attempt to broke the Italian defense (Battle of the Solstice) the Austrians had practically gave up to use that again, and resorted back to the massive frontal attack.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Roman society was sexist (like all the societies of that time), but not as sexist as the Greek one. Roman women could study (actually, until they worn the "toga praetexta", male and female children were considered equal), and, altough they couldn't have a political career, it was considered normal for them to have a political influence, talk with men that were not their relatives, participate in banquets with the men and so on. Roman women usually worn the "stola" that covered more than the tunic, but could leave arms, neck and even the shoulders uncovered. The choice to cover or not the hair was of them, we have depictions of Roman women with or without the hair covered by the "palla" (a kind of mantle).
1
-
1
-
To me the original ZB vz.26 was superior to the BREN, cause the BREN had to use rimmed cartridges. I think a shorter barrel VB vz. 26, with a 25 round magazine in 6.5 Carcano would have been the perfect LMG for the Italians in WWII.
That said, the Italians used the Lewis gun in WWI, it was not like they didn't know it. The Lewis Gun was a good weapon for WWI, but it was not by chance that everyone of its users, bar one, phased it out of first line use first than WWII (and it was not by chance that 20-25 round magazines was the norm for WWII LMGs). The Lewis gun was heavy, it didn't have a quick exchange barrel, it was extremely sensible to the slightiest trace of dirt, it jammed easily and jammings were very difficult to clear, it was difficult to field strip and clean, to replace the pan magazine required the servent to expose himself, since it had to be made while looking at the weapon from above. Even in WWI it had been noted that it was more an ambush weapon, when it could fire from at least partially protected positions, than a real attack weapon.
Unforunately there is a tendency, on the net, to sanctify some weapon and to damn some other only on the base of often repeated rumors, and regardless of what the contemporaries (those that had to DAILY use those) thought of them.
From Tactical and Technical Trends (the magazine of US Intelligence) No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942 "Use of Captured Italian Weapons":
"Breda Light Machine Gun". The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun. It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions. It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun. It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon. Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting.
Was the Breda 30 the best, or among the best WWII LMGs? Surely not. But it get the job done, and, on the field, the differencies with other designs were very limited. MInd that, to use the four spare barrels the Italians deemed necessary for the Breda 30 after having used it in combat, you have to fire at least 800 rounds in quick succession. that was what the Breda was capable of. Try it with a Lewis Gun, or a BAR for that matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
EthosAtheos What I was saying is that bottleneck carbine rounds like the .223 Rem are inherentlhy "clean", cause the small bore and the gas seal of the projectile make so that the drop in pressure of the gasses in the barrel is slow enough to give to almost all of the powder the time to burn completely.
Shotgun rounds instead are inherently dirty, cause the drop in pressure is almost instantaneous. For gasses, drop in pressure means drop in temperature, and so the powder have not the time to burn completely. Shotguns always produces more combution debris than carbines, so semiauto gas actuated shotguns needs to have some system to get rid of them.
To use a simple piston, short or long stroke, like that of the typical black rifle (AUG, Tavor, Beretta ARX 100/160 and so on), in the same conditions, that means for a shotgun action, would mean to have it stuck in debris after few hundred rounds.
On the other hand, it could be said that, to use a self-cleaning action, like that of the Benelli, for carbine rounds is an overkill, since even a simple piston can shoot some thousand of them without cleaning.
1
-
Blair Maynard
"I didnt start the MG42 comparison"
It was a comparison of kind of intended use. The intended use of both was that of point weapons. A lot of bullets on a little space in a short time. Not long bursts.
"The lesson of the MG42 is that "higher rate of fire is not always better". According to Wikipedia, the MG42's main drawback was ammunition consumption."
The Italians manufactured 836 million Glisenti rounds for 14.564 Villar Perosa manufacutred. More than 28.000 rounds for barrel. It seems that they were prepared for the consumption.
"If the MG42 gunner chose to use the 50-round belt "pods"..."
The standard lenght of the MG42 belt was 50 rounds. It could be lenghtened by linking several belts. But, again, you are comparing what's arguably the most avdvanced MG of WWII with WWI weapon.
"he would have to change magazines once every 50 rounds, while the Villar-Perosa gunner has to change magazines twice every 50 rounds."
Please, The 50 rounds drum of the MG42 was only a can that contained a 50 rounds belt. In order to change the drum the gunner had to: remove the spent drum, open the new drum, attach the new drum to the MG, open the action of the MG, extract the end of the belt from the drum, place the end of the belt on the action, close the MG.
It takes MUCH less time to change a pair of magazines, and you have not a spent belt hanging from the MG while you are running.
But, again, you are comparing what's arguably the most avdvanced MG of WWII with WWI weapon.
"Sure it would be a GREAT gun to defend narrow passages when a large number of troops try to get through at the same time, and you have the ability to spread or an angle your shots so that you arent putting all the bullets into the first person, but a Lewis gun would also be pretty useful there too"
And a Maxim, and a Schwartzlose, and a MG08, and a Hotchkiss... Have I said that others MG are useless? But the Villar Perosa has it's advantages. It's lighter, it's easier to manufacture and service, it's thougher (with the shield, the weapon is practically invulnerable to rifle-caliber projectiles), and its ROF makes it a point weapon.
"AND the Lewis gun..."
The Lewis gun was a very good LMG, but the Lewis Gun was heavy, expensive, sensible to dirt, It's drum was difficult to change (see vintage and modern clips. The servent can't really replace the drum while remaining in prone position. In the end, again, it was easeir and faster to replace a pair of magazines) its low ROF makes possible for the soldiers in the trench to return fire. The Lewis gun was really more apt for ambushes, when the gun could be placed in partially covered position, than to run on the battlefield and clear trenches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A nice comparison with the contemporary N33 Swiss rifle prototype you reviewed in another video could be done.
As far as it seems, the N33 aspect seems more "modern" and refined. Not surprisingly, since it haven't to reuse pieces of a 19th century rifle.
At first sight, the N33 action seems simpler too. Tilting bolt engaged in the back of the receiver vs rotating bolt with lugs engaged in helicoidal slots in the front of the receiver.
Then, in reality, the N33 bolt and carrier are pieces of fine watchmaking, with a lot of presumably costly machining involved, while the Mod.X bolt and carrier are as simple and crude as they can be.
The Mod.X has an effective safety, that seals the action and locks the bolt in forward position, on an empty chamber. The N33 safety is not as effective, since it don't seal the action, and allow the bolt to move back (enough to extract a round? In this case it would be even dangerous).
The Mod.X uses a dated Manlicher clip system that holds six rounds. The N33 uses a modern detachable magazine that holds... five rounds (military brass minds at work here "give too much rounds to a soldier, and he'll waste them!").
Unfortunately we didn't see the N33 working.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Extended 50 rounds magazines were used by the aerial SMGs. However this gun has never been designed to be an aircraft SMG. It only happened that the first 350 samples (of over 14.000 produced) had been given to the Air Force (that, at that time, was a branch of the Army) cause the Army wanted the weapon ready to be mass produced first to start to field it. The MGs used on the aircrafts had a different mounting, without the round plate and with normal aerial sights. The round plate was intended to be used on the field with the shield. When used with the shield, the plate was integral part of the protection, and the hole sight was the only opening in it.
As for the rate of fire, it serves the same purpose of the 1200 rpm ROF of the MG-42. they both had not been designed for suppression fire (heavy MGs were intended for that role), but to cover obligatory passages (through the barbed wires, or the mountain trails) and fire only when you actually see the enemy. Since the enemy is no stupid, he is visible only for a brief time, and, for this, a huge ROF is required to hit him.
In 1916 Capt. Bassi, creator of the Arditi, begun to use it, without the shield, to clear the enemy trenches. A stretch ot trench is 20m long at best. With a single burst of the Villar Perosa you can saturate it without even seeing. That's useful, since the assaults were often performed at night.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Today it could seem strange, but, in the first half of XX century, to design a detachable magazine that was at the same time so cheap to be discarded on the field, and so well and consistently built to not cause feeding problems was really an issue. The BAR and the BREN were plagued by jammings caused by defective magazines, ant those had been built by bountries that had not raw materials shortages. The British actually designed a fixed magazine for the BREN, loaded with two 15 rounds clips (they didn't adopt that, but it was really awkward compared to the Breda).
So, in 1924, FIAT came out with a LMG design (FIAT 1924) that had a fixed magazine on the left of the weapon, loaded inserting a 20 round clip (similar to that of the subsequent Breda) from the right. In exchange of a little time lost in recharging, all the feeding problems were avoided.
The flaw was that, to load a MG insrting a clip from one side, the gunner, or the servent, had to expose himself a little, and, laterally pushing the weapon, they can move it, loosing the line of sight.
So the Breda had the subsequent evolution. By tilting the "fixed" magazine, in exchange of a little more time lost in recharging, the gunner could load the gun (and change the barrel, for that matter) without changing position at all.
1
-
1
-
All the English sources maybe, but, when they deals with other nation's designs, and especially unusual ones they usually only repeat what someone said before.
More than 14.000 Villar Perosa MGs had been manufactured during the war. The box of this one is the number 4216. In 1915 Italy only had some hundreds of aircrafts they could have used this MG on. There had never been a huge number of Villar Perosa dismounted from aircrafts to find a use for. In reality the weapon was adopted in 1915 as "Pistola mitragliatrice FIAT modello 15" as a field weapon, and only the first 350 samples had been given to the Aviation (a small branch of the army at that time) cause the Army wanted the manufacturer to be ready to mass produce it first to field it.
As for the rate of fire, it serves the same purlose of the 1200 rpm ROF of the MG-42. they both had not been designed for suppression fire (heavy MGs were intended for that role), but to cover obligatory passages (through the barbed wires, or the mountain trails) and fire only when you actually see the enemy. Since the enemy is no stupid, he is visible only for a brief time, and, for this, a huge ROF is required to hit him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
a) From the fact that it had been used from the start as an infantry weapon, and in incredibly higher numbers than the few that had been used by the Air Force.
b) Cause the existing sources, already mentioned, that you prefer to ignore (see for example Vittorio Bobba, "Pistola mitragliatrice Villar Perosa Mod. 1915", in, Armigeri dl Piave, Quaderni di Oplologia n.11 2000, pp. 67-86) states that way. The same manual of the weapon ("Istruzioni per il funzionamento e la manutenzione della pistola mitragliatrice per cartucce regolamentari per pistola modello 1910". Note that this manual, even if stamped in 1916, was written first than the official adoption of the weapon, infact it doesn't contain what will be the official name "Pistola Mitragliatrice Fiat Mod. 1915, but identifies it as "submachinegun for the mil/spec cartridges of the M1910 handgun") Does not contain any hint of an aerial use, and the only sample images where the weapon is shown in an environment, are in infantry use with the shield mounted.
1
-
Yes, that shield. It's evident (even without looking at the manual) how the round plate was intended from the start to be used with it. Into the shield it's an integral part of the protection. Without the shield it is only an overweight link between the barrels. There is no need to do it so beefy only to ink the barrels.
As already stated, the first 350 MGs produced had been given to the Air Force. It's cause 350 MGs were a significative number for it, and an insignificant one for the infantry. The Army wanted the manufacturer to be ready to mass produce the weapon first to field it. Moreover, to use the MG on an aircraft required only to mount it and say to the observer-gunner how it worked. On the air, it was "everyone for himself". To use it for infantry use required to form the MG sections, train them to function as a squad, assign them to the battallions, make sure that the senior officiers knew the possibilities and limits of the weapons...
What were the original intentions of Revelli, is not significant. The weapon for which the manual had been printed, the weapon that had been tested and the weapon that had been adopted, was an infantry weapon. Maybe that he wanted to design the first aerial MG of the world, maybe he wanted to design the first cartridge-powered toothpick of the world. Where is the source that denegates the latter possibility? Sources are not speculations over the intentions.
1
-
1
-
The weapon that had been submitted to the army, the weapon that had been tested, the weapon that had been adopted and the weapon that had been fielded, was an infantry weapon.
the shielded "variant" was the only variant when the weapon was adopted, and is the only shown in the manual.
That the weapon was unsuited for ground use is your opinion. Not knowing who you are, I'm inclined to think that, between you and Col. Conso, the one that's ignorant about basic infantry combat isn't Col. Conso.
That "the weapon was very obviously not good in ground role" is, again only your opinion.
The people so quickly "realized that such high ROF was counter productive in a ground combat" that the MG-34 was designed to have 1000 rpm ROF and, after two years of war exprience, his replacement was designed to have 1200 rpm ROF.
What you call "the obvious thing", that's to put a single Villar Perosa Barrel on a Moschetto TS stock, could have been done after six month from the first deployment of the weapon, if indeed it was felt necessary. But it wasn't. Other modifications had been implemented (IE, the tubular mag retainer was replaced by a conventional spring release, the shield was discarded, a bipod was added...), but not that.
Cause, mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after throwing a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the machine gun in his hands to finish them, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Cause there was not any MP18, or anything similar. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had (and infact the Austrians copied it, DOUBLE BARREL AND ALL, first with the Frommer Stop M.17 and then with Sturmpistole M.18 THEIR FIRST SUBMACHINEGUNS WERE COPIES OF THE VILLAR PEROSA).
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to develop the OVP18 and the MAB18 (that, as said, were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not cause the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but cause it was so satisfactory that they produced more than 14.000 complete MGs, so almost 30.000 single barrels, without feeling the urge to modify it.
1
-
Infact, a substantial number of Villar Perosa remain, in various museums or privately owned. there are weapons more produced, more recently, that are harder to find.
For the others. At the beginning of 1918, the first samples of MAB18 were distributed among the troops. Suddenly the main users of the Villar Perosa, the Arditi shocktroops, found that there was a weapon more suited for the attack role than the Villar Perosa was, and began to insistently demand that their Villar Perosa were replaced with MAB18. The Villar Perosa literally went from being a perfectly fine and advanced weapons, to being obsolete, in a matter of weeks.
So, at the end of the war, the Italian Army had this stockpile of obsolete MGs, and had to figure out what to do with them.
Many were simply too worn out to be of any use (the Italians produced something like 836 millions of rounds for them, so more than 57.000 rounds for weapon, or almost 29.000 rounds for barrel), and were destroyed.
Other were stored, and were destroyed some year later (the Army is not a conservation institute. When something is useless it's simply scrapped).
Many of them were disassembled, the barrels separated, and transformed in OVP18 SMGs. There were so many of them infact, that Beretta was not able to do so that the more advanced MAB18/30 was adopted by the army. The OVP 18 was still in use at the beginning of WWII.
When, finally, the army adopted the further improved MAB38, the main part of the OVP18s were assigned to colonial troops, and ended their life in Libya and East Africa. Many were captured by the British, but, being substantially obsolete, and charged with a round that was not easily available, they had not interest in them and simply discarded them. So, the main part of the Villar Perosa, turned in OVP18s simply rusted out somewere in Africa.
Is not that I believe it was an effective weapon. Simply it was.
Sorry, I think that you have not enough knowledge of the operations on the Italian front in WWI to deal with the subject.
1
-
Infact it had been a widely produced weapon that was more effective than what was available at the time.
As I said. I dont' think you know much of the course of operations on the Italian front on WWI. To sum up the prformances of sereval armies over several years with a single word is pointless, for how much internetian commenters like to do that, especially when they know nothing about what they are talking of.
To think that a single fielded weapon could change the course of the war is... naif to say the least.
In WWI casualties, the part of the lion was that of the artillery. To an artillery shell is indifferent if the target has a Villar Perosa or his bare hands.
To use a SMG in attack, you have to come to see the enemy first. While you are running through the no man's land, what you have in you hands is indifferent.
Stalemates on WWI were related mainly on wrong tactics. Even when the necessity of specialized shock troops had been recognized, those of all the side of the conflict were instructed, when they conquered an enemy trench, to wait there for the regular troops to relieve them, trying to repel the counter attacks in the meantime. That obvioulsy led to huge losses to conquer few palms of land that often can't be taken for long. That situation lasted until late 1917 (when different tactics started to be used) and is not changed by the presence of a SMG.
Armies are not equipped with a single weapon. They usually have a mix that includes some exceptional weapon, some good one, some mediocre, and some abysmal, and, obviously, numbers counts. IE the French, among the major powers, had probably the worst long rifles of the war, but they managed to field an incredible number of Chauchat LMGs, and had a very good HMG in the Hotckiss. Italians, for about two years, had the only SMG of the war, but they fielded a comparatively small number of HMGs, and even less LMGs (also cause the Villar Perosa did part of the LMG job). So, even if the Villar Perosa, for some time, had been a very good weapon, the overall equipment of the Italian Army was not so exceptional.
"and when arming oneself..."
So it's very strange that the Austrians, after having seen the drawbacks of this weird Italian idea, instead to made the oh-so-obvious improvements, decided to field the second SMG of the world, and to make it identical to the first, with a SMG composed of two indipendent barrels.
But obviously that's cause the Austrians were idiots, that didn't knew how to fight like Iono Sama.
1
-
"The state Austria was" means nothing. To make a SMG like the Villar Perosa need double the resouces than to make a single barrel MG. So it's very strange that the Austrians, after having seen the drawbacks of this weird Italian idea, instead to made the oh-so-obvious improvements, decided to field the second SMG of the world, and to make it identical to the first, with a SMG composed of two indipendent barrels.
But obviously that's cause the Austrians were idiots, that didn't knew how to fight like Iono Sama.
What you are expecting from a battlefield you knows nothing of, has little importance. I already explained why a single field weapon couldn't change the course of the war. Your observations only mean "but I was expecting it could change it". Simply, in the gret scheme of things, SMGs are not so important.
Sorry, but I think you don't have a grasp not only on what happened on the Italian front, but on the scale of the operations of WWI at all. A production of 14.000 MGs is respectable, but not stunning. The Austrians manufactured several tens of thousands of Schwarzlose M1907/12 (that was, indeed, a very good weapon) during the war.
The Italians had not started with any "hard offensive". At the start of the war the army was not fully mobilized, and so it could not perform a full-scale attack. The early Isonzo battles were small-scale ones, and the Villar Perosa had not even been fielded yet.
1
-
"The state Austria was" means nothing. To make a SMG like the Villar Perosa need double the resouces than to make a single barrel MG. So it's very strange that the Austrians, after having seen the drawbacks of this weird Italian idea, instead to made the oh-so-obvious improvements, decided to field the second SMG of the world, and to make it identical to the first, with a SMG composed of two indipendent barrels.
Why the Austrians would have want to "increase the number of weapon with similar capability" if there was a so obvious way to make a better weapon with half the resources?
Evidently cause it was not so obvious.
And they initially didn't copy the design in the sense you mean. The Sturmpistole M18 (1918) was a Villar Perosa copy in 9mm Steyr, but the Frommer Stop M17 (1917) was a copy in the sense that it was mounted, had double barrel, ecc, but the action was original, so they designed it from scratch to have a weapon that could function like a Villar Perosa (and only later they resorted to completely copy the Italian design, probably cause it worked better).
So, in the end, your is not common sense. You are only guessing about things you dont' know.
It's interesting however how you come from asking "sources" to stating as matter of facts some misinformed guessing.
"And a single weapon like SMG wasn't much of an effect on the war? Maybe, maybe the Germans with their MP18..."
Infact they won WWI, didn't they? You are using an example that contraddict your tesis.
"But the most telling testament..."
Please. Is like saying that, since none copied the P51-D, that's a demonstration that the P51-D sucked. Spare me this nonsense, and avoid arguing with your straw men only to write something. Even a troll should mantain some dignity.
None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI, and I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
The Frommer Stop M17, like it could function in full auto with a 25 round mag in a double barrel configuration, could have functioned the same way mounted on a single stock, obtaining double the weapons with the same resouces. Why the Austrians would have want to "increase the number of weapon with similar capability" of the Villar Perosa if there was a so obvious way to make a better weapon with half the resources?
Evidently cause it was not so obvious. What is obvious is that they spent resources to have an equivalent of what their enemies had, cause they thought it was good.
Ahhh... so, if your reasoning does not applies. you change the terms of it, going from "copied" to "distributed" (usually for free. What a sign of success...).
Had the Italians gave avay their Villar Perosa for free at the end of WWI, you can take for granted that someone would have accepted them.
But, in the case of the Villar Perosa, there was still a way to use it in contemporary warfare. And that was done.
Dont' make a fool of yourself. The P-51s were given away so freely by the US precisely cause they knew they were rapidly becoming obsolete, and were happy to get rid of them.
Besides, US gave enough P-51 to equip a relevant part of an Air Force to few countries (many had very few samples of them) what for the others? Why none tried to copy it, if it was so good? Why none tried to produce P-51s for those countries that have had only four or five samples from the US, if it was so good? Again, cause the P-51 was rapidly becoming obsolete. It can't be used in it's original role of fighter, and could only be used to fill the gap in ground attack role until it was phased out.
And that of P-51 was only a case among many. Many optimal WWII designis had not been nor distributed nor copied (FW 190D? TA 152?). Simply, everyone knew that, for how much they had been good during the war, they were obsolete at the end of it. Infact the only WWII aircrafts that had been copied after it were the Me-262 (Sukhoi Su-9-11-13) and the B-29 (Tupolev Tu-4), that were the last technologies developed into it.
The Cavalier Mustang really demonstrates that none really wanted a P-51 after WWII. That the only idea of using it in it's original role of fighter was laughable (they, again, tried to sell it for ground attack). And even the one to use it against low-tech guerrilla fighters, by then, was frowned upon to say the least. In general, it had been a utter failure, with only 21 samples build, most of them given away by the US to Bolivia for free.
None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI, and I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"Something that's good..."
And that's the "law of Iono Sama for what's good?". Sorry, but it does not apply outside you head. There had been many succesful, efficient, and even ground-breaking tecnologies that simply disappeared after something better had been developed.
1
-
Simply, to demonstrate that the Villar Perosa was good there is the fact that it had been made in substantial numbers, it's use increased constantly thorughout the war, and it had been copied by the enemies.
Those are facts.
To demonstrate that it wasn't good, you have brought nothing other that figments of your mind.
About the Cavalier.
It seems that you didn't realized it. You just demonstrated infact that none that could have had ANYTHING else would have bought it, and even them wanted it only for free.
Hardly a demonstration that the P51 platform was sought after, after the war, isn't it?
"Generally speaking, a design that is actually good will survive..."
As said, that' true only in your head. There had been many succesful, efficient, and even ground-breaking tecnologies that simply disappeared after something better had been developed. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI, and I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
Again. To demonstrate that the Villar Perosa was good there is the fact that it had been made in substantial numbers, it's use increased constantly thorughout the war, and it had been copied by the enemies.
Those are facts.
To demonstrate that it wasn't good, you have brought nothing other that figments of your mind.
-To decide to ignore facts is your choice.
-Your statement on ROF is simply false. Modern SMGs, assault rifles and MGs have generally higher ROF than LMGs and MGs of the past, and just inferior (when they are inferior) than those of the Villar Perosa.
-General statements, often refuted, about "1st iteration" doesn't demonstrate anything. The Villar Perosa had been made in substantial numbers, it's use increased constantly thorughout the war, and it had been copied by the enemies. Those are facts. To ignore them only to keep on discussing is your choice.
It's obvious that you know nothing about ballistic and about the Glisenti cartridge. To use a 9mm para beyond 100m is a "questionable action" cause it's difficult to aim, especially with an handgun, not cause the bullet isn't dangerous. At 400m a 9mm Para still delivers an energy comparable to that of a .32 ACP at the muzzle. Are you implying that a .32 ACP at point blank isn't dangerous? With a FMJ bullet is an energy sufficient to completely go through a human body. The MAB38 in 9mm Para was widely know to be lethal still at 500m. Even a .22 LR can inflict serious wounds at 400m.
As for the cartridges, the 9mm Glisenti used in the Villa Perosa is in the same ballpark of the milder commercial 9mm Para loads. The ones that USCCo made for the Italian Army (89.460.000 of them during WWI) were charged with 4gr bullseye. Many reloaders use that charge for their 9mm Para and 45 ACP rounds.
1
-
"Being a fanboy..."
Unfortunately, you continue to write without knowing anything about the topic.
A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional.
IE, the FAMAS F1 had been made with an average ROF of 1050 rpm. When the French designed the refined G2 version, they INCREASED the ROF to 1150 RPM.
Cause they thought it was useful.
And the FAMAS uses a 25 round magazine.
And again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"and sure.. 9mm Glisenti"
Unfortunately you keep on writing without knowing anyting about ballistic.
it's raher funny however that you keep asking me to "go find" something, when you are incapable to find anything besides uninformed guess.
The 9mm Glisenti is a subsonic round. It comes out from the muzzle being just subsonic.
The 9mm Para is a supersonic round. It comes out from the muzzle being just supersonic (with conventional loads. Sometimes subsonic loads are used in 9mm Para, to enhance accuracy).
For the rest, they are identical.
For subsonic speeds, the drags increases with the cube of the speed.
But, when an object goes transonic, due to compressibility, the drag increases up to ten times that figure.
For that reason, supersonic bullets rapidly loose speed, until they become subsonic, and, from that moment, their speed decreases much more slowly.
A 9mm Para (124 grains, fmj) become subsonic in the first 30m of its trajectory. From that moment it has the same speed, and trajectory of a Glisenti bullet.
What a 9mm Para does at 500m, a 9mm Glisenti does at 470m.
Try better.
At the end of the day, everywere outside your head, the Villar Perosa had never been designed having aerial warfare in mind. It had been designed from the start as an infantry weapon, and had been used in that role with success, infact it had been made in substantial numbers, its use increased throughout the war, and it had been copied by it's enemies.
1
-
Oh, dear. Someone keep writing of things he don't know only to reply.
Obviously the Germans did not know what they were doing when they designed a 1200 rpm MG. The French did not know what they were doing when they designed a 1050 rpm assault rifle,and upgraded it to 1150 rpm in its second iteration. The Czechs did not know what they were doing whan they designed the 1150 rpm Skorpion Evo 3. The Koreans did not know what they were doing when they designed the 1100 rpm Daewoo Telecom K7. The Russians did not know what they were doing when they designed the 1000 rpm PP-91 KEDR, and so on... Despite all the first hand accounts, they had been terribly ineffective weapons. Cause Iono Sama says that high ROF is ineffective and undesidered, and only him knows weapons.
Unfortunately, in the real world, you know nothing about what you are writing about. Weapon designers and militaries that commissioned them are not fools, and know their job FAR better than you do.
"And oh please, you don't seriously..."
Sorry, but ignoring reality is non going to bring you anywere. A 9mm Glisenti bullet is still lethal at 300m. A 9mm Para is still plenty dangerous at 500m (to write "DEFINITELY" in capital letters does not make you any more believable, it only shows more clearly that you don't know anything about ballistic) A 9mm Glisenti bullet effectiveness only fall 30m short of a 9mm Para one. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"No one bothered..."
Except the ones that had to fight agains it, and that you are conveniently ignoring. Pretty funny indeed.
Again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"Wait what's that? Chauchat was made a lot as well? oh.. it was bad? What? they used it just because they got nothing else like it but the weapon was terrible?"
No. It was not. That's only another demonstration that you know nothing of what you are talking about.
The Chauchat, in its original calibre, was a reliable weapon, and it had been an INCREDIBLY effective design. Federov designed it's Federov Avtomat after being impressed by the volume of fire the Chauchats could deliever. It's effectiveness was exactly in ease of manufacturing. In a partly occupied country, the French managed to build FIVE TIMES more Chauchat than the number of Lewis Gun that UK and US made in the same time. On a one-vs-one basis, the Lewis Gun was a better design, but, five versus one, there was not comparison.
Sorry, but real world works differently than into your head.
1
-
Again. Your claims are based on knowing nothing about any weapon of any time. Automatic weapons of comparable ROF had been designed and used all the way, form the Villar Perosa to modern times. Other than MGs and assault rifles, I already gave you examples of SMGs with comparable ROF, but you know so little about the topic, that you didn't even understand they are SMGs.
Unfortunately for you, I don't have to "justfy" anything. You claimed that High ROF means that a weapon is ineffective, and you brought nothing to justify that claim. Instead there are many examples of successful designs with high ROF.
Keep stating uninformed bullshit about bullet effectiveness is not going to keep you anywere. A 9mm Glisenti bullet is still lethal at 300m. A 9mm Para is still plenty dangerous at 500m. A 9mm Glisenti bullet effectiveness only fall 30m short of a 9mm Para one. the fact that there are rounds that are better at that range doesn't change this fact. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
Again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
"sure, like..."
No, like all the SMG that had been mentioned in my previous post, and that you keep ignoring, raising the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too. As said: "A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional."
The fact that you keep ignoring the basics of ballistic does not change the fact that a 9mm Glisenti bullet is still lethal at 300m. A 9mm Para is still plenty dangerous at 500m. A 9mm Glisenti bullet effectiveness only fall 30m short of a 9mm Para one. the fact that there are rounds that are better at that range doesn't change this fact. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"But I have enough common sense..."
Unfortunately you have not common sense. What you have are uninformed guess that you keep taking as "proofs" of something, when they are disproved by widely available datas.
"And yep you can keep"
I know I can. Unfortunately for you, that's the reality, and you have brought nothing to disprove it.
1
-
"Disprove? the other way around, since the weapon had no..."
The fact that you don't know somethind is not a proof that it didn't exists (It seems is more a proof of the contrary though).
"and i already see it from the beginning that you completely avoid touching anything regarding effective range with Villar Perosa, and rightfully so"
Sorry, but in the real world I adressed completely the argument. The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proof" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts.
"Oh so you want argue..."
I have mentioned plenty of SMGs. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too. As said: "A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional."
And, again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
Again. That an high ROF makes a weapon ineffective is a thing that exists only in your head. A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Besides, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
"Or what? perhaps you'd like to suggest..."
You keep on being plagued by mental issues, since I already adressed the topic of how the weapon had been used, both in attack and in defense.
1
-
"but of course"
I have mentioned plenty of SMGs. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too.
You came up wit the nonsense that a high ROF is alone a thing that makes a weapon ineffective. Reality is that a ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional, and a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
"with the effective range of 9mm Glisenti with the effective range of 9mm Glisenti... which u constantly like to claim..."
Sorry, but in the real world I adressed completely the topic. The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you.
"A soldier using a Villar Perosa..."
Had an SMG in his hands, to clear a trench or stop an assault. The alternative was a bolt action rifle. The SMG was more efficient. Infact it had been copied.
"And of course... you would not touch..."
Sorry, but in the real world I adressed completely the topic. You came up wit the nonsense that a high ROF is alone a thing that makes a weapon ineffective. Reality is that a ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional, and a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
About touching something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
1
-
"sure you did, including machine pistol as well, but you totally won't touch their ROF right?"
I have mentioned plenty of SMGs and reported the rpm of all of them. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too.
"you address that the weapon..."
You came up wit the nonsense that a high ROF is alone a thing that makes a weapon ineffective. Reality is that a ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Anyway, even a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"but you can't... "
I plenty adressed both the topics. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too.
"What's next?"
Not much really, since you are incapable to bring new topics, and keep on repeating the old nonsense I already adressed. A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional.
"You've been making total sense so far indeed... trying to justify..."
Unfortunately for you, I don't have to "justfy" anything. You claimed that High ROF means that a weapon is ineffective, and you brought nothing to justify that claim. Instead there are many examples of successful designs with high ROF.
"and 9mm Glisenti being effective..."
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"Did you think that with Villar Perosa's rate of fire you could..."
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"did you seriously think... that because a weapon had a sights that indicates..."
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"WOW, i guess the Thompson..."
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts.
The .45 ACP has a slightly worse ballistic coefficient than the 9mm bullet of the 9mm para and 9mm Glisenti, so it loose energy first. But there are no dubt that a .45 ACP bullet is dangerous at 500 yards. The actual distance precision shooting record with a Colt 1911 (8 hits out of then aimed shots at a 36" bullseye, with iron sights) is of 600 yards.
1
-
"Might want to do something about copy..."
Since you only manage to reiterate topics I already adressed, is much simpler this way.
"So because someone..."
Is pretty funny how first you didn't know a pistol bullet was effective at long distances. Once I told you the probele was that, for you, it was impossible to aim at that distances. Now that I told you that its' possible with a weapon much more difficult to ain than a SMG on a support (a pistol with iron sights), you return back to your previous nonsense.
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"You have a very interesting definition of effective"
It's obvious that you know nothing about ballistic and about the Glisenti cartridge. To use a 9mm para beyond 100m is a "questionable action" cause it's difficult to aim, especially with an handgun, not cause the bullet isn't dangerous. At 400m a 9mm Para still delivers an energy comparable to that of a .32 ACP at the muzzle. Are you implying that a .32 ACP at point blank isn't dangerous? With a FMJ bullet is an energy sufficient to completely go through a human body. The MAB38 in 9mm Para was widely know to be lethal still at 500m. Even a .22 LR can inflict serious wounds at 400m.
As for the cartridges, the 9mm Glisenti used in the Villa Perosa is in the same ballpark of the milder commercial 9mm Para loads. The ones that USCCo made for the Italian Army (89.460.000 of them during WWI) were charged with 4gr bullseye. Many reloaders use that charge for their 9mm Para and 45 ACP rounds.
"All you've been doing with SMG..."
...Is demonstrating to you that the fact that an high ROF makes a weapon ineffective is a thing that exists only in your head. A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Anyway, even a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
It's replacement...
Again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
"They are all also much more competent than you..."
They are. Infact It's not me that is questioning their work without knowing anything of the topic he is writinga about. It's you.
"which they will state clearly NONE of which are of course foolish enough to claim maximum ballistic range"
To claim that 400 or 500 m are the maximum ballistic range only further demonstrates that you know nothing about ballistic. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"You also seems to have a case of selective attention..."
The fact that an high ROF makes a weapon ineffective is a thing that exists only in your head. A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Anyway, even a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
"Best SMG of WW1?"
I already suspected that you are not fully capable to understand what you read. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"But oh no..."
Unfortunately for you, this topic had been already fully adressed. The fact that it was possible to do better does not imply the SMG was ineffective when it had been used in any place that isn't your head. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
"LOL, and did you think i did not see that edit..."
Another thing that exists only in your head. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"Oh boy, you might have a hard..."
It takes two to tango. You have something for being owned evidently.
"And unlike say a Garand..."
It was you that kept saying nonsense about the ineffectiveness of the weapon basing that on the fact that it had some charateristics that had not ben used after it. Reality is that an unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine. The Villar Perosa instead was the first SMG, so there was not "plenty" of others to confront it, but in it had been copied by the second, so it's charateristics were evidently not considered a hindrance, and were even envied.
"except you just did"
You should really do something for your mental issues. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"And of course... until now..."
ONly in your head the fact that it was possible to do better means that the weapons was uneffective when it had been used. Reality is that an unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine. The Villar Perosa design was obsolete at the end of WWI, but it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"You can also keep dreaming..."
Your mental issues continues to play tricks to you. I clearly stated that the Villar Perosa was not a saturation weapon.
1
-
"Sure, we'll just pretend that..."
It's nota question of "pretend". None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"Villar Perosa is not a saturation weapon you say"
I said from the start the use it was destined.
"And yet you obviously focused on claiming..."
It had been you that, not knowing anything about ballistic, questioned the sights on the weapon. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"Are you suggesting that they fired the weapon in an accurate firing..."
as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"And so it's a weapon not meant for saturation..."
Infact the MG42 was not meant for saturation, and had a very high ROF. We have already adressed the topic.
"Which incidentally you kept claiming that it is not a flaw"
I don't need it. Only in your head a single flaw makes a weapon ineffective, so you are desperately search for one. Reality is that an unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine. The Villar Perosa instead was the first SMG, so there was not "plenty" of others to confront it, but in it had been copied by the second, so it's charateristics were evidently not considered a hindrance, and were even envied.
"Instead you tried to claim "unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective" so you DO recognize that the ROF on it was in fact a flaw,"
No. I'm telling you that only in your head a single flaw makes a weapon ineffective. Reality is that an unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine. The Villar Perosa instead was the first SMG, so there was not "plenty" of others to confront it, but in it had been copied by the second, so it's charateristics were evidently not considered a hindrance, and were even envied.
"And then you tried to use Garand ... this during a time when basically every single other rifle in service, all used clips..."
It had been you dthat come up with the nonsense that, if the subvsequent weapons had been done differently, than the previous one had to be ineffective. But that's true opnly in your head. Reality is that even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
When the Villar Perosa was used, there was not "any other SMG". It had been the first, and the second was copied from it. So it's charateristics were even envied.
"the ROF is not an issue, using MG42..."
I have mentioned plenty of SMGs. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too.
A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Anyway, even a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
"in order to justify..."
Unfortunately for you, I don't have to "justfy" anything. You claimed that High ROF means that a weapon is ineffective, and you brought nothing to justify that claim. Instead there are many examples of successful designs with high ROF.
"If the weapon is "efficient"..."
...it had been made in substantial numbers, its use increased throughout the war, and it had been copied by it's enemies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To make it shoot from a mag and be select fire, but none of the thecnical solutions had been reused.
The MB59 actually "made it right". It uses a proprietary mag that feed reliably. A straight op rod, more apt to full auto fire than the original bent one. The selector is completely different, it links the op rod with the sear, so that, only when the action is in full battery, it releases the hammer. That way the action is safer and more reliable, and the ROF is reduced to 750 RPM. It has a muzzle brake that compensates the recoil, the muzzle flip and the spin that the bullets engaging in the rifling give to the rifle (the last seems a minor issue, but it's actually what makes the bursts in 7.62 battle rifles uncontrollable, since the shooter instinctively tends to compensate the muzzle flip, but can't compensate the spin, so the burst widens in a spiraliform pattern). Every rifle was provided with a bipod, to function as a squad LMG when needed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's because people are people that we can't be sure if the city on Hisarlik hill is historical Troy.
We know it was considered that in Hellenistic and Roman period, but we also know that it was a tourist attraction. In Hellenistic period, in "Troy", there were, IE, the tombs of heroes that didn't even die there.
There's no guarantee that the entire city wasn't a tourist trap.
The city had been abandoned at the start of the Iron Age. It's entirely possible that, at the end of the "Greek dark age", when the poems on the Trojan war had become famous, people started to search for the city sung there in the region of the Troad, but the memory of the real location had been lost. Then the people that lived around Hissarlik hill reasoned "look at the fine ruins we have here. The shore, the rivers, all seems pretty similar to the poem. And all these people are searching for Troy. Let's THIS be Troy." and proceeded to make Santa Claus' village. Then Santa Claus' village influenced the later narrations of the poem, so the location and the poem became even more alike.
Infact the location is pretty similar, yes, but none of the Hisarlik's city strata really line up with the events of the poem. We have to mix up two separate levels to have a big city in the Mycenean period (but destroyed by an heartquake, not a war), and a city destroyed by a war (but too late for the Myceneans to have done that).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marvelfannumber1 Sorry, but numbers are relevant in history. And the temporal distance between the events is FUNDAMENTAL. It's not like history is independent from the time, and time is counted with numbers.
As already said, I don't need a "counter point". That the Ottoman Empire would not have existed without the fourth crusade is not an "argument", is an unsupported statement, and the "numbers" you dislike so much are there to say that the correlation is not so sure as you like to believe. I have not to prove that you are wrong. You made a statement ("the fourth crusade caused the rise of the Ottoman Empire") your is the burden of the proof.
You said "Venice really shot themselves in the foot with that whole 4th Crusade thing, a pretty shortsighted powergrab which both created and destroyed their naval empire."
Reality is that Venice was still holding part of the gains of the 4Th Crusade when the Republic was ended not by the Ottomans, but by Napoleon. The naval empire too was not destroyed by the Ottomans. Venetian naval strenght continued after the one of the Ottomans reached its peak and declined. Infact, while they needed allies to win at Lepanto, the Venetians single handedly won almost all the naval engagements in the subsequent Cretan War. What ended the Venetian naval empire had not been the confront with the Ottomans, but the shift of the balance of trade towards the Atlantic, and so the marginalization of the eastern mediterranean. Venice didn't got weaker compared to the Ottomans (to whom they could still seize the Peloponnese at the end of 17th century), but compared to the other European powers.
1
-
@marvelfannumber1 Your statement: "Well using data would be relevant if we were either having a math-focused conversation, or if we were having an economic conversation, maybe even a political conversation. But in a historical conversation? Using numbers and dates as your primary argument is just not very valid of a counter point."
Sorry, but numbers are relevant in history. And the temporal distance between the events is FUNDAMENTAL. It's not like history is independent from the time, and time is counted with numbers. What I said to you FURTHER is that the Ottoman Empire would not have existed without the fourth crusade is not an "argument", is an unsupported statement, and the "numbers" you dislike so much are there to say that the correlation is not so sure as you like to believe. I have not to prove that you are wrong. You made a statement ("the fourth crusade caused the rise of the Ottoman Empire") your is the burden of the proof, so YOU can't ignore numbers.
That said, The Byzantine empire lost Anatolia, and big or small parts of it, several times before the 4th crusade. The Ottoman Empire raised because of the 4th Crusade, or because of the Empire being unable to ward it's borders? There wouldn't have been a series of wars with it's neighbours without the Crusade? The Empire would have had 100 Years to "repel the Turks" or to decay? Or to exhaust itself in border wars anyway? You took too many things for granted. You built an ucronia, and now like to believe it would have been real. But it doesn't work like that.
Then, after having talked of straw men, you built one. My statement: "Reality is that Venice was still holding part of the gains of the 4Th Crusade when the Republic was ended not by the Ottomans, but by Napoleon". Are you able to read? "PART". Was Venice still holding part of the gains of the 4th crusade when the Republic was ended by Napoleon? YES.
As said: The Ottomans started to be a issue for Venice 200 years after the sack of Constantinople (and initially they were a minor one, see the Battle of Gallipoli, that the Venetians won easily in 1416). Venice was still holding parts of the gains of the 4th Crusade still 500 years after the sack.
To have eliminated one of the intermediaries (so to have better prices and higher profits), annexed a good part of its wealth, and being still profiting of the operation after HALF A MILLENNIUM seems like AN HELL of a business. What financial plan predicts positive outcomings for five centuries?
That the Ottomans stripped Venice of much of the gains of the 4TH Crusade, STARTING ONLY 200 YEARS AFTER THE SACK and and had not stripped all of them STILL AFTER FURTHER THREE CENTURIES means that the investment had been INCREDIBLY PROFITABLE FOR AN INCREDIBLY LONG TIME. The Ottomans never "dominated" Venice, sorry. They very slowly eroded the gains of the 4th Crusade, but ANY YEAR ANY OF THOSE GAINS LASTED, IS A YEAR OF PROFIT. If the profits are diminishing, that doesn't mean that the ones already gained disappear. It's like saying that the entire Byzantine Empire had been worth nothing, because it ceased to exist.
BTW, from "having an influence" to be "part of the territory" there is a BIG difference.
I'm sorry for the "Ottoman historians". That Venice needed the help of the Holy League to win at Lepanto in 1571, but single handedly won almost all the naval engagement in the Cretan War (1645-1669), being able to several times blockade the Dardanelli for months is a fact. The naval strenght of the Ottomans declined first than the Venetian one. What ended the Venetian naval empire had not been the confront with the Ottomans, but the shift of the balance of trade towards the Atlantic, and so the marginalization of the eastern mediterranean. Venice didn't got weaker compared to the Ottomans (to whom they could still seize the Peloponnese at the end of 17th century), but compared to the other European powers.
Don't worry. your refusal to use "numbers" in your supposed "historical analysis" gave me the impression that your knowledge is at "romance" level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's an often repeated mith. The Littorios almost always fired few shots at extreme ranges. Had they hit something, it would have been by far the longest range hit in history.
Only in two occasions they fired more shots.
At Gaudo the Vittorio Veneto was steaming at 28 knots and trying to hit, from 23 to 26 kms distance, two light cruisers that were entering and exiting smokescreens and only manuvering to not be hit. At that time it had been already amply demonstrated that it was practically impossible to hit a ship that was only manuvering to not be hit, even at far closer distances and with far more rapidly firing guns (see, IE, the battle of the Espero convoy) if not firing thousands of shells.
The second battle of the Sirte had been fought in a storm, and the Littorio had been the most accurate ship of both parties in that occasion.
The pictures taken by the Brits at Gaudo show, for Vittorio Veneto's salvo, a consistent single turret spread of 1.7% of the distance. Any navy of the time would have considered 2% acceptable to good in action.
US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of peacetime tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal, will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and reduces the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was supposed to be a four pronged attack, from the right to the left, Italian infantry column, italian tank column, German tank column, German Infantry column (so infantry at the wings, and tanks at the centre). Unfortunately both the infantry columns had been blocked by Allied armored units (but that was expected, since, that way, they stopepd those units too and prevented them to act against the Axis tanks) while the German tank column (that had heavier Tiger thanks) was slowed down by the charateristics of the terrain, so they reached the shore, but too late to link with the Italian column that reached the city before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's more than physics doesn't change with ethnicity. A 5.56mm NATO bullet shot by an European soldier doesn't become a 7,62x54R one when it enters in a Indian body.
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
1
-
1
-
A 1st century 9000 men (to keep the numbers even with the English at Agincourt, even it it would have been a very little army for Roman standards) strong Roman army would have been equipped with 90 carroballiste, capable to throw a 132cm long projectile to 650m, so they would have had the range advantage even vs the English longbows. Almost every legionary would have been equipped with a 400m range (so on par with a longbow) capable sling. The 1st century lorica segmentata was a very good protection against projectiles (it had been said that it had been deeloped to cope with Parthian composite bows), much better than anything the average English longbowman had (they were not unarmored, but the quality of protectioon varied wildly).
Romans used several times the anti cavalry "square" formation (it was round in their case) using the pila as spears. Horses doesn't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. Long pikes obviously were an advantage but, in medieval history, several times infantry formations less disciplined than the Romans, and without Swiss pikes, resisted to cavalry charges (IE at Legnano). Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt.
Mind too that most depended on the time too. Had the Romans some hour to build even very simple fortifications, even only the stimuli and campus liliorum (field traps for cavalry), the cavalry charge would have been complitely neutralized.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianmoore1164 Your attempts at seeming intelligent are becoming more and more funny.
You don't need to mention yourself, poor fella. For an ad hominem attack, an often tried tactic by people that, like you, are not very good at communication (other than knowledge about materials), you only need, like you did, to mention your interlocutor, attacking the charateristics or authority of the writer without adressing the substance of the argument. That's what you did.
Now, since you are clutching at straw You can say you intended "You rather obviously have never been in combat, and I have neither." You would be even more hilarious than you have already been.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is difficult to find datas for Germanic people of Roman times, but Viking males, form skeletons found (usually we find burial of high-class people, so the average height is probably overestimated, since in ancient times they tended to eat better and so be taller than the average peasant) had an average height of 172cm. We already talked about legionaries but, from skeletons, the average male population of Pompeii and Herculaneum (and there are no class differencies there, since they all perished in a natural disaster) was of 168cm, so the Germanic people were probably on average taller than the Romans, but nothing so dramatic.
Several Roman sources said of one or another Gaul or Germanic population, that they were very tall, but often the Romans first seen members of the warrior elite. People that eat very well since childhood, and so were taller than the average.
For the Romans, once you were a citizen, you were a citizen, period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLoyalOfficer First crusade, Jerusalem had been taken only with the arrival of the Genoese, among them the crosbowmen, that neutralised the Mameluc archers.
Battle of Parma, 1248. Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II decisively defeated by the Lombard League (lost the entire army, camp, crown, banner, scepter and seal), among them, 600 Genoese crossbowmen.
And obviously several naval battles (Meloria vs. Pisa, Curzola vs. Venice...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NSX, like the F348, F328 and F308 (and all the 8 cylinder Ferrari) WAS NOT A SUPERCAR.
All of them were sporty two seaters of the same class of the 911. Even in the '70s you needed more than 300hp to make a supercar (the Miura, the first supercar, had, the Countach had, the 512BB had, even the Pantera had). Ferrari's supercar back then was the 512TR, (that succeeded to the 512BB), and it's competitor was the Diablo.
To make even more clear what the real target was, the NSX was even priced like the 911. It was not intended to be exclusive. It simply didn't sell. Almost half of the total production of the car in its 15 year lifespan had been made in the first year, because Honda grossly overestimated his potential sales, and so the plant that assembled them was way overbuilt.
The interior argument is wrong. It's not the shape that makes a luxury interior, it's the materials, and the NSX was ergonomic and well built, but the materials were noting exceptional in respect to what Porsche and Ferrari used even in their sporty two seaters (not supercars), like many reviews of the time pointed out.
The Merak, like the Urraco and the Ferrari/Dino GT4 was obviously not supercar. They were 2+2 mid engined sport cars, meant to be daily drivers. Maserati's supercar back then was the Bora.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rotwang2000 Several times pike or pike and shot formations had been defeated by cavalry, but I don't know of instances where they had been defeated by cavalry charging directly into the formed square. Cavalry had to use other tactics, based on its superior maneuverability (attack without giving the pikemen time to form the square, bypass the pike formation and attack the camp, disrupt the square by other means before the charge...).
However is not correct to state, as often did, that the pike killed the heavy cavalry. In reality pure pike formations and heavy cavalry, in western Europe ended at the same time, around 1520 in the Italian Wars, both killed by artillery and arquebusies (while the light cavalry survived, since it was more apt to use those flanking tactics). In Eastern Europe heavy cavalry survived for long (Winged Hussars) even in the age of pike-and-shot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Samurai was a personal service, and the personal samurai of Nobunaga Oda should have committed seppuku after his death.
Obviously it was common for a daymo to pass some of his samurai to his relatives, especially sons, if it was needed. He could do it at any time, even moments before his death, but it wouldn't have made sense in that occasion, since in the Honnō-ji incident Oda Nobunaga only had about 30 people with him, while Nobutata, already a famous general, had 2000 warriors with him, so he didn't really need the adjunctive "protection" Yasuke would have provided.
It seems more probable that, not being a samurai, but being loyal to the Oda clan, with the death of Nobunaga, Yasuke reached Nobutada to help him in his last stand.
But it can be speculated instead that, not wanting his friend to die there, and knowing that, for a Christian, suicide was a capital sin, Nobunaga had simply said to Yasuke "you are the samurai of Nobutada now".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studies performed after WWI concluded that the infantry bolt action rifle had been the least useful among all the weapon issued to infantrymen. Pistols, hand grenades, even knives and showels had been more effective. The recomendation for the Italian Army was to switch to "automatic muskeets" for all the infantrymen bar designated marksmen. So the Terni arsenal developed the Terni M1921 along with an intermefiate power round for it https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/raigap/40496274/928974/928974_original.jpg
The rise od fascism, economic considerations, and the conservatism of the Army prevented its adoption, but the Army still wanted a semiauto rifle in a full blown cartridge, since that was anyway a big improvement over the bolt action rifle (enemies rarely show up one at a time at 1.5 sec. distance, to give you the time to operate the bolt and realign).
The bolt and trigger assemblies of the Scotti rifle are actually simpler than those of a Carcano rifle (that's a very simple bolt action). Yeah, there is the gas piston, but the increase of complexity is negligible. Already in 1915, Maj. luigi gucci noted that, in adopting a semiauto rifle for the army, the price of the rifle was, in the end, marginal if compared to the price of the ammos for it (then, the price of a brand new semiauto rifle, not a conversion was estimated in 60L, that of a single Carcano cartridge was 0.1L, so a semiauto rifle costed like 600 cartridges).
Belt fed LMGs in the '30s were not a thing (the first one was adopted in 1938). Even the MG34 and MG42, when used in the LMG role, had many limitations (IE to change a 50 rounds belt requires more time than to change a pair of box magazines, so limiting the practical ROF). It required several decades after WWII for the concept of "general purpose machine gun" to impose itself, and it's not a definitive victory (see the Marines replacing the M249 with the M27).
1
-
1
-
IE Col. Edoardo Versè "Impiego tattico delle unità di fanteria dotate del nuovo armamento". Already in the “T batallion” model of 1918 the infantry rifle was relegated to a secondary role, while the MGs and SMGs had the main one (the end of the war stopped the implementation). Simply the infantry rifle was not used by shock troops, IE the Arditi, during the attacks, used SMGs, hand grenades, knives, pistols, but not rifles. While in defense it had a marginal effectiveness in respect to machineguns.
“Semantic” is to point to an HMG and say “that’s an LMG”. It’s not, it remains an HMG. “Semantic” is to say that the “MG34 was a 100% mature design in 1934” (probably because it has a “34” in the name). It was not until 1938.
The Madsen LMG weighted 9.07 kg, the Chauchat weighted 9.07 kg. The SIA 1918, adopted the same year of the MG08/18, weighted 10.7kg, and had a quick exchange barrel already. Those were not “unreasonably modern standards”.
Garand started to develop his rifle pretty late, took a wrong turn, had to change caliber, took another (minor) wrong turn and so had a pretty long development. But already the Carcano semiauto conversion of 1912 was deemed to be serviceable. Other projects had been hampered not by the technology, but by unreasonable requests of the military (muzzle blast actuated instead of gas actuated, possibility to be used as bolt actions…).
I never bashed machineguns.
You are again talking like the Garand was the only semiauto rifle ever made, and yes, “logistic considerations” includes the fact that, after WWI, there were shitloads of bolt actions available.
To say that the Scotti is not an example of something the way it was, but it would have been having the gas piston in another position is utter nonsense. Scotti produced a perfectly serviceable LMG in 6.5 Carcano, using the same gas system (it was used as tank gun until it was replaced by the Breda 38 in 8mm Breda) The short stroke gas piston was perfectly feasible even with WWI metallurgy, it was only a question of thinking of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Both the MG34 and MG42 are mainly delayed blowback actions, with a secondary help by the short recoiling barrel, and the Vickers unlocks the barrel from the bolt way before the barrels stops, allowing the bolt and the barrel to start to separate slowly.
None of them is a pure short recoil design. Like that of an handgun, or that of the Breda M30. They have a short recoiling barrel, a bolt, AND some other system (two piece bolt with the parts recoiling at different speed, toggle, ecc...)
That's revealing in itself. A pure short recoil action is simpler than the systems used in MG34, MG42, Vickers and so on. Why had they to complicate the designs, if a pure short recoil action can work flawlessly?
Cause it doesn't work so flawlessly, so you have to invent something to make it work.
Obviously gas operated MGs can have extraction issues, and lever delayed blowback can have them, and simple blowbacks can have too. The fact that pure short recoil actions and long bottleneck cartridges doesn't match well doesn't mean that only short recoil actions can have extraction issues. But in those cases is really question of bad tuning.
The HS 404 is a "gas unlocked recoil operated" design. The gas doesn't cycle the action, but simply unlocks the bolt, and then the residual pressure of the gasses in the barrel cycle the action. It's not impossible to make a similar design work without oiling the cartridges (The Scotti action worked the same way, only with the bolt rotating instead of tilting, and only the Mod. X rifle required oiling, while all the MGs didn't), but to find the perfect timing to open the action (when there is enough pressure in the barrel to cycle the action and not enough to damage the cases) is more difficult than in a straight gas-operated weapon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@changeshifter4852 "Only"?
I would be grateful that the EU froze that money in first place, BECAUSE NONE FORCED THEM and, if the EU decides to give a single cent of that money to Ukraine, IT'S A GIFT, NOT A DUE.
Let's be clear. IT'S NOT UKRAINIAN MONEY. It's money that the EU can decide to give Ukraine, in part or all, OR NOT and, to give it, even in part, many EU countries have to force their legislations, because they are functional democracies, where judiciary is an indipendent power, and governments can't decide of other's properties at will.
So let's start to not pretend to be outraged because the EU is deciding to give some dozen billions/year to Ukraine.
1
-
@changeshifter4852 I'm not really sorry if this angers you, because it seems you are doing anything you can to be angered. "changing the deal"? "profiting"?
The only deals that had been changed are those with Russia, because it's Russian money that had been frozen, the only one that's talking of the EU council "profiting" of the seized money is you, and those money had NOT being frozen saying they would have been given to Ukraine as they are. If you imagined that, it's nobody else's fault.
I already explained you that those countries are functional democracies, where judiciary is an indipendent power, and governments can't decide of other's properties at will. If you, as it seems, are not able to understand how a democracy with an indipendent judiciary works, there's nothing I can do for you. I can only advise you to take some lesson of civics before talking of these arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's wrong is to declare that "they murdered" without actual evidencies.
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Infact I provided sources that you can check if you want to learn more about the subject instead of childlishly trying to correct who knows better. You provided nothing.
I said: ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight." not "lighter than a M1 carbine" so you can explain your supposed argument to someone else. A blowback rifle that was not really made to be the lightest possible and fired a substantially more powerful cartridge than the .30 Carbine, other than having been sold commercially, weighted less than the M1A1 thompson and and M3 Grease Gun, whose weights were considered acceptable in WWII, so, again, ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight."
The fire rate doesn't count in a semiauto firearm. Any 9mm browning system pistol would fire at over 1000 RPM in full auto, someone cares? Besides, there are other systems than the weight of the bolt to slow down the fire rate of a gun if needed.
What part of "The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle)." was that hard to understand?
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Another childish attempt to difert form the subject.
Again, I said: ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight." If you assumed it was a full auto gun it was your fault not mine. Again there are other systems than the weight of the bolt to slow down the fire rate of a gun if needed.
You didn't provide any source. Also you shown that "you clearly don't understand physics" since, contrary to what you considered a physical necessity, the Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP.
Besides, the Winchester 1907 rifle had been modified by the French to fire in full auto in WWI. It fired at perfectly reasonable 600-700 RPM.
Had you known more of the subject before typing you would have known that many versions of the Thompson had been made, from 600 to 1500 RPM. the M1A1 fired at perfectly reasonable 600-700 RPM (what an "absurdly large firerate"!).
I can explain you how it's possible for the automatised Winchester 1907 and the Tommy gun to have the same fire rate despite the comparatively lighter bolt of the Winchester 1907 ("comparatively" means that it was lighter in respect to the power of the cartridge) if you want to understand a little physics for a change.
1
-
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Your is a faith not a source.Your faith had been already disproved by the fact that the Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP. Have you other means to prove your faith is right?
The Winchester 1907 had been a Police departments' favourite well into the '30s, many samples are still around and in working order despite being over 100 years old. Your theoretical considerations, based on a very superficial knowledge of physics, that mistake guessing for necessities, do not match reality.
Because you see plenty of new designs in .30 Carbine too, doesn't you?
To know why blowback is less suited to fire .223 Rem or 7.62X39 in comparison with the .30 Carbine and .351 Winchester, you should learn something about the magical world of chamber pressure. I can teach you if you want to understand a little real physics for a change. Besides, many good, very good and even exceptional actions are no more used for a reason or another (I can provide examples if you are interested in learning something).
To be a good design it only needs to safely going bang and reliably cycling, and it did both. Many samples are still existing and working.
To decide if a firearm can safely operate with normal loads, it doesn't fire thousands, and not even hundreds, of proofloads.
You understood that this video was about a 4 pounds carbine in 9mm didn't you? Tons of perfectly safe and lighter 9mm carbines had been made. How can you pretend to be taken seriously if you try to extend the problems of a faulty design to another one that you don't know?
1
-
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Aaaand you are still here. Not that there had never been any doubt. It was not really that difficult to guess that all that you wanted to have is the last word.
You are (conveniently) mistaking PSI with CUP and mixing them. Saami max pressures for .30 Carbine and .351 SL are 40.000 cup and 45.000 cup respectively so, surprise surprise, .351 SL, other than being a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND worked at a HIGHER PRESSURE.
I'm glad you finally decided to learn something. Let me introduce you to the magical world of chamber pressures and how it relates to blowbacks.
In a blowback system, the base of the cartridge starts moving backward the same moment the bullet starts moving forward. Is largely that initial movement that allows the entire action to work. But, since the walls of the cartridge are stuck to the chamber by the same pressure, the integrity of the cartridge, until the pressure into the barrel drops to safe level and the cartridge can be entirely extracted, depends, other than the weight of the bolt:
1) on the capacity of the brass at the base of the cartridge to stretch without rupturing until the pressure drops to safe level,
2) on the pressure that, if low enough, can allow some backward movement of the brass (the lower, the better),
3) on the same pressure that tend to cause the rupture the cartridge (the lower,the better).
So, the higher the pressure, the more difficult is to use a blowback action, because an higher pressure narrows the margin in which the base of the cartridge initially moves enough to cycle the action, but not enough to have a case rupture. That happens largely INDIPENDENTLY FROM THE POWER OF THE CARTRIDGE. Low pressure rouds can have high power, but generally pay for this by being bigger. Modern propellants and metallurgy allowed to have very high pressure cartridges in respect to those of the late 19th early 20th century.
.223 rem and other modern cartridges are generally high pressure cartridges, even the ones that produces moderate energy, and that leaves a more little margin for safely operate a blowback action.
That's not the case of the .30 carbine, that worked at lower presures than the .351SL that was safely used in a blowback rifle that weighted less than a .45 ACP SMG.
Please. Really you want to be taken seriously with arguments like "N***s would have done it"? With a completely different, bottleneck, cartridge? That's not even close to be a demonstration of anything. N***s didn't make a simple blowback handgun for the 9X18mm Ultra. It had been done after the war. They didn't make a simple blowback handgun for the 9X19, but used, ordered and paid the Astra 600.
The Winchester 1907 had been a Police departments' favourite well into the '30s, many samples are still around and in working order despite being over 100 years old. We were talking about .30 Carbine not other cartridges used in WWII in other rifles. How many powers used a similar cartridge DIRECTLY DERIVED FROM A CARTRIDGE SPECIFICALLY CREATED FOR A BLOWBACK ACTION during WWII?
My source is backed by reality, your faith is disproved by that. The Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP. Have you other means to prove your faith is right?
I appreciate Ian, but don't believe something just because Ian says it. He's mostly right, but i've noticed many mistakes over the years, and others did as well.
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Again, I didn't search for you, did I? For me this discussion could have very well not even started.
The .30 carbine had been developed starting form the .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge used in the Winchester 1905 rifle that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle. The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup). The Winchester 1907 rifle was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP that had been used in WWII (and the M3 for decades later). So what exactly prevents the .30 Carbine from being fired in a blowback firearm of reasonable weight?
Are you sure you are looking at the right rifle? The 1907 had a merely 2" longer barrel than a M1 Carbine (actually longer barrels are worse for blowbacks, because it takes the bullet more time to exit from them) and THE ACTION IS REALLY SHORT. The magazine is right in front of the trigger and the action doesn't extend behind the trigger. Do you think the buttstock is part of the action?
No, they are not nearly equal. 53.000 psi (max C.I.P pressure for .351 SL) is not "nearly equal" to 62.000 psi (max C.I.P. pressure for .223 Rem). Even not counting that blowback actions don't cope well with bottleneck cartridges and, again "the N***s didn't do that" IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. N***s didn't do a lot of things.
The argument is: The .30 carbine had been developed starting form the .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge used in the Winchester 1905 rifle that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle. The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup). The Winchester 1907 rifle was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP that had been used in WWII (and the M3 for decades later).SO WHAT EXACTLY PREVENTS THE .30 CARBINE FROM BEING FIRED IN A BLOWBACK FIREARM OF REASONABLE WEIGHT?
Please, you didn't state facts, but guessings at best. You asked why blowback is not used on modern cartridges of moderate power, and I answered you. If you don't understand pretty simple explanations is not my fault. Modern cartridges are mainly high pressure cartridges. In a blowback firearm, energy mainly affects the required minimum weight of the bolt. Pressure narrows the window of usability of blowback actions (the higer the pressure, the narrower the window from when the bolt is too heavy to reliably cycle the action to when it's too light to safely do it) until other factors (material of the cartridge, presence of dirt, moisture, lube, ecc...) become too relevant. Even not counting that blowback actions don't cope well with bottleneck cartridges (I can explain you why if you want).
7.62x39 is not only a bottleneck but a heavily tapered cartridge. I can explain you why that doesn't cope well with blowback actions if you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GXSergio The Ottomans didn't need to conquer Cyprus or win at Lepanto to blockade Venetian trade with middle east, because they WERE middle east and Venice's main trading partner. On the other hand, Venice didn't really need Cyprus, or winning at Lepanto to trade with them.
Venetian strategy with the Ottomans simply was to make any eventual Ottoman expansion at their expenses so costly that they would be calm and trading for a couple of generations before trying again.
Half of the nowadays Italy was Italy then like now. It happened then to be part of a thing called EMPIRE, like nowadays Spain, most of nowadays Germany, nowadays Austria and several other nowadays things in Central Europe, under an EMPEROR that happened to be of German descent ("Habsburg") and that happened to be King of Spain like he happened to be King of Germany, King of Naples, King of Sicily, Archduke of Austria and at least a dozen other titles. To be king of various places is a prerogative of the EMPEROR.
They had never been "main Spanish territories".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The front sight on the barrel shroud, or the rattling barrel, are those problems that exist only in tabletop reviews, when the reviewer knows that the weapon is "bad" and has to find some reason for it to be bad. None noticed them being problems in 60 years of use of the MG42/MG3. ALL Modern general-purpose machineguns have a single optic, mounted on the receiver, how do they cope with barrel change? https://blog.1800gunsandammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/fn-762-minimi-4.jpg
The oiler was a minus. but it wasn't strictly needed, and many gunnenrs didnt' use it. Simply, already during WWI, it was noticed that, whit automatic weapons, it was all peaches and dandelions until you could use brass cased ammos but when, due to war shortages, you had to use steel cased ammos, extraction was a lot less granted. However, despite the oiler, allied reports praised the behaviour of the weapon, compared to the BREN, in dusty conditions. The heavy bolt, so with a greater inertia, star-shaped to give the dirt somewere to go instead of locking the mechanism, were plusses.
To use more than 20-25 rounds for magazine in WWII meant to be in search of problems, and it was a REAL problem to manufacture magazines that were, at one time, so cheap to be discarded on the field and so consistently manufactured to not have feeding issues (it was a problem still for the US in the '50s, that's why the M14 has the stripper-clip rail, and that was the US Army). Even the Brits tried a fixed tilting magazine for the BREN (it had not been adopted in the end, but it was much more awkward than the Breda one). The reduced volume of fire was not really a problem. A BREN gun was supposed to fire a magazine a minute in normal battle conditions. At the start of the war it was allowed an "emergency" rof of seven magazines/minute. during the war, due to battel experiences, that was reduced to four magazines/minute, and advertising the gunners that, in those conditions, the barrel had to be changed after ten magazines, and the entire provision of the squad was of just 20 magazines.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The original specs. of the .264 USA called for 55.000 psi pressure, that's pretty mild.
the requirements were:
107 gr, 2875 fps, 2662J
123 gr, 2657 fps, 2614J
135 gr, 2527 fps, 2595J
.264 LICC added, from a 11.5" barrel:
108 gr, 2650 fps, 2284J
This is not "slightlt less spicy" than the .277 Fury. This fully is in 6.5 territory. Pretty much the ballistics they always had. Just a little more spicy than a 6.5 Carcano or a 6.5 Grendel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And, actually, Columbus never called the Native Americans "Indians".
When he reached the Caribbeans, he believed to have reached a group of islands east of Japan (because in his map there was no space for a continent at that latitude), so it would have been silly to call the inhabitants "indians".
When, in his third voyage, he reached South America, he immediately recognised it was a continent (because the rivers were too big to came from an island) and a new one, (because at that latitude he couldn't still have reached east Asia), and called it "Paria". The name stood on European maps for decades, before being replaced by "America". Today it only indicates the Gulf of Paria, where he landed.
So, had the Native Americans been called after Columbus, they would be called "Parians".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A Mary Sue is a central character that isn't challenged by the plot. It doesn't count how powerful he is, or if he is the centre of the universe. A charcter can legitimately be the centre of the universe (IE think of Harui Suzumiya) without being a Mary Sue.
That's why Goku (and I'm not really a Dragon Ball fan) isn't a Mary Sue (Dragon Ball's problem is, if anything, repetitiveness). In his case, the plot is specifically made to challenge him. It doesn't count how powerful he is. There are always characters that are as, or more, powerful. It doesn't count if he gets power-ups. Power ups are legit in his universe (that's specifically stated) and many characters get them. It doesnt' count if he generally wins. Not only that's true for many heroes (plot armour doesn't make Mary Sues), but, contrary to many of them, we know that he can loose (it happened several times) or even die (it happened several times).
And that's why Rey IS a Mary Sue. SHE'S NOT CHALLENGED BY THE PLOT. It doesn't count if she's a girl. She gets out of troubles simply by showing to possess abilities that she shouldn't logically have without any explanation (is like Goku suddenly becoming smarter than Bulma in building mechanisms). Or getting gratuitous
power-ups that simply decided to happen at the right time without the need for any training. She doesn't need to train, she doesnt need to do anything. The universe seems to conspire to make her look awesome without any real effort.
First than Rey, the most famous example of sueish canon character was Stat Trek TNG's Wesley Crusher (so much that, for a long time, to indicate a male Mary Sue the expression "the Wesley" had been favoured over "Gary Stu" ), so much for the sexism of the trope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And what I'm saying is that the Breda 30 had been adopted in 1930. The MG 34 did non exist then.
In 1930, the only LMG design that was demonstrabily better than the Breda 30 was the ZB vz. 26.
In the subsequent years, some other better design was introduced, but the armies usually don't replace the weapons they adopted after only few years, only cause something that could be better had been introduced somewere.
Think, for example, that the US soldiers fought in Korea with a semiauto rifle, six years after the adoption of the AK47 and ten years after the adoption of the STG44. Shouldn't the US have copied and produced a weapon such as the STG44 or the AK47, instead of providing his army with an obsolete weapon?
And, in 1959, ten years after the adoption of the AK47, and 15 after the adoption of the STG44, the M1 rifle had been replaced with a battle rifle that was already obsolete the moment it had been adopted.
Cause sometimes armies keep on designing weapons based on obsolete ideas until those proved to be obsolete on the field.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:34. Because Jesus' birth stories are very different in Mattew and Luke and, not wanting to give priority to a version instead of the other, Mark's author decided to write only events that were reported identical in the other two.
7:50 Because the apparitions of resurrected Jesus are very different in Mattew and Luke and, not wanting to give priority to a version instead of the other, Mark's author decided to write only events that were reported identical in the other two.
If an author that had access to Mattew and Luke wanted to compile a "manual" of actions SURELY made by Jesus, he would have made Mark.
So it can be Mattew (traces of "aramaicisms" in the writing. Likely written by a Medioriental Jew that used Greek as a second language); then Luke (poetic expansion of Mattew written in a very good literary Greek, probably by someone that used Greek as first language) that heavily used Mattew, but had access to other sources as well, and sometimes decided to give priority to them (that's what he said in the first passage after all); then Mark (latinized Greek, likely written in Rome) that decided to write a syntetic collection of "real" stories on the life of Christ having access to the first two.
As for the "fatigue" I can only talk of the only example given. Luke didn't place that event IN Bethsaida. He only said Jesus was directed towards the city of Bethsaida. He kept on expanding just after having talked of the deserted place (he's the only one reporting of the people being divided in groups of 50), so it doesn't seem he was fatigued at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rome-z6q If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
If the machine gunner didn't give them the time to move, all the better. He had been efficient.
1
-
1
-
@schutzanzug4518 Your argument doesn't make any sense, and reveals a fundamental ignorance of war customs. The "person who came out" revealed his alignment the moment he started shooting. To not be recognisable as a combatant before starting to shoot IS A WAR CRIME. so, by your own reasoning, the Russians committed YET ANOTER WAR CRIME.
"probably" is just your guessing. As already said, if there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
If the machine gunner managed to kill all of them before any of them had the time to move, well done, he had been efficient.
"execute" is just your guessing. As already said, if one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
If you fear hell, then then why you are trying to water down not one but two war crimes, while at the same time inventing others?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Brother_Piner The medieval graffiti we have are mostly drawings. The Roman ones are mostly written, and not only names, they are jokes, vulgarities, ads, riddles, etc. It's evident that who left them used writing for the most mundane things, and expected the general public, not only a small minority, to be able to read them. What's the sense of a writing that cursed whoever pissed on a wall, if only 1/10 of the people could read it?
You dont' need to be literate to carve your name. It only needs for you to know the "shape" of it. That's why the fact that the Romans carved other words than their names is significative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe the American court would have seeked the truth instead of two scapegoats.
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
The marines couldn't be prosecuted in Italy because, by not allowing to the defense technicians to assist to the ballistic tests, the Kerala court discredited any possible evidence, so it would have been a trial without any proof.
You don't make so that the forensics are prohibited to the experts of the defense if you don't want to forge them.
1
-
the MG42 is a recoil operated weapon, but is not a purely recoil operated weapon, like a semiauto pistol, where there is a single piece bolt that recoils at the same speed of the barrel until the barrel stops and the bolt continues snatching the case out of the chamber.
The wedge that pushes out the roller is both part of the striker and of the bolt carrier, as the bolt carrier is in direct contact with it during recoil and, when the wedge shaped part recoils in respect to the bolt head , pushed by the rollers it pushes back the bolt carrier too.
The iternal spring around the striker (bolt catch) wasn't generally present in wartime MG42s, it had been introduced very late in the war only to adress cases of out of battery shots caused by the rebound of the bolt carrier. It only serves to provide to the bolt carrier a "soft landing" when the action closes. There are several models of it, some of them doesn't load the locking wedge at all (so working purely by inertia).
As for the Breda 30, I would not have adopted it. It was not that poor of a design, but it was not easily improvable, and there were better designs to start from, transfering in them the good features of the M30 (essentially, the quick exchange barrel). IE the Brixia 1920 (a rather unfortunate HMG, but a good base for a LMG), or the SIA 1918 (a scaled up Villar Perosa, but a good base for a lever delayed LMG, it already had a two piece bolt with the rear one recoiling faster due to inclined surfaces, but the rear bolt-striker was really too light compared to the front part). Waiting a couple of years, they could have adopted a gas operated LMG based on the Breda PG instead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Infact, it doesn't seem to be anything inherent to the action that doesn't work. And I find quite strange the remark about the rifle being difficult to field strip. The Scotti action is practically the simplest gas action possible (infact I would gladly see a modern Scotti action GPMG), and in Ian's video on the Model X you can see how easy it is to field strip.
Had it been an idea of a British arsenal, they would have probably worked on it, changing the dimensions of the broken parts, until they worked, but it was not. It was a design they would eventually have to purchase from the inventor (Scotti, like Browning, didn't have a factory, he was a designer that sold his designs to others). They didn't have the tooling to work on it, so they didn't even try.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BobSmith-dk8nw I saw that clip. But I read wartime reports as well. The Allied ones. So the ones that could compare the Breda 30 to the Allied weapons their soldiers were used to. The Brits reused the captured Breda 30, wrote manuals for the Allied gunners issued with them, and wrote intelligence reports.
The magazine had never been mentioned as a problem, and not even as a curiosity. At all. The reason is the one i mentioned. The magazine didn't limit the practical ROF in respect to other LMGs (real LMGs, better to not even talk of the BAR, forced into a LMG role without even having a detachable barrel. Mind what Ian mentioned. After the first battles the provision of spare barrels of the Breda 30 was enhanced from 2 to 4. That meant that the Breda faced the real problem to fire more than 600 rounds continuously in battle). You could fire 6 Breda 30 magazines (so 120 rounds) in a minute reloading the magazine while it was attached to the weapon (the practical ROF was actually indicated in 150 RPM). And that practical ROF was needed only in dire emergency. Because the squad had not enough ammunitions to sustain it for long anyway. Battles don't last five minutes.
BTW, the M1919 had the same problem of the BAR. If you didn't want to overheat it, your ROF was limited to 60 rounds a minute. The faster you decided to shoot, the sooner you'll have to stop to cool-off the weapon. simply, if the US had a problem with their weapons, they could throw more weapons to the problem.
1
-
@BobSmith-dk8nw They had two, one to use, and a spare in case the first one was damaged. The magazine was normally loaded with the stripper clips while attached to the weapon. Fact is that to load them that way "wasn't a problem" at all. The magazine didn't limit the practical ROF in respect to other LMGs.
The BAR had been originally designed for walking fire. That kind of fire proved to be impractical already in WWI. In WWII a LMG was needed, but the BAR was what was in the US Army inventory, so they used it. FN modified it into a viable LMG, but the US Army preferred to keep it as it was for the sake of interchangeability of parts. The weapon was unfit for the task, and there were reports about BAR gunners often taken out of action, waiting for their weapon to cool off but, as said the US could simply throw more BAR to the problem. It's obvious that having 50% more weapons solves a lot of problems, but having 50% more good weapons would have solved more.
The M1917 was an HMG (47 kg with the tripod). It was not portable. It was heavier than a Breda 37 with tripod. Also, as noticed during WWI, water jackets were prone to be pierced by bullets and splinters or damaged otherwise (especially using short recoil actions, that requires the barrel to move). That's one of the reasons none designed new water cooled MGs after WWI, but they had been replaced by quick exchange barrels. obviously, if all you have is a water-cooled MG, you use what you have.
As said, If you didn't want to overheat the M1919, your ROF was limited to 60 rounds a minute. 450-500 rpm was the cyclic ROF, and yes it was regulated to be like that, like for any rifle caliber MG in WWII. There is no problem to obtain a cyclic ROF of around 1000 RPM in a rifle caliber MG. It's more difficult to limit it and, to obtain that, several "tricks" were used (heavier bolts, longer travel of the bolt, machanical rate reducers...). The long travel of the striker of the Breda 30 is meant to reduce the ROF to what was deemed as optimal too.
The M1919 couldn't be intentionally overheated because it fired from a closed bolt, so the moment it overheated, it cooked off an entire belt if the gunner didnt' intentionally jam it (notice that the Brits modified their M1919s, used in flexible mountings on aircrafts, to fire from an open bolt, the US Army never did it). Equipment in general is not intended to be damaged. To intentionally damage it was a way to work around the problem, while a quick exchange barrel would have solved it. As said, if the US had a problem with their weapons, they could throw more weapons to the problem. Others were not so lucky and so, to use subpar equipment, was more damaging for them. To change the barrels of BARs and M1919 was an armorer's job. It wasn't done on the field. It would have required to completely disassemble the weapon while scorching hot.
1
-
@BobSmith-dk8nw Making appreciations on your interlocutor isn't doing you any favour.
Fact is that armours for the water jackets had been made, armours for barrels haven't. Heavy water jackets had been replaced with heavy metal barrels in MMGs after WWI. A water jacket is a way bigger target than a barrel, it's way easier to damage, and, if you have a quick exchange barrel damaged, you can simply replace it. It's quite obvious that any piece of equipment can be moved. But MMGs are not made for that, and so to try to use them like that had limits.
Both LMGs and MMGs had a role in WWII. Soviets had the DP-28 and the Goryunov. Italians had the Breda 30 and Breda 37. Japanese had the Type 99 and Type 92. It's not that the US were special in this regard.
Weapons are designed for a role, and the role the BAR had been designed for was marching fire from the hip. It shown its limits in every other use (it's not that it doesn't work. It's that it could have been made better for any other role). Unfortunately marching fire from hte hip had shown to be impractical already in WWI.
The way the Marines used the weapon was the way they worked around the problem, thanks to the fact they could have more of the weapons. But more of good weapons would have worked better anyway.
Simply M1919 barrels were not changed on the field during battles. It was an armorer's job. Squads had not spare barrels, and they were not supposed to dismantle a scorching hot weapon under fire with small parts lying on the ground. If you have to dismantle a weapon under fire, something went wrong.
Overheated closed bolt MGs cook off belts because of their very same mechanics.The fact that other kind of failures can cause the same problem doesn't change this fact. If you burnt out you barrel, something went wrong either. Equipment in general is not intended to be damaged. To intentionally damage it was a way to work around the problem, while a quick exchange barrel would have solved it.
See "working around the problem". Yes, people in the army tend to know how to use the tools they were given. Being them LMGs without quick exchange barrels, or LMGs with clip-fed magazines.
See "logistics". FN modified The BAR it into a viable LMG in 1932, but the US Army preferred to keep it as it was for the sake of interchangeability of parts. The limitations of the BAR became evident only once they had been used in combat, and, at that point, it was too late. You can change the engine in an already designed airframe (the P-51 had been designed for the V-1710), not the action of an already designed MG.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
DOUG HEINS The Brits not only used the captured ones, but printed manual in English for the British gunners issued with them. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11720886/breda-model-30-manualpdf-forgotten-weapons
For the Allied opinion on the Breda 30, see Tactical and Technical Trends (the magazine of US intelligence), No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942, "Use of Captured Italian Weapons": "The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun. It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions. It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun. It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon. Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting."
For that matter the 6.5x52 Carcano has 43% more muzzle energy than 5.56 NATO, 22% more than 7.62X39 and 6.8 SPC and about the same of 6.5 Grendel. If you don't consider that adequate, is only your problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alicelund147 They didn't care. They didn't think the matter was worth of a teological sanction. And infact Copernicus, a Catholic Canon, never thought to have written something against the doctrine.
Catholic Church took a position only 60 years later. Mostly because it had been invested on the matter by Ptolemaic scientists, that didn't know any more how to respond to Galileo that, being, other than a great scientist, a skilled polemist, ridiculed them.
Galileo had been condemned mostly because the "Dialogue" that he was advised to write presenting a balanced view of the two teories, was far from balanced, and the advocate of Ptolemaic system in the book, starting from the name ("Simplicio", "the simple one") made a fool of himself, and for having said that "Church should teach to the souls to reach the stars, not how the stars work". He was right of course, but the autority is not happy to be told what they could do or not.
Had he been more careful, Galileo could have proposed the same theories, and much more, without problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@quentinmichel7581 Not to be contentious, but what matters technically if a gun had been adopted by someone or not? All the military adopted firearms are better in those "certain standards/performance parameters" than all the not military ones? There had never been a lemon adopted by someone? There had never been a good not-adopted-by-anyone firearm? And when exactly did we start to talk about "certain standards/performance parameters" at all? You were talking about "copying" and nothing else.
BTW the Walther PP had not been developed as a military gun, but a Police one (PP, Pistole Polizei), in .32 ACP, like the Little Tom was available in .25 ACP and .32 ACP. It ended up serving in the Wermacht like the SAO Mauser, Sauer, and literally EVERYTHING the Germans managed to put their hands on, because the breechlock P-38 was a too complex gun to mass produce when workers had more important things to do. There is nothing in his construction specifically made for military use, and is actually a more picky gun than many others, even for '30s standards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It doesn't work like that, sorry.
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation
for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically
designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an
environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion
and that are intended to be washable or rinseable."
So not the smartphones, since they are not "specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an
environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion".
Also:
"This derogation should only apply when
it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user
and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the
instructions to remove and replace the battery".
Gopro cameras have removable batteries and higher waterproof standards than any cellphone, so good luck in demonstrating such an impossibility.
And:
"Where the derogation applies, the product
should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only
by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
So "independent professionals" (and not only the firm's technicians) should be able to replace the battery ANYWAY. NO sealed batteries and NO "blackbox" devices than only the manufacturer can open.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No.
The 6.5 Carcano is not "whimpy" (it's more powerful than the 5.56 NATO and in the same range of the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC). The problem of short recoil actions with rifle cartridges is that, when the barrel stops, and the bolt keeps on moving, the cartridge, in respect to che chamber, accelerates fron "0" to the max speed instantly, and that can cause a too harsh extraction and a case rupture (the problem was not that the MG didn't extract, but that it ripped the base of the cartridge from the side) .That doesn't cause problems with pistol cartridges, because they are short (so there is not much surface of the case attached to the chamber) and low pressure. But already with shotgun ammos, Browning invented the complicated long recoil action to give the cartridges all the time in the world to shrink down and be extracted at slow speed.
All the short recoil rifle action that don't use oil or fluted chamber use a "cam" system that starts to extract the cartridge when the barrel is still moving (Fiat 1914, Browning 1919, MG42...).
BTW, the Hispano Suiza HS404 20mm cannon, and all its derivates in use still nowadays, uses oiled cartridges.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Romans used several times the anti cavalry "square" formation (it was round in their case) using the pila as spears. Regardless how armored their rider is, horses don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. Long pikes obviously were an advantage but, in medieval history, several times infantry formations, less disciplined than the Romans and without Swiss pikes, resisted to cavalry charges (IE at Legnano). Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt.
Mind too that most depended on the timing also. Had the Romans some hour to build even very simple fortifications, even only the stimuli and campus liliorum (the field traps they developed to cope with cavalry), the cavalry charge would have been complitely neutralized before the first knight reached a scutum.
Late medieval armors were not impenetrable. A knight on foot was difficult to cope with, but for how long? For how many minutes a fully enclosed knight could keep his guard high and swing his weapon against the scuti? At Agincourt the French were killed by their own fatigue. Switching lines, legionaries could fight for hours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because documentaries are not about artistic licences and suspending someone's disbelief, so they should be as accurate as the means employed allow (so, IE, in a documentary about prehistoric Africa produced, with very limited resources, by a Japanese amateur production using voluntary cast, is acceptable to use Japanese actors)
And, even in historical fiction, it seems quite ridicolus, to insert people for the sake of inclusivity, while at the same time telling to the pubblic "we all know there were only white males in this expedition. Just ignore the diverse ones, or pretend they are believable".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It depended on the spalling effect. Problem is that the spalling effect works, and not always (it depends on the quality of the armor) only for impacts very close to 90° and, even when it worked, you had only a piece of steel of the dimensions of a small coin flying into the armor, not an explosion.
To make an example, The Brits had problems with their QF two-pounder AT guns, because, not having explosive bullets for them, often even multiple penetrations were not enough to stop an enemy tank, and those were 40mm projectiles weighting 1kg!
Obviously, being the Wz. 35 relatively cheap, you can manufacture more of them, and more projectiles, so there were more occasions to shoot, and so more chances to obtain a decisive hit, but more danger for the shooters too, since they were more targets for the tank's reaction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you are missing the point. It's pretty useless to give an explanation to something that didn't happen.
Again, only the Italian warships laid down in the '20s had comparatively light armours (even if not that light as often believed. The armor of the Trento class was not that different from that of the Admiral Hipper class, and way heavier than that of the French Suffren class for example). The ships laid down in the '30s usually had heavy, and sometimes super-heavy armors. From the relatively unarmored Colleoni and the super armored Duca Degli abruzzi, only 5 years passed.
It's pretty useless to give (sorry, to repeat old) explanations for why Italian warships had light armors, when IRL only a limited fraction of them, and the older one, really had those "light armor" you are speaking of, while the bulk of the fleet was even better armoured that the RN counterparts.
Reality is that the units laid down in the '30s (Duca degli Abruzzi, Zara, Littorio...) had been designed with a "one vs many" scenario in mind. So they were heavily armoured, even, for example, in the turret's sides or in the secondary turrets.
1
-
I intervened on the "armour single matter".
Only the Italian warships laid down for a very limited time in the '20s had comparatively light armours (even if not that light as often believed. The armor of the Trento class was not that different from that of the Admiral Hipper class, and way heavier than that of the French Suffren class for example). The ships laid down in the '30s usually had heavy, and sometimes super-heavy armors. From the relatively unarmored Colleoni and the super armored Duca Degli abruzzi, only 5 years passed.
BTW that of the barrel wear was a non-issue. all the major Italian WWII naval guns, from 120 to 381mm had a quick-exchange internal barrel, that could be replaced without dismantling the gun from the cradle (and so the armor of the turret. All the main guns of any ship could be renewed in a pair of days of work in port (the time required to supply the ship after an action anyway) instead of the several weeks rquired to replace the main guns of another battleship design.
Admiral cattaneo HAD been a fool. The instructions for navigating by night in hostile waters strictly prescribed to put the capital ships BEHIND the screen of the destroyers. Had the Italians navigated that way, with the approaching of the destroyers the British would have had to choose, or firing on them (and so only sinking the Pola, already doomed, and maybe a pair of destroyers, but loosing the other cruisers) or waiting for the cruisers (and so risking to be spotted by the destroyers at torpedoing distance and with the battleships standing still, practically a suicide).
1
-
That of the "uneven weight of propellant charges" is only a tale.
the 381/50 never really shown excessive dispersion issues.
The only source stating the excessive dispersion of the 381/50, and imputing the cause to the excessive tolerance of the projectiles was Adm. Iachino that, for many years after the war, wrote a series of books on the behaviour of the Italian Navy and his own during WWII ("Gaudo e Matapan. Storia di un'operazione della Guerra navale nel Mediterraneo (27-28-29 marzo 1941)", A. Mondadori, 1946. "Le due Sirti. Guerra ai convogli in Mediterraneo", A. Mondadori, 1953. "La sorpresa di Matapan", A. Mondadori, 1957. "Tramonto di una grande Marina", A. Mondadori, 1959. "Il punto su Matapan", A. Mondadori, 1969). Unfortunately Iachino was a partial source, since he had an obvious interest in blaming the materials.
His point of wiew was quite isolated right after the war, with the other witnesses and tecnicians (IE Adm. Emilio Brenta, Chief of the Operations of the Italian Navy in WWII and Capt. Glicerio Azzoni, ballistic expert and chief designer of the refurbishment of the Garibaldi after the war [Azzoni Glicerio, “Distanza efficace di tiro nei combattimenti diurni”, Rivista Marittima, Maj. 1949]), negating the existence of the problem.
Unfortunately, contrary to Iachino, those other voices had no interest in debating for long on a topic that, at that time, seemed to be completely secondary, so Iachino remained the most respected source and, in 1971, Adm. Giuseppe Fioravanzo, in his "L'organizzazione della Marina durante il conflitto" written for the Historical Office of the Italian Navy copied entire passages of Iachino's "Tramonto di una grande Marina", so making his thesis "official", and such remained for more than twenty years.
Only in the second half of the '90s, with a renewed interest in the topic, someone bothered to search original datas and documents, "discovering", for example, that the 381/50 fared well in tests, or that the Littorio fired tight and accurate salvos in the first battle of the Sirte, firing from 29.000 to 32.500m, what's the explanation? Obviously the shells used in tests had to be of better quality, and the Littorio ones casually were of a particularly good batch. An explanation given to save the, at that point well known, "truth".
It doesn't explain however that, in the first battle of the Sirte (17 dec. 1941), the Littorio opened fire at 29.000m cause, In the Battle of Cape Spartivento (27 nov. 1940) Adm. Campioni already did the same thing with the Vittorio Veneto, not respecting the maunal on the use of the Italian artilleries (that stated that the fire had to be opened at max. 22.000m with decent visibility and at max. 26.000m with good one), and then reporting that the action "confirmed the observation, already done in tests, that, with the Littorio class battleships it's possible to effectively open fire at 29km if the visibility allows it". So the same Vittorio Veneto fired in action like on the tests. It seemed that the 381/50 fared pretty well in every occasion with the only exception of Gaudo, and that single poor performance discredited the gun forever.
But the Vittorio Veneto guns really had a poor performance at Gaudo? Iachino said that, but the 1st Fire Director of the Vittorio Veneto, Capt. Luciano Sotgiu did not see anything out of the ordinary in his guns' salvos, and the pictures taken by the British confirmed it. The Vittorio Veneto did not hit anything at Gaudo because, firing from 23.000 to 26.000m on a pair of light cruisers entering and leaving the smokescreens, it could have hit them only for a lucky chance. It had been already amply demonstrated that, even at far closer distances and with much more rapidly firing guns, it was practically impossible to hit a ship that was only manuvering to not being hit, if not firing some thousands of shells.
Ultimately the new findings became "official" (Colliva Giuliano, “Questioni di tiro… e altre, le artiglierie navali italiane nella guerra del Mediterraneo”, Bollettino d’Archivio dell’Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare, sept. 2003, dec. 2003, mar. 2004) replacing Iachino's ones.
No 381/50 barrel came close to wear enough to be changed. Several 203/50 had been changed.
You stated that the RM ships had low armour. That's simply untrue. Only the Italian warships laid down for a very limited time in the '20s had comparatively light armours (even if not that light as often believed. The armor of the Trento class was not that different from that of the Admiral Hipper class, and way heavier than that of the French Suffren class for example). The ships laid down in the '30s usually had heavy, and sometimes super-heavy armors.
Oh, and those are the "convenient distances for the action" reported in the "direttive e norme per l'impiego della squadra navale":
381/50: 19-21 km
320/44: 19-21 km
203/50-53: 17-20 km
152/55-53: 15-17 km
135/45: 11-13 km
120/50: 11-13 km
So no super long ranges, sorry. Those were only possibilities, but not recommended. The habit to fire at long ranges developed during the war for a simple reason. ITALIAN WARSHIPS WERE NOT EASILY REPLEACEABLE. Italian shipbuilding was busy building hundreds of transports, and couldn't replace the loss of cruisers and battleships. During the war only a bunch of destroyers and submarines had been built in Italian shipyards (the Roma had been laid down well before the war).
1
-
Sorry if hard facts distract you from what you wanted to believe, but facts are that the RN didn't have "low flash propellant for their big guns", the Italian mindset was not "high speed low armor", the Italian doctrine didn't want "the big gun first in the line at dawn", the instructions of Supermarina didn't privilege extra long range engagement, and the 381/50 didn't suffer of dispersion issues. The 203/50 did, but it was a conscious decision. To use the common cradle meant to exchange a little more dispersion for a much reduced weight of the turrets, that meant that the turrets of the Zara class, thus being much more heavily armoured that those of the York class for example, weighted much less. The increase in dispersion, in the end, proved to not be detrimental, and infact the Italian 203s scored several +20km hits during the war.
That not means that all you said was wrong. It's entirely true for example that the Italian navy overlooked the importance of night engagements first than the war and didn't train enough the crews fot them (tests made after Cape Matapan demonstrated that, in a moonless night, lookouts had no problems in locating a battleship sized targets at 7km distance. The Brits at Matapan could approach at half that distance only because none was really looking for them), but that's all. Unfortunately there is a tendency to adapt facts to teories instead of the contrary.
1
-
The RN issued low flash propellant only up to 6" (152mm) guns. For the heavier calibers, for the already mentioned reasons, it's propellants were the flashier of all the navies involved in the conflict. So no, the RN didn't have low flash propellant for their big guns.
Italian navy issued low flash propellant up to 203mm guns (during the war).
Again, you are providing an explanation for something that's not a fact. There is no data showing the 381/50 suffered of excessive dispersion. The cannons that used a common cradle had a dispersion issue, and that had been a conscious decision. To exchange a little dispersion for a much more heavily armored turret without weight disadvantages. With the benefit of the hindsight, seeing that the turrets had been, among the valuable targets of a ship, one of the most easily hit in WWII, it could have been a good decision.
As already stated, Fioravanzo simply copied entire passages of Iachino.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If we wanted to be very precise he was NOT convinced of having landed in Japan, but on a group of islands east of Japan, because that's what his map said (he was still not at the longitude of Japan, and he knew it).
He landed in the American continent in his third voyage, 1498, in the Paria peninsula, Venezuela, and recognised it to be a continent, because the Orinoco river, that he saw, was too big to be sustained by an island. He named it "Paria".
Still in the map of Waldseemuller (1507) that's often said is the reason we call the continent "America", in reality "America" is the name given to south America and "Parias" is the name given to central and north America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As for ancient tradition, in Rome the "pater familias" had any right on his family, even to kill his wife and children on the spot. This ancient tradition, however became less and less accepted as time progressed and, in late republican time, even the killing of a slave was no more considered acceptable.
This is reflected in the TWO kind of Roman marriages.
In the marriage "cum mano" ("with hand"), the most common in ancient time, the father of the bride placed her hand in that of the husband. In that way he transferred to the husband every right he had over her. From this kind of marriage, divorce was impossible.
In the marriage "sine mano" (without hand), that became prevalent in 1st century BC, and practically had completely replaced the other by 1st century AD, there wasn't that part, and so the bride remained nominally under the authority of her father. That meant that her husband had no right to abuse of her in any way and for any reason, even infidelity, and she could leave her husband's house AT ANY MOMENT.
That also mean that, the moment her father died, a Roman woman was completely free. She could inherit, carry on her businesses, etc. without being under the authority of anyone. Since high class Romans usually married very young women, that meant also that Rome was full of rich and relatively young widows with a lot of economic power.
Being cum manu or sine manu, Romans had one wife at a time, even if it was common, for high-class Romans, to have lovers, even official ones. IE Servilia, mother of Brutus (Caesar's assassin), and widow of another Marcus Brutus, was the most known of Caesar's lovers.
Gladiators were celebrities. They had a lot of sex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaels5210 The BAR, with its pencil, not quick change, barrel could provide a laughable volume of fire in respect to the Breda 30, or any other real LMG. At the start of the war the Breda 30 was issued with two spare barrels. After the first battles, it was deemed to be insufficient, and the provision was rised to four. That means there was the real problem to fire more than 600 rounds in quick succession with the Breda 30. Good luck to do anything close with the BAR.
The lone MG operator in WWII exists only in Hollywood. A US B-team (the one with the BAR) was composed of gunner, assistant gunner, ammo bearer. At least three people. The mag change of the BREN was made by the assistant. To operate any WWII belt fed MG without someone holding the belt meant to be in search of stoppages.
As for practical volume of fire, the BREN manual allowed the operator to fire ONE MAG FOR MINUTE in normal circumstances. In exceptional circumstances that volume of fire could be enhanced to four mags for minute. Keeping in mind that, at that pace, the barrel had to be changed after 10 mags, and the entire provision of the squad was of 20 magazines. Battles tend to last for more than 5 minutes. The allied reports on the Breda 30 NEVER mention volume of fire as a problem of the weapon.
1
-
@michaels5210 When used as LMGs, the MG42 and MG34 used a 50 rounds belt can (that the MG eats in 2.5 seconds). Had you ever seen a MG42 gunner trying to change it? It's MUCH quicker to change two or three magazines, even reload the Breda 30 two or three times.
It's not by chance that the concept of GPMG took decades to impose itself (It practically needed them to be almost always carried by trucks) and it's not a definitive victory. The General Dynamics NGSW doesn't have a belt-fed option. And you can see how to change some magazine is infact faster than changing the short belts of the other bids.
The rate of fire of the Breda is NEVER mentioned as a problem of the weapon in Allied reports. Instead Allied reports indicates that the Breda was more apt than the BREN exactly to be used by a single man, infact a single gunner, with the BREDA, can both reload and change barrel without changing his position, or the position of the weapon. They indicate as issues instead the lack of a carrying handle and that of a dedicated fixed tripod (BUT NOT THE RELOAD OR THE RATE OF FIRE). See how the people that REALLY used the weapons back then gave importance to COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS than what modern harmchair "experts" tend to do?
IE, Ian just reviewed the DP-27.
It has a quick exchange barrel, right? Not really. Hypotetically, by moving the weapon out of line and grabbing the scorching hot muzzle, you could change the barrel, but in reality, no spare barrels were provided to the gunner.
The pan magazine was a good solution, right? Not really. You can't really change magazine without looking at what you are doing, so exposing your head over the weapon. A thing that can easily have lethal consequences.
The M1 Garand with its pencil, not quick change, barrel could provide a laughable volume of fire in respect to the Breda 30, or any other real LMG.
1
-
@michaels5210 Despite the existence of people that take them as gospel, these clips are amateur works, and I take them as that.
The "shifting zero" is the classic example of a problem invented because you "know" that the weapon is bad, and so you feel to have to illustrate some "problem".
The MG42/MG3 has the front sight on the barrel shroud exactly like the Breda 30. None ever noticed that being a problem in 80 years of use of the weapon.
The DP-27, despite having a fixed barrel, and so it could have had the front sight on the barrel, had the front sight on the barrel shroud exactly like the Breda 30. None noticed it being a problem for all the decades of use of the MG.
Every modern MG has an optic fixed to the receiver that doesn't compensate for the barrel change. None noticed that being a problem to this day.
We are used to movies where weapons always works, but that was not the case in WWII. Then an automatic weapon jamming was not a problem of "if" nor a problem of "when". It was a problem of "how often". At that time it was a REAL problem to manufacture magazines that were so well built to not have feeding issues and so cheap to be discarded on the field. Even the Brits experimented tilting magazines with the BREN (they didn't adopt them in the end, but they were much more awkward than that of the Breda, and you needed two clips to fill one). It was still a felt problem for the NATO countries in the '50s. Have you ever wondered why the M14 has a stripper clip guide? This is the stripper clip of a Canadian FAL, does this remind you something? Only that you need TWO of them to fill a magazine ( https://i1.wp.com/www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-02-at-8.59.38-AM-copy.png?fit=684%2C738&ssl=1&w=640 )
"large gaps to allow gunk to get into ammo" is another "harmchair problem". A minor issue that harmchair "experts" inflates to gigantic proportions "that gun will jam at the slightest sign of dirt!" Ironically the same people seem to came over belt feeding. Were belts closed?
I said BOLT. Bolt body, extractor, striker, striker spring, four parts. Do you want to add the locking ring despite it not being really part of the bolt? Make five. A BREN BOLT ASSEMBLY IS MADE OF 30 PARTS.
All in all the Breda 30 was an unsatisfactory weapon for several reasons, but the difference between the best and the worst WWII LMG is a question of nuances.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@undertakernumberone1 The fact that there's a gorget doesn't mean you want to be hit there anyway. Neck is a weak spot of human body. Full of important things and not very apt to take hits.
You claimed fluting was advantageous. Here's a simple point: had fluting been SO advantageous as you CLAIM... it would've replaced flat armor extremely quickly because the knights would've noticed: "hey, since we put that stuff on our armour, far less of us die!". Instead fluted armor had been fashionable for a certain perod in a certain place, and then abandoned, while flat armors went on until napoleonic era (and not for fashion. Napoleonic curiasses could still protect from projectiles). People weren't stupid. Yes, they adopted it because it fit the fashion, but then they noticed it was not worth it.
You can weld the fluting to the armor if it's advantageous.
Maces and the likes are better faced by a continually curved surface than a fluted one. That's why modern motorcycle helmets are not fluted.
Physics doesn't change, The shot trap issue is with shots being "trapped", by the shape of the vehicle, in hitting a certain part of the vehicle 90° instead of glancing off.
The fact that there's a gorget doesn't mean you want to be hit there anyway. Neck is a weak spot of human body. Full of important things and not very apt to take hits.
So those versions have a shot trap, to have the full force of the hit discharged where the vertical fluting encounters the orizontal one. Better than the hit reaching the throat, but far from ideal anyway.
Infact those are NOT shot traps. Projectiles are meant to penetrate that external "armour".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What you described at first are not gender-related characters, but plot-related characters. More specifically they are characters for action/adventure fiction. More of those parts are traditionally played by males because males were the overwelming majority of the readers/viewers of such fictions and they relate to their gender. Males still are a vast majority of the readers/viewers but, since times changes, those roles are increasingly played by female characters. They are not exception and, apart for bad fiction (that happens whathever gender the characters belong to), they are not "taking a full developed male character and turning him into a girl". You are taking a girl for a given role. Those roles seems simplicistic for a girl? They are simplicistic for male characters too. Action/adventure fiction is not exactly renown for the realism and the complexity of the characters.
Apart for roles that it's difficult to cover with a given gender for biological reason (IE a male as "the mom" or a female as "the big friendly guy", but, obviously, there are exceptions) the only role that writers really avoid to give to female characters is that of the laughing-stock. it's full of male characters that are hapless-clumsy-selfish-cowards, but to give that role to a female seems to be disrespectful.
Rey is an OP Mary Sue because she's not challenged by the plot. Every time the plot slightly bothers her, she escapes thanks to a gratuitous power-up that has no sense in that universe. She does mind-control because she heard stories about the jedi? Really? At only 16 years from the fall of the republic Luke certanly heard much more stories, but it took him, a prodigy, trhee movies to do that. One has to wonder why the jedi in the Republic needed a school and years of training if hearing stories was enough. Wonderboy fighter-pilot Luke, at the end of the first movie, after having been trained by a master, only had a glimpse of vision of the force and, at the end of the second movie, after having been trained by another master, is throughly defeated by the villain. Rey beats the main villain in a lightsaber duel the first time she takes a sword in hand (or, better, that a lightsaber is attracted by her hand). The rage that welcomed Rey's performances is nothing compared to what would have happened had she been a male.
The "ludicrously competent girl training the completely inexperienced schlub" is "the ace". A role that has tons of male examples (is one of those traditionally male roles that had recently seen more females interpreting it). The ace almost always gives room to the schlub at the end, for a reason or another, so that the new hero can save the day and yeah, if you give to the schlub at least a bit of training, it feels natural. None complained that Nikita could kick asses, since she was trained to do that. It has nothing to do with "girls support dudes in our culture". One of the the best recent examples is probably Sinbad in "Magi: The Labyrinth of Magic", and he's not a girl, nor is Dante Vale in Huntik.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The weapon had been higly successful, so much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, tripod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to develop the OVP18 and the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was more of his fault to proceed with the usual Roman show of strenght of marching in German territory having only three legions left of eleven that were usually stationed in the area. He should have played it more defensively that year.
About the faith, mind that Arminius was a Roman citizen, and, for the Roman mindset, that condition was absolute. He was as trustworthy as a direct descendant of Romulus would have been. The story of Arminius' brother, Flavus, is revealing. He too was a Roman citizen, serving in the Legion as a legatus, and, after Arminius' revolt, he continued to do so under Tiberius and Germanuicus. He was even granted a private talking with his brother Arminius just before the Battle of the Weser river (the two had to be separated by the legionaries after Arminius made fun of the awards Flavus earned in exchange of his service). None ever tought of him as an untrustworthy person only because his brother was leading the German revolt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In weightlifting, the discipline that's closer to be of pure physical strenght, there are two categories 55kg and 81kg where the weight limit is the same for men and women, so are directly comparable.
The current world record for 55kg category, snatch, clean& jerk and total are: men 135kg, 166kg, 294kg; women 102kg, 129kg, 227kg.
The current world record for 81kg category, snatch, clean& jerk and total are: men 175kg, 207kg, 378kg; women 127kg, 158kg, 283kg.
So, when technique don't really count, men are around 1/3 stronger for the same body weight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dude. There were tons of ways to obtain citizenship in Ancient Rome. IE St. Paul was a Roman Citizen, despite non having any connection with the city by ancestry.
Dude, that's an impossibility only for you. YOU give importance to the country of origin. Romans didn't. The ancestors of someone that lived into the empire being from Nubia, China or Mars, was not important for them.
In all evidence, it was not the only way. As already said, black people, could very well born into the Empire. Once a black man came, for whatever reason, to live into the Empire (because he did born there, or arrived there), he could become an auxiliar, or manage to acquire citizenship and become a legionary.
And your source says: "Provinciales were those people who fell under Roman influence, or control". "People", not "nation". A black man that lived in Tunis or Alexandria was as "provinciales" as a white man living in there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually Columbus never called the Native Americans "Indians".
When he reached the Caribbeans, he believed to have reached a group of islands east of Japan (because in his map there was no space for a continent at that latitude), so it would have been silly to call the inhabitants "indians".
When, in his third voyage, he reached South America, he immediately recognised it was a continent (because the rivers were too big to came from an island) and a new one, (because at that latitude he couldn't still have reached east Asia), and called it "Paria". The name stood on European maps for decades, before being replaced by "America". Today it only indicates the Gulf of Paria, where he landed.
So, had the Native Americans been called after Columbus, they would be called "Parians".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Columbus was not an idiot. He was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and at the same time everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
It's pretty strange to denounce Columbus' racism when the Norses called the natives Skræling and their first contact consisted in capturing and killing eight of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Italian had been popularized in literature by BOCCACCIO, more than by anyone else (surely much more than by Machiavelli). His Decameron had been a massive success. Written two centuries before printing, it was copied not only by professionals, but by normal people that wanted to have their own copy, all over Italy (that Italy didn't have a meaningful use for a standard national language until the late 1800s is simply wrong. Anyone who traveled, IE merchants, needed, and used, a standard language. "literary" Italian, the language of Boccaccio, was not something only literates used in their writings).
It's commonly said Dante is the father of Italian language, but in reality is the grandfather. Boccaccio is the real father. Being, among the "tree crowns" (Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio) the one that wrote in prose, it had been Boccaccio that gave to the Italian vocabulary and grammatical rules, and the success of the Decameron cemented it so much that every modern Italian can still read and understand every sentence of it (not so much the Divina Commedia, that requires more than a bit of attention to be understood by a modern Italian).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@glenn1035 On the contrary. You tried to spin that Shelby wasn't in charge of the GT40 program because he didn't have complete control over the technical development, and somehow brought as a "proof" that the Cobra Daytona won GT championship that same year.
That's pretty silly, since Shelby wasn't an engineer, and the responsible of a program rarely is.
Yeah, his car won in 1964 with one lap advantage Vs a three years old car, thus loosing the GT championship. But in 1965 it was only due to an astral conjunction that Shelby could profit of the studies made on that engine for the GT40, while the 250 GTO was even older than in 1964, so he won the GT championship, but the car "designed and built not by Ford employees but by Shelby American" was already obsolete even among the GTs, infact the private 275 GTB of the Belgian team Ecurie Francorchamps left it 36 laps behind at Le Mans.
To win the overall classment needed many more technical resources that what Shelby had in his workshop.
But, since he phisically had the cars, he could have done to them anything he wanted, had he tought he could do better than the tecnichans Ford gave to him.
He was in charge.
Because Shelby was already the responsible for the GT40 program for the entire 1965 season. He was NOT assigned the GT40 team in 1966. He was at the end of 1964.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Err... no.
"Punus" in latin means "Phoenician".
Romans literally called those "Phoenician wars".
BTW, all of the elephants of Hannibal died in the Battle of Trebia, at the start of the campaign, bar one, that died soon after, before reaching Etruria.
We know that Hanno Barca, Hannibal's own brother, outright refused Muttines to act as his co-commander in Sicily, because Muttines was "half African". That's the level of contempt the Barcids had for Africans.
Romans didn't mint coins of Hannibal. He was their enemy, you know?
But WE HAVE the coins minted by his father, Hamilcar and his brother Hasdrubal during their rule over Spain (and some attributed to hannibal too) and they didn't sport any black trait.
Since you are at it, you can look at the Numidian coinage, to see how the Numidians (that were really N. African, not Semites like the Carthaginians) depicted themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nzrbroadcasting1421 For the North the cause was the secession. States had not the right to secede. The southerners were "rebels", and that's all.
For the South, the main cause were the increased limitations on slavery. All the new territories west of Mississippi were free states and that put slave states in minority. By 1858, 17 free states, which included California (1850), and Minnesota (1858), outnumbered the 15 slave states. In mid-1861, with the addition of Oregon (1859) and Kansas (1861), the number of free states had grown to 19 while the number of slave states remained at 15. Washington D.C. formed with land from two slave states, abolished slavery in 1850. The path was quite evident. Lincoln (a known abolitionist) being elected President was the final straw.
All the slave states that gave an explanation of the motives of secession, specifically mentioned the plight of the "slaveholding states" at the hands of Northern abolitionists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ForceSmart You were arguing about "inconsistent quality of Italian ammunition". Are you really able to believe that the 381 shells and propellants were made with different tolerances than 203 ones?
I understand that there are people, like you, that prefer apparently simple explanations that spare them the effort to think. There are many.
For the same reason , you prefer ad hominem argument, talking about "emotional response". Again , an apparently simple explanation that, undermining your interlocutor's arguments because he's "emotional" spare you the effort to use your brain.
(to remember you that someone you called an "historian" is not an historian instead, is not an ad hominem argument. I think "ad hominem" is another expression that you use randomly to be spared the effort to use your brain cells).
You prefer to be spared the effort to make a simple proportion too. Someone said "over a kilometer" and you bought it, without even cheking, because cheking needs to use braincells. Of the picture shown, knowing the lenght of the HMAS Perth, the first salvo has a spread of 410m. The second one of 412m (a little more due to parallax). Or 1.7% of the distance. A single turret longitudinal spread of 2% of the distance in action was considered acceptable to good by any navy at the time. To make a comparison, US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
The service of the Regia Marina, or its "worthiness", is not in question, and I don't need any treat. That's anoter mental shortcut of you.
Since I'm being "emotional" I'll give you another (other than the high speed of the shells) real reason why the dispersion of the Italian 381 was just average and not exceptional.
All the Littorios were very "new". The first two had been commissioned only in 1940. At the time, it took years of tests to "tune " the guns of a big ship (Nelson class shown horrible dispersion in tests still after 10 years since their commissioning). And in wartime those tests are just seldomly made, because there isn't the time, the fuel, and every time the ship leaves the port, it's at risk of being torpedoed.
That's what Adm. Emilio Brenta stated. By 1939 the Regia Marina corrected the dispersion of all of their guns, big and small, so much that, for some of them, there had been the necessity to open the spread, to maximise the probability of a hit (infact, the best dispersion is not the tightest one. That's, IE, a criticism the Americans made on Japanese gunnery). For the 381 there had simply not been the time.
But I'm sure you'll prefer to believe in "inconsistent quality of Italian ammunition". For some mysterious reason, only of 381 shells.
It spares you to think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davepx1 Inquisition did born to prosecute heretics. Only lately, and quite reluctantly, they started to pay attention to whitchcraft. For medieval scholars, that were practically all ecclesiastics, magic didn't exist. They would have laughed at the idea of someone acquiring powers by making a pact with the devil. Magicians were scammers.
The witch hunt started, for both parts, with the Reform.
Also, at the start, Inquisition relied only on witness testimony, and forbid torture. Only in 1252 Pope Innocent IV introduced torture in Inquisition trials (to make them more similar to contemporary civilian trials), but under much strictier conditions than those admitted by civilian autorities. IE the defendant should have never risked death or mutilation by torture, and the confession given under torture could not be used in the actual trial. It had to be repeated by the defendant that didn't risk to be tortured again. According to some scholar that looked into the minutes of the trials, torture had been used in less than 1% of the Inquisition trials even after its introduction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimmydesouza4375 So the reaty stated that:
a) Italy had no obligation to fight alonside Austria in a war it declared.
b) a "temporary or permanent" "occupation shall take place only after a PREVIOUS agreement between the two Powers"
c) Austria (in this case) had to give compensations for changes in the status quo in the Balkans.
Austria invaded Serbia in 1914 (that's a change in the status quo and an occupation) without any previous agreement (breaking the treaties).
Despite the obvious violation of point "b", Italy was willing to get over it in case Austria complied with "c".
Austrian foreign minister Berchtold, agreed on some concession (the recognition of the Italian occupation of the Dodecanese and Valona, that already happened). Italians wanted the cities of Trento and Trieste. German mediator Bernhard von Bülow pushed for the Austrians to accept the cession of Trento, and the Italians to accept a bigger degree of autonomy for Trieste in the Austrian Empire.
That would have been probably enough, but unfortunately on 13/01/1915 Berchtold had ben replaced by Stephan Burián, that retired any concession made by his predecessor, so breaking the talks, and exposing the Italian "neutralists" politicians (like Giolitti, that publicly stated Italy could gain much by peace) to ridicule, since it was evident that Austrians were not willing to give anything.
After two months of unsuccessful attempts to obtain anything Italy started the talkings with the Entente.
Bulow considered the Austrian position to be irrational. That's his opinion on the matter, from a letter to a friend, the journalist Felix von Eckhardt: "We must influence Vienna. It would be unheard of, for Austria, after pulling us into this war for its own incapacity in last two or three years, to deprive us of the collaboration of Italy and Rumenia, and to throw two million more enemies against us [. ..] I'll do what I can to spare us a new, great and not needed trouble. I'll do it for ourselves and for Austria, which must be saved from the hereditary defect of always arriving too late ".
That's what you call "betrayal".
1
-
@jimmydesouza4375 That's only valid as long as the treaty is valid.
Since Austria broke the treaty, first invading a country in the Balkans without previous agreement (and that would have already been enough), and then refusing to give compensations (and that would have already been a concession on Italy's part), Italy was no more bound by it. If you want others to respect the treaties, you should respect them first, not violate it, and then cry foul when others consider them expired.
It's pretty funny how, contrary to you, the Germans of the time had no problems in understanding this fact, and considered Austria's position to be irrational.
Sorry, it's "temporary or permanent" occupation, not only conquest. As above, the Germans of the time had no problems in considering a military invasion an occupation. Only you have.
Sorry, but Austria had not been "threatened" by Russia. It started a war with Serbia. Your very personal opinion of Russia threatening Austria via Serbia is pretty ridicolous, and had not weight in 1915. Trying to rewrite history to your liking is not going to do you any favour. Grow up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It has much to do with not fixing what’s not broken.
At this point, the geometry of reliable single feed magazines and reliable feed ramps are well known. Designers haven’t to spend time, AND MONEY, to redesign those parts. If they want a "proprietary" magazine, they can (and they do) take an existing design, and only change some little bit, like the position of the magazine release cut.
If they choose double feed instead, they have to design magazines and feed ramps from scratch, and that takes time AND MONEY.
That’s why it seems are mainly manufacturers that don’t have to compete on the market and/or are government funded that nowadays decide to invest in designing double feed pistols (see Norinco CF98, GSh-18, MP-443 Grach…)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arminius was a Roman citizen, an equites and a commander in the Roman army. He chose to be all of those things. None forced the Roman citizenship nor the equites dignitate on him, nor forced him to lead Roman soldiers. He didn't renounce to any of those things and, while being a Roman citizen and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared.
A traitor by any means. Any person doing the same things now would be considered a traitor.
Arminius' own brother, Flavus, was also a Roman citizen and a legionary in the Illyrian revolt. He then fought alongside Germanicus against Arminius. The respect the Romans had for Roman citizenship was so that, before the battle of Idistaviso, Germanicus granted a private chat between Arminius and Flavus (the two had to be separated by the legionaries, after Arminius mocked the decorations Flavus gained in Illyria).
1
-
@Shadowhunterbg No.
Arminius was the son of a pro-Roman chieftain. MAYBE (the thing is absolutely not clear) that Arminius had been a hostage (that, at that time, meant "honored guest") as a child, but he CHOSE to be a Roman citizen, CHOSE to be an equites and he CHOSE to be a commander of the Roman army. NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAD BEEN FORCED ON HIM. At the time of Teutoburg, he was a Roman that led other Romans.
HE DIDN'T RENOUNCE TO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. While he was a Roman citizen, an Equites and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared.
Any man doing the same thing now, or in any time, would have been considered a traitor.
Arminius' position was not shared by all the Germanics, nor by all the Cherusci AND NOT EVEN BY HIS FAMILY. (Arminius' family was pro-Roman, and pro-Roman was his father-in-law Segeste). Later the Cherusci asked to the Romans to send them Flavus' son, Italicus, to make him their king. Italicus' son was still the pro-Roman king of the Cherusci in their last appearance in the annals.
The rest (luxury? In a military camp in Pannonia?) is a fairy tale you chose to believe.
1
-
@Shadowhunterbg "The video said"? You know trhat the video is made by amateurs, right? One thing is a video on youtube, another thing are actual sources.
So, again, MAYBE (the thing is absolutely not clear) that Arminius had been a hostage (that, at that time, meant "honored guest") as a child, and nothing else.
Sorry. The meant was NOT to "make them Romans", even if to expose them to Roman culture was a bonus. "Roman citizen" is a definite thing and a difficult to obtain one. Not all the hostages became Roman citizens. Most of them simply returned to their tribe, or kingdom, when grown up. Arminius could have done the same, but he CHOSE to be a Roman citizen, CHOSE to be an Equites (the highest class of not Patrician born. As an Equites he belonged to the Roman Senatorial rank) and he CHOSE to be a commander of the Roman army. He did all those things because he wanted to.
Sorry, any soldier of any army is bound to serve it. Even more if he's an officer. To purposedly lead the man you are in charge of to be slaughtered in a trap you prepared is worse than the treason of a simple private.
Legions were mostly deployed in the provinces. Arminius was in Germania because he was a soldier and there were three legions there (and he knew the territory and the language, obviously). His brother was in Illyria at the same time. Arminius was in charge of the scouting cavalry because he was a Roman citizen. Roman officers were in charge of the auxiliares.
You spoke about his family. I'm sorry if reality offend you.
Pro-Roman is a political stance. It means that he considered to be ally of the Romans more useful than to be against them. What he loved is inconsequential. Arminius was so loved that his own tribesmen killed him.
Arminius had never been kidnapped, and none forced him to became a Roman citizen, an Equites, and to join the army. He chose to do all of those things.
Sorry, mental fictions don't count. Treason is defined by actions.
1
-
@Shadowhunterbg It seems there are countless wrong things you are sure of.
So, you are GUESSING. The authors of the video, and some actual historian, did that too. The difference is that actual historians when they are guessing, SAY that they are guessing. They guessed that Arminius and Flavus had been hostages (that, at that time meant an "honored guest) because that was a common practice at the time, not only among Romans. But, while for many historical characters (Pyrrhus, Aetius...) there are sources stating they had been hostages at some point, there is none for Arminius and Flavus. So, again, MAYBE (the thing is absolutely not clear) that Arminius had been a hostage (that, at that time, meant "honored guest") as a child, and nothing else.
Judging by your emotional comments on ancient societies, I don't think you had studied any history. Actually to have high-class foreigners to study in Rome was pretty common, and we still have some bi-lingual textbook (obviously those were for students that already knew to read in their own language) used to teach them to read Latin. Culture was more priced than you think but, hear hear WE DON'T KNOW IF ARMINIUS HAD EVER BEEN IN ROME. There is not a single piece of historical evidence that Arminius ever in his life visited Rome. Let alone that he was taken there as a hostage and grew up in the capital of the Roman empire. These are just legends.
Had he been an hostage or not in his childhood, that surely ended WAY BEFORE Teutoburg. At that time, instead of simply returning to his tribe. Arminius CHOSE to be a Roman citizen, CHOSE to be an Equites (the highest class of not Patrician born. As an Equites he belonged to the Roman Senatorial rank) and he CHOSE to be a commander of the Roman army. None of those things had been forced on him. He did all those things because he wanted to.
Arminius was a Roman citizen and that meant that, for the Romans, he was one of their own. As trustworthy as if he was born into the city. What he was doing in the army was actually the first step of the "cursus honorum", as expected by a young equites. Mind, again, that his own brother didn't suffer any consequence for Arminius' treason. Flavus was a Roman citizen, and so he was trustworthy, it didn't matter what his brother had done. Actually Caesar normally used Gaulish cavalry in his Gaulish wars 8and those were not even Roman citizens). That was common practice at the time, not only among the Romans. Gauls, like Germans, normally fought among them and allied with foreigners to do so.
Again, your emotions are inconsequential here. Treason is defined by actions, not by your emotions, (that, again, were not shared by all the Germanics, nor by all the Cherusci and not even by Arminius' own family). Any person doing the same things, now or in any historical period, would be considered a traitor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petemaly8950 The radiused corners were evidently not radiused enough, since both the real-scale tests performed at Farnborough and the analysis of the wrecks shown the points of failures being exactly the corners of the passengers' windows and the automatic-direction-finding window, so they didn't "knew" shit. What they thought they knew was wrong.
It's fairly simple.
Lots of people out there doesn't know what they are talking about. It happens to someone into here as well.
When the Comet first flew, there already were airliners with oval shaped windows. It's not like the designers chosen that shape due to aesthetic considerations. So the designers didn't use "all the current, up to date knowledge for the design". Not even close. Fairly straightforward really
In real life the Comet G-ALYP was lost due to a fracture starting from the corner of the automatic-direction-finding window. Not enough of the wreckage of the G-ALYY was recovered to establish the cause, of the failure, and the wreckage of the G-ALYV was not investigated enough, even if eyewitness testimony already pointed to a structural failure. In the first test on the G-ALYU the fracture started from the forward escape hatch window, that's identical in shape and structure to the passenger windows. In the second test, the fracture started from the corner of the passenger window N.7. The section of the fuselage with the crack starting from the passenger window is currently on display in the RAF museum at Cosford. So you are wrong again, sorry.
1
-
1
-
@petemaly8950 That's your fixation, not mine.
"There's a reason ships' portholes are not square, and it's exactly the same reason. The designers should have taken the hint."
And they should.
There is a reason other airliners had oval shaped windows, and it's exactly the same reason. The designers should have taken the hint.
And they should.
There is a reason production parts should be tested instead of parts that simply have the same shape. The designers should have know it.
And they should.
The designers chose the risk. And the airplanes crashed.
Stating that "what failed first was in fact irrelevant" is pretty ridiculous. Your 4 year old granddaughter would surely explain it to you.
If you don't like forward escape hatch window, that's identical in shape and structure to the passenger windows, the passenger window still failed in 50% of the tests performed, confirming you are wrong again. Your 4 year old granddaughter would surely explain it to you.
Provided her existence.
Because, having seen your mental ability, at this point, I wouldn't bet on you really knowing the age of your granddaughter, or her existence IRL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petemaly8950 Wrong again.
Simple stuff, for anyone but you.
You can't "prove" what's false.
"as far as they were concerned" count for any testing ever mande on anything that proved to be defective introduced on the market "as far as they were concerned it was safe". But it wasn't. Very very basic stuff, not at all difficult, for anyone but you.
Any of your family's pet and various insect around the house could lecture you on the matter at this point.
And you keep on lying.
I already told you that you don't know enough of two RL incidents out of three to know what failed, AND THE PASSENGER WINDOW FAILED IN ONE POST-INCIDENT STRESS TEST OUT OF TWO PERFORMED (the other time it had been the forward escape hatch window, that's identical in shape and structure to the passenger windows). SO 50% OF THE TIMES. Fact is that the redesigned Comet had the oval shaped windows. Like other airliners already had before the Comet's first flight.
The section of the fuselage with the crack starting from the corner of the PASSENGER WINDOW is currently on display in the RAF museum at Cosford. With a big arrow pointing to the corner of the PASSENGER WINDOW N.7 that says "ORIGIN OF THE FAILURE".
The window of the front escape hatches, that failed in the the first post-incident stress test had the same shape, structure and dimension than the passenger window. the rear one was bigger.
To say that "failure start points are irrelevant" is ridiculous. The failure start points are what made the aircrafts crash, as it would be simple & very easily understood by anyone with a functioning brain.
To say that "De Havilland proved through extensive testing that the aircraft design was good" is hilarious, since the design was faulty and caused the crashes, and you can't "prove" what's false. Something even teh fleas on your'daughter's dog would surely be able to lecture you about at this point. Not only, but the "extensive testing" had been made on the wrong pieces.
Yeah "There's been lots of serious failures that would have been prevented with more testing". So? Had anyone said that the case of the Comet was unique? Keep in mind however (yeah... like you could..) that you talked about tests. I talked about taking a hint.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The weapon was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield.
The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better.
The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy.
Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII.
The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had, that were bolt action rifles and showels.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And, actually, Columbus never called the Native Americans "Indians".
When he reached the Caribbeans, he believed to have reached a group of islands east of Japan (because in his map there was no space for a continent at that latitude), so it would have been silly to call the inhabitants "indians".
When, in his third voyage, he reached South America, he immediately recognised it was a continent (because the rivers were too big to came from an island) and a new one, (because at that latitude he couldn't still have reached east Asia), and called it "Paria". The name stood on European maps for decades, before being replaced by "America". Today it only indicates the Gulf of Paria, where he landed.
So, had the Native Americans been called after Columbus, they would be called "Parians".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As someone who spends most of his time reading manuals and information about guns you should know that there should be some information, including the weapons technical manual, that suggests that IT WAS manufactured with aircraft in mind to say it was.
BUT THERE ISN'T ANY, while there is plenty of info about it's projected field use. Fact this that the gun had not been proposed by the designer as an aicraft weapon (in april 1914, when it had been patented there was not even the concept of "aircraft weapon"), it had not been tested as an aircraft weapon, it had not been adopted as an aircraft weapon, it had not been ordered as an aircraft weapon and, from the capacity of the production facility, is easy to know that its manufacturer knew he wasn't going to produce an aircraft weapon.
M1915 is the name of the gun. The English manual on Forgottenweapons' site is not dated, and, since it talks of "experiences in the field" and of the gun being manufactured by the "Canadian General Electric company" I higly doubt it being from 1915. It's more probably of 1917 (the year the Canadian General Electric Company started to produce it), and probably quite late on that year.
Conso was the chief of the department. He decided about the tests. Due to his favourable technical relation the gun was adopted as M1915 light machinegun.
1
-
It's not a question of deciphering. The manual is clear, and only talks about field use and shows field use.
Sorry, but this "everyone" you speak of is only the English speaking world, and it does because of Chinn's "The Machine Gun". Unfortunately, for how much a good work it was, it's not the only case where "the Machine Gun" is inaccurate.The order for the Third Army had been made as soon as the weapon had been adopted and, again, a facility capable to produce 500 weapons for month for the needs of a 1915 Air Force is beyond ridiculous. At the start of the conflict (may 1915 for Italy) the Italian Air Corp had 86 combat aircrafts in total. In a month they would have produced more guns than the aircrafts capable to mount them. Still in April 1918 The Air Corp had 232 fighters, 66 bombers and 205 recognitors.
You know that it's not like this that it works. To say that it was intended for aircraft use you have to find documents stating that BEFORE it had been really used on aircrafts. Unfortunately you can't point to any of those, because that wasn't it's intended use. Instead there is plenty of documents that point out to it's intended use as a field weapon from the start. Because THAT was its intended use.
There are pictures of the weapon used on aircraft because it had been used on aircrafts TOO. To say it was it's intended use from the start is like saying that the intended use of the Mondragon was on aircrafts, because the Germans used it that way.
I already said to you that the English manual is form 1917 at least.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robosoldier11 The problem with Italian field equipment was of quantity, not of quality. Every WWII army had a mix of issued items, some very good, some good, some decent, some subpar. The BAR, IE, was an abysmal LMG, but the US could simply "throw more BAR at the problem".
The ubiquitous 47/32 Mod. 1935 cannon was as good an AT gun as the as the 3,7 cm PaK 36 and Ordnance QF 2 lb, with the advantage to have anti-personnel HE shells also. Problem was that often it had ONLY HE shells provided.
Later in the war, all those guns had been made obsolete by new tank models.
The Cannone da 75/32 Mod. 1937 was as good as the German 7,5 cm PaK 97/38, but, again, it had been made in little quantities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluelemming5296 We know that the Brits didn't hit anything past 20.000m. We don't know why. We can hypothesize. But has a KGV class battleship ever hit something at over 20.000m distance in action, to make a comparison? Even in Bismarck's last battle, on an enemy that was practically adrift, the Brits opened fire only at 20.000m and, for when they hit something, they were so close that they were using their secondaries as well.
Surely, in the Denmark strait, the positioning of the sights on the Prinz Eugen was no better than on the British battleships, but it scored hits farther than them anyway.
It's not a mystery at all. And its pretty amusing to reason like the Brits were standing, waiting for the Italians to come close. The Brits never served a battleship to a Littorio at short distance. When the guns of the Littorio had been fired at extreme ranges it's because the enemies, that were light cruisers and destroyers, fled. The only time they (again, light cruisers and destroyers) engaged a Littorio at short range had been in the second battle of the Sirte, under a storm.
For when the Littorios had been fully operative, Brits and Italians knew the shortcomings of battleships, and tended to use them under their own air cover. That means that the possible areas of contact were really limited.
The only REAL possibility to have a clash between a modern British battleship squad (Nelson, Rodney and Prince of Wales) and the two Littorios had been during Operation Halberd, but there the Italian command miscalculated the route of the Britsh formation, and so the Italian squad failed to make contact (But Nelson was hit by an aerial torpedo anyway, and the Royal Navvy didn't risk a battleship so close to the Italian bases for more than a year after).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodrigorincongarcia771 It was slower to build, but not "much".
Mind that the production time of the Bf109, like for anything, depended on the scale of production.
The G.55 costed 15.000 man/hour at the start of production, and the plan was to reduce them to 9.000 for a scale of production of about 200 aircrafts/month.
The Bf109, IN MAY 1944 (production times were longer in 1943) costed 9.200 m/h for 50 aircrafts/month, 6.500 m/h for 200 aircrafts/month, 3.800 m/h for 500 aircrafts/months.
So, for the same scale of production and the same year, the G.55 was more time consuming to assemble, but not by that much (and the Bf109 was particularly easy to build. The construction times of the FW109 were higher).
For a comparison, in January 1943, a P-47 costed 22.100 m/h. A year later it costed 9.100 m/h.
As for the war's outcome, it's obviously an exaggeration. No piston fighter in 1943 could have made any difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lagoons are not stable environments, they tend to became or firmland, or open sea, in few centuries, or even decades.
The first occurrence was happening to the Venetian Lagoon in 15th century, since the Brenta river, that created the lagoon, was filling it with sediments, so the Venetians had to decide if they wanted a city like all the others, surrounded by cultivated fields, or work to mantain their devensive moat. The discussion lasted for 30 years, then it was decided to deviate first the Brenta river and then a branch of the Po river, to mantain the lagoon. As a result of those works, the lagoon was saved, and the delta of the Po begun protunding into the Adriatic sea, like it's still doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pure short recoil systems (like those used in handguns) and long bottleneck cartridges doesn't match well.
In a short recoil system, in the moment the barrel stops, the case, in respect to the chamber, abruptly passes from "0" to the max speed. Long rifle cases have a lot of surface that's stuck to the chamber's walls, so, even if the pressure isn't high, with this abrupt acceleration there are high chances to damage the cases, sometimes break them, and so jam the action.
To avoid this, there are several possibilities. To unlock the bolt from the barrel first than the rearward motion of the barrel ended, so allowing the residual pressure of the gasses to start extracting the case first than the barrel stops ("chiusura labile", like in the Fiat Revelli 1914). To use a lever action to ensure that the bolt recoils slightly faster than the barrel ( Browning M1919, Brixia 1920, Breda SAFAT...). To reduce the locking surface of the case (fluting the chamber). Or to reduce the friction between the case and the chamber (lubing the case).
Pure blowback weapons are safer in this repect. It's only a question to have enough mass in the bolt so that the energy of the cartridge can't move it rearward enough first than the pressure reaches safe levels.
1
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (THAT HE CALLED "PARIA", NOT "WEST INDIES"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
Had been for him, Native Americans would have been called "Parians".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Caseytify How did they pay for the billions of new rounds they manufactured, that were even more expensive? They were adopting a new semiauto rifle (a pretty expensive item) for ALL the Army. ANY previous study concluded that semiautos enhanced the consumption of ammos, so regardless the quantity of ammos in the storage THEY WOULD HAVE ENDED. For much of their expected service life the NEW rifles would have used NEW ammos, and, since the new rifles would have mostly used new ammos, it would have been better if the new ammos were cheaper to manufacture. ALSO, by adopting a lighter service ammo, they would have avoided to adopt a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT action and ammo for the carbine. A problem that was immediately recognizable.
They doubled it with the .30 Carbine. More M1 carbines were manufactured than M1 rifles during WW2.
Yeah, and it would have been better to spend some money and test it BEFORE the war, instead than adopting it without having tested it, and spending some year IN the war with tropedoes that didnt' work. Sometimes, stupid decisions are not justified by the mindset of the time. They are simply stupid. Comparatively poor countries in respect to the US had working torpedoes. Japan started war also for the US announcement that it would have built a fleet bigger than the world's second and third ones combined. So they had some money to spend.
Yeah, I explicitly stated it: "With the benefit of hindsight".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith.
Aeschylus' goal was not to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but to promote Athen's legal sistem where, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail. When the votes of the judges are equally divided, Athena ALWAYS votes for the defendant.
BTW According to Euripides' version, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
1
-
Yeah. While Mitchell was right in aircrafts being the trump card in future sea battles, the way to sink ships with them had yet to be found.
IE high level bombing with heavy bombers, like the B17, proved to be highly ineffective. From high level, even a stationary ship was a relatively small target, and the probability to hit it with a bomb was marginal.
For example, on Apr. 10 1943, 84 B17 bombers, the biggest concentration of heavy bombers used that far in the war, each one carrying 12 500lb "battleship buster" bombs (1008 bombs in total) , hit the port of La Maddalena, in Sardinia, where the cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were at anchor. All that they scored had been three bombs on the Trieste (that sunk) and two on the Gorizia (that remained afloat), a 0.5% score probability. Similar bombings performed on the three battleships at anchor at La Spezia (Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma) only slightly damaged the ships.
Also aerial torpedoing proved to be much more effective in ports (see Pearl Harbour, or Taranto) than in navigation, where even large warships could quite easily evade torpedoes when they had not been launched from "suicidal" distance.
Not by chance, Germans enforced a strict rule to use aerial torpedoing only against merchants, and only dive bombing against warships.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Exceptionally reliable, exceptionally stable while firing in full auto (you can se Ian's clip of him firing it), very accurate, optimally designed magazines.
Every competitor failed in one or more of those departments.
Yeah. Obviously the army, once the reality of mass warfare kicked in, preferred more simple to manufacture versions, but had not been the only one. Other nations started the war with comparably complex or even more complex SMGs (Thompson, MP35, Lanchester, KP31...), and kept on manufacturing them until the end, yet they were not on par.
Roy Dunlap's classic "Ordnance Went Up Front": "The Beretta 38 is my favorite gun of its class, as it was of the Eighth Army. As easy to fire and control as a .22 sporting autoloader, it had terrific punch and range. The special 9mm cartridges loaded for it made it effective at 300 yards and dangerous up to 500 (when you consider that the .45 Thompson is an even-money bet at 100 yards, you'll understand why we liked the Beretta). It would operate well with German, British or American 9mm Luger ammunition," ... "the later model guns were equipped with bayonet studs, and with a fixed bayonet and a ten-round clip they were the answer to a soldier's prayer for guard duty of any kind - prisoner chasing or just keeping them out of the mood for argument. All the guns were really accurate and a pleasure to shoot. No one ever bothered with any other kind of submachinegun if he could get hold of a Beretta M38 and keep it. The New Zealand boys especially loved them. Even the Germans liked it, and they hated to admit anything was good except their own stuff."
1
-
1
-
When it was in use it was no "good", it was "the best".
The weapon had been higly successful. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar, there were only bolt action rifles and showels. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@basskick666 The VAT is applied on anything, not only on products that come form the US, so is not damaging specifically US sales, and it has been there forever, so it's inflaction neutral.
This import tax is new, so it's going to rise prices in the US.
How rising prices and reducing competition to favor inefficient manufacturers is going ot damage US economy?
At the same time, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and the EU are not rising tariffs among them.
How integrating more those economies among them, increasing their mutual exchanges, and less with the US, is going to damage US economy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philiplambiase6298 just about everything you wrote is subjective and an opinion, welcome to the world.
Tasers are classified as "less (but still) letal weapons". They are not cattle prod not punitive devices to obtain compliance from citizens.
Cops are supposed to react to real treats, not to projected ones. All they saw is recorded and visible by anyone. There were no signs of "4000 lb machine be used as a weapon".
See, I think that obedience to everything the autority command is your primary objective in life, and you can't even think that the autority you worship can do something wrong. If someone died, it must be his or everyone else's fault, but not of a cop or of a representative of the autority. See, you can't have a civilized society if autorities are free to do everything they want to citizens. If you have a issue with unarmed citizens, you fight them in a court room, don't execute them on the streets.
Had she cared, she would have recognised what she had in her hands.
AFTER she fired her gun instead of her taser she was justifiably concerned for the consequences FOR HERSELF of her lack of care FOR OTHERS. A lot of people are concerned for the consequences of the mistakes they did for lack of care AFTER they did the mistake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is difficult to find datas for Gauls and Germanic people of Roman times, but Viking males, form skeletons found (usually we find burial of high-class people, so the average height is probably overestimated, since in ancient times they tended to eat better and so be taller than the average peasant) had an average height of 172cm. We already talked about legionaries but, from skeletons, the average male population of Pompeii and Herculaneum (and there are no class differencies there, since they all perished in a natural disaster) was of 168cm, so the Germanic people were probably on average taller than the Romans, but nothing so dramatic.
Several Roman sources said of one or another Gaul or Germanic population, that they were tall, but often the Romans first seen members of the warrior elite. People that eat very well since childhood, and so were taller than the average.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerellis9097 I'm sure that thinking "but we slaughtered just a few Venetians!" had been a great consolation for the citizens of Constantinopole during the sack, but the Venetians felt to be touched enough, and that's all that counts.
Sorry, but law and moral have nothing to do with this matter. There was nothing lawful or moral in the massacre, there was nothing lawful or moral in the various coup d'etat that made the Byzantine policies toward latin merchants wavy and unreliable.The massacre of the latins simply demonstrated to the Venetians that the Byzantine Empire was an unstable and unpredictable commercial partner, and that, if they wanted to carry on their business without being at the mercy of some mad emperor, they had to do it through THEIR ports and THEIR fortresses, not asking for permission. In the end, it had been the right move, so yes, the massacre, for the byzantines, backfired a little.
So ehe Empire of Nicaea, well after the Crusade, was able to defeat some Turks badly, but it's direct descendant was beaten by the Ottomans. That doesn't seem to indicate a responsability of the Crusade in the fall of the Empire. That without the 4th Crusade the Byzantine Empire would have been able to repel the Turks is only an ucronia one can choose to believe, but it's narrative, not reality.There is no proof or hint that, without the Crusade, the Empire would have not decayed, or exhausted itself in border disputes, or internal struggles.
Again, "legal"? In 1204? All the legality that was needed in international affairs, was that the stronger one took what he wanted. The Byzantines had never fought an expansionist war? The Byzantine Empire had been unable to hold its possessions in front of the Crusaders, and so had rightly been divided between them.
1
-
1
-
@tylerellis9097 Sorry , but the statement that, without the 4th crusade, Byzantium would have not been conquered by the Ottomans, a thing happened two and half centuries later is your, not mine, and you have not proved that. Is only a think you like to believe.
Sorry, but that's an idiocy. Have you dreamed about it last night? Who decides what "powers" have the right to put their mouth in the question? You? Who recognised the right of the Byzantines to conquer Gotic kingdom, or the Vandal one? And besides, The "powers" were perfectly fine in dividing among themself the Byzantine Empire, so it was fair game, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerellis9097 Sorry, but appealing to a supposed "common sense" in science is not relevant. As already said, the statement that, without the 4th crusade, Byzantium would have not been conquered by the Ottomans, a thing happened two and half centuries later is your, not mine. Your the statement, your the burden of the proof, and you have not proved that. Is only a think you like to believe. If you think what you said is "proof" then you simply don't know what a "proof" is.
The Byzantine Empire already lost Anatolia, and big and small parts of it, first than the 4th Crusade. There is no proof that the Byzantine trade had been damaged by the Venetians after the 4th Crusade more that it would have been without it. The Venetian fleet had been stronger than the Byzantine one since well before the 4th crusade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually that's exclusively Ovid's version of the mith. He invented the whole rape and curse thing because he was writing a book called "metamorphosys", that was about shape-shifting miths (so he needed a shape-shifting, and, since the book was about changes, he didn't care about changing the miths themselves) and because he loved to depict autorities in a bad light, so, in his versions of the miths, gods always play with mortals without caring abouth them.
In the original Greek mith, Medusa was simpy born a monster, one of the three gorgons (along with Stheno and Euryale), that were daughters of Echidna and Typhon. Ironically, all three had the same aspect and powers, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.
1
-
Where did you get the 1.5m height?
Is difficult to find datas for Germanic people of Roman times, but Viking males, form skeletons found (usually we find burial of high-class people, so the average height is probably overestimated, since in ancient times they tended to eat better and so be taller than the average peasant) had an average height of 172cm. We already talked about legionaries but, from skeletons, the average male population of Pompeii and Herculaneum (and there are no class differencies there, since they all perished in a natural disaster) was of 168cm, so the Germanic people were probably on average taller than the Romans, but nothing so dramatic.
Several Roman sources said of one or another Gaul or Germanic population, that they were very tall, but often the Romans first seen members of the warrior elite. People that eat very well since childhood, and so were taller than the average.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They had great problems in Indochina and Korea, simply because there was no more grassland, and their tactics were no more useful there. The same for the two tumens (20.000 men) that pursued King Bela in Dalmatia and were defeated in a series of ambushes. In Europe grassland ends in Hungary (that's why all the steppe raiders, Huns, Hungars, Mongols, ended there).
The Mongols previously took fortified cities and strategic fortresses, because they were worth the effort, but In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses capable to stand a siege for weeks or months. It was a completely different warfare, and a very expensive one. Even having European engineers, to conquest even small fortresses could keep months. To try to speed things by dividing the army and attacking many of them at once, meant to loose the biggest advantage the Mongols had, their command chain, able to cohordinate tens of thousands men during a battle. It had already been noted in the first invasion that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements, when cohordination was much simpler. And infact, in the subsequent Mongol attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that, building more fortresses and dividing the campaign in multiple small scale engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar. There were only bolt action rifles and showels. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually the rifle is very simple. Apart for the burst mechanism, that's an added part, not required for it to work, the parts count is the lowest it could be, and the field strip can be made in seconds without tools, that was not a given at that time.
To have access to the gas chamber and the gas ports (that's the thing that requires cleaning, there is not actually much that could happen to the piston and op rod) you only have to remove the muzzle cover. To inspect the recoil spring, you can remove it from the trap door. To remove the bolt you only have to remove the dust cover and the rear buffer ("when the dust cover is off, it just slides out") and it comes out from the rear of the receiver. It isn't needed to remove the receiver from the stock.
Like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then, this rifle is not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock. While the parts that require cleaning, and/or have to be replaced more often (for the second case, almost universally the recoil spring and the firing pin) are very easily reachable.
An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To reach the firing pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have several small parts flying around you).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BS-vm5bt I didn't say it's right, but that's how it is.
Collaborations tipically only cover from two to four countries. Airbus is French-German-Spanish, is not Italian, Polish, Greek, or of other 21 members of the EU, so, for them, to buy Airbus products is financing France, Germany and Spain, in exchange of what?
EMBT is French-German, not of other 25 EU members. Why the Poles should finance Germany and France instead of the US or Korea?
The Eurofighter (British German, Italian, Spanish) had a French Competitor. Why, say, the Dutch should favor the Eurofighter in respect of the Rafale or the F16? The French-Italian FREMM have Spanish and German competiors. Etc.
What if the collaboration project did born as a competitor of an already existing European product? The Eurocopter Tiger was made by Airbus Elicopter when the Agusta A129 Mangusta already existed. If French, Germans and Spaniards dont' want to give their money to an Italian company, why should Italy buy a German tank?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewberg1361 You can tell yourself the story you like more. The .280 Brit was developed to be controllable in full auto. It's at the high end of intermediate cartridges, but it's an intermediate cartridge. Even in its more powerful iteration, the .280/30, the .280 provided 2/3 of the recoil of the .308 Win while at the same time exceeding all those non existing "NATO ballistics requirements" you are fabling about. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer.
The Winchester prototype was ready and tested. It was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15. Around the same time the Infantry board requested for the respective cartridges, both obtained from the .222 Rem., thus not identical, to be interchangeable for further testing. The Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958. The report of the tests was released in september. the Winchester rifle was determined to be slightly inferior to the AR15, Winchester declined to develop its rifle further. That's the story. The Winchester cartridge was not a Remington ammo, but was obtained from the .222 Remington as a parent cartridge, like the .223 Remington was. In tests, the AR15 could shoot the .224 Wincester ammo, but not the contrary, because the .224 Wincester was slightly shorter.
It's not a power contest. The .280 Brit is controllable in full auto, the .308 Win is not. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer, but you are reasoning like Colonel Studler did "IT HAS MORE POWAH! YEAH!", with the result of adopting the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history.
Unfortunately the history did not agree with you on the importance of volume of fire in infantry battles, and the M14 had consequently been the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewberg1361 Oh, the one that finds the other "hilarious" feels insulted, poor fella. I feel for you (of what intelligence are you talking of BTW?) He even became a grammar nazi of nonstandard terms, the last resource of the losers.
It seems that you forgot what your argument was another time. You said that the FAL had been adopted because Europe was poor (oh, sorry, "economically destitute", in the '50s LOL!) after the conflict. In the '50s the reconstruction had amply ended (everyone with a grasp of economic history knows that and, BTW, public debt of European countries in the '50s was generally low, it increased only in the '70s) and in Europe the FAL had never been so widespread. Among the major European armies only the Brits (that would have gladly used their bullpup rifle in .280 instead) used it, so of what are you talking about? You only came out with an idiocy to support your point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewberg1361 Your words:
"the AR-15 was tested at Aberdeen (US Army weapons testing grounds) in direct response to the US Army offering an open contract for an intermediate rifle chambered in .22 caliber. There were several entrants..." FALSE, there was not an open contract and there were not "several" entrants. The only comparable rifle the AR15 was tested with during its development and before its adoption was the wooden stocked Winchester LMR, that fired an almost identical round, in the late '50s. Those were NOT open tests, they were limited specifically to those two weapons and the M14 and there were NOT contracts involved.
then:
"funny considering the Winchester prototype wasn't even delivered as it wasn't completed in time for the test. The AR-15 ended up testing alone against a control group of M14 rifles" FALSE (where had the "several entrants" gone BTW?) Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958, were tested, and the report of the tests was released in september of the same year. The AR15 was praised for reliability and the Winchester rifle for accuracy, but both were deemed to be inferior to the M14 anyway. Winchester declined to develop its rifle further, so only limited tests with the AR15 went on in the subsequent years.
But if you want to keep on embarassing yourself, go ahead, I've no objections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewberg1361 Oh sorry, since we were interloking answers, I lost three of yours, so:
Sorry, but posting something you don't understand or know how to use counts for nothing.
So the use of an older kind of powder with the same bullet dimensions, weight and muzzle speed, will change the speed of the bullet at mid course in the air? LOL! Oh, my god. It had been one of your supposed armorer friends that told you that? That explains many things. You must be their laughing stock.
Infantry (United States Army Infantry School, 1968 Issue, p22) 7.92mm Kurz, muzzle speed 2250 fps; at 300 yds 1500 fps; at 800 yds 960 fps. You (well not you, someone that knows math) can do the interpolation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewberg1361 The .224 Win has exactly the same base dimension of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
The .224 Win has exactly the same thickness of the rim of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
The .224 Win has exactly the same dimension of the extractor groove land of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
The .224 Win has exactly the same angle of the shoulder of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
That means that the The .224 Win has exactly the same dimensions of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
The .224 Win has exactly the same shoulder angle of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
The .224 Win has exactly the same lenght between the base and the shoulder of the .223 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
The .224 Win has exactly the same diameter at the shoulder, of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
The .224 Win has exactly the same taper of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
The two cartridges are identical in every dimension and angle from the base to the neck, and different from the .243 Win in every single dimension and angle. It's evident to ANYONE that they are enlongated .222 Rem, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case.
It's quite evident that you are not able to understand the same datas you post.
Sorry, but you are a joke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewberg1361 Surely you don't know how rounds are tested, if you can believe that they changed the specifications of the 7.92X33 kurz, incredibly managing to increase the muzzle speed of the bullet so much that his supersonic range more than doubled without blowing up the weapon (and you want to give lessons, LOL!), just for the joy to make the sights of the only weapon the cartridges were intended for, useless.
But no, now, in your world of fairies and unicorns, are the super duper special equipment used for testing, different for the equipment used to test every other cartridge, that gave super duper special result for the 7.92X33 kurz, different from the result they gave for every other cartrige.
What a joke you are...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The weapon was developed for the ground role. IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than four-hundred samples of more than 14.000 built saw limited use on aircrafts (at that time the Air Corp was a branch of the Army) waiting for the model to be in full scale production first than distributing it to the troops. It was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield.
The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better.
The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy.
Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII.
The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to develop the OVP18 and the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because it didn't "won the M9 trial in everything but cost".
In the service life test only the 92F and the H&K P7 reached the 7000 rounds threshold with all three pistols intact. The P226 cracked a frame at 6523 rounds fired, but was allowed to pass, since the requirement was just for a service life, on average, of over 5000 rounds.
the P226 failed the dry mud test, with only 79% reliability in those conditions. Being that significantly lower than the 1911 control weapon, it should have been eliminated due to the rules of the competition (notice that instead, in the XM17 trials, there was conveniently not a M9 control weapon around to be seen). It was allowed to keep on competing, because the Army wanted at least two manufacturers to compete on price, so it was simply decided that the dry mud test result was "not so important" and the result was simply not considered.
So, not counting the result of the tests were the 92F performed better than the P226, then the P226 performed better than the 92F.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@P_RO_ First of all, the answer was to Jazzmaster Jay, that said the 6.5 "had less mass" than 7.62x51. it hadn't.
As already said, the Swedes came to that determination only in 1941. The Italians introduced the lighter 7.35mm bullet three years before.
They introduced a lighter bullet three years before the Swedes exactly to have a flatter trajectory, and a projectile more easily tumbling in the body, the rationale of the decision had been even announced in newsreels of the time. So, after all, they had been able to get enough velocity increase to make difference, and didn't left it as-is.
The " weaker action" of the Carcano had been converted to shoot 7.92mm Mauser. It wouldn't have problem in firing a marginally more powerful round like the 6.5 Swede. Simply the Italians didn't see any real advantage in increasing the power of the cartridge.
Finally, 140 grains is simply what you tend to obtain if you replace a 160grains round-nose 6.5mm bullet with a spitzer without changing the OAL. The japanese did exactly the same with the 6.5 Arisaka, that had comparable power than the 6.5 Carcano, in 1905, 31 years before the Swedes.
1
-
1
-
@treyriver5676 They are obviously different bullets, one is spitzer and one is round nose. But they had been made to be used in the same barrels.
The Spitzer has actually the diameter of the grooves of the barrel of the Gew 88 post 1894 (and the Mauser Gew 98).
The diameter of the lands of the barrel of the Gew 88, in 1894, had been enlarged from the original .319 (the diameter of the bullet) to .323 because the long, round nose, bullet had a long bearing surface and a lot of material to displace to sit into the rifling, so it caused pressure spikes that "bulged" the barrel.
The spitzer, due to the reduced bearing surface, didn't need the difference, but the barrels had been enlarged, for the round nose bullet, ten years before, so it had been made of the diameter of the lands of the "new" barrels. .323.
The larger bullet needed a larger neck of the case, and so a larger cut in the chamber. But it was far easier to rebore the neck of the chambers than to replace the barrels. From the shoulder on the case is the same. Infact the Germans didnt' want to change ammo, they wanted a spitzer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The .264 LICC, to the original requirements of the .264 USA that's 55.000 psi and, from a 16.7" barrel:
107 gr, 2875 fps, 2662J
123 gr, 2657 fps, 2614J
135 gr, 2527 fps, 2595J
added, from a 11.5" barrel:
108 gr, 2650 fps, 2284J
Those are about 200 Joule more than a 6.8 SPC and 600 Joule more than .300 blackout from the same barrel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have them being searched? No. So how did you decide they were unarmed?
They had not surrendered, they feigned a surrender, that's a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mam0lechinookclan607 It's a very obvious sign that someone had been shot at. "execution" is your guessing. People not moving before being executed is your guessing.
No. Sorry. It some case, like at Bucha, had been DEMOSNTRATED the executions of civilians had been performed by the Russians when the villages were in their hands, while the Russians claimed they had been performed by the Ukrainians AFTER the villages had been liberated by the Ukrainian army, because, when the bodies had been filmed on the ground, they were in the same position they were in the satellite pictures taken when the villages were in Russian hands. The fact that civilians had ben executed is demonstrated by the fact that they were civilians, not soldiers, and they had been killed. It had NOTHING to do with their position. Their position only has to do with the demonstration about WHO did it.
Unfortunately, Geneva conventions seem to not agree with your moral.
It's pretty funny that you accuse others of performing "mental gymnastic" once seen your performance on body positions and Russian war crimes.
I've not to justify anything. Your pretense to have a higher moral than others is laughable.
You have not to justify to me your double standards. Normal or not, You should not have them in judging alleged war crimes.
Then why you are blinded by your own emotions on judging war crimes?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a small-scale relief attack.
Mind that, while the two did that, the Romans, in that very same sector, were in a very dire situation. The fortification they built around Alesia was hard pressured by the Gauls arrived to to aid Vercingetorix, and on the verge of collapse.
The rationale of such a move, apart the personal feud, was that, if the soldier is in front of the fortification, for the time he is there, the fortification is not under pressure, and those moments of relative quiet are very important for the defenders. It gives them the time to think, help the wounded ones, better dispose themselves, replenish the stock of projectiles, chek the fortifications and the armors, and be ready for when the enemies will renew the assault, AND is a morale boost for the common legionary to see that, in any case, a Roman soldier could stand in front of many enemies and kill them without retaliation.
Assuming the story was real, probably Pullo saw that his men were scared, tired, and increasingly simply mechanically reacting to the attacks instead of acting to anticipate them, and so they needed that boost, while the Gauls needed to know that it would have not been easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nortrix87 That's modern day "patriotic" narrative. It has nothing to do with 1th century mentality. "Germanic land" is a modern concept. It has nothing to do with how a 1st century Germanic tribesman reasoned. His world was his family, his clan, his tribe. Where that tribe was located, was pretty much indifferent.
The "goal" was a struggle of power between Germanic factions. Arminius managed to gain power by leading the anti-Roman faction (represented by some tribe, but there were divisions internal to the same tribes, IE among the same Cherusci) and was briefly able to form the coalition.
Following Tiberius and Germanicus campaigns, the anti-Roman faction had been crushed. The pro-Roman faction prevailed among the same Cherusci. Arminius was killed and the Cherusci asked to the Romans to send them Italicus, son of Flavus (Arminius' brother, that remained loyal ro Rome) as king. The son of Italicus was still king of the Cherusci and allied to the Romans in the last recorded appearance of the Cherusci in the annals.
The anti-Roman faction gained something from the attack? Hard to say. Some of the tribes that participated to the attack had been erased form the map (and no, their goal was not "we'll all gladly die for the freedom of the Germanics!". The Marsi didn't give a damn for the freedom of the Langobardi. Had they knew the consequences, they would have not participated). Other had been enslaved by other Germanic tribes and faded long before the fall of the Empire. Rome governed Germania (included the same Cherusci) for centuries through client kings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ygnihteci00 There were three times that many tribes only near enough to the border to be in direct contact to the Romans, and more unknown to them that didn't knew anything related to Teutoburg.
The Lombards infact were not part of the confederation of Arminius, and were part of those that gained from not having been part of it. They subsequently became subject to the Saxons, a tribe from east of the Elbe and that, being est of the Elbe, gained more from the weakening of the western Germanics tribes subsequent to Teutoburg. Then the Lombards migrated east of the Elbe, had been defeated by the Huns, probably become their subject for some time, then, with the fading of the Huns, turned south, contended Pannonia to teh Gepids (another Gothic tribe), in mid 6th century, and entred Italy, at the end of 6th century.
Goths did it a century before.
There is really not that much that the Lombards did to the Roman Empire.
Genetic tests were not available in 1st century, and none cared about them.
1
-
1
-
@ygnihteci00 You are evidently too ignorant to even be a troll, or know what a book is, but you are probably already under psychiatric treatment, if not, you should be, given your evident issues.
"Wrong, most of them continued to exist and the others simply integrated into or where absorbed by other Germanic Tribes in the area."
No, and "being absorbed" is part of being gone, especially when, that's what happened much of the times, the "absorption" was in a condition of subordination.
"For like the third time, i never claimed they did, please learn to read properly"
Again, you should check the theme of the clip and reading the posts you are answering before listening to the voices in your head.
"I never said that the Lombards where the only ones responsible"
My statements were "Ironically the Germanics that gained more form the revolt were not directly menaced by the Romans at all. Those east of the Elbe river, that gained power, lands and Germanic slaves, due to the weakening of the western Germanics." and "The Goths, that "conquered Rome and its territories" more than four centuries later, were still north of the Black Sea in first century. They had nothing to do with Teutoburg."
At that point you listened to the voices in your head and talked about the Lombards as a rebuttal of the statements, but the Lombards didn't participate in Teutoburg, nor conquered the Empire. They conquered a land that had been conquered by the Goths a century before. The Lombards never seriously clashed with the Empire. I understand your serious mental issues, but you should learn what a book is and read some of them before listening to the voices in your head.
"You are again trying to say all of them where wiped out during the scenarios following Teutobourg"
No. I'm saying that "The Germanics that fought at Teutoburg and had been whiped out in the subsequent retaliation didn't care at all about the Goths or what DNA they had". You don't need to invent what I'm saying. You talked about genetic tests and German DNA as something relevant in first century, not me. I understand your serious mental issues, but you should read the posts you are answering before listening to the voices in your head.
1
-
1
-
@Nortrix87 Yeah. At Tacitus time, that's end of first century, beginning of the second, the Romans still had clashes with some Germanic tribe, and they will have well after Tacitus (mind that the "Germans took advantage of our dissensions and civil wars to storm the quarters of the legions and make a bid for possession of Gaul. This attempt ended in another defeat for them..." was actually the revolt of a Roman general, Lucius Antoninus Saturninus, that had been scarcely aided in his revolt by the Chatti, that Domitian had defeated some year before, with the help of the Cherusci, longtime clients of the empire).Problem is that they were not the same Germanics of Teutoburg, nor the same of the Cimbrian war for that matter (it's actually debated if the Cimbrians were Germanics at all. At best they were a confederation of Germanics and Celts). Contrary to the Empire, the "Germanics" were not a single entity with a single goal. The Goths, that will end the Western Empire, were still north of the Black Sea in first century. They had nothing to do with Teutoburg.
Those that had something to do with Teutoburg, generally didn't gain anything from it. Some of the tribes that participated to the attack had been erased form the map (and no, their goal was not "we'll all gladly die for the freedom of the Germanics!". The Marsi didn't give a damn for the freedom of the Langobardi. Had they knew the consequences, they would have not participated). Other had been enslaved by other Germanic tribes and faded long before the fall of the Empire. Rome governed Germania (included the same Cherusci) for centuries through client kings.
The Germanics never named themself as a group. There's not a Germanic word to indicate the Germanics. It had been the Romans that classified them as such.
1
-
@Nortrix87 There was a "Cimbrian" tribe in Jutland, it had been discovered by the Romans at the time of Augustus, and remained in good terms with the Romans, with route trade estabilished, for centuries, but many doubt even they were the same Cimbrians (like there still is a totally unrelated "Cimbrian" ethnic minority in Italy). The etimology of "Cimbri" can lead to many very common words.
If they had been the original nucleus of the migration, it's most likely that many other tribes added to it in a snowball effect, until the most renown "Cimbrian" leader has a name that not only sounds Celtic, but literally means "King of the Boii" (a Celtic tribe). In 2nd century BC, western and central Germania was far from a ethnically uniform land. both Celtic and Germanic people inhabitated it, and they still did in 1st century AD, at the time of Teutoburg (when the Celtic Senones still inhabitated Germania). The Celts started to dwindle because, with the Roman conquest of Gallia, they lost deepness of field.
Field speech of military commanders are not exactly treaties on ethnology. As said, the Germanics never referred to themself as a separated group. It had been the Romans that classified them. There's not a Germanic word to describe Germanics.
1
-
@Nortrix87 Also the Gauls were described as tall and blond. Nothing new here.
On the contrary. The fact that Strabo's account told of several clashes with the Boii makes more probable that the formation that finally invaded Noricum in 113 AC was composed by many Boii, and supports the fact that a "king of the Boii" was among the main "Cimbrian" commanders, if not the most prominent at all. Romans knew the celtic language, and the only reason to transliterate a name in something with a definite meaning was if that name had that meaning.
Another hint are the names "Lugius" and "Claodicus". Lugius can have a German origin, but, in this case, those two names, like the modern "Louis" and "Clovis" (Luigi and Clodoveo in modern Italian) have the same root (hlōd-wīg, famous warrior). In a single German language, those would have been the same name. If they had been transliterated differently, is because there were at least two different German languages involved, with completely different pronunciations.
Plutarch wrote more than two centuries after the facts.
The fact that a tribe joined the Cimbri doesn't make less probable that others did exactly the same thing, but more probable. Fact is that the Romans knew the Helveti much better than the other tribes of the "Cimbrian" confederation, so they didn't add them to the pile.
1
-
@Nortrix87 Polyaenus wrote more than 260 years after the facts, and he was not writing a treaty on ethnology, but on the stratagems of war. Actually the account is higly unlikely, since the Teutones, for one, never penetrated into Italy, they had been defeated by Marius at Aquae Sextiae, in modern day Provence, before he turned on the Cimbri. The previous accounts on Marius tactics were pretty different, and much more credible. Having to lead an army of newbies vs. hardened veterans, he first fought a defensive battle, only defending his camp. Then, when the Teutones gave up trying to overrun the camp, he searched for an easy victory over the isolated Ambrones, then, once his men were veterans of two battles, he faced the Teutones in pitched battle and a one-sided slaughter ensued. After Aquae Sextiae the legionaries were on the roll, and the result of the battle of Vercellae vs. the Cimbri had never really been in doubt.
Augustus mentioned the homeland of the Cimbri in Denmark because at that time the Romans found in Denmark a tribe that named themself "Cimbri", and remained in good terms with the Romans, with route trade estabilished, for centuries, but many doubt even they were the same Cimbri (like there still is a totally unrelated "Cimbri" ethnic minority in Italy). The etimology of "Cimbri" can lead to many very common words. If they had been the original nucleus of the migration, it's most likely that many other tribes added to it in a snowball effect, until the most renown "Cimbrian" leader has a name that not only sounds Celtic, but literally means "King of the Boii" (a Celtic tribe). In 2nd century BC, western and central Germania was far from a ethnically uniform land. Both Celtic and Germanic people inhabitated it, and they still did in 1st century AD, at the time of Teutoburg (when the Celtic Senones still inhabitated Germania). The Celts started to dwindle because, with the Roman conquest of Gallia, they lost deepness of field.
It was Ercolaneum, not Pompeii, and they were a not really statistically significative group, since it was restricted geographicallly, and much of that group was composed of slaves. The average height of Italian males in Roman period had been estimated between 164.2 and 165.4 cm by several studies on skeletons, and legionaries were not "average Italian males", there was a minumum height to be a legionary, so the average legionary war higher. There was an obvious difference with Gauls and Germanics, and infact the Roman historians reported it, but nothing to write home about. Mind that, at that time, height was higly dependent on feeding. Riches and nobles were normally higher than commoners, because they eat better, and riches and nobles composed the first lines among Celts and Germanics, so the impression was for them to be higher than they were in reality on average.
Both the Teutones and the Cimbrians had been slaughtered en mass. There had been very few survivors, and much of them didn't survive for long since there were many families that expected a revenge for Arausium. 100 AC Romans were not interested of the precise name of the several tribes they piled up calling them "Cimbri".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lepetitroquet9410 Anti ship missiles fired from where?
The only Russian ship surely hit by anti-ship missiles so far was practically in front of the Ukrainian coast. The Ukrainians had not been able to repeat that feat as soon as Russia retreated the ships a little, even if those had still been used to missile strike Ukraine.
Anti-ship missiles have a range, and even Sevastopol for how close it is to Ukraine, seems to be out of it.
So far, no naval drone attacked anything further than Sevastopol, and the damages they did to ships in navigation had been negligible.
Mines need to be deployed, and redeployed, again and again, to be effective, because minesweepers exists. How? So far the further the Ukrainian Air Force pushed outside the Ukrainian coast had been Snake Island. The moment Ukraine will be able to flight safely over the route from Feodosyia to Novorossysk, there would be no need to mine it. Ukraine would already have the complete air control over Crimea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Italian males have currently an average height of 176.5cm (measured 2004), they are taller than American and English males, (175.3 for both, measured 2012- 2014), French (175,6, measured 2004) and Germans (175.4cm, measured 2007).
Is difficult to find datas for Germanic people of Roman times, but Viking males, form skeletons found (usually we find burial of high-class people, so the average height is probably overestimated, since in ancient times they tended to eat better and so be taller than the average peasant) had an average height of 172cm. We already talked about legionaries but, from skeletons, the average male population of Herculaneum (and there are no class differencies there, since they all perished in a natural disaster) was of 169cm, so the Germanic people were probably on average taller than the Romans, but nothing so dramatic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arminius was a Roman citizen, an equites and a commander in the Roman army. He chose to be all of those things. None forced the Roman citizenship nor the equites dignitate on him, nor forced him to lead Roman soldiers. He didn't renounce to any of those things and, while being a Roman citizen and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared.
A traitor by any means. Any person doing the same things now would be considered a traitor.
Arminius' own brother, Flavus, was also a Roman citizen and a legionary in the Illyrian revolt. He then fought alongside Germanicus against Arminius. The respect the Romans had for Roman citizenship was so that, before the battle of Idistaviso, Germanicus granted a private chat between Arminius and Flavus (the two had to be separated by the legionaries, after Arminius mocked the decorations Flavus gained in Illyria).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cleopatra didn't rule a country "populated by black people". Egyptians didn't depict themself as black in first place (with the specific exception of the rulers of the 25th dinasty, that were Kushites, and is telling that them, being black, wanted to be depicted differently from the previous rulers). At the time of Cleopatra they had been governed by a Greek dinasty for almost three centuries and, after them they'll be governed by Romans.
Cleopatra wasn't "steeped in the habits of African culture". Ptolemaics remained proudly Greeks to the bone. They adopted only Greek names, ruled over Egypt from a city of Greek culture, founded by a Greek, speaking Greek, and their greatest achievement had been a Greek library.
There are no depictions of Jesus made while he was alive. There are many depictions of Cleopatra made when she was alive, and they had not been made by "those who whised she was white". They had been made by her subjects by her order.
There are no excavations of Cleopatra's relatives at all. Not even one. If you are referring to the pretended tomb of Arsinoe, she can be anyone. Given the circumstances of her death, it was most unlikely for Arsinoe to have a mausoleum. The body died at the wrong age, and her race had not been determined, her DNA cannot be examined, the head is missing, and craniometry to determine race is a scam even when is not based on old pictures.
1
-
1
-
@DeltaCain13 What changes betwen a thermal insulator, like plastic, or gas, and a thermal conductor, like brass, is the speed of heat transfer.
A mind experiment. Put in a owen a metal tray, into the tray, a piece of heat resistant polymer (IE silicone) and heat the owen up to 180C°.
When it heated up, put your hand into the owen. Your hand, at 36 C°, is the coldest system. All the rest (the air into the owen, the polymer and the tray) is at 180C°
Until you are in contact only with the hot air, it seems like it will take forever to get burn, because gasses are very bad at heat transfering.
If you touch the silicon, It also will take a long time to burn you. Because it also transfers heat very slowly
If you touch the metal tray, you'll hear your skin sizzle even before feeling the pain, because the heat transfer is almost instantaneous.
With plastic cases, the case is removed from the chamber before having time to heat it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feigning a surrender is a war crime, specifically listed by the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Had it been Italians, maybe the Italian justice would have searched for the real culprits.
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. The most powerful Italian production engine of the war had been the Piaggio P. XV, rated at 1700 hp. That was a 97 octane fuel burning version of the Piaggio P.XII, that was rated at 1500 hp with 87 octane fuel, that was still more powerful than the licence produced DB 605.
When comparing Allied and Axis engines, you have to mind that the Allies had high octane fuel available, up to 100/130 octane (that stand for "100 octane fuel that performs like 130 octane"). That way it was easy to enhance the power just changing the settings of the compressor. IE, no RR Merlin version ever obtained more than 1100 hp on 87 octane fuel.
Axis had 97 octane fuel at best, and not much of it. So, if they wanted more power, they had to manufacture new and bigger engines, that required new and bigger fuselages.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ALL of Cleopatra ancestors, maternal and paternal, up to Ptolemy I, founder of the dinasty, were not only Greek, but Macedons. Mostly of the same, inbred, family. We KNOW her entire family tree.
Had ALL ot your ancestors been Chinese, not only your grandmother, it wouldn't have counted where you were born, you would have looked 100% Chinese.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's not really true. Until 14th century (see 14th century crisis, or crisis of the late middle age) farming land was abundant and there was no shortage or forestry goods. So the workload was rather light, nothing comparable, for example, with that of a worker during industrial revolution.
things changed with 14th century because, due to population rise, farmland started to become scarce, so may people, had to employ themself as day laborers, the price of food rised, and more work hours were needed just to earn enough to survive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not murder, it's fight.
They had not surrendered, they feigned a surrender, that's a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
@WotansCry As already said, if there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
If he managed to kill all of them before they had the time to move, well done, he had been efficient.
In a fight, you don't look for the safety of the enemy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because having the charging handle on the right side, and so operating it with the shooting hand, while holding the weapon on the forestock with the other hand, it's the only way to reload without moving the weapon out of line. That's why any bolt action rifle has the charging handle on the right side ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jo9gifLCDs&t=291s ), that's why the M1 Garand had the charging handle on the right side, that's why the BREN had the charging handle on the right side... that's why most semiauto and auto weapons that haven't an ambidextrous charging handle (Included almost any SMG: Thompson, M3 grease gun, Sten, KP31, PPSH...), have it on the right side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem was the choice of making it SS, not the carburizing method, that was only an attempt to make the design work.
Low temperature carburization of stainless steel, up until the '90s, was an empirical process. You didn't know in advance what alloys were carburizable and what was the appropriate process for any of them. It could only be learned trough trials and errors. It's not by chance that the first stainless steel pistol was released only in 1965, and it was a revolver (S&W 60) so it didn't need many hardened parts. When stainless semiautos began to be introduced, in the mid '70s, all of them had galling problems. In 1983, Randall introduced a line of stainless-steel pistols. The guns were advertised with the slogan “Randall, The Only Stainless Steel Fit For Duty.” because all the previous ones weren't. The trick was to use different alloys for frame and slide and use different hardening treatments, that reduces the galling problem,however it not completely eliminates it. Today is less felt largely thanks to better lubricants.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The battle had been fought on a flat terrain. The camels carrying water and arrows for the Parthians were not out of view, unless they were so distant to not be of any use.
None said that it would have been easy, but it could have been done with some chance of success. Instead the chances of being annihilated remaining still were 100%.
The Roman/Gallic cavalry charged an enemy superior in numbers without a clear aim and on a flat terrain, so giving it the choice of when and where counterattack, and all the time in the world to do it, while the infantry did nothing during the engagement. With those premises, the outcome was decided from the start.
The supplies instead were a clear objective, and so the parthians would have not had all the advantages. They should have beaten the Roman cavalry first that it reached the supplies. But the heavily armored Cataphracts were slow, while the mounted archers were agile, but required time to disrupt an enemy formation. Likely the Roman cavalry would have had heavy losses, but it would have inflicted substantial damages too.
Light cavaly (and the Roman/Gauls were light cavaly in respect to the cataphracts) revived in early modern age exactly using those kind of tacticts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Woodsie_Lord Then you have also problems in comprehending simple texts.
The thread was about supposedly invading a foreign people, opressing them taking their wealth while forcing them to change their cultural practices, and when they fight back, successfully, seeking vengeance.
Actually there were many pro-Roman tribes in Germania. The Cherusci were one of them, until Arminius took power (and still there were a strong pro-Roman faction in the tribe, that will prevail in the end, killing Arminius and asking the Romans for a client king). Arminius was a Roman citizen, an Equites, and a commander of the Roman army, in charge of the scouting cavalry at Teutoburg, so a traitor, even for modern standards. His own brother Flavus remained loyal to the Empire, and fought in the legions of Germanicus against him.
"Arminius, savior of the Germanics" from the invaders that were oppressing and forcing is '30s narrative. A 1st century Germanic didn't reason like that. For him there was his family, then his clan, then his tribe and that was all. There was not a Germanic word to indicate Germanic people. It had been the Romans that classified them like that.
For the Western Germanics, at that time, it was a question of who they had to become tributaries to. The Romans or the Svebian confederation, east of the Elbe. That's why there were pro-Roman and anti-Roman (that were pro-Svebian) factions among them. As already said, among the Same Cherusci the pro-Roman faction will prevail in the end, and they'll end up aiding the Romans, and being aided by them, vs. other Germanic tribes. They dind't prefer the Svebi to the Romans because the Svebi were Germanics. That distinction had no sense for them. In the same Svebian confederation there were the Semnones, that were Celts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The rifle is actually very simple. Except for the burst mechanism, that's an added part not integral to the design, it's made of very few parts.
In this rifle. Is very easy to have access/remove the parts that requires more servicing (gas ports and bolt assembly) or that have to be replaced more often (statistically, the recoil spring and the firing pin). You can replace them in seconds and without tools, that was not a given at that time.
To completely disassemble the rifle is more complicated, but it had not to be done that often. In almost all the bolt action and semiauto rifles made until then (and several made afther then, think of the Gewehr 41 and 43 for example) the receiver and the trigger group were not made to be removed from the stock that often, infact they were secured with bolts and screws.
An M1 Garand for example is made with a completely different philosophy. The rifle is easily disassemblable, but not really field strippable. To have access to the firinng pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have a lot of small parts flying arounf you).
What can annoy of this design, is that the entire gas piston is not easily accessible, but in reality, all the "magic" happens under the muzzle cover, that contains the exhaust ports too, is exposed once the muzzle cover is off and can be fully cleaned. The rest of the piston is only a piece of steel to which very little could happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@geordiedog1749 After Pedestal Malta was resupplied by submarines. A new convoy didn't show up until November. Italian convoy losses had always been due much more to submarines than to Malta based aircrafts.
That of the "moral supremacy" is in general a mith, when applied to defeats it's a pathetic excuse.
Sirte 1 and 2 had been losses for the RN, and to talk about a pretended "moral supremacy" that should change the outcome is laughable. Sirte 1 is the Brits having the moral supremacy to flee the battle. Then having the moral supremacy to end up on an Italian freshly laid minefield they didn't suspect the existence of ("choosing", LOL!). Then having the moral supremacy to lose two ships and 830 seamen that surely had been happy to drawn showing their moral supremacy (but maybe they chose to), and having to retire the rest of the Malta Strike Force (but with the moral supremacy). In exchange for the the Regia Marina not having the moral supremacy and not having a single casualty. Trying to use "moral supremacy" to argue this had not been a defeat proves to not be able to handle basic facts, and infering "it would have had to anyway" is sour grapes. Sorry, IRL the Regia Marina didn't sail expecting to lose, they won easily without receiving a single casualty, the RN lost badly. Those are the facts.
Sirte 2 is the Brits having the moral supremacy to have several ships badly damaged (The Kingston and Havock had ben effectively lost) in exchange for no damages for the Italians. Then having the moral supremacy to leave the merchants on their own. Then having the moral supremacy to have the convoy almost entirely destroyed. Sorry, IRL the Regia Marina didn't sail expecting to lose, they won easily, the RN lost badly. Those are the facts. Convoy PQ 17 is recalled as "PQ 17 disaster". 1/3 of the convoy passed through and the escort ships suffered no losses. If PQ 17 had been a disaster, Sirte 2 had been a tragedy.
What you like or not is inconsequential. Randomly using the expression "cherry picking" doesn't make you any favour. YOU talked first about "first and second Sitre (sic)" so if someone was cherry picking it was YOU. It happens that "first and second Sitre" had been clear Italian victories. So did Pedestal. What had ben said about Convoy PQ 17 is valid for Pedestal too. If PQ 17 had been a disaster, Pedestal had been a tragedy.
There is, and there will always be, people that prefer to not see plain facts, shut eyes and ears and repeat propaganda (like that of the "moral supremacy") until they believe it. They came to believe that losing two ships, 860 men, and having to leave an important base, in exchange for no losses for the enemy, is a victory due to something they call "moral supremacy" they pretend to have existed. They can't admit a defeat, for how much evident it is, because it doesn't fit their narrative of "bossed from start to finish" and, since the narrative is more important than facts, what doesn't fit into the narrative can't exist. Since they believe in things like "bossed from start to finish" they pretend to know what the people "expected" too. They don't know, obviously, but it fits into the narrative of the perpetual victory, and narrative is more important than facts.
It's their choice, but they can't pretend to spread it without anyone recalling what the facts are.
Facts are stubborn things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To give some chronology, the earliest traces of iron smelting (so no hammering of meteoric iron) date back to 2200-2000 BC Anatolia.
From Hittite documents, Iron items were common, altough extremely expensive around 1800 BC. From around the same age we have some small iron jewels, likely smelted. Given the fact that Iron is a crappy material for jewelry (harder to form in complex shapes than gold, silver, or copper alloys, and prone to rust) it was evidently the fact that, for some reason, it was extremely hard to obtain that justified its use.
The situation was still the same around 1325 BC. We don't know if Tutankhamun's iron dagger was meteoric or smelted, but, due to the fact that it was evidently not made for its Egyptian-made handle, it was almost surely imported and, form it's original position, it was probably the most prized item of his funerary equipment. More than his gold dagger, or any other golden object.
Hittite documents point to the fact that instead, around 1200 BC, iron had become common and cheap. From this period is the most ancient big and complex iron item we have, an Hittite iron sword, surely smelted. In Ugarith had been found an iron sword bearing the name of Pharaon Merneptah (died 1203 BC), so Egyptians had access to the same tecnology.
So, there had been some technological improvement, between 1325 BC and 1200 BC, that made iron cheap and available in good quantities. While the technology remained practically unchanged in the eight previous centuries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually Columbus never called the Native Americans "Indians".
When he reached the Caribbeans, he believed to have reached a group of islands east of Japan (because in his map there was no space for a continent at that latitude), so it would have been silly to call the inhabitants "indians".
When, in his third voyage, he reached South America, he immediately recognised it was a continent (because the rivers were too big to came from an island) and a new one, (because at that latitude he couldn't still have reached east Asia), and called it "Paria". The name stood on European maps for decades, before being replaced by "America". Today it only indicates the Gulf of Paria, where he landed.
So, had the Native Americans been called after Columbus, they would be called "Parians".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aperson5845 It lasted for a while. 13th century had been a period of crisis in western Europe. Basically while, during middle age, you could plow more land in response to demographic growth, in 13th century new land was no more available, and famine came.
The black death reveted back the population to what was sustainable by the natural resources, and until 17th century, new waves of the plague periodically struck Europe at, on average, 25 years distance, almost stopping demographic growth. From mid 14th century to late 16th century, an European, provided he didn't die before for other causes, could expect to see two plague epidemics in his life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sergarlantyrell7847 A bascinet with aventail and without visor is not that much of a knightly helmet, if not worn under a great helm, for when things became serious.
Is an evolution we seen several times. Kights first wore a nasal helmet with hausberk, not really different form that of infantrymen. Then that protection was considered too light, and evolved first into the enclosed helmet, then in the great helm, to wear over the cervelliere, or over the bascinet (evolved from the cervelliere, probably in Italy that too). At that point the protection was too bulky, knights tended to not use the great helm any more over the bascinet, that was too light, so it evolved into the visored bascinet, and then into the great bascinet, that was too bulky again.
In Italy, the standard, or pixane, replaced the aventail (that must be worn over the cuirass, if you wanted to be able to remove the helmet at some point, and so was less safe). Once removed the aventail, and replaced it with the standard, the bascinet evolved in two directions, the sallet and the barbute. Early sallets were infact hardly distinguishable from early barbutes.
High end products tend to be more preserved that the simplest pieces, and city militias were not poor, but the barbute was a simple helmet to make by definition, and there are tons of preserved barbutes whose craftmanship was not better than that of the contemporary kettle hats.
http://vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?s=66f93c199c3eac6848997735ef636d45&attachmentid=36689&stc=1
https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1557/24368832943_8b6edf33d0.jpg
As already said, exactly as the Sallet, the barbute gained popularity with higher classes too, and was worn by cavalrymen too. Why not? For scouting or light skirmishes it had advantages over the heavier helmets. and there will always be someone that will prefer freedom of movements/breathability/less restricted vision over protection even in pitched battles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Columbus NEVER referred to the native Americans as "Indians".
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
Had been for him, Native Americans would have been caleld "Parians".
1
-
Bread can be made with many different kinds of wheat and preparation. In Italy, where I live, every town has it's own peculiar style of bread, that had been made like that for centuries.
IE, I work about 20 miles from where I live, and there is the bread made where I live, the bread made where I work, and the bread made in a town in the middle. They are all kinds of crusty loafs, but they are completely different for taste, texture, specific weight... An usual question in my house is "What kind of bread did you buy?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
See the "Cesare Chiaramonti" (one of the three busts of Cesar we have that are considered temporarily closest to the living person, the others being the "Cesare Tuscolo", and the newly discovered "Cesare di Terracina", and compare it with Simon Merrells, that in "Spartacus, the war of the damned" played the part of Crassus.
they are nearly identical.
In the 2006 TV movie, Hannibal had been played by Alexander Siddig, that, while not technically being a middle eastern, or a north African (he's half English, half Sudanese), was physically pretty spot on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If he was right in aircrafts being the trump card in future sea battles, the way to sink ships with them had yet to be found.
IE high level bombing with heavy bombers, like the B17, proved to be highly ineffective. From high level, even a stationary ship was a relatively small target, and the probability to hit it with a bomb was marginal.
For example, on Apr. 10 1943, 84 B17 bombers, the biggest concentration of heavy bombers used that far in the war, each one carrying 12 500lb "battleship buster" bombs (1008 bombs in total) , hit the port of La Maddalena, in Sardinia, where the cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were at anchor. All that they scored had been three bombs on the Trieste (that sunk) and two on the Gorizia (that remained afloat), a 0.5% score probability. Similar bombings performed on the three battleships at anchor at La Spezia (Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma) only slightly damaged the ships.
Also aerial torpedoing proved to be much more effective in ports (see Pearl Harbour, or Taranto) than in navigation, where even large warships could quite easily evade torpedoes when they had not been launched from "suicidal" distance.
Not by chance, Germans enforced a strict rule to use aerial torpedoing only against merchants, and only dive bombing against warships.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In all likelyhood the Iliad is based on a real war, but Troy being the city on the Hisarlik hill is debatable. We know it was considered that in Hellenistic and Roman period, but we also know that it was a tourist attraction. In Hellenistic period, in "Troy", there were, IE, the tombs of heroes that didn't even die there.
There's no guarantee that the entire city wasn't a tourist trap.
The city had been abandoned at the start of the Iron Age. It's entirely possible that, at the end of the "Greek dark age", when the poems on the Trojan war had become famous, people started to search for the city sung there in the region of the Troad, but the memory of the real location had been lost. Then the people that lived around Hissarlik hill reasoned "look at the fine ruins we have here. The shore, the rivers, all seems pretty similar to the poem. And all these people are searching for Troy. Let's THIS be Troy." and proceeded to make Santa Claus' village. Then Santa Claus' village influenced the later narrations of the poem, so the location and the poem became even more alike.
Infact the location is pretty similar, yes, but none of the Hisarlik's city strata really line up with the events of the poem. We have to mix up two separate levels to have a big city in the Mycenean period (but destroyed by an heartquake, not a war), and a city destroyed by a war (but too late for the Myceneans to have done that).
1
-
1
-
This is a visit to the Pietta factory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdnbNJKJ9ZE
As you can see, they use the same tooling to make their repro revolvers and their modern line of semiauto rifles and shotguns. They work in batches. "today revolvers, tomorrow semiauto rifles".
It's obvious that those machines can make anything in between. A Fyodorov Avtomat like a M1 Carbine. They only need the right imput. They can make them BETTER actually. With more consistent tolerances than the originals EVER had.
So why they don't do it?
Because, while manufacturing is not really a problem, designing is. Manual repeaters (revolvers, lever actions...) solve a lot of problems, because timing is decided and force is applied by the shooter. In a semiauto/auto weapon there are a lot of bits that have to work togheter for the weapon to work.
Much of those old designs required handfitting, because the admitted tolerances were so that, in a batch of supposedly identical parts, the right ones had to be chosen and coupled for the weapon to work. Worse, there was the "cascade matching" problem. When you took, IE, three parts that matched toghether, because they were all at one end of the tolerance scale, and then there was no fourth part that matched with them, because it should have been beyond the scale. It was a so common issue that, for the Winchester .224 prototype (the competitor of the AR15 in the CONARC competition) Winchester explicitly stated that they designed their rifle so that it couldn't happen. And we were in the late '50s. It was still a severe problem for the M60 MG.
Modern CNC machines can't work like that. so the modern designer has to come out with his own completely different, set of admitted tolerances.
Not to say that steel of the original composition is often unobtanium.
The REAL problem is that most of those designs were not that great to begin with. Even the most successful ones, (IE, the M1 Carbine, just to say one) were good FOR THEIR TIME.
But the eventual purchaser of a modern repro would expect form it MODERN reliability and durability, otherwise "This is shit! The manufcturer scammed me!". It doesn't exist "it seldomly work because the originals were like that too".
For the designer of the repro, it's like a nightmare. To him is like designing a completely new weapon, with the adjunctive constraint that he can't choose the solutions he KNOWS will work flawlessly. He has to keep it consistent with original solutions that he know work "so-so".
That's why modern repros, even when existing, mostly dont' have part interchangeability with the originals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eloiseharbeson2483 The Western Cartridge ammos were not "specially loaded". They had been made to original Italian specs even in bullet construction. They only used modern propellants, because Western Cartridge, obviously, didn't have access to the original Solenite.
The 6.5 Italian Carcano cartridge has much in common with modern 6.5 and not only 6.5. Being the first one to be adopted, it influenced many of them, both dimensionally and power-wise. IE back in the days when surplus Carcano cartridges were common, and 7.62X39 were unobtanium in the west, 7.62X39 were obtained by shortening and necking Carcano cartridges. The .264 USA of the US Army Marksmanship Unit still uses a shortened Carcano case. You can't put a 162gr round in a Grendel case, otherwise the muzzle velocity would have been practically identical to a 6.5 Carcano, and infact PPU 123 grains Carcano rounds achieve 2690 fps from a 21" barrel, that's even more than a Grendel does. The .264 USA, with 123gr bullet, produces 2,657 fps from 16.5" barrel. Still not that different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Historically they did. As already said, multiple times medieval cavalry charges had been stopped by infantry that had not long pikes and was much less disciplined than the Roman one.
A pilum used as a spear is a spear.
Anti-cavalry square musketeer worked vs. cavalry charges because horses don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry, regardless how armored or armed their rider is. Horses don't care if their rider is well protected or not, or what kind of weapon is wielding.
At the time of the battle of Agincourt, brigandines were not common (they had just been invented). "common" means little anyway, in late medieval armies the quality of the protective gearing varied wildly. Many English longbowmen only had some sort of padded vest and an helmet ( https://78.media.tumblr.com/1306ef25e5adce23a62dc270f899fba9/tumblr_nwsa530hAp1qbrih3o1_1280.jpg ). Moreover Projectiles tend to came from above, and even good quality brigandines are not that well protected from that direction, the lorica hamata had a double layer on the shoulder, and the segmentata was much better protected than any brigandine. Brigandines' protection is, at best, at the level of that of the Lorica squamata, that was more a flashy garement for parades than a battle armor, and longbowmen didn't had shields.
Ist century Roman armies had balista. Sige engines and gunpowder guns and cannons had not been used at Agincourt. Not that siege engines are so decisive in a pitched battle.
A sling bullet can achieve ranges in excess of 400 metres. Their range was on par with longbows for any realistic use. Legionaries carried and used them, because slings were lightweight, cheap and effective.
The cursus honorum was different. For the Romans to serve as an officer in the legion was not a meant to have a political career, a political career was something that only a successful officer could have. To be a good commander was the base of the political career.
1st centuries Roman armies were exceptionally well commanded. They were the peak of centuries of development in organised formation battles. From a Roman point of view, wedieval battles were only disorganized brawls.
The first of the "couple of loose things" is incomprehensible, sorry.
As already said, multiple times medieval cavalry charges had been stopped by infantry that had not long pikes and was much less disciplined than the Roman one. Cataphracts charged with spears, and their horses were better protected than average medieval ones. Stirrups had been ad advancement, but not a revolution.
1
-
I already said the only times when knights beaten infantry was when the infantry was very undisciplined, chosen an unfavourable position, was bad led, etc.
Dude, read about horses. They don't don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry, infact dense packs of spears bristling infantry stopped them many times. Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt.
Square musketeers worked because horses dont crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry.
Sorry, they have a range of 400m. Slings outrange bows for purely physical reasons (bullets, even when they are simple stones, loose less energy than arrows during flight, are less influenced by wind too, and Romans often used lead bullets, far more energy efficient) . Denegate uncomfortable truths is not going to bring you anywere. Slings had been used in war well into medieval times. They stopped being only with the diffusion of crossbows.
" I have slyngs smort and goode
The best archer of ilk one
I durst meet him with a stone
And gif him lefe to shoot
There is no bow that shall laste
To draw to my slynges cast"
("King Edward and the Shepherd" 14th century poem)
Sorry dude, but I know the difference between strategy, tactics and micro tactics, and I think that you simply don't recognise the difference between ancient and medieval battles. In Roman battle accounts you know the tactics they and their enemies used, because tactic was important for the Romans, and so they described them.
In Medieval battle accounts, tactic was rarely described and, when it was, almost everything seemed to happen by chance, because tactic was not considered important (and infact armies were "led from the front" even in late medieval times). Roman officers were supposed to have been trained in tactic, medieval commanders weren't, and, again, medieval cavalry had problems even with medieval militia infantries, worse armored, commanded, and less disciplined than the Romans were.
I already took Legnano as a sample.
You said: "without them you can't charge with lance.". That's simply not true. Cataphracts charged with spears, and their horses were better protected than average medieval ones (because they were in ancient times, and they know organized infantries would have targeted the horses). Stirrups had been ad advancement, but not a revolution. With stirrups the knight could charge having more hitting power for his lance, but that's an advancement, not a revolution, because cavalry charges are not stopped opposing a human body to the tip of the lance but opposing a spear, an obstacle, or both, to the horse.
1
-
You can write it some more time. It doesn't make it real.
More, it can be reversed. It seems that Cavalry could win only when the enemy infantry chose an unfavourable position, chose to fight in loose formation, wasn't trained, didn't prepare the terrain or themself at all, even with simple tricks like grouping around a symbol (the Romans did, their insigna).
You don't like Legnano? How about golden spurs? There the secret weapon was a 90-150 cm long spear-club that had not been particularly successful before or after?
Humans are afraid, but humans can chose to act in a way that overcome fear, especially if they know that break the formation and flee will more easily led to their death. Discipline works this way, and Romans were disciplined. Infantries that medieval knights usually fought weren't.
Sorry, but your whole reasoning about sling is just rubbish both from physical and real stand point. Arrows have a much larger drag coefficient due to the large surface area of the arrow shaft and feathers. This is reflected in the very low ballistic coefficient for an arrow compared to bullets. Moreover, sling bullets naturally spin in air, Arrows does not spin significatively during flight, so they loose speed first. Both ancient accounts and modern test states the longer range of the sling.
Legionaries using slings in mass shooting is asserted both by ancient sources and modern archaeological findings, IE at Burnswark Hill.
I didn't say medievals didn't use any tactic. I said that the importance of tactic vas less stressed in mediaval times, both in accounts, training, and method of command. Romans using tactic is not exactly a secret. Almost every account of Roman battles of contemporary authors described the tactic used. The tactic used in most medieval battles is not described, and often had to be guessed.
Cavalry charges had been stopped/disrupted by short spears and simple ranged weapons.
Infact the medieval chain of command wasn't apt to direct large battles. The larger the battle, the more the Roman advantage.
You have not to "develop" the charge with lance under arm. It's fairly natural to use it that way on a horse. As already said stirrups had been ad advancement, but not a revolution. With stirrups the knight could charge having more hitting power for his lance, but cavalry charges are not stopped opposing a human body to the tip of the lance but opposing a spear, an obstacle, or both, to the horse. Actually the greater advantage of the stirrups came confronting with other riders, not infantrymen.
I talked about PROTECTION FOR HORSES. The Cataphracts, on average armoured their horses much more than even late medieval knights. They lived at the peak of the era of organized infantry, and it was taken for granted that the enemy, infantry would have targeted the horses. Medieval knights were used to much softer targets.
1
-
"But this is untrue."
Only it's true. Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt. The rare times disciplined (not Roman-level disciplined, only a little more disciplined than hastly formed militias) infantries showed up, they won. When disciplined infantries became the norm, it had been the end of the shock cavalry.
"I just wrote that legnano prove my point."
You can write it, that doesn't make it true. The Lombard league infantry was just barely more trained and motivated than the usual medieval infantry (it was a citizen's militia anyway), used the easiest trick one can think of to mantain the unity of the formation, and that had been enough.
"You meant battle of when Flemish..."...were just barely more trained, motivated and armored than the usual medieval infantry (citizen's militia anyway), chose to not fight in the ideal cavalry's playground, and that had been enough.
"Sorry but this is just theory" Sorry, but that's reality. That's how training and discipline works, and Legionaries were more trained and disciplined (and even better armored) than any medieval infantry. Cavalry charges were not stopped targeting the knights, but targetting the horses.
"Just BS whole of it."
You can ignore reality if you want, that doesn't change it.
Arrows have a much larger drag coefficient due to the large surface area of the arrow shaft and feathers. This is reflected in the very low ballistic coefficient for an arrow compared to bullets. Moreover, sling bullets naturally spin in air, Arrows does not spin significatively during flight (a dozen revolutions a second means little), so they loose speed first. Both ancient accounts and modern test states the longer range of the sling. The shape of the arrow tip head has very little effect at subsonic speed. The form of the tail is more important, and unfortunately, due to the feathers, the arrow is very poor. The calculated drag coefficient under 100ms for arrows is around 2.0 (1.6 for modern day competition arrows with streamlined point and tail), while for bullets is between 0.2 and 0.3, and is around 0.5 for a sphere. The actual world record for sling throwing is 431m with a stone and 471m with a metallic bullet.
"Im almost certain they meant auxilary slingers not main legionares."
The ability of the Balearic slingers was legendary, but many bullets found had latin inscriptions on them and, again, the practice of the sling by legionaries had been reported.
"You know this is logical error - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
You know this is a logical error. You can'd adfirm something existed because there isn't any proof of it, and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". We KNOW because there are evidences of that, that tactic was important for the Romans. We know specialized works on tactic existed and were renown in Roman times. We know how Roman generals prepared the battle and reacted to the development of them. The importance of tactic vas less stressed in medieval times, both in accounts, training, and method of command, because the method of command used couldn't sustain any complex tactic.
"Again give me some evidence of that"
Already did.
"Not true, in Medieval times there were no one rule"
The "one rule" was that the medieval chain of command was too simple to effectively coordinate large armies. Still in late medieval times, and that's the case of Agincourt, the armies were led from the front.
"you cant charge with lance under arms without stirrups, becasue you fall from horse."
Falling or not from horse is only a question of how much force you impart to the hit. Thanks to the stirrups, Medieval knights could impart more force to their hits, even more than what a single arm could sustain, so they developed the lance rest (late 14th century). But, as already said, cavalry charges are not stopped opposing a human body to the tip of the lance but opposing a spear, an obstacle, or both, to the horse. Actually the greater advantage of the stirrups came confronting with other riders, not infantrymen.
"Depend of the time, and knigts money."
The time is that of the battle of Agincourt, and we can say that Cataphracts, ON AVERAGE (on average means that we are not confronting the richest and more armoured knight vs the poorest and less armoured cataphract, but what they used ON AVERAGE in battle) armoured their horses much more than even late medieval knights.
"Tell how late pikemen in Brigandine..."
Why should I? Late pikemen in brigandines were not even medievals, let alone the usual targets of medieval knights.
1
-
"Funny beacuse you can say the same about romans"
Really not. Romans lived at the peak of centuries of development of organized infantry battles, and usually won.
"Give me one example of that,"
Already did. You only don't like them. Want more? Almogavars repeatedly beaten the French Cavalry, and all they generally had were a pair of javelins (with wich they targeted the horses), a short spear and a knife.
"Partialy true."
Heavy cavalry disappeared in short time. Light cavalry survived employing new tactics (like that of the Stradiots) that closely resembled those used by the Cavalry in Roman Times.
"never discypline infantry with short sword ans shield defend against charge."
Romans not only had short swords and shield.
"From what I found they were good train and armored. And fact that you think that city militia was bad trains meant you dont know nothing."
Unfortunately this reasoning shows that You know nothing.
The infantry of the Lombard Legue, like the Flemish one, were barely at the level of the pre-Marian reform Roman Army (an army of non-professional, yet motivated, citizens. Barely because Romans had however a form of organized training since childhood). Professional Legionaries were completely different beasts. They were the ones that build 31km of fortifications (the Caesar's side) vs 28km (Pompey's side) at Dyrrhachium. War was not only their job. They already industrialized it. In middle age there had not been anything remotely comparable.
"Sorry so you say that romans never run? never panicked?"
Please, spare the straw men for someone else.
"Yes, but must have posibility to target horse, with so short weapons you cant that.
You only can attack horse after lanc hit first row and most of this row is dead."
Horses don't crash into tight formations of spear bristling infantry.
"You know that why people uses polearm and pikes?"
Because that way to resist to charges is easier. Even Romans knew that. The "anti cavalry circle" was an emergency formation. At Pharsalus, foreseeing that Pompey would have tried to use his strong cavalry to break trough his right flank, Caesar prepared a line of spearmen. Having a little more time (few hours, not more) Romans could make any field completely impervious to cavalry. As already said, they already industrialised warfare.
"Bla bla show me some proof"
The Guinness book of records is not proof enough to you? Despite a much wider base of archers rehenactors none came close to 400m employing a longbow reproduction, while amateur slingers can exceed that distance even throwing simple stones. the drag coefficient of arrows had been calculated many times (IE H. O. Meyer "Applications of Physics to Archery", Physics Department, Indiana University, obtained 1.94 ± 0.14), that of bullets and spheres is available even on wikipedia.
"Again proof."
Again, it had been reported, and archaeological findings confirms it.
"Again not all armiers were led from the front,"
Cavalry heavy armies usually were, unless the commander was too old for it. In this case often another, younger, one was chosen to lead the army from the front anyway. When the army was not led from the front, the command chain was however no notably different. The commander could see better, but not command better. And that's why those armies kept on being commanded from the front until late middle age. In Roman times a Tribune could take the initiative (and they often did, IE at Cynoscephalae), because he saw a good occasion, or a danger.
In Medieval times each small group had the initiative because there was no way to coordinate them anyway. It was the only possibility.
Please, do not invent "logic errors". Are you that are confusing simple or complex chain of command, with winning or losing at Agincourt. It's obvious that, even in a brawl, someone wins in the end.
"Because importance of tactic was less stressed in medieval times dont meant that they dont use tactics and that individuals could not be great with command."
But we are not talking about individuals. We are talking about a social and military system that valued tactic, described tactic, and produced specific works about tactic that the commanders were able to read and appreciated, with a social and military system that didn't.
"That funny and show that you know nothing."
That's funny and show that you know nothing. The lance rest was not used to simply hold the weight of the lance, but to arrest the rearward movement of the weapon.
1
-
1 I already did you all the infos. It simply seems that you refuse to read them, or your brain refuses to process them after you read. Physics is exactly the reason why longbows have shorter range than slings (compound bows outrange slings, but they weren't available at the time)
1,1 bows and crossbows HAD advantages over the sling, simply the range wasn't among them. Slings requires more training than bows to be used accurately (and crossbows requires even less training), so bows had an advantage for hunting and, once a society formed bowmen for hunting, it's easier to go further and train them for war than to replace the weapon entirely. Bows and crossbows can be used on ships and horses (slings requires space). Bowmen formations can be more packed (and so more easily protected by fences and trenches).
But, in a confrontation between Romans and medievals, this has little meaning, because the Roman slingers were already trained.
2 You simply ignored all the examples given saying that they werent valid because the cavalry wasn't in it's ideal conditions, or because you didn't know them.
Yeah. Romans used makeshift anti cavalry weapons. Or accurately prepared anti cavalry weapons. It was because they know what cavalry was and how to cope with it. That's exactly why cavalry is not a "win it all" weapon against them.
2,2 I already did actually. An armor is not some sort of impenetrable forcefield. Heavy armored late medieval knights had been killed by a lot of weapons that were not better at coping specifically with armors than those the Romans had. Falchions, daggers, short spears, and so on, even agricultural tools killed knights.
3 And, with those better charge techniques, longer lances, bigger horses ect. they had been stopped multiple times by infantry formations, less disciplined and trained than the Romans and without Swiss pikes.
4,1 Again, that's a straw men you built and continue to answer to. I never told of specific cases of bad leadership. I told of chain of command, literacy level, consideration for the tactic, education to it. "Yea, but in middle age there had been some gifted commander anyway" is not an answer like isn't "Romans lost this battle, so they were shit".
1
-
1 I gave you the info and the references. You simply decided to ignore them. Besides, YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE ANYTHING TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS
1.1 Sorry, but bows requires less training to be used accurately for hunting (where no super strong bows are required). Once your society has formed bowmen for hunting, it requires less time to obtain bowmen for war simply training them to use bows with heavier draw weight than to replace the weapon entirely.
But, in a confrontation between Romans and medievals, this has little meaning, because the Roman slingers were already trained.
2 err... no. In neither of those battles the infantry was armed with "long poleweapons". In one they had normal spears no different from the ones the same Romans used (yeah, Romans knew spears and used them even if they weren't their primary weapon), in another they had short spears-clubs. As already said, Almogavars repeatedly beaten the French Cavalry, and all they generally had were a pair of javelins (with wich they targeted the horses), a short spear and a knife. They didn't search a terrain that was ideal for the cavalry to fight. Why should they had? Mind that Legnano was an "encounter battle", so the infantry prepared its line in haste. They didn't had the time to find any particular terrain.
2.2 You are so wrong. Plate armors are full of gaps to target. "half swording" infact was needed to be accurate enough to target them with a longsword. But to have knigtly weapons was no needed to kill a knight. Heavy armored late medieval knights had been killed by a lot of weapons that were not better at coping specifically with armors than those the Romans had. Falchions, daggers, short spears, and so on, even agricultural tools killed knights.
3 To call "idiotic" and "stupid" what you don't like, or understand, is not making you any favor. You are not particularly impressive, and the use of insults doesn't enhance the level of your arguments. Besides, "discipline is everything" is just another straw man of you. I never said it. If it's idiotic, it's only thank to you, because YOU wrote it.
Yeah, medieval cavalry often won. But medieval cavalry NEVER faced a an infantry disciplined, trained, and tactically deployed at Roman level. When medieval cavalry faced an infantry that was barely above the level of "hastly formed militia" they were used to fight, the medieval cavalry often lost, and without the infantry having to use superweapons.
Cavalry existed in Roman times. it's not like they didn't know horses.
4.1 To lie is not doing you any favor. I never told of specific cases of bad leadership. I told of chain of command, literacy level, consideration for the tactic, education to it.
You simply didn't demonstrate "late medieval combine arms" having any superiority actually. Romans combined: ENGINEERING, heavy infantry, light infantry, heavy ranged weapons, light ranged weapons, cavalry, elephants sometimes, allied troops using their specific weapons and so on, deploying them in complex formations and purposedly tactically moving them during the fight at any level (from the single legionaries switching lines to entire legions moving). In many medieval battles it didn't seem there was any "coordination" actually, the troops only were there, and it's not suprising, since medieval armies were usually led from the front, where the commander couldn't coordinate anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The enemy doesn't care the number of push ups you can do. In historical warfare you have to lift a shield for hours, or draw a warbow, and there were no lighter shields for women, or lighter pull warbows, because their weight was already the minimum required for them to be effective.
War was a physical thing back then, much more than now. It had nothing to do whit few minutes of sparring, and to have bigger muscles and more stamina was a HUGE advantage. Women, apart few exceptions, weren't taken to the battlefield for the same reasons children and old people didn't, because IRL, in a melee, a 50kg woman doesn't stand a chance vs a 70kg man unles she trained MUCH more, but, "training for troops is a resource. It's not free, it has a cost. If you need more training for female soldiers to reach the same levels of male ones, then you are using the resource "training" inefficiently."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silver4831 I'm not forgetting. Here we were talking about HISTORICAL battlefields. Maybe you should have guessed reading about shields and warhammers, or the expression "War was a physical thing back then".
Simply female soldiers, like any soldier, NOW are carried on the battlefield on truck and their job is to pull a trigger. Physical requirements to be an effective soldier had been changed by technology.
NOW in many conflicts there are children soldiers too. They are cheap.
That's because automatic firearms changed the conditions on the battlefield.
IN THE PAST, to use children on a battlefield would have been considered ridiculous BEFORE being considered cruel.
Because a dozen of children would not have been a threat for a single men.
As for training, I already answered (you are being willfully ignorant about this?) "War was a physical thing back then, much more than now. It had nothing to do whit few minutes of sparring, and to have bigger muscles and more stamina was a HUGE advantage. Women, apart few exceptions, weren't taken to the battlefield for the same reasons children and old people didn't, because IRL, in a melee, a 50kg woman doesn't stand a chance vs a 70kg man unless she trained MUCH more, but training for troops is a resource. It's not free, it has a cost. If you need more training for female soldiers to reach the same levels of male ones, then you are using the resource "training" inefficiently. Almost any army that had a possibility on the matter estabilished minimum height and fitness standards. IE you had to be at least 1.65m high to join the Legion. That excluded many potential exceptional warriors? Yes, but training is a scarce resource, and it's inefficient to vaste it on the weaklings to search for the exceptions."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was not because the art.7 of the treaty of the triple alliance clearly stated that one of the signatories (and that meant Austria, the one that had interests in starting a war there) could start a war in the balkans ONLY BY MUTUAL ACCORD OF THE OTHERS. By keeping Italy out of the decision process (not only by inertia, but actively refusing a British proposal of a mediation involving Italy in July 1914) and unilaterally declaring war on Serbia, Austria broke the treaty on 28/07/1914, so Italy and Austria were no more allies. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again) and, over that, war was declared on 23/05/1915.
Germany had no role there. The question was between Italy and Austria-Hungary. The German Empire at that point was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief that it would have made a war with Russia simpler. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARED WAR TO GERMANY AT THAT POINT, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nextgenownage If you states something (" countries like ours Italy, Spain and U.S are so poorly equipped to deal with it, through lack of daily screenings, ventilators, mask etc that is making this virus cause problems") You should have a credible source to do so. It's not enough to say "I don't believe what the government say" to allow you to invent your own numbers. The available studies on the matter stated that UK has FAR LESS ICU beds for inhabitant than US, Italy and Spain, and is screening FAR LESS people.
Cicken pox kills around 20 people a year in the UK. The mortality rate is less than 1 for 10,000 so no, it's not nearly as deadly as covid-19.
The weakness of Ebola is exactly the the speed with which it kills. Infected people die too fast to spread the disease, that's why it had been always contained, even in countries with poor healtcare systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Disney renaissance movies hit the market at the right moment. They hadn't much competition, so every new movie of Walt Disney Animation Studios was an event (mind that, in the previous 27 years of the Disney "dark age" only 11 movies had been released), regardless of the objective quality.
Actually, several of them weren't that good. Not only Pocahontas or Hercules, but The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, proposed today would probably not be sucesses. The Emperor's New Groove and Atlantis are actually better movies and they aged pretty well, but they faced tougher competition at the time. More, 3D animation was all the rage, and the public was willing to see them FOR the 3D. "Dinosaur", the movie that persuaded Walt Disney company that 2D animation was no more worth it, is pretty much forgotten now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a visit to the Pietta factory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdnbNJKJ9ZE
As you can see, they use the same tooling to make their repro revolvers and their modern line of semiauto rifles and shotguns. They work in batches. "today revolvers, tomorrow semiauto rifles".
It's obvious that those machines can make anything in between. A Fyodorov Avtomat like a M1 Carbine. They only need the right imput. They can make them BETTER actually. With more consistent tolerances than the originals EVER had.
So why they don't do it?
Because, while manufacturing is not really a problem, designing is. Manual repeaters (revolvers, lever actions...) solve a lot of problems, because timing is decided and force is applied by the shooter. In a semiauto/auto weapon there are a lot of bits that have to work togheter for the weapon to work.
Much of those old designs required handfitting, because the admitted tolerances were so that, in a batch of supposedly identical parts, the right ones had to be chosen and coupled for the weapon to work. Worse, there was the "cascade matching" problem. When you took, IE, three parts that matched toghether, because they were all at one end of the tolerance scale, and then there was no fourth part that matched with them, because it should have been beyond the scale. It was a so common issue that, for the Winchester .224 prototype (the competitor of the AR15 in the CONARC competition) Winchester explicitly stated that they designed their rifle so that it couldn't happen. And we were in the late '50s. It was still a severe problem for the M60 MG.
Modern CNC machines can't work like that. so the modern designer has to come out with his own completely different, set of admitted tolerances.
Not to say that steel of the original composition is often unobtanium.
The REAL problem is that most of those designs were not that great to begin with. Even the most successful ones, (IE, the M1 Carbine, to say one) were good FOR THEIR TIME.
But the eventual purchaser of a modern repro would expect form it MODERN reliability and durability, otherwise "This is shit! The manufcturer scammed me!".
For the designer of the repro, it's like a nightmare. To him is like designing a completely new weapon, with the adjunctive constraint that he can't choose the solutions he KNOWS will work flawlessly. He has to keep it consistent with original solutions that he know work "so-so".
That's why modern repros, even when existing, mostly dont' have part interchangeability with the originals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the other end, a well put cloud of sling bullets would distrupt the cavalry charge first than the first lance would reach a scutum, like it did at Magnesia.
Romans relied in their infantry to slaughter the enemy one, but they had cavalry too. When it was not possible to win the cavalry clash, it's task was to harras the enemy cavalry enough to not let them mount an organized charge. Obviously, without stirrups, Roman cavalry could not win a clash vs. a medieval one of similar size, but, not being medieval horses usually armoured, and not having the knights ranged weapons (while 1st century auxilia cavalryman usually had javelins, and sometimes a bow), the second task was still possible.
Note that Roman era shock cavalry, the Cataphracts, armoured their horses much more than Crusade era knights. They lived at the peak of the era of organized infantry, and it was taken for granted that the enemy, infantry would have targeted the horses. Medieval knights were used to much softer targets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's actually quite surprising none noticed, during the development of the weapon, that the Blish lock was completely useless, and so, to leave it, would have added unnecessary complexity to the gun. However, that was not the last time. It had been only during WWII that someone bothered to see if the .30 Carbine round could be conveniently fired in a blowback sytem, and discovered that a 570 grams bolt was enough even for proofloads. All the M1 carbine manufactured, with their gas systems and rotating bolts, could have been replaced by much cheaper to produce, simpler to service, and even more reliable, blowback weapons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The weapon was developed for the ground role. IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than four-hundred samples of more than 14.000 built saw limited use on aircrafts (at that time the Air Corp was a branch of the Army) waiting for the model to be in full scale production first than distributing it to the troops. It was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield.
The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better.
The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy.
Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII.
The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar, there were only bolt action rifles and showels. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The rifle is actually very simple. Except for the burst mechanism, that's an added part not integral to the design, it's made of very few parts.
In this rifle. Is very easy to have access/remove the parts that requires more servicing (gas ports and bolt assembly) or that have to be replaced more often (statistically, the recoil spring and the firing pin). You can replace them in seconds and without tools, that was not a given at that time.
To completely disassemble the rifle is more complicated, but it had not to be done that often. In almost all the bolt action and semiauto rifles made until then (and several made afther then, think of the Gewehr 41 and 43 for example) the receiver and the trigger group were not made to be removed from the stock that often, infact they were secured with bolts and screws.
An M1 Garand for example is made with a completely different philosophy. The rifle is easily disassemblable, but not really field strippable. To have access to the firinng pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have a lot of small parts flying arounf you).
What can annoy of this design, is that the entire gas piston is not easily accessible, but in reality, all the "magic" happens under the muzzle cover, that contains the exhaust ports too, is exposed once the muzzle cover is off and can be fully cleaned. The rest of the piston is only a piece of steel to which very little could happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You asked for the worst LMG. M1918 BAR simply wasn't there for WWI, that's where it should have been, so it doesn't count if it had issues or not. It makes it a FAR worse gun than both the Breda 30 and the Chauchat.
M1918A2 had a lot of issues (complicate to field strip and clean correctly, subject to jammings if not cleaned correctly, the pencil barrel overheating fast and without the possibility to replace it, unfit for firing in prone position...), so much that, had not the war ended, US would have replaced it with the WAR (Winchester Automatic Rifle) despite the logistical nightmare it would have been.
If it was better or worse than the Chauchat or the Breda 30 is matter of debate. It depends mainly in the role you want to use it. The BAR was a better ambush weapon than the Breda (even if this advantage had been exploited much more in Korea than in WWII) but, in an automatic support fire role, it could provide only a fraction of the volume of fire of a Breda 30 (a Breda 30 barrel needed to be replaced after 200 rounds of continuous fire. At the start of the war, Breda 30s were issued with two spare barrels. Soon it was recognised ti was not enough, and that had been increased to 4 spares. Do the math). Obviously the US could cope with any inherent shortcoming of the weapon by manufacturing a shitload of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ A big company, with all the tooling needed for all the parts, and expert people that can solve problems at any stage of the work, can pass from drawings to production in 9 months. There are precedents.
A group of friends, that have to outsource parts, and so receive them, test them, give out new, corrected, drawings receive the corrected parts... It's VERY hard, at ANY price.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A test made today would have little sense, since in both iron and bronze weapon-making, the skill of the metal worker is paramount (both bronze and iron are subject to work-hardening, and the exact grade of hardening to have a weapon that's strong and not brittle is difficult to acieve), and few people, if any, are today able to forge-cast a sword of iron or bronze the way the people of late second millennium BC did. Also the performances of bronze vary a lot depending on the composition of the alloy (it only needs a little arsenic, that's often found in the same copper minerals, to greatly enhance the strenght of bronze).
Consider that still in classic age, bronze was widely used to make armors (IE almost all the Greek helmets), despite it being quite expensive, so it was still not considered outclassed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The bolt carrier is the part where the recoil spring acts, the proper bolt, or bolt head, is the part in contact with the cartridge and that has the extractor, and so pushes the cartridge in the chamber and extract the spent case.
The MG42 is a short recoil weapon, but its not a simple short recoil weapon, like a semiauto pistol, where there is a single piece bolt that recoils at the same speed of the barrel until the barrel stops and the bolt continues snatching the case out of the chamber. The MG 42 instead have a system whose purpose is to slow down the bolt head in respect to the bolt carrier, when the bolt separates from the barrel, to prevent extraction problems, cause pure short recoil systems (like those used in handguns) and long bottleneck cartridges doesn't match well. The rollers on the MG42, like the inclined surfaces on the MG34, or the accelerators on the M1919 and Breda SAFAT, are not bells and whistles added cause they were nice. All those systems are complications added to prevent the extraction problems that a simpler short recoil system /like that of a semiauto pistol) would have had.
As for the Breda 30, its not like the Breda technicians really didn't know what they were doing, and didn't think to enhance the locking time, is that that wasn't the problem. The "simpler" solution would have been to not make the locking ring rotate at all (it should have acted like a simple barrel extension), and adopt a two piece bolt, with a rotating bolt head (to unlock it from the barrel) and a not rotating bolt carrier/striker that is pushed back at double the speed of the bolt head due to inclined surfaces, like in a SIA1918 - or in a MG34.
1
-
I'm sure they'll be pretty good with their karma, since the same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
1
-
1
-
Nor this, nor the directly derived Hakim/Rasheed, nor the MAS49/56 are "direct impingment" actions.
Direct impingment doesn't exist. No rifle action ever was actuated simply by the "kick" of the gasses.
In Elklund's patent (mind that the guy's main job was to design hydraulic pumps, he knew a thing or two about pressure) this is clearly described as a PISTON action. The "open tube" is actually a piston, and it has the diameter of a piston, because a piston works thanks to pressure X surface area. That's why the external diameters of the "open tubes" of the Ljugman and MAS49/56 are so much larger than the gas key of an AR15 (despite the internal gas pipe being practically the same). Because they need surface area to work.
The only difference between this, or that of the MAS49/56, action, and that of the Mini14, IE, is the location of the piston and cylinder.
"direct impingement" is how Stoner described Elklund's action in his own patent, to artifically differentiate it from it's "internal piston" action.
In reality, the ONLY thing that's patented in Stoner's patent is that, in his design, the gasses are in direct contact with the bolt (while, in Elklund's patent, they are in contact with the bolt carrier, not the bolt).
1
-
@ You are welcome.
If you are interested, look at the gas setup of the Degtyaryov DP-27, because it's exactly the same of the Ljungman (and probably inspired it). Only, in that case, the static piston (without sealing rings, exactly like in the Ljungman), holed in the center to let the gas pass, is at the end of the barrel, and, consequently the mobile cylinder/cup, solidal to the carrier, is at the end of a rod.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@druidriley3163 Garlaschelli didn't manage to replicate the shroud. He first made an image very similar to that of the shroud using dry ochre powder, but there's no ochre, or other pigment, in the shroud, and an image made with ochre powder, or any other dry pigment, wouldn't have survived until now.
Then he tried to replicate the process mixing solid acids and salts to the ochre , cooking the linen and then washing it. The final result had all the defects of hundreds of other contact images made ro replicate the shroud. The discoloration was much deeper, there were not the half-tones present in both the shroud and the first replica, and there was no colour at all in non-contact area.
Moreover, in the shroud there is no image where there is the blood, so first blood, then image. In Garlaschelli's second replica, since the cloth had to be washed, the blood can be added only after the image had been formed and the cloth washed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerstevenson8085 You stated: "the majority of sea trade was done by shallow hulled coastal ships" like it was of some significance. The majority of people didn't ride horses, so horses didnt' exist?
I feel like you're glossing over the entire point of this comment chain The original comment said that romans lost 100.000 men in a storm in 255 BC, so, since the Med. is calmer than the Atlantic, Roman ships could have not gotten anywere near to America. Now:
1) "Roman times" is not all the same. Third century BC was at the very beginning of the Roman experiences at sea.
2) Vikings surely knew how to navigate the Atlantic, but Mediterranean storms sunk their ships too. It's not like navigating the Med is a joke, and the Atlantic is the real thing.
3) Romans normally sailed through the ocean in Imperial time. Another one, but ocean neverthless.
Then you came and blabbered some nonsense about the sea route from India to Rome not being a Sea route because the city of Rome couldn't be reached directly from India by Sea.
Now you are talking of percentages like you really know something about them. There were Roman commercial outposts in southern India and, while ancient sources talk about how to reach them by sea, none talks about how to reach them by land because, face that, MOST of the commerce with India was made by sea because, AS ALWAYS, commerce by sea was HUGELY more economically efficient.
It seems you are more than a little confused. I never stated the Romans were capable of "accurately and safely" doing anything.
The original comment said that romans lost 100.000 men in a storm in 255 BC, so, since the Med. is calmer than the Atlantic, Roman ships could have not gotten anywere near to America. Now:
1) "Roman times" is not all the same. Third century BC was at the very beginning of the Roman experiences at sea.
2) Vikings surely knew how to navigate the Atlantic, but Mediterranean storms sunk their ships too. It's not like navigating the Med is a joke, and the Atlantic is the real thing.
3) Romans normally sailed through the ocean in Imperial time. Another one, but ocean neverthless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UrukEngineer It doesn't "prove", it's a strong indication, because is somethng written by a third party in the duration of a lifetime since the events.
Exactly because the Christian mithology and the blaming of the Jews (IE " if indeed one ought to call him a man", "at the suggestion of the principal men among us", and "He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him", ) had been evidently inserted, written with a different style than tht of Josephus, that indicates the originality of the core of the statement that, instead had been written with Josephus' stile and from a Jewish point of wiew (A Christian wouldn't have told of "James the brother of Jesus" nor of the "tribe of the Christians". Mind also that the reference to "James the brother of Jesus", that's almost universally considered original, implies that he talked of that "Jesus" in another passage.
Also, Origen stated that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, that implies that his copy of Josephus work already mentioned Jesus. And it was the first half of 3rd century. Christians were still a small minority in a Empire where books were mass-produced. How should have they edited all the existing copies?
They had not even able to edit all the copies of the Gospel of John to insert the passage about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knutsparell3619 It's not me being dishonest, it's you trying too hard to be clever.
Unfortunately for you, that's not how science works.
The fact that there is the abstract possibility that the Paradise Lost had been written in bronze-age China, doesen't mean that the position that it has, and the one that it hasn't have the same dignity. Since there's no hint that it has, we have to assume that it hasn't until proven otherwise.
Since there is not a single Christian source referring to the "tribe of the Christians" before 4th century, we have to assume the expression not having been used, until proven otherwise.
That's science for you.
You should at least try to understand answers already given before commenting.
As already said, Of what Jesus Josephus was talking of in the James passage, doesnt make any difference. What counts is that the passage was not enough to decide if Josephus believed or not in the divinity of Jesus (even MORE if that Jesus was another Jesus) so, when Origen stated that Josephus didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, he referred to another passage that was already present in his copy, so the testimonium was already present a century before Eusebius.
1
-
@knutsparell3619 Your is an argument from ignorance "since we don't have every single thing written by Christian authors until 4th century, we have to assume the expresson could have been used, even if is absent from the tons of writings we have".
Unfortunately for you, that's not how science works.
The fact that there is the abstract possibility that the Paradise Lost had been written in bronze-age China, doesen't mean that the position that it has, and the one that it hasn't have the same dignity. Since there's no hint that it has, we have to assume that it hasn't until proven otherwise.
Since there is not a single Christian source referring to the "tribe of the Christians" before 4th century, we have to assume the expression not having been used, until proven otherwise.
Until proven otherwise, we have to assume Origen thinking like a human being. A passage where Jesus (even MORE if that Jesus was another Jesus) had been simply nominated, was not enough to decide if Josephus believed or not in the divinity of Jesus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LexMakarov "people of other countries?"
They should be "people of other countries"?
Russians are happy to spend their time licking the boots of their very Russian dictator, like they did for all of their history. Not Ukrainians, Not Europeans, Not Americans. Those are democracies.
The only thing that amazes westerners about Russians, is their ability to buy propaganda crap and love to be commanded.
See. In any dictatorial state, the regime tells the people fables to keep them obedient. But almost everywere people KNOW they are being served crap.
Not the Russians.
They slurp it all, and swear it's chocolate.
The regime tells them that a shithole country, with the GDP of Spain thus having three times the population and a far worse distribution of income, and whose GDP dropped 4.5% in 2022, "rised in the ranking of economies", and they are all happy, wagging their tails and begging for more of that crap to eat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TraTranc Uh, no, since, as you said, other higher caliber rounds WERE available. Why someone that wanted an higher caliber round would have bought a pistol in .32 ACP when 7.65 Parabellum and .45 ACP (not to say ALL the revolver calibers) were regularly on the market?
The Bernardelli B76 even had two alternative versions available for civilians, one in 7.65 Para and one, blowback, in .32 ACP. It was a question of choice.
But it's revealing that NO weapon manufacturer thought to build a pistol for one of the many 9mm calibers equivalent to 9mm Para (9mm Largo, Steyr, Winchester, .38 ACP/Super...). They made 9mm pistols for police/military contracts, then a version in .7.65 Para to cover the scarce civilian requests for breechlock guns they expected.
Even only talking about blowbacks, had there been a real request for larger calibers than .32 ACP, even not being .380 ACP available, manufacturers would have done them in 9mm Makarov, but none did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Silver_Prussian It's always funny to hear a battleplan consisting in "we will win, because we can die a lot more than them".
The enemy is always happy to oblige with the second part.
What the "Russians love" fucked them in the Crimean war, Russo-Japanese war, World War First, Afghanistan...
"modernised" is the magic word. It stands for "old Soviet junk we can't replace once it will be turned to scrap metal like the junk that came before". Anyone can see the Russians are using much less tanks, or any kind of vehicle for that matter, than they did in the first months of war. Nor that they can remotely "modernize" enough tanks. Russians already used ass-old T62 and T64B, without reactive armor, stabilizer or night vision, in first line. No army out of subsaharian Africa (and few even there) would have put a trained crew in those coffins, but Russian reasoning was "we will never be able to give you something better, so you can very well die there".
1
-
@Silver_Prussian It seems more the Russian one, judging by dead and wounded soldiers left rotting on the field.
Yes, they were, and badly lost by Russia. all of them.
That's what Russian schools teach? Sorry. The Crimean war had been fought to avoid Russia to take advantage of the Ottoman weakness to expand in the Balkans. French and British didn't want to "get Crimea or establish any foothold in the black sea" (had they wanted, they would have, since their fleets had no problem in doing everything they wanted for the duration of the war in the Black sea). They wanted to demonstrate Russia its expansionism could led to lose something more important than what it could gain, and they succeeded. Despite the poor management of the war, by the French and Brits (the Crimean war is considered among the lowest points reached by Western military proveness) the Russians, despite being on the defensive on their home soil, had about double their casualties (because that's the Russian way of fighting) and, once Sevastopol had been taken, in front of the perspective of losing Crimea, Russia sued for peace, and "all the parts of the Ottoman territory of which the Russian troop were in possession". Russia returned the Southern Bessarabia to Moldavia and had to "not establish any naval or military arsenal on the Black Sea coast".
BTW, other than having been beaten at home by an expeditionary force had been an evident humiliation for Russia (no compulsory disarmament had ever been imposed on a great power previously...). It's not curious how the Crimean war is considered an example of abysmal management of military affairs for western countries, despite they had been evidently superior to their adversary? It's like the Russians being shit at fighing is taken for granted.
Oh, you found an example of a battle the Russians won? How impressive... 😂I could have given you some other example had you asked.
What the "Russians love" fucked them in the Crimean WAR, Russo-Japanese WAR, First World WAR, Afghanistan WAR...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Silver_Prussian Russia Invaded Ukraine, not the other way round, and Russians are UN certified war criminals, not the other way round, so the "dirty work" is all their, they eagerly wanted it, and they can thank only themself.
Ukraine entering NATO was not on schedule, sorry (not that Russia has a say in what organization a sovereign country can join or not), while, thank to the invasion, Sweden and Finland are going to really join NATO, while Russia keeps his mouth well shut, because in the meantime the "second army in the world" is having its ass spanked by the 22nd, partly armed with some NATO leftover.
It's a wonder how Russians are not able to grasp their armed forces, thanks to the display in Ukraine, have become the world's butt-joke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@narnia1233 Sorry, but LOTR doesn't "switch to a 'new' character. Even without any mention of them before" at mid movie, so you can't take it as an example of that.
So, to you, they have to completely invent a story for Frealaf. How that should be better than inventing a story for Helm's daughter, apart for the fact that's disjointed with Helm's story?
What successful fantasy movie switches at mid movie from a main character to another previously mentioned only in passing letters?
I don't know how much more simply I can explain this. You would prefer this movie to be made in a way NO SUCCESSFUL MOVIE HAD EVER BEEN MADE only for the sake to erase a character that Tolkien mentioned and whose presence doesn't contraddict any lore.
The multiple POV of LOTR (movie, not book, that has an objective narrator) is made of characters that have all been introduced, have interacted and had a part in the story BEFORE having a POV. How inventing stories for multiple characters we know nothing of should be better than inventing a story for Helm's daughter?
Intelligent or not, no successful fantasy movie had ever been done the way you propose.
Honestly this is kind of depressing to me that I seriously have to explain this to anyone.
It kind of makes me realize how much “modern audience” became an empty slogan, since you used it to negatively describe the way movies had ALWAYS been made.
I guess it does make sense that you simply want a certain character to not be used no matter what. At the cost of making a movie in a way no successful fantasy movie had EVER been made, and to completely invent events as well, but simply for other characters that you prefer to see.
Everything to not see her.
At the cost of making a movies in a way none had been made before.
Again, in what way inventing stories about a character instead of another would better the movie?
Ok, now you are inventing the POV of Saruman. Sorry, id doesn't exist, nor in the books, nor in the movie.
Sorry, but you dont' know the stories "I'm used to" and you shouldn't guess. You are simply advocating for this movie to be made in a way no successful fantasy movie had been made before, only to not have a certain character you dislike on screen.
1
-
@narnia1233 And what does your sex change?
It doesn't solve the fact that this daughter has to do SOMETHING before switching to her POV after Helm's deat, and Frealaf has to do SOMETHING before switching to his POV before the final battle, otherwise the public DON'T CARE about those new guys, and there needs to be some INTERACTION between the characters before the switch. so you have to INVENT actions for two characters instead of one.
Between Helm's death (frozen in the middle of winter) and Frealaf 's arrival (in spring) this daughter, whose POV we are following, has to do something. This is an action movie, it can't be the POV of someone that's simply freezing her ass waiting. So, what does exactly change?
In movies the events are narrated from the POV of the characters. Those characters need to have AGENCY, they need to have MOTIVATIONS for what they do. it's basic screenwriting. A character without agency is a cardboard stand-in, it doesn't have depth. A character with agency has ambitions, motivations, and a sense of purpose. That's what makes the public root for them. One of the main fault of "modern screenwriting" is that the characters often DON'T HAVE AGENCY. Since they are "kind of character driven" and not "story driven" characters do things only because the plot says so. A story-driven plot is not a plot where a character doesn't have motivations, because one of the purposes of the story is precisely to give motivations to the characters.
Aragorn doesn't arrive out of nowhere for the public. They KNOW him. Imagine the same movie, where, instead of Aragorn, it's a certain Poldo Smith that arrives out of nowhere, kicks Gríma Wormtongue out of the palace, and everyone lived happily ever after. Imagine the return of the king where, when Frodo was struggling through the Dead Marshes, Timmy Ross arrives out of nowhere, takes the ring, and takes Frodo's place from then on. What kind of movie will it be?
The events are two paragraphs long. There are not enough events for a movie. In the appendixes version EVERY CHARACTER IS A SIDE CHARACTER. Every nominated character beside Helm (that dies in the middle of the war) DOESN'T HAVE A STORY so of what events are you talking about?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is nothing saying this action not being sound. The Isard spring has 28 twists, the 1911 32, the Astra 27. The thickness of the wire is about the same. In all likelyhood they had about the same stiffness when new.
The stiffness of the mainspring has practically no importance in keeping the action of a blowback handgun closed for enough time to safely eject the case. It's the mass of the slide that does all the work. The only real function of a stiffer mainspring is to mitigate the felt recoil and the force with which the slide slams into the receiver at the end of it's travel, so a stiffer spring prolongs the life of the frame/slide. However, the force that has to be absorbed is the same for blowback and short recoil pistols. Infact, IE, the Hi-Point mainspring has the same stiffnes of the Glock. More than pointing to the dimension of the spring, Ian should have measured the stiffness of the spring. A smaller spring can have the same stiffness of a bigger one, it wears out quickier, and so has to be replaced more often, but the durability of the spring was probably not the main concern of the designers of this handgun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TrangleC Yeah. That's the difference. The difference is between extracting the old magazine, inserting the new one, and opening the magazine, inserting the clip, closing the magazine. Many people, like you, think everything they are not used to is a big issue.
In reality the time spent in reloading has very little importance. Is a problem only for harmchair "experts". IE the wartime instructions on the use of the BREN provided a practical ROF of one magazine a minute. It was contemplated an "exceptional" ROF of four magazines a minute, warning that, at that rof, the barrel had to be changed after 10 magazines (so two minutes and half of fire), and the entire squad had only 20 magazines available (so 5 minutes. Battles tend to last a little more). A second more in reloading counts for nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem was the number.
Mongols conquered many fortified cities, and many fortresses located in strategic points. Because they were important and worth the effort.
Because even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers.
In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses whose garrisons were capable to resist for weeks or months against far larger armies, and dividing the horde in multiple small columns to attack many fortresses at the same time was a bad idea. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them.
In the subsequent attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. They built more fortresses, increased the number of mounted units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
Then there is the fact that in Europe, praires ends in Hungary (that's why both the Huns and the Hungars came there before the Mongols). Western Europe was more forested, and so much less favourable to steppe riders. Mongols had big problems in Indochina and Korea because of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Infact representation is cancer. Representation is the grave of diversity.
You want to see diversity? See, for example, the first, 1982, lineup of the New Mutants. A white American, a Native American, a Vietnamese, a Scottish, a mixed-race Brazilian. Two males, three females.
Those characters worked because their different backgrounds and look made for interesting stories, both visually and plot-wise (compare it, IE, with the uniformity of the first, 1963, X-Men lineup. Marvel learnt something in those 20 years).
But they were not meant to represent anyone else but themselves.
When your character is meant to represent a group, it ceases to be interesting. It can't have defects, because those would be the defects of the group. The only kind of growth allowed is for him to discover how awesome he already is and how much listening to others was keeping him down. And that's the death of a character.
1
-
1
-
Actually it had been an higly successful weapon.
The weapon was developed for the ground role. IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than four-hundred samples of more than 14.000 built saw limited use on aircrafts (at that time the Air Corp was a branch of the Army) waiting for the model to be in full scale production first than distributing it to the troops. It was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield.
The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better.
The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy.
Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII.
The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar. There were only bolt action rifles and showels. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to field the the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The long time spent between the early studies and the realization of the dam played a big part in the disaster.
In the '30s none in the world took in serious consideration the geological charateristics of the basin in building a dam. What counted were the geological charateristics of the bedrock where the dam had to be linked, and those were perfect (infact, the dam itself withstood the impossible, contrary, IE, to the Malpasset Dam, in France, that collapsed in 1959 due to the faulty charateristics of the bedrock). The construction of the dam was approved in 1943 so, when the construction of the dam really begun, in the '50s, the studies on the basin were lacking, and were still lacking when the further rising had been approved.
Serious studies had been done in the '60s, but at that point too much money had been already spent and, of the various studies available, the SADE obviously chose to believe to the ones that described the possible landslide to be only superficial.
Curiously, of all the geologists consulted by the SADE in the '60s, the one that made the almost perfect prediction of the charateristics of the landslide was the son of the chief designer of the dam.
1
-
That of the "heat extraction thru metal cases" had ALWAYS meant "in respect to caseless ammos".
Caseless ammos are ineherently hotter than brass ammos, because the burning powder is in direct contact with the chamber.
Here's the opposite. Plastic shields the chamber from the heat of the burning powder MUCH better than brass. Heat remains in gasses, and it's expelled from the barrel with them, because also gasses are very bad at heat transfer.
The collar is around the primer, not the bullet. Plastic seals better than metal, and plastic cases don't need to shrink that much to be extracted, because they are not metal, so they don't get stuck to the chamber like metal. That's why extracting shotgun rounds is not a problem.
SIG bid has a reciprocating barrel as well. It has a reciprocating barrel EXPRESSELY to mitigate recoil. Despite that it's quite evident that, of the three bids, the GD one is the one with the least visible recoil, the SIG has the harshest and the Textron is in the middle. He didn't even try to fire in full auto from the shoulder with the SIG, since it was clear that there was no way to do that without turning it into a AA gun.
Blow forward guns are notoriusly recoil-enhancers, because you loose the recoil mitigating effect of the bullet trying to drag the barrel with it. Short recoil is a recoil reducer because it prolongs the time the recoil is applied to the receiver, so reducing the peak force.
1
-
@leary4 He was talking of plastic ammos in respect to brass. You replied with an argument that's valid only talking of caseless annos in respect to brass. Plastic shields the chamber from the heat of the burning powder MUCH better than brass, because brass is a thermal conductor and plastic is an insulator. Heat remains in gasses, and it's expelled from the barrel with them, because also gasses are very bad at heat transfer.
What the chamber is made for doesn't matter, it can't change physics. The chamber is physically part of the barrel (it's obtained in the same piece of metal) they are not two separated parts. A cooler chamber means a cooler barrel and a cooler receiver.
Plastic seal better than metal. There's no doubt about it. Your same statement about the brass cases "breathing" means they are a poorly sealed. Since plastic seals better, it shields better powder from umidity, that's what ruins it.
Shotgun's ammos are ammos. They seal the hot gasses the same way and are extracted the same way than bottleneck ammos.
Yes, there is the effect of the bullet dragging the barrel with him. It's caused by the same friction of the bullet into the barrel (enhanced by the rifling). If the barrel is not attached to the receiver, when the bullet is fired, the barrel goes forward with the bullet. If it's attached to the receiver, the same force mitigates the recoil. That's why blow-forward weapons, like the Schwarzlose M1908 are notoriously recoil-enhancers. You can try to force a bullet down a barrel by hand while at the same time helding the barrel steady by hand. When you fire the gun, the combustion gasses provide the effort to force the bullet down the barrel, but the effort you needed to hold the barrel steady doesn't magically disappear. It mitigates the recoil.
You can see him firing this in full ato at 4:04. He didn't fire in full auto the SIG bid, and it's enough to see how much the rifle kicked in semiauto to know why.
Thank you.
1
-
@leary4 Combustion results in x amount of heat. Brass is a thermal conductor, and subtract that heat from gasses (where it's useful, since more heat= more expansion) transfering it to the chamber (where it's detrimental, since the results of heating the weapon go from discomfort to overheat).
Plastic is an insulator, so heat remains in gasses, that expand more. That's why, with plastic cases, they need less powder for the same amount of energy transfered to the bullet. Heat then leaves the barrel with the same gasses, since the gasses too are bad at heat transfer (that's why you dont get burn immediately putting a hand in a owen, but you do touching a piece of metal in it).
So gaskets shouldn't exist. Put two pieces of the same metal togheter, and they'll seal perfectly.
It doesn't work like that. Materials that seal better, seal better, and plastic seal MUCH better than brass. They are not even comparable.
It's not the air in the shell that "makes combustion possible". Gun propellants are not fuels, that need air to burn. They are explosives. They already contain all the chemical components for the combustion to happen. Also thermal expansion is not a wanted effect. The fact that plastic expands less than metal with temperature is better, since it makes the dimensions of the ammo more consistent.
The fact that the bullet tends to drag the barrel with it is the reason short recoil pistols have less perceived recoil than blowbacks of the same caliber. Because the bullet tending to push the barrel forward, while barrel and slide are linked toghether, slow down the rear motion of the slide and so the slide slams in the frame with less energy.
On Youtube Schwarzlose M1908 had been tested, IE, by Ian of "Forgotten weapons" and he also talked about how much the pistol kicked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hendriktonisson2915 "Excellent" is the word used in Allied reports "From the following report, prepared at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, it appears to be an excellent gun". (see the Tactical and Technical Trend, the magazine of the US Intelligence, No. 23, April 22, 1943 "ITALIAN 8-MM BREDA MEDIUM MACHINE GUN, MODEL 37"). I prefer to rely to original wartime reports than modern armchair impressions.
As already said, to load the trays, like to load the belts, was a backline activity. Only loaded trays, like only loaded belts, were supposed to reach the first line. A broken loader (but what's the possibility for a loader to break? It's so remote to be immaterial in choosing a gun) could be fixed, and obviously there were other loaders around. However, since the tray has a clear stop to mark the position of the cartridges and, being rigid, can be placed on the ground or on a box during the operation, I beg to differ on what was easier to load by hand.
1
-
@Tom-zc9gs As already said, I prefer to rely on the original wartime reports of those that had to daily fight the weapon and had extensively tested it, comparing with their own, than modern armchair impressions of those that had seen it firing once in a clip.
"Machine carbine" is what the MP44 was. it's not like since the term "assault rife" imposed itself later, then who used "machine carbine" didn't understand the weapon. Between the MP44 and the M2 Carbine (select fire M1, it's not like at Aberdeen didn't know them) I would have selected the M2. The Mp44 WAS heavy (it was heavier than a FAL or an M14. 1.2kg heavier than an AK47 unloaded. 2.1kg heavier than a M2 carbine, almost double its weight) in exchange of what? The fact that it's concepts (but not the gun) imposed themself after the war didn't mean it was a superior weapon at the time.
Also, the fact that the Tactical and Technical Trends criticised a good weapon, it's not a proof that they tended to praise bad weapons. Quite the contrary infact. There's an obvious bias in favour of what one knows. The weapons of the enemy had to pass that bias to be considered good. The Breda 37 had been considered exceptional DESPITE the bias, not thanks to it.
The hindsight of successive weapon designs and industrial development has nothing to do with wartime weapons and conditions. Its misleading and has to be left out. A weapon doesn't become good in WWII because it's development had been good in Korea.
The supposed problems of the Italian army have nothing to do with the quality of the Breda 37. It was an MG, not an army.
Nor those that used it daily nor those that tested it as a weapon of the enemy noticed this supposed unreliability nor this "constant necessity of maintenance", nor those problematic features. The weapon had always been deemed to be very reliable and simple to mantain.
1
-
@Tom-zc9gs Those that used daily it used it in the sands of Egypt and the snow of Russia, and deemed it to be very reliable. None noticed this supposed "lot of work to maintain on the field of battle" or that "Other MGs had far more reliability in the same conditions". It seems like something you decided by yourself.
Canvas belts had been dropped as well, aren't they? One can invent supposed "general problems" of belts without taking in consideration the weapon he'stalking about at will. Judge them without having ever touched one, decide they are easy to damage... talking of the strips being "hard to keep clean and running" in comparison with belts is really funny anyway.
500m? Please. 90% of rifle exchanges in WWII had been fought at less than 100m, and 99% at less than 300m. So what's the use of doubling the weight for something that's useful in maybe 1% of the cases? And ist's not like the .30 carbine is harmless over 300m. Even a 9mm Para can still pass completely through a human body at 500m. Between the MP44 and the M2 Carbine (select fire M1, it's not like at Aberdeen didn't know them) I would have selected the M2. The Mp44 WAS heavy (it was heavier than a FAL or an M14. 1.2kg heavier than an AK47 unloaded. 2.1kg heavier than a M2 carbine, almost double its weight) in exchange of what? The fact that it's concepts (but not the gun) imposed themself after the war didn't mean it was a superior weapon at the time. the "tons of improvements that could be made" had not been made yet, it was the Mp44 that had to be judged, not "tons of possible improvements". Still in 1958 the contender of the AR15 was the Winchester Light Weight Military Rifle, a classic wooden-stocked forged-receiver rifle (and it could have won, the testers listed many advantages over the AR15) and, guess what? Both contenders had weights comparable to that of the M2, not that of the Mp44. A rifle really similar to the M2 Carbine was still a contender, an Mp44 would not have even been considered. The Mini14 is still appreciated now, and it's largely the same rifle, What modern weapon is really similar to the Mp44 as the Mini14 is similar to the M2?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChristopherCompagnon1AndOnly The good thing of philosophies is that they change. Being stoic, or whatever else they decided to be, didn't prevent to Romans to give rights to citizens and not citizens. Regardless of their genetics or the perfection of their bodies.
After Christ we had to fight for two millennia against people that though they had a special truth, gave to them by God, that wanted for them to have the power to control every single aspect of every single man's life, from birth to death.
And no, JC never said we are all equal. There isn't a single word in the gospel against slavery for example. All the people JC saved had been saved due to their own fait in him "Your faith has saved you". Right?
All but one, the servant (the slave) of the Centurio. JC saves him because the Centurio asked him to. The faith of the slave had not role in it. Nor JC told to the Centurio "now free him".
What the Church told to people for millennia is to suffer meekly the injustices in this world, to have a reward in the afterlife, not that we have to be equal HERE. And EVERY TIME someone tried to say that we had to be equal HERE, he had to fight AGAINST the Church to say it.
1
-
1
-
@grimmspectrum1547 Not even close.
365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 46 seconds, is the time Sun takes to return in the same position in the sky. Those almost six adjunctive hours are the reason we add one day every 4 years. Those 11 minutes and 14 seconds less than 6 hours are the reason one leap year is skipped every 100 years, unless the year is divisible for 400.
What's arbitrary, and it's a legacy of the Julian calendar, is the relative duration of the months. There's no reason February has 28 days (it's only that the Romans didn't like it, so they made it short). Calendar could have had 7 months of 30 days and 5 months of 31 days, or 12 moths of 30 days, with 5 intercalar days evenly inserted between the months during the year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@imankhandaker6103 Not only I know history far better than you, but you don't seem that great at understanding simple things either.
As I already explained you (and as you repeatedly failed to grasp):
"Like it doesn't matter if he existed or not, as long as Christians believe id had. It doesn't matter when, or if, he was born, as long as who made the calendar believed he was born in 1 AD.
Year one is year one because, for who made the calendar, it was the year of Christ's birth, and that's the only reason.
So, are you still going to pretend that a year count based on Christ's birth date is not religous?"
But please, go on. Try again to impress me by saying that, if he existed, wasn't likely born in 1 AD, like I didn't know that since primary school. Maybe the next time I'll give you a pat on the head and say you are a clever boy (a lie, since you even believed in "year 0", but white lies are allowed for making not particular bright people happy).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
Aeschylus' turned it into an advertising for Athen's legal system. Even if the goal was not much to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but that, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joemama.556 Uhhh... No.
It's quite evident you know nothing of what you are talking about. Otherwise you should know that US infantrymen are trained to shoot at 300m max, even if the ammo they already use are effective at double that distance and more, and that's not going to change. Because, in 99% of possible combat fields, YOU ARE NOT EVEN GOING TO SEE AN ENEMY STANDING IN BROAD DAYLIGHT AT 300M, because there is something blocking the line of sight.
What's farther than 300m is a target for the MG.
But a MG, that's effective up to 2km if fired from a tripod, when fired from a bipod is effective only to 800m, then the dispersion is too high, not because of the ballistic, but because of the mechanic of the recoil.
The XM250 doesn't even have a tripod mount.
So no "waaaaay more effective range", sorry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1mcg1 One of the Russians attacked the Ukrainians in the video. It doesn't need ANY other attack for all of them to be killed where they were. The men on the ground participating in the attack doesn't have any importance. That's only a "a posteriori" consideration". In a fight, you don't look for what enemy is shooting at you and who hasn't started yet. The only concern a soldiers is required to have is for his own safety and that of his unit. Not for that of the enemy.
The bodies being in the same position where they were before the attack, or having been moved, doesn't logically have ANY importance in deciding their death having been an execution or not. Executed men can be (and usually are) moved before the execution. Not executed men can be (and usually are) shot were they are. They were held at gunpoint, apparently in the same positions, by a machinegun. It can very well mean that they had been killed rapidly, with a single bursts, during the fight.
Sorry, but psicological interpretations of the attitude of the Swedes don't have any importance. One can say that, since they love the Ukrainians, they idolized them and want them to hold to higher standards than what's simply required by the laws of war. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPORTANCE. What counts are facts, not how Swedes, Australians or Martians interpret them.
If Europe and US will lose interest in Ukraine based on something that's not a war crime, that will not make it a war crime. Facts are not changed by the consequences.
1
-
1
-
Steel swords were die casted only in Hollywood movies.
With medieval tecniques you couldn't obtain liquified iron or steel. Only with the introduction of blast furnaces, starting around 13th century AD, you could obtain liquid pig iron, that had to be reduced in a finery forge to obtain forgeable steel bars.
Migration era European swords were folded. They were obtained starting from small bars of different hardness (those that culd be obtained in a bloomery), patter welding and folding them several times, to diffuse carbon content and reduce impurities. The process was abandoned when, with the diffusion of the Catalan forges in Europe starting from 8th century, bars of good quality homogeneous steel became available, and so a sword could be forged in a single piece.
That was not possible in Japan, since the tatara was a rather primitive bloomery, so you could obain only little pieces (50-100g) of acceptable quality steel from it, so, if you wanted something that resembled a bar of homogeneous steel, you had to pattern weld and fold it. The folding in itself has no structural effect.
1
-
In middle age THERE WAS NO WAY TO PUT LIQUID IRON INTO A MOLD, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY TO OBTAIN LIQUID IRON. The liquid that came out of a blast furnace was pig iron/cast iron, not pure iron or steel. European swords had never been made of cast iron.
Swords were exclusively forged, that means hot hammered starting from a bar until you obtain the desired shape.
Pattern welding and folding were the only way to obtain a steel sword first than 8th century in Europe, because there was the same problem than in later Japan. Out of a bloomery you can obtain only little pieces of workable steel. If you want to do a steel object of the dimension of a sword, you have to pattern weld those pieces and fold the bar obained to even the carbon and impurity content.
Starting from 8th century in Europe, since bar of good quality homogeneous steel became available, and so a sword could be forged in a single piece, folding was not only no more needed, but even detrimental of the quality of the blade. Folding does not increase the quality of steel. Every time the metal bar is folded, defects in the contact surface between the two folded parts are created. Japanese kept on using the pattern welding tecnique because the tatara, the furnace they used to smelt iron, was a rather primitive bloomery, and so only little pieces of workable steel can be obtained from it.
If you talk to a modern blacksmit to sand-cast iron, he'll look at you like an alien. BRONZE was sand or stone casted, not iron.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Romans used several times the anti cavalry "square" formation (it was round in their case) using the pila as spears. Regardless how armored their rider is, horses don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. Long pikes obviously were an advantage but, in medieval history, several times infantry formations, less disciplined than the Romans and without Swiss pikes, resisted to cavalry charges (IE at Legnano). Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt.
Mind too that most depended on the timing also. Had the Romans some hour to build even very simple fortifications, even only the stimuli and campus liliorum (the field traps they developed to cope with cavalry), the cavalry charge would have been complitely neutralized before the first knight reached a scutum.
1st century Roman armor was very good against projectiles, and was on average better than what a late medieval infantrymen could afford.
As for ranged weapons, a 1st century Roman army would have had a ballista for centuria, with a longer range than a 15th century field crossbow, and almost every legionary would have had a sling, that had about the same range than a longbow and was effective vs. horses and lightly armored enemies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is none "excusing" anything.
The Russians did not surrender, they feigned a surrender, that's a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@druidriley3163 Garlaschelli didn't replicate the shroud. He first made an image very similar to that of the shroud using dry ochre powder, but there's no ochre, or other pigment, in the shroud, and an image made with ochre powder, or any other dry pigment, wouldn't have survived until now.
Then he tried to replicate the process mixing solid acids and salts to the ochre , cooking the linen and then washing it. The final result had all the defects of hundreds of other contact images made ro replicate the shroud. The discoloration was much deeper, there were not the half-tones present in both the shroud and the first replica, and there was no colour at all in non-contact area.
Moreover, in the shroud there is no image where there is the blood, so first blood, then image. In Garlaschelli's second replica, since the cloth had to be washed, the blood can be added only after the image had been formed and the cloth washed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, when Troy had been redscovered, a lot of scholars were searching for it, and there was a general consensus about it's existence, since it was mentioned as an existing city in classical sources. There was surely an Hellenistic and a Roman Troy.
What's in doubt is if the city under the Hisarlik hill is the city of the poem. In classical antiquity it was considered like that, but fact is that, for that reason, Hisarlik was a tourist attraction by then.
It's very possible that, after the "dark ages" that followed the bronze age collapse, when the name of the city had been made famous by the poem, people started searching for it, and the inhabitants of Hisarlik, living in a place with an orograpy very similar to the one described in the poem, decided to seize the opportunity and make their city became the Troy of the mith.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BTW, Columbus realised he reached a new continent when he effectively reached a new continent, and not an island, in his third voyage, and called it "Paria" (the actual Gulf of Paria in Venezuela), that's why, with a curiuos inversion, in the Map of Waldseemüller, that allegedly gave the name "America" to the new world, in reality the name "America" was given to south America, while Central America was called "Parias".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe in that case the Italian court would have searched for the culprits instead of two scapegoats.
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Roman chain of command was miles ahead everything seen in Europe until the 30 years war. Medieval armies were still led from the front, so that the commander couldn't even see what was happening more than few steps away, let alone react to unexpecetd circumstances. the Roman commander could lead the battle from the start to the end.
Infact tactical knowledge and execution would be a huge advantage for the Romans in this scenario. They knew and recognized the importance of tactic much more than the Medievals did. They knew works about tactic that didn't survived into the Middle age (IE the works of Pyrrhus of Epirus, on which even Hannibal studied), and those were common knowledge, since every Centurion was supposed to be able to read and write (and much of the legionaries did), while, in a Medieval army, the commander being able to read was not a given.
Historically, medieval knights have been stopped several times (IE at Legnano) by infantrymen that were fare less disciplined and, on average, worse armed than ancient Romans. Regardless on how well armored their rider is, horses don't crash into tight formations of spear (or pila) bristling infantry. Frontal cavalry charges were usually effective in middle age only because knights usually faced ill-disciplined and ill-trained militia infantry, whose formations were easy to disrupt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem was the number.
Mongols conquered many fortified cities, and many fortresses located in strategic points. Because they were important and worth the effort.
Because even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers.
In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses whose garrisons were capable to resist for weeks or months against far larger armies, and dividing the horde in multiple small columns to attack many fortresses at the same time was a bad idea. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them.
In the subsequent attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. They built more fortresses, increased the number of mounted units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
Then there is the fact that in Europe, praires ends in Hungary (that's why both the Huns and the Hungars came there before the Mongols). Western Europe was more forested, and so much less favourable to steppe riders. Mongols had big problems in Indochina and Korea because of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is difficult to find datas for Germanic people of Roman times, but Viking males, form skeletons found (usually we find burial of high-class people, so the average height is probably overestimated, since in ancient times they tended to eat better and so be taller than the average peasant) had an average height of 172cm. We already talked about legionaries but, from skeletons, the average male population of Herculaneum (and there are no class differencies there, since they all perished in a natural disaster) was of 169cm, so the Germanic people were probably on average taller than the Romans, but nothing so dramatic.
Several Roman sources said of one or another Gaul or Germanic population, that they were very tall, but often the Romans first seen the warrior elite. People that eat very well since childhood, and so were taller than the average.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jpa5038 It's a complete nonsense. Commercial ships transport thousands of tons of military equipment daily. Like they did in any major war fought near to a sea since the invention of shipping. Are you stupid enough to believe that all the ships that transported military goods for the Allies in WWII did born as military ships?
The Moskwa had been hit by missiles, not drones, practically in front of the Ukrainian coast, not on the southern/eastern part of Crimea. Missiles have a range. And infact, even if you are too idiot to know it, the Ukrainians had not repeated that feat, despite the Russians using their ships to launch missile strikes on Ukraine.
Kerch bridge had been hit by a truck bomb. For how stupid you are, even you should know it's improbable for one of them to hit a ship.
Even if you are too ignorant to know it, Sevastopol is on the west side of Crimea, in front of the Ukrainian coast and, despite repeated attacks, there's no news of any ship sunk by those drones.
Nothing you described poses any serious treat to Russian shipping in the eastern/southern part of the Black Sea. But evidently you don't have enough brain to even understand it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry, but the Army didn't want ANYTNING else than the M9.
The XM10 trials had nothing to do with slide separation, It was the Congress forcing the Army to redo the test to appease S&W, since, reading the XM9 requirements to the letter, it shouldn't have been eliminated after the life expectancy test, as it did. That's because, thus performing worse than both Beretta and SIG, it was still above the minimum required (the S&W had been eliminated after one of the three pistols tested cracked a frame before having fired 5000 rounds, but the requirement was for a life expectancy of over 5000 rounds ON AVERAGE, and, on average, the life expectancy was over 5000 rounds) and so it should have passed and competed on price with Beretta and SIG.
In the end, Beretta won the XM10 trials without even competing. It refused to submit pistols for the tests, and so the Army used off-the-shelf guns.
1
-
@oldscratch3535 It doesn't matter what, or who, you believe either, for that matter. Physics doesn't work according to your wishes.
According to Stoner, the AR action "is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system". Unfortunately that's EXACTLY how the Rasheed, or the MAS 49, actions work. Thanks to gas expansion. Have you noticed how the "open gas tube" of the Rasheed, or of the MAS 49, enters INTO the bolt carrier, instead of simply resting against it's flat face? It's because, to work, EXACTLY like in the AR action, they need pressure build and gas expansion for a certain time. Not simply a supposed "kick" of the gas against the bolt carrier. So, or all of those system are direct gas impingement, or none of them is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No.
Thanks to the mediation of the German emissary Von Bulow, FIRST the Austrian Foreign Minister Berchtold promised the Trentino, and that would have been enough. THEN Berchtold was replaced by Burián, THAT RENEGED ANY PROMISE, so undermining the position of Von Bulow as a mediator and of the Italian neutralists (Giolitti that, believing to Berchtold's promises, had previously exposed himself, saying that Italy would have obtained "much" by neutrality, was mocked in the Parliament when it was clear that Austria-Hungary would have given "nothing" instead).
At that point the Italian Foreign Minister Sonnino presented his requests to the Entente.
Only when the negotiations with the Entente were almost complete, maybe realizing the mistake, Burián offered a small part of the Trentino, and only at the end of the war, but, at that point, it was too little, too late (Belgrade in exchange of a pair of alpine valleys?).
Italy entered in the war because the idiotic Austrian diplomacy managed to undermine the position of anyone that wanted to avoid a war with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually Protestant Church denounced copernicanism (Copernicus was a Catholic canon) much before Catholic church. Melanchton advocated copernicus works to be destroyed by the autorities, but never had the political strenght to obtain that.
Catholic Church took a position on the matter only 60 years after the publication of the theory, and well past Copernicus' death, mostly because it had been invested on the matter by Ptolemaic scientists, that didn't know any more how to respond to Galileo that, being, other than a great scientist, a skilled polemist, ridiculed them.
Galileo had been condemned mostly because the "Dialogue" that he was advised to write presenting a balanced view of the two teories, was far from balanced, and the advocate of Ptolemaic system in the book, starting from the name ("Simplicio", "the simple one") made a fool of himself, and for having said that "Church should teach to the souls to reach the stars, not how the stars work". He was right of course, but the autority is not happy to be told what they could do or not.
Had he been more careful, Galileo could have proposed the same theories, and much more, without problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paoloviti6156 "modification" in VERY broad terms, since it had double the row and more than double the power. "Hence" means nothing when the engines are so different.
The reliability problems were on the first engines produced. Those of well known engines like the BMW 801 or the P&W R2800 lasted for longer before being ironed out. It has to be taken into account that, due to the different productive capability, the "first engines that gave problems" (a common occurrence in WWII era) were an higher percentage of the total production for the Italians, even if they were numerically fewer.
The TBO of Italian licenced DB engines was of 60 hours. Packard Merlins rarely lasted 100 hours (and, due to the different mission profiles, most of those hours were at military/emergency power for Italian engines and at cruise speed for Packard Merlins).
The P&W R-2800 started service with an expected life of 25 hours (then the 5 cylinders in top rear position had to be replaced without even checking them, while, for the DBs, at the overhaul the cylinders were checked and rebored only if needed). Only some thousands engines later it became of several hundreds hours, then of thousands. The difference between the outstanding P&W R-2800 and the unreliable Alfa Romeo 135 was that the US could afford to put in service an engine that required to toss 5 cylinders every 25 hours of functioning.
The RR Merlin had nominally a 240 hours TBO but according to Rolls-Royce, if 30% of engines were reaching overhaul life and, no single cause made-up more than 30% of rejections, then it was time for an increase of maximum engine life.That means that 70% of the RR Merlins didn't even reach TBO, and that was late in the war when, again, much of the time the engine was at cruise speed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've never noticed Japanese tourists in France, Italy or Spain can speak French, Italian or Spanish. Usually they can't even speak a word in English or, if they can, they are too embarassed to do it.
That's a well known fact in tourist destinations like Rome, Florence and Venice and, for that, japanese speaking personnel is highly requested. That tourists, much more often than not, can't speak the local language at all is not a question of politeness, it's pretty much a given fact in any not-English speaking country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@-108- A US pilot that trained with former Warsaw Pacts pilots, when they were still flying Russian stuff, stated that they tended to be very "bi-dimensional" that's because, in training, they had a lot of limitations on allowed turning radius, attack angles and so on.
That's probably because, as reported by the Indians also, Russian stuff is fragile. If you use it harshly, it will always be under maintenance.
But, if Ukrainians pilots still have that habit of "playing it safe", that's not dangerous for the aircrafts. Quite the contrary infact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So India's goal should be to have courts like those of Iran, China or Russia?
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
Moreover, by not allowing the defense's experts to assist to the ballistic tests, the Kerala court discredited any result they provided. That's why the two couldn't be trialed in an Italian court, as, at that point, there were no evidencies against them. You don't make so that the forensics are prohibited to the experts of the defense if you don't want to forge them.
So, yes. maybe in a Iranian, Russian or Chinese court the two would have been convicted on the basis of those "proofs". If that's the goal...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Drachinifel One should say that 3 light cruisers,
and 10 destroyers should be able to deal with 1 light cruiser and 5 destroyers, but at Kolombangara id didn't go exactly that way. Battles with far more favorable odds than being in two and having to deal with six had been botched. At Cape Spada the odds were favourble to the Brits due to sheer numbers.
The Giovanni dalla Bande Nere dealed quite well anyway. In a 6 vs. 1 battle it received two hits, with limited damages, in exchange of one, until the Brits decided to quit. Yeah, the Colleoni had been immobilised by a single hit, but it had been the presence of the destroyers that made the difference, since three of them could deal with the immobilised ship, while the others kept the single Italian cruisers at bay.
Mind too that five years separated the Colleoni (laid down 1928) by the Sidney (laid down 1933). The contemporary Condottieri class cruisers were the Duca D'Aosta, or even the Duca Degli Abruzzi, that were very well protected.
1
-
@Drachinifel Actually the Italian ships were chasing the destroyers Sydney and Havock and turned when they saw Sidney AND OTHER THREE DESTROYERS. At that point the odds were clearly in favour of the British. To describe the battle as "two cruisers that run for their lives as soon as they sighted another cruiser", not mentioning the presence of OTHER FIVE BRITISH SHIPS, is or ill-informed, or dishonest. Choose one.
As said, it had been the presence of the destroyers that made the difference in the outcome of the battle, since three of them could deal with the immobilised ship (that was finished with three torpedoes), while the other ships could keep the single Italian cruisers at bay.
After the sinking of the Colleoni the battle went on 6 vs. 1 for another hour, until the Sidney decided to quit. At that point the Brits had scored two hits on the Bande Nere vs. one of the Italian unit on the Sidney, all of them with light damages. The Bande Nere speed was reduced to 28 knots, due to a boiler overheating, for half an hour, so it seems odd that the Brits had not been able to close distance having at least a 4 knots advantage.
1
-
@Drachinifel Sorry, they were chasing the second destroyers flotilla of Nicholson, (destroyers Hasty, Hero, Hyperion, Ilex), and turned when they saw Sydney and Havock.
You are talking of false narrative? Three destroyers sunk the immobilised ship, while a cruiser and other two destroyers (so mantaining a numerical superiority) could deal with the other cruiser. It had been the presence of the destroyers that made the difference in the outcome of the battle. To describe the battle as "two cruisers that run for their lives as soon as they sighted another cruiser", not mentioning the presence of OTHER FIVE BRITISH SHIPS, is or ill-informed, or dishonest. Choose one.
Have you read my first message, where I wrote "After the battle became a 6 vs.1 It had been the Sidney that in the end made smoke and broke the contact, BECAUSE IT WAS RUNNING OUT OF AMMUNITIONS."?
In a 1 vs. 6 battle it was not really surprising that he didn't decide to quit because he was scared. BUT you wrote "the Italian ships survival was largely on account of them running away fast enough to keep the range open to a degree that scoring hits was quite hard." Since the Italian ship was limited to 28 knots for half an hour, while the Brits could steam at least at 32 knots, it doesn't seem the case.
So you didn't mention them because you didn't like their class?
Pretended battles don't count, sorry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They had not surrendered, they feigned a surrender, that's a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason is that this cartridge, like the 9mm Glisenti (power-wise they are practically the same cartridge) was exactly at the limit where blowback action became impractical. More powerful and, if you wanted to use a blowback action, the pistol became heavier than a breechlock action, top heavy and less durable. Less powerful, and breechlock actions were more complicate than blowbacks without advantages, but, exactly at this level, advantages and disadvantages of the two actions were even. Infact the 9mm glisenti started as a cartridge for the breechlock Glisenti 1910, and was then used in the blowback Beretta 1915 and 1922. The 9mm Ultra was developed to be used in a blowback (the Walther PP), but then the Germans decided that the PP frame was no up to the task (infact the Beretta in 9mm Glisenti had a buffer spring to avoid the frame to take a too hard beating) and developed a breechlock action for it.
But, if you have to use a breechlock, you might as well use a 9mm Parabellum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Columbus NEVER referred to the native Americans as "Indians".
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
Had been for him, Native Americans would have been caleld "Parians".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gaspard129 7.35 Carcano was not really used. .303 British was used only in aerial MGs, 12.7X81mm (.5 Vickers) was used only in aerial heavy MGs, 13.2x99mm
Hotchkiss was used only in residual (it had already been replaced by the 20mm Breda automatic gun on any unit large enough to carry it) AA mgs of the Navy.
So the Army used TWO different cartridges for rifles and machine guns.
BTW McArthur was dead wrong. There was not that big reserve of 30-06 ammos, not to say of BAR, in the US inventory, in the .30s, to justify sticking to it (or to the BAR for that matter). And, since the .30-06 was unsuitable for many uses, they had to introduce A SECOND CALIBER anyway, the .30 Carbine. That was still not optimal anyway.
The only thing that can be said in his defense is that the .276 pedersen was little better, and its only real advantage were two rounds more in the M1 clip.
A round similar to the .30 Remington for infantry rifles, carbines and LMGs, and the .30-06 for the MMG, would have been the optimal solution.
1
-
1
-
@Gaspard129 Sorry, it seems to me that you answered before really having understood my post, so, please, try reading slower this time.
"our entire inventory of machine guns was in .30-06, dude..."
And so? If I SPECIFICALLY said that the .30-06 SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED ONLY FOR THE MMGs, what's the problem if "our entire inventory of machine guns was in .30-06"? Reason more. There were more than enough of them to use the inventory of .30-06 ammos, so the fact that there were many .30-06 ammos already in the arsenals WAS A FALSE PROBLEM.
"And you think the different ammunition for aerial, naval, ground service is of no importance..."
As a matter of fact, despite having been througly bombed, among the many shortcomings the Italian army suffered, there had NEVER been a shortcoming of ammo production. Italian aircrafts and ships always took off and set sails with the magazines at full capacity. That's because, in respect to the number of rifle caliber ammos the Army needs, the number .303 needed by the aviation was completely residual.
As a matter of fact (2) the .303 was a residual caliber for the aviation that had almost entirely switched to the 12.7X81, and, since the Italian Army, like the German one, didn't use weapons in .50 caliber (the next step from the 8mm Breda was the 20×138mmB Long Solothurn) what the Air force did chose was completely indifferent.
As a matter of fact (3) the residual use of 13.2mm by the Navy didn't cause any problem because, having switched to the 20×138mmB Long Solothurn for almost all the units since the mid '30s, the Navy already had enough 13.2 rounds in the inventory, for the few units that still used it in WWII, to supply them for not one but two world wars.
"To your point about a lighter rifle/lmg cartridge like .30 Remington and heavier mmg cartridge like .30-06, this makes sense from a tactical perspective. It potentially creates a serious complication from a strategic level..."
Again, since the .30-06 was not really satisfactory for any use other than in MMGs, the US Army ENDED UP USING TWO RIFLE CALIBERS ANYWAY, with the only difference that NONE of the two calibers was really optimal for the riflemen, being the .30-06 too heavy and the .30 Carbine too light. So what was specifically the logistical problem in having TWO good calibers, one for MMGs (the .30-06) and one for riflemen and LMGs (a kind of .30 Remington), instead of having TWO so-so calibers? McArthur simply made a mistake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gaspard129 Now let me spell it for you.
1) the Italian army used TWO rifle cartridges exactly like the US one. That's factual. They took that decision having judged the 6.5 Carcano / 7.35 Carcano a good cartridge for individual rifles and LMGs but not for MMGs. You are none to judge if they were right, or if they benefited from it or not. Your strictly personal opinion on the matter has exactly ZERO factual value.
2) The Italian army decided to use TWO rifle calibers in 1935, BEFORE their entry in WWII. The US Army decided to use TWO rifle calibers in 1940, BEFORE their entry in WWII. What was special in 1932 so that it was not possible to take that decision then? The oh-so-cash-strapped US Army, back then, was adopting a new, semiauto (because semiautos were notoriously poor men's rifles in the '30s) rifle, and the moment to change the service cartridge is usually EXACTLY when a new rifle is adopted.
Italian Army used TWO rifle cartridges in WWII exactly like the US one, with the difference that the Italian cartridges were strictly separated, ONE for MMGs, ONE for rifles and LMGs. US had one for MMG, LMGs and rifles, and another for other rifles. Who "made for unnecessary complication"? (your very personal opinion on tangible benefits has little value).
McArthur was obviously wrong in sticking to .30-06, since the US Army had to adopt another cartridge 8 years later, finding itself with two rifle cartridges, none of them really satisfactory when used by riflemen and LMGs.
1
-
1
-
@Gaspard129 I've clearly offended your (ignorant) sensibilities pointing out that you pretended to talk about Italy's logistic situation in World War 2 without knowing anything about it, as you are now ignoring, or you are simply too stupid to understand, that I talked about decisions made by US , Netherlands and Sweden at the same time.
You clearly are unable to understand that the Italian Army used two rifle cartridges in WWII like the US Army did.
You are clearly clutching at straw, pretending your very personal opinion on relative convenience of cartridges for bolt action rifles to count for something in respect to the opinion of the people that HAD to operate them.
You are clearly unable to understand that, deciding a round for a rifle in 1932, it would have fielded with the rifle, not before it, and the decision to stick with the wrong caliber in 1932 led to have to use two not-so-great calibers in 1940.
Other than not even understanding even what a "rifle caliber machine gun" is, since you put .50 caliber MGs in it, you are not even able to understand that every army, US one included, has a residual use of old weapons in old calibers.
You are evidently simply too ignorant and stupid to judge if the Italian Army benefited to have a heavier caliber for MMGs or not. Your strictly personal opinion on the matter has exactly ZERO factual value.
Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention Norway among the nations that, in WWII, used an heavier round for MMGs (Colt M/29 in 7.92X61 Norwegian) and kept 6.5 Swedish for BOLT ACTION rifle.
Now answer this question, my idiot friend.
Since Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and Norway decided to stick to 6.5 for BOLT ACTION rifles, and use an heavier round for MMGs.
What army fielded a MMG in 6.5 in WWII?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually that's exclusively Ovid's version of the mith. He invented the whole rape and curse thing because he was writing a book called "metamorphosys", that was about shape-shifting miths (so he needed a shape-shifting, and, since the book was about changes, he didn't care about changing the miths themselves) and because he loved to depict autorities in a bad light, so, in his versions of the miths, gods always play with mortals without caring abouth them.
In the original Greek mith, Medusa was simpy born a monster, one of the three gorgons (along with Stheno and Euryale), that were daughters of Echidna and Typhon. Ironically, all three had the same aspect and powers, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Actually draw lenght is as important in determining the exit speed of the arrow as draw weigh is, because arrows don't pass Instantly from 0 to max speed, they have to accelerate, the longer the draw lenght is, the longer the draw weight is applied to the arrow, the more it accelerates. In Modern era warfare, the draw weight and lenght weight of the longbow were unbeatable. They coupled the maximum draw weight reachable by a human with the maximum draw lenght reachable by a human.
In this context, where was the "cradle of civilization" has no importance at all.
BTW, what's the point in telling, to someone that said that bows were made with what was available, that bows could be made with different materials? It's already implied in saying that they were made with what was available.
1
-
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc The fact that you said someone called you stupid when none did makes you seem stupid, and unable to read too. Forced laugh confirms the opinion also.
Not all woods are created equal. The best wood for archery, yew, is specific of Europe and N. Africa, and from Europe, and made of yew, are the oldest fragments and complete preserved samples of bows. Hazelnut is even more specific, being likely originated in the British Islands.
The oldest composite bows originated in Asiatic grasslands and Egypt, places not exactly known for the supply of woods and, for nomadic tribes the "advantage of the composite bow over the longbow is to pack a respectable draw weight in a compact package, that could be used on horseback". However, historically, that draw weight was not that much because "they were made to be used on horseback, and ease to use on horseback requires lower draw weight than what an infantry bowmen can use".
Again you don't understand the basics of archery. Draw lenght is the lenght a human can draw. If composite bows have more draw lenght than longbos, then they are made wrong and useless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not worse than the T62, but worse than the T64 and T72 (apart for the laughable reverse speed of the Soviet tanks), and, differently to them, not really upgradable to modern standards.
The Leopard I has light armor, the 105mm gun is not up to date and not really upgradable, the ammo storage is even more dangerous than in the Soviet tanks (13 rounds in the exposed turret). That's why, while there are many ready kits to upgrade old M60, there is really none, despite thousands of existing samples, to upgrade the Leopard I.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A WWII BAR B-Team was composed of a gunner, an assistant gunner and an ammo bearer, for a rifle that, other than having reliability and mainteinance issues, easily overheated (and at that point the gunner only had to wait for it to cool down and NOT provide support fire, since the rifle had not a quick exchange barrel), and was not really apt for firing in prone position, nor for firing from the shoulder. The thing it was really designed to do, firing from the hips, was practically forgotten with the end of WWI.
The Breda 30 was originally issued with two spare barrels. After some months of war it was noted that they were often insufficient for the volume of fire the weapon had to provide, and the provision was enhanced to four spare barrels. Any barrel of the Breda 30 is heavier than that of a BAR, and can fire more rounds first to overheat.
So how many BARs are needed to provide the volume of fire of a single Breda 30?
The USA could simply adress BAR's issues by throwing more rifles at the problem, but that doesn't mean it was better than anything else.
1
-
@BanCorporateOwnedHouses As said, the US could simply trow more rifles at the problem, and yet, there were multiple occasions were the rifelmen were left without automatic fire cover because the BAR was cooling down.
If you needed three BAR to do the work of a single Breda 30, then the BAR is not "sure as hell better than this", it is an inferior design, but the soldiers were lucky enought to be born in a country that could manufacture much more of them.
Actually the US Intelligence praised the Breda 30. The "tactical and tecnical trend" (the magazine of the US intelligence) compared it favourably to the BREN, for performances in dusty conditions and because it was more apt to be manned by a single man. To me it was, all in all, a less than satisfactory weapon, but all the bashing is the product of internet era, when opinions tend to be repeated time after time, every time radicalising them further.
1
-
@BanCorporateOwnedHouses So who wrote the Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942, was Italian too? That's a really peculiar opinion.
The BAR was not a light machinegun, and had been forced to cover that role. It had not a quick exchange barrel, the very light barrel rapidly overheated, it was difficult to strip and service, but if not completely serviced on a daily basis, it rapidly became inoperable. It was so "satisfactory" that, had not the world ended, the US would have replaced it with the WAR (Winchester Automatic Rifle) despite the logistic nightmare that would have meant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Murderface666 The price of cases is not that of brass, is that of brass shaped like a case. An already fired .223 brass case, still dirt and with the spent primer, is about 0.12$, one polished and unprimed about 0.2$, one unfired is over 0.3$.
If a new unprimed plastic case costs 0.05$ (and it can easily be), or even 0.1$ what's the point in reloading?
Since the walls of the case are nto subject to much stress, they doesn't need any special plastic. They can be very well made with recycled or even biodegradable plastic. What degrades the ammos is humidity degrading the powder. Plastic is a better sealant than brass.
Actually the explosion is contained by the chamber and bolt. No brass cartridge is able to contain the exposion of the powder.
As already said, NATO countries are not bound to follow US ASAP. UK and Italy adopted 5.56 round only in 1985, Germany in 1997, so over 30 years after US. But THIS particular round has the possibility to be adopted quite easily, since you can convert all the existing 7.62 NATO weapons with just a barrel swap, using even the same magazines and belts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GhostSal
a) it was a small minority.
b) even for them the difference was cultural and not racial. None of them really considered the descendants of southern immigrants in the north as being of a different race than them.
And, for Benjamin Franklin, as already said, "in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also". A single doctor measuring skulls doesn't make a "racial identity" and Lombroso NEVER described southerners as a different race. BTW Lombroso's theories had been disputed even in his time and he had been discredited. The Italian Society of Anthropology and Ethnology refused his articles in its magazine since 1877 (after the theory of the "median occipital fossa" had been disproven by Andrea Verga), and expelled him in 1882.
Like for long time there was tension, animosity and VERY OFTEN even physical altercations between citizens of Manchester and Liverpool. It had nothing to do between them considering themself of different races.
1
-
1
-
@GhostSal Why should I "aknowledge" something patently not true? Sorry, what you said to have "experienced" on a comment section is not a demosntration of anything, otherwise we would have had "demonstrations" of goat piss to cure cancer or any other kind of bullshit.
I don't care of you very personally wanting to use definitions or identify with anyone, but are YOU that wanted to talk about "RACIAL IDENTITIES".
"We are not" has to be demonstrated, and you didn't demonstrate it.
Your past discrimination, real or not, was culturally and not racially based. Southern Italians can't be discerned from northern Italians based on the "look". In the US a black man can't join the KKK, it doesn't count for how much time his family lived in N. America, because THAT discrimination IS racially motivated. In Italy, the son of a Neapolitan that migrated to Milan could be among those shouting that "south of Rome is all Africa", because that discrimination WAS NOT racially motivated.
Your very personal preference is only your. If you look like a white man, and that's pratically assured if you are of Italian ancestry, you'll be called like that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many of them had a pretty critical mind.
You can see, IE, that Strabo (1 century BCE), in his Geography, chapter XIII, had a critical view on the city of Ilion (the one on the Hisarlik hill) being Troy. He knew that association had not been made before 6th century BCE (so 5 centuries before him, but several centuries after the facts), and he believed it was a fake.
It's interesting to see that Strabo knew the coastline had changed over the centuries, enlarging the plain in front of the city, and that was part of his reasoning. The plain would have been too small for the movements of troops described in the poem.
Also already Aristotle noticed that the wall that protected the Greek camp and the ships seems to appear and disappear according to the convenience of the poem, and so believed that it was a poetic invention of Homer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How someone can look at those pictures and state they show a 1.5km dispersion is beyond me. It's like hearing someone stating they depicts a renaissance painting of the ascension of Christ and the others commenting "Yeah, yeah. Look a the colours. The brush strokes...".
Knowing the lenght of the HMAS Perth, the first picture shows a single turret spread of 410m and the second one of 413m (a little more do to the parallax). That means 1.7% of the distance. Any navy of the time would have considered 2% acceptable to good in action.
US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of peacetime tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal, will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jbsparks3922 You quite evidently don't came from ANY academic place, since you don't know how academy works. Your is the statement, your is the burden of the proof (citing wikipedia and pretending a coin can be carbon dated are also quite damning evidences).
The source you provided is:
1) 60 years old.
2) It's not about Roman (or Carthaginian, or ancient) history.
3) It had not been written by a scholar of the matter (had you came from an academic place of any sort, you should have known that not all the researchers are equally credible on any matter, there are specializations).
So, since your source is not a study, or a work on Roman (or Carthaginian) history, and had not been written by a scholar on the matter, what were his sources? If you come from an academic place of any sort, you know he should have listed them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We'll never know what really happened to the Hood, but vs. the Prince of Wales, that had serious teething problems that silenced all of his guns bar one, the Bismarck received worse damages that it inflicted.
"still floating" is not that a great result. The very low metacentric height made the Bismarck almost impossible to capsize (in return it made it a poor shooting platform, due to the very short roll time), but the ship was sinking anyway, only slower. The Dorsetshire's torpedo actually hit the superstructure (near to the catapult), because the ship's superstructure was already underwater. Much shells hit it, but the battle had been already over in quite a few minutes. "Most of the British shells struck the forward superstructure of Bismarck with the hits late in the action simply rearranging the debris created by earlier shell hits."
The ship's four turrets scheme was quite outdated. For a ship that big it lacked system's redundance and the lack of pumps and valves between the fuel tanks was a major flaw (a single hit on a tank, and the ship was condemned to leak fuel until drydocked), her two rudders were placed so close that it was near to impossible a hit damaging the first wouldn't damage the second too. It shared a design flaw with all the Germans' major ships of her generation, that made her stern section too fragile. The AA fire proved to be ineffective. The very high pressure engines gave her long endurance, but proved to be problematic on any German ship that lived enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@plasticbeetle6209 The trouble with the M249 belt, as described in a Marine report, is that, when it jams (that, with any automatic belt fed weapon is not a question of "if", nor of "when", but of "how often"), the gunner opens the action to clear the jam, and the belt falls into the box. At that point the gunner, other than clearing the jam, has to decide if open the box and search for the end of the belt to use the rest of it, or discard the box and use another one of his limited supply.
While he performs all those actions, he's not supporting the squad and he's defenseless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simply they didn't even know there was a volcano there.
The "Vesuvius" we know, the central cone visible at 2:18, didn't exist back then. What existed, and the Romans called "Vesuvius" was the semi-circular ridge of Mt. Somma (also visible in the picture. It was there that, for example found refuge the rebels of Spartacus, and it was its internal, very steep, slope (while the external slope was covered in vineyards) that they descended using vine branches as ropes.
that of 79 AC had precisely been the last of a series of explosions, thousands of years apart, that destroyed the old vulcanic edifice of Mt. Somma.
The Romans didn't, and couldn't, recognize the Vesuvius as a Volcano. Because it had nor the shape, nor the activities they could attribute to a volcano.
The current central cone formed in the subsequent two millennia of effusive eruptions, and infact it was lower than the ridge of Mt. Somma still in 18th century depictions.
See R. Cioni, R. Santacroce e A. Sbrana, "Pyroclastic deposits as a guide for reconstructing the multi-stage evolution of the Somma-Vesuvius Caldera".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Top tier design, terrible execution.
Motivations vary. On one side, the Santa Barbara Arsenal had not mass produced anything for decades before the AMELI (the problem with state-owned arsenals, that made so they went out of fashion, except for maintenance. You can’t really stop and resume, at years distance, making firearms, and expect acceptable quality standards, or to iron-out all the industrialization problems). See similar problems for the British SA80 rifle (but there the design was flawed also).
On the other, by some account, CETME deceived the government. To make the weapons up to spec with the (by any account) exceptional prototypes they would have costed much more than the government wanted to spend. They had to reduce the costs of the individual weapon in production by 40%, and so the disaster was served.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReichLife Then is 34 for the Regia Marina in March '43. Since the war declaration obviously. If we count from the first real engagement, then there were 7 months difference between the Battle of the River Plate and the Battle of Calabria, so it would be January 1943 for the italians.
So, at 34, for both, or 31 for both, months of war, the italians were still regularly delivering shipment to N. Africa, while the Germans were seldomly moving ships from port to port, far from the operations, while the Luftwaffe attacked a convoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReichLife 1) Only problem is you purposedly keeping on trying to derange the argument, because you know you have nothing to say on the real one. An engagement is not badmouthing the Brits, that's what you consider "conducting offensive operations". Nor the respective navies had suffered any real attrition before the first engagement. I have to corect myself however, for the Regia Marina the first real engagement had not been the Battle of Calabria, but the Battle of the Espero Convoy, two weeks before. I'll still consider 7 months difference though.
2) keep trying to ignore you believed you could correct others without even checking and then had been able to talk about others "jumping to conclusions like kangooru, without second thought whether they are right or wrong". That, other than being quite funny, perfectly showcases your entire argument and your blatant inability to comprehend simple concepts.
It's cute you think you are able to "ridicule" something.
Italian shipments were going to, and through, heavily contested areas, not seldomly strolling from port to port like the Germans in Norway. Notice (like you being able to. LOL!) that I din't talk about shipments to Aegean, that obviously were less contested.
Your childish inabily to comprehend simple concepts is still cute. Go on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chisome8465 Hannibal was not a Berber. He was a Phoenician, so a Semite. We have the coinage of his father, of his brother, and even some coin attributed to him, they didn't have black traits. Hanno Barca, Hannibal's own brother, outright refused Muttines to act as his co-commander in Sicily, because Muttines was "half African".
The native people there were not black, they were Berbers, and the Berbers didn't depict themselves as black. See the Numidian coinage. That "they were black before the Arabs" is bullshit. The Arabs conquered those lands, they didn't wipe out the inhabitants. The Arabs were few people.
Ethiopians and Nigerians are not North Africans, and the ancient historians and naturalists CLEARLY distinguished between N. Africans and Ethiopians.
1
-
@chisome8465 "lol" should be an argument?
It's kinda difficult to extract some sense from your blabbering.Y ou should really try to write in English.
What I wrote (that's not what you understood) is quite simple.
Hannibal was not a Berber. He was a Phoenician, so a Semite. Phoenicians were from middle east. Did you understand that?
We know the aspect of his father, of his brother, and even, probably, his own, from the coins that they minted when they ruled over Spain. None of them had black traits. Did you understand that?
Hannibal's own brother, Hanno, when Hannibal sent him another commander, Muttines, to act as his co-commander in Sicily, outright refused, because Muttines was "half African", so, for Hanno, inferior to him, that was a pureblood Phoenician. Did you understand that?
The natives of N. Africa at the time of Hannibal, were not black, they were Berbers, They depicted themselves as not being black, and had been described by Greek scholars of the time as not being black. Did you understand that?
"Before anyone came" there was none. If you are referring to the first hominids that came there, we don't know the color of their skin. Did you understand that?
1
-
1
-
@chisome8465 You are really sporting credentials on a Youtube comment section? LOL!
First than accusing someone of "lying" you should at least understand what he's saying, a thing you are evidently unable to do.
You can check the Libu chief depicted on the throne of Ramesses III, light skinned tatooed and with an hooked nose. Egyptians actually depicted Libyans as having a fairer skin than themselves, and that makes sense, since the "Egyptian" type was a medium between the inhabitants of upper (closer to Nubia) and lower (Mediterranean) Egypt, while the Libyans were all Mediterranean.
The Egyptians depicted themselves as VERY different form the Nubian neighbors, that had dark skin and typical black traits, while the other Mediterranean civilizations were depicted as Egyptians with a different hat (and maybe beard, and a hooked nose).
You don't have to use " the word you westerners use to group us". None but you is doing that. As already said:
"So why not use a North African actor to play the part of a North African general? There is scarcity of them?
How much do you bet that the part of Massinissa will NOT be played by a Berber, but it will be played by someone of black African descent too?
Why this need to cancel the other African cultures?"
West africa, Nigeria, Etiopia and so on ARE NOT NORTH AFRICA. Sicily, heck, even Berlin, is closer to Chartage than Nigeria.
N. Africa being Black before the Arab invasion is 100% bullshit.
You stated "I’m talking about before anyone came!", not "before the Greeks came". It' not my fault if you are unable to write. Again, you don't know what the color of the skin of the neolithic inhabitants of N. Africa was, or how much straight was their nose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ineednochannelyoutube5384 We have a first hand explanation in Maj. Luigi Gucci book "Armi portatili" year 1915, p.58. It's about the Carcano semiauto conversion, that had been shown here https://youtu.be/jrp7QLSlKD4
The reason was that, altough the rifle was perfectly functional, and costed way less than a new semiauto rifle, in adopting a semiauto rifle for all the army, the price of the rifle was, in the end, marginal in respect to the price of the logistic. IE the price of a brand new semiauto rifle, not a conversion, was estimated in 60L, that of a single Carcano cartridge was 0.1L, so a semiauto rifle costed like 600 cartridges. So it made little sense to adopt a solution that, "however ingenious, simple and well designed is, it's anyway a stopgap and, as such, it can't fully comply to all the requirements of an excellent infantry semiautomatic rifle."
1
-
Sorry to intervene, but the "Vesuvius" we know, the central cone visible at 2:18, didn't exist back then. What existed, and the Romans called "Vesuvius" was the semi-circular ridge of Mt. Somma. It was there that, for example found refuge the rebels of Spartacus, and it was its internal, very steep, slope (while the external slope was covered in vineyards) that they descended using vine branches as ropes.
that of 79 AC had precisely been the last of a series of explosions, thousands of years apart, that destroyed the old vulcanic edifice of Mt. Somma.
The Romans didn't, and couldn't, recognize the Vesuvius as a Volcano. Because it had nor the shape, nor the activities they could attribute to a volcano.
The current central cone formed in the subsequent two millennia of effusive eruptions, and infact it was lower than the ridge of Mt. Somma still in 18th century depictions.
See R. Cioni, R. Santacroce e A. Sbrana, "Pyroclastic deposits as a guide for reconstructing the multi-stage evolution of the Somma-Vesuvius Caldera".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nor this, nor the directly derived Hakim/Rasheed, nor the MAS49/56 are "direct impingment" actions.
Direct impingment doesn't exist. No rifle action ever was actuated simply by the "kick" of the gasses.
In Elklund's patent (mind that the guy's main job was to design hydraulic pumps, he knew a thing or two about pressure) this is clearly described as a PISTON action. The "open tube" is actually a piston, and it has the diameter of a piston, because a piston works thanks to pressure X surface area. That's why the external diameters of the "open tubes" of the Ljugman and MAS49/56 are so much larger than the gas key of an AR15 (despite the internal gas pipe being practically the same). Because they need surface area for the pressure to work.
The only difference between this, or that of the MAS49/56, action, and that of the Mini14, IE, is the location of the piston and cylinder.
"direct impingement" is how Stoner described Elklund's action in his own patent, to artifically differentiate it from it's "internal piston" action.
In reality, the ONLY thing that's patented in Stoner's patent is that, in his design, the gasses are in direct contact with the bolt (while, in Elklund's patent, they are in contact with the bolt carrier, not the bolt).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And what would have happened if Indian marines DIDN'T kill Italian fishermen? There would have been a mediatic circus in Italy already condemning them without any evidence?
The same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hendriktonisson2915 The names are misleading here. The Breda 37 had not been adopted in 1937, and the Fiat-Revelli 1914/35 had not been adopted in 1935.
1935 is the year when it had been adopted the ammo, "Cartuccia per mitragliatrice Mod. 1935" (cartridge for machine-gun mod. 1935).
The Breda 37, a scaled down version of the 20mm Breda 20/65 (1935), that was a scaled down version of the 37mm Breda 37/54 (1932), both tray-fed, had been adopted, first by the Navy, in 1936 (and even the production started in 1936), and infact it had been first called Breda 36, and the early boxes of ammos were marked Breda 36.
The Fiat-Revelli M1914/35 had not been made by FIAT, that quit manufacturing small arms in 1930. It was a conversion made by MBT. I don't know when they exactly started converting old WWI MGs, but it's higly improbable they came up with the complete conversion and the belt in 1935. The instruction manual of the gun is dated 1937.
So that belt simply didn't exist when the Breda 37 had been designed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AWildBard Surely is not supposed to turn his back to an armed guy and flee, leaving the victim on her own.
He was supposed to put the victim behind him in first place (so on the stairs, so that she could flee), before even start to interact with the guy, being him armed or not. Then, since the guy WAS armed, had the cop decided to shoot, warn, or try to talk, he was supposed to keep the armed guy in sight, not to turn his back and find something else urgent to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The weapon was developed for the ground role. IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than four-hundred samples of more than 14.000 built saw limited use on aircrafts (at that time the Air Corp was a branch of the Army) waiting for the model to be in full scale production first than distributing it to the troops. It was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield.
The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better.
The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy.
Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII.
The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar, there were only bolt action rifles and showels. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ptolemy I was a pure Macedon, and all of Cleopatra VII ancestors, maternal and paternal, up to Ptolemy I, were Macedons, mostly of the same, inbred, family. That's how much they were "happy" to mix with the Egyptians. They were so happy that, in 250 years of rule over Egypt, Cleopatra VII had been the first of the family that bothered to learn Egyptian language, and NONE of them had an Egyptian name.
Hellenistic rulers were legitimate by being successors of Alexander. It was fundamental for them to be Greek, and better Macedons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) Conrad was not married.
2) No law prevented Conrad to marry the sister of the the wife of his brother in 12th century Crusader kingdoms. It was a 9th century Frankish thing. Middle age is not all the same.
3) To "kidnap Isabella from her husband" had not been "Conrad supporters" but HER MOTHER that, with the death of Raynald of Châtillon, could finally reunite with her daughter.
4) Isabella's previous marriage had been annulled on the basis of the fact that she had been kidnapped by Raynald of Châtillon when she was 8, locked up in the fortress of Kerak for three years, forcefully married to Humphrey of Toron, godson of Raynald, when she was 11 (too young for the ecclesiastic law) and she never expressed consent during the ceremony.
5) Isabella had not been "forcefully married" to Conrad. She had been persuaded by HER MOTHER to marry him.
6) No bribe was needed since, of three archbishops presents, two supported the marriage and the third, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was a supporter of Richard, and so simply ignored.
7) Since Richard could make agreements with Saladin, Why Conrad and Guy shouldn't have? It was pretty normal infact.
8) Richard became the first suspect of hiring the assassins due to the fact that one of them, captured, confessed under torture they had been paid by him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hendriktonisson2915 No.
As said, first the Italians wanted to adopt the 7.35X32 (not the 7.35X51, that came later) because they wanted to adopt a semiauto rifle (the Terni 1921) and correctly recognised that, for semiauto fire, an intermediate cartridge was better, hence the 7.35X32.
The conservatorism of the high brass prevented the adoption of the Terni semiauto, bu they still wanted a semiauto, in a full blown cartridge, so a new rifle, and tested many.
In 1938, still testing semiauto rifles, they recognised the convertion to a semiauto would have likely required a long time, but they didn't want to fight the next war with long worn-out, WWI Carcano rifles, so they adopted the M38 short rifle, that was a new rifle anyway.
BUT there is a trick. You can take an old, worn-out, 6.5 long rifle barrel, and turn it in a brand new, 7.35 short rifle barrel, only cutting and reboring it.
You can't turn an old worn-out 6.5 long rifle barrel in a brand new 6.5 short rifle barrel. Even cutting it, it will remain worn out.
So, since they had to manufacture new rifles and new ammos anyway, to adopt the 7.35x51, was economically convenient in respect to adopt a 6.5 spitzer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cf3714 1) Baseless statement. In real world, people tend to do the same thing in the same situation, following a definite pattern. That's how criminology works, for example, or psicology, or several other sciences that would be useless without behavioural patterns.
2) Oh, so you boast about knowing anything about biology, or having attended high school, or having opened a book in your life now? LOL!
3) If you prefer to believe that one day your body works in a way and another day in another one, like you believe to have had "experiences" or to know anything about biology, for me is the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Beretta 57 had been designed in competition with the Franchi LF58 (that was inspired by the Stg.44 in shape, like the Beretta 57 was inspired by the M1 carbine http://www.exordinanza.net/reprint/Franchi_LF-58-59/LF58.jpg ).
The problem adressed was that of the controllability of fire. Any sane manufacturer knew that .308 Win. was not controllable in full auto. While the Brits tried to impose the .280 British, the Italian manufacturers thought there was no need to reinvent the wheel and, since the Carabinieri had already adopted a good number of surplus M1 carbines, so the round was already in use by the Army, tried to offer ARs in .30 Carbine (if more muzzle speed was required, the cartridge could have been easily necked down, so saving all the design apart for the barrel).
In the end, the 6.72 NATO was forced on all NATO countries, so there was no market for .30 Carbine rifles. When it was time to switch to 5.56 NATO, other manufacturing tecniques were available.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Economy.
In Roman empire there were massively efficient communication lines, so there was a level of trade unrivaled until the industrial revolution. That way, different regions of the Empire could specialize for the production they were more apt for (Egypt and N.africa for grain, Gallia for wine, Spain and Greece for oil...) so having higher output for unit of land and of labour employed. For the same reason, there were big manifactures, to produce more efficiently industrial goods (weapons, ships, carriages, pottery...). That way the Empire could sustain a far higher number of people not employed in direct agricultural works and manifacture in respect to the Middle Age, where communication lines were uncertain, and so every neighboorood had to produce everything to sustain itself (a little of grain, a little of meat, a little of beans, agricultural tools....).
1
-
In the case of Alexander, it was more of a technological and tactical gap. The Oplite phalanx hat been the first heavy infantry in history, and the Persian wars demonstrated the huge advantage heavy infantry had over light infantry in pitched battles. Since the heavy infantry was relatively "new", light infantry armies had not yet developed tactics to counter it, but Greek city-states were small, and could deploy small armies that could be easily surrounded if used for an expansionistic war, so they didn't use that advantage to build an empire.
Alexander's father perfectioned the phalanx. Alexander found the way to coordinate it with cavalry to avoid the risk of being encircled. They were kings of a rich state that could pay its soldiers (so Alexander could use them as he wants, he hadn't to convince the citizens of a democracy) so, at that point, Alexander, that was a gifted tactician too, was unstoppable. It was like the development of the "blitzkrieg" tactic. For some year, who had it, had a huge advantage over the others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@druidriley3163 Garlaschelli didn't manage to replicate the shroud. He first made an image very similar to that of the shroud using dry ochre powder, but there's no ochre, or other pigment, in the shroud, and an image made with ochre powder, or any other dry pigment, wouldn't have survived until now.
Then he tried to replicate the process mixing solid acids and salts to the ochre , cooking the linen and then washing it. The final result had all the defects of hundreds of other contact images made ro replicate the shroud. The discoloration was much deeper, there were not the half-tones present in both the shroud and the first replica, and there was no colour at all in non-contact area.
Moreover, in the shroud there is no image where there is the blood, so first blood, then image. In Garlaschelli's second replica, since the cloth had to be washed, the blood can be added only after the image had been formed and the cloth washed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Heeroneko I long understood your point. It doesn't really take much. Fact is that's YOUR point. You're not talking for anyone else than yourself.
As already said (maybe the explanation was too complicate for you, I'm sorry for not having been able to adapt to your level), critics acritically exalt characters made for what you call "bad representation", because they "spread the right message", regardless of the quality of the work, and who dare to object is labeled as a homophobe, misogynist, and worse. And, among those who label, other than the aforementioned critics, THERE ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE MINORITIES. Not the members that really read the comics, yeah, who KNOWS the media, KNOWS that those characters are terrible, but you don't need to really read comics to be vocal on twitter about "how they should be made".
Is that explanation simple enough for your limited brain to grasp it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LilSwinney Yes. it's how it works. Had the Canadians tought their ammos were useful to keep their rifles working, they could have easily kept them. Nothing more difficult than to say "our rifles don't work with your ammos, sorry". The Brits had no interest in having some hundred of thousand soldiers on the frontline with useless rifles and, even had they been those cartoonish bad guys you are depicting, they were not in position to impose anything, because they need Canadian men and materials, not the contrary. And please, don't invent supply line issues. To supply the Canadians with their own manufactured ammos was not more difficult than supply the Canadians with their own manufactured rifles. Canadians had been able to keep their rifles, hadn't they? They had been able to IMPOSE the use of their Ross rifles, while the Brits were using Enfields, hadn't they? The supply lines supplied them with spare parts for the Ross, even if the Brits used another rifle, didn't they? Logistically it was a pain in the ass, but THE BRITS COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. Because the Ross had been Canada's choice and the Canadians wanted to use it. Now you are telling me that the supply line could supply them with their rifles, their spare parts, their specific Canadian made uniform, their specific Canadian made webbing, their specific Canadian made showels, every piece of their equipment that was different from the British one, but was unable to supply them with their ammos? They had a sudden amnesia on how to delivery items when it came to rounds? What kind of shitty supply line the Canadians had?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@obviouspseudonym9345 Ross rifle had ABSOLUTELY been Canada's choice. The refusal of the licence was of 1903. the Canadians had 11 YEARS to choose any rifle they wanted, there were tons of designs and available licences to choose from, and they chose the Ross. In 1914 they were at the 4th iteration of the rifle. The "we were a colony" argument can work had the Brits IMPOSED a rifle, but they didn't. Any country can refuse a production licence to another, it happens evey time. It's not like the other country is forced to use garbage only because they didn't get a specific licence. "oh no!, the US didn't grant me the licence to produce the Humvee! Now our soldiers should reach the battlefield by bycicle!" No, there are many other light trucks to chose from. Canada chose the Ross not because they had been forced. They did because they thought it was good and the Canadian government kept on defending the rifle against any evidence, even accusing the British officers that rised the issue of ignorance and incompetence, so much an oppressed colony they were.
The Ross was a piece of equipment specific of Canadian soldiers, as many other pieces of equipment were specific for canadian troops, and none of them had been "forced" onto them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A "huge success"? Between 1991 and 1998 less than 14.000 NSX had been manufactured in total, and only an handful had been made after that date. ALMOST HALF OF THE TOTAL PRODUCTION HAD BEEN MADE IN 1991 ALONE.That means that the total retail price of all the NSX sold (not even counting that actually HONDA collected only a small part of that price, that included transport, taxes, dealer's percentage, etc...) didn't even came close to repay it's design costs. Not to say the actual building costs (almost half of the total production made in the first year means that the DEDICATED plant that built the NSX had been hugely overbuilt in respect to the actual production numbers reached every year after the first one. It's easy to say that probably Honda payed every NSX more than its retail price in building costs alone).
The NSX had been, at best, a technological demonstrator, not a car that could be profitable in any way and, sales-wise it had been a flop, as demonstrated by the demand tanking just after a year of production.
The MR2 spyder had been a variant of a car that sold in the hundred of thousands and had been evolved through three generations.
The S2000 was an attempt to intercept part of the market of the Miata. Thus selling more than 100.000 samples, it ultimately failed at that, and so, after the mid-age facelift, the plans for a second generation had been scrapped.
If one, the NSX demonstrated that make profits selling mid engined sportscars is a VERY difficult task. Kudos to Ferrari, Porsche and Lotus for succeeding in it.
1
-
The Porsche 964 (1989-1994) had been produced in 62.172 samples. The 993 (1994-1998) had been produced in 68.029 samples. The 996 (1997-2004) had been produced in 175.262 samples. Porsche sold more 911 every year between 1989 and 2005 than Honda sold NSX for it's entire 14 year production span (and, as you said, they were priced about the same). Porsche, Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini... make a living producing and selling that kind of car. Those are their workhorses. For Honda, as already said, it had been at best a technologial demonstrator that never came close to be a profitable car. Obviously you can do nice things if you can completely ignore design and production costs, but not even Honda can lightheartedly loose billions on a project. They really believed to sell more than a handful of those cars a year (and infact they massively overbuilt the assembly plant) and, when the car had been a flop, they accurately avoided to spend more money on it.
Yeah, they are talking about that, like for many cars that had been ignored while they were available on the dealers' floors.
The S2000 had been in no way a sale success. A car with a retail price of about $35.000 that don't share a common platform with other models needs to be sold in at least 25.000 30.000 samples a year to came close to offset its production costs. the S2000 managed to sell half of what was needed only for two or three years.
Japanese evolve their cars when they are a success, being they sporty models or not, like any other. The NSX simply had been a flop (like the S2000 had been for that matter), that taught Honda that, to be " the top of the food chain" (or, more precisely, to build a car that was marginally better than the competition in some respect, and worse in others) it had to spend way more than it could hope to recover, or could afford.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrelove9634 What emerged 2 million years ago was the Homo Abilis. We are Homo Sapiens, that emerged 300.000 years ago, so there is 1.7 million years evolution between monkeys and mdern humans, more than enough to change skin colour, provided you are right about the colour of the monkeys' skin. But you are wrong, there is some sample with dark skin, but Chimpanzee (our closest relative) skin colour, if not tanned by the sun, is generally light. Researchers generally think that our early australopithecine ancestors in Africa probably had light skin beneath hairy pelts. “If you shave a chimpanzee, its skin is light. If you have body hair, you don’t need dark skin to protect you from ultraviolet radiation.” (evolutionary geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania).
Hope this helps you realize you had studied nothing and need start doing that before speaking about this topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That was actually the case. Most of the things we know about the Romans had been rediscovered after Crusades' age and, even when they had been rediscovered, their knowledge was very rescricted.
Infact tactical knowledge and execution would be a huge advantage for the Romans in this scenario. They knew and recognized the importance of tactic much more than the Medievals did. They knew works about tactic that didn't survived into the Middle age (IE the works of Pyrrhus of Epirus, on which even Hannibal studied), and those were common knowledge, since every legionary was supposed to be able to read and write, while, in a Medieval army, the commander being able to read was not a given.
Moroever, the Roman chain of command was miles ahead everything seen in Europe untile the 30 years war. Medieval armies were still led from the front, so that the commander couldn't even see what was happening more than few steps away, let alone react to unexpecetd circumstances.
1
-
1
-
None said they were unbeatable, however the Romans repeatedly beaten the Germans in any kind of environment. Teutoburg had been an episode, not the norm, and it's not like Medieval armies usually fought in forests.
The commanders of medieval armies, even late medieval armies, usually fought in first line. That was the case of the commanders of the first Crusade, and that was the case still at Agincourt, more than three centuries later. It's no wonder that they moved in "small tactical units", because a small tactical unit is the only thing you can lead in such conditions. It's when you need to coordinate those small tactical units in a battle that there come the problems. It had been seen even during the Mongols invasion of East Europe. European Kinghts tended to win small scale engagement, but to loose pitched battles, where the Mongols could rely on their more organised command structure. Large armies were a rarity in Medieval warfare, so the command structure had not evolved to coordinate them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The weapon was developed for the ground role. IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than four-hundred samples of more than 14.000 built saw limited use on aircrafts (at that time the Air Corp was a branch of the Army) waiting for the model to be in full scale production first than distributing it to the troops. It was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield.
The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better.
The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy.
Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII.
The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar, there were only bolt action rifles and showels. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ancient Egyptians didn't depict themself as black, with the specific exception of the 25th dinasty, that were Kushites (and is telling that them, being black, WANTED to be depicted differently than the previous rulers). Egyptians depicted themself very differently than Kushites, that were depicted, other than with very dark skin, with evident subsaharian African traits, while northern invaders were depicted like Egyptians, only with different hats or beards.
In ancient depictions, male Egyptians are coloured red and female Egyptians are coloured yellow. since they were not of different races, it was a stylistic interpretation.
Kushites instead are coloured black or very dark brown.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In all likelyhood the Iliad is based on a real war, but Troy being the city on the Hisarlik hill is debatable. We know it was considered that in Hellenistic and Roman period (on the Hisarlik hill there was the Hellenistic/Roman city of Ilion), but we also know that it was a tourist attraction. In Hellenistic period, in "Troy", there were, IE, the tombs of heroes that didn't even die there.
There's no guarantee that the entire city wasn't a tourist trap. And infact Strabo (1ts century BCE) thought it was a fake.
The city on Hisarlik hill had been abandoned at the start of the Iron Age, before being rebuilt at the time of Alexander. It's entirely possible that, at the end of the "Greek dark age", when the poems on the Trojan war had become famous, people started to search for the city sung there in the region of the Troad, but the memory of the real location had been lost. Then the people that lived around Hissarlik hill reasoned "look at the fine ruins we have here. The shore, the rivers, all seems pretty similar to the poem. And all these people are searching for Troy. Let's THIS be Troy." and proceeded to make Santa Claus' village. Then Santa Claus' village influenced the later narrations of the poem, so the location and the poem became even more alike.
Infact the location is pretty similar, yes, but none of the Hisarlik's city strata really line up with the events of the poem. We have to mix up two separate levels to have a big city in the Mycenean period (but destroyed by an heartquake, not a war), and a city destroyed by a war (but too late for the Myceneans to have done that).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also because the Breda single-lug rising bolt action is a VERY interesting action that Breda employed successfully from 6.5 Carcano to 37mm AA automatic guns. It's simple (that bolt is made of five pieces in total, charging handle included), lightweight (see the dimensions) and it locks on the front of the bolt.
The last part is important because we see, I.E., that the tilting bolt, that was very popular in the '30s-'40s-'50s (SVT40, STG44, FAL...) is no more used, because, locking on the rear of the bolt, it requires a sturdy receiver for all the lenght of the bolt itself, while, locking on the front, rotating bolt actions like those of the AR and AK, can have the receiver made of aluminium or light sheets of steel.
The Breda action, thus not being a rotating one, has this advantage too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevingray3550 Off topic I know, but it's a laughable conspiracy theory. The US where at war with Japan since the moment the Japanese decided the strike. The outcome of the single operation was not important, because an expeditionary force had been sent to hit the US anyway, and that means war. Had the Japanese fleet been intercepted and sunk in open sea, the US would have been at war all the same (and starting from a better position).
AND Pearl Harbour was not an isolated operation. Contemporary to Pearl Harbour, The Philippines, Guam and Wake Island had been attacked. All those operations were coordinated, any of them was more than enough of a "casus belli" and would have been performed whatever would have happened to the Pearl Harbor strike, that could have failed, or been delayed, or cancelled, for whatever reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's no evidence because, by not allowing to the defense technicians to assist to the ballistic tests, the Kerala court discredited any possible evidence, so it would have been a trial without any proof.
You don't make so that the forensics are prohibited to the experts of the defense if you don't want to forge them.
BTW the same Indian autopsy of Prof. K. Sasikala cleared the two marines, the projectiles that killed the two fishermen had "24mm circumference (7.62mm diameter) and 31mm lenght".
The italians were armed with weapons in 5.56mm NATO, not compatible with the findings.
They didn't have weapons in 7.62 NATO but, even if they had, a 7.62mm NATO projectile is only 28mm long, so not compatible with the findings.
The only widely used projectile compatible is that of 7,62x54R cartriges, used, IE, on PK machineguns mounted on Sri Lanka's Arrow boats, normally used to fight illegal fishing in Sri Lanka's waters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@firepower7017 Actually the reliability of the BAR was really not good for various reasons that were partly fixed only after WWII.
After WWII Italy simply changed service cartridge and BARs were cheap (actually they were free). They had been replaced with the MG42/59 and the BM59 as soon as the Italian Army had the money to do it.
As for the attitude, no WWII report i know of criticised the feeding system of the Breda 30. It's barely mentioned at all (at that time there was more variety of designs, so it was normal for different weapons to work differently). And for good reasons. The British doctrine of employ of the Bren was to fire one magazine a minute. In exceptional circumstances was allowed a 4 magazine a minute ROF (keeping in mind that the entire squad had 20 magazines and one spare barrel, that, at that ROF, had to be changed after 10 magazines, so, for that BAR, the battle would have been over after 5 minutes of fire). For that practical ROF, the feeding system didn't make any difference.
Ian here criticised the rattling barrel and the front sight on the barrel shroud, that's really "I know that this weapon is bad, so I have to invent something to say it's bad". NONE ever noticed the rattling barrel and the front sight on the barrel shroud being a problem in almost 70 years of use of the MG42/MG3. Today any LMG/squad MG has an optic fixed on the receiver. Do those optics compensate for the barrel change?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really is the contrary. Field strip is very fast, disassemble requires time.
To have access to the gas chamber and the gas ports (that's the thing that requires cleaning, there is not actually much that could happen to the piston and op rod) you only have to remove the muzzle cover.
To inspect the recoil spring, you can remove it from the trap door.
To remove the bolt you only have to remove the dust cover and the rear buffer ("when the dust cover is off, it just slides out") and it comes out from the rear of the receiver. It isn't needed to remove the receiver from the stock.
Like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then, this rifle is not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock. While the parts that require cleaning, and/or have to be replaced more often (for the second case, almost universally the recoil spring and the firing pin) are very easily reachable.
An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To reach the firing pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have several small parts flying around you).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SIG is too conventional. One of the goal of the competition is to eliminate brass, and it still uses brass. Then ammos have to be stored, and mixing brass with steel tend to be a bad idea due to galvanic corrosion. Textron design is a mess. I'm not a fan of bullpups, but much of their problems had been sorted out (IE now they can be made instantly ambidextrous). Users, even of old generations ones (Austrians, Australians, Brits...), used them for decades and are generally not unhappy with them (some had been unhappy with the particular model, but not with the concept), and several armies selected bullpups recently (Israel, Croatia, Belgium...).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Great Wall familiar to us had been built two centuries after Marco Polo's travels. In his time the wall was a much smaller structure, largely in ruin. Other Europeans who travelled to Khanbaliq during the Yuan dynasty, such as Giovanni de' Marignolli and Odoric of Pordenone, said nothing about the wall either. Ibn Battuta, who asked about the wall when he visited China during the Yuan dynasty, could find no one who had either seen it, or knew of anyone who had seen it.
Marco Polo was a traveler and a merchant, not a tourist that enters in a chinese restaurant and discovers he can't have a fork. Chopsticks were one of the many ways of eating he had seen during his voyage. Tea one of the innumerable kind of beverages. What there were interesting in them? The way the commerce of spices in the port of Zayton worked, or the way Chinese ships were designed and built were the relevant things, not sticks. Reality is that those "important" things had ben omitted by later travelers as well, because they were of no interest to them, and Marco Polo's accounts are by far the most complete written by an European traveler in the Yuan dinasty.
Chinese reports dates back to very ancient times, but are far from complete, especially during the early Yuan dinasty (even the Princess Kököchin is not mentioned in Chinese sources, while is present in Persian ones). Much Chines sources about the early Yuan dinasty had actually been written later than Marco Polo's book. More, there is no point in searching European names in them, and Marco Polo being a governor is a later embellishment. Earlier versions of his book only states him to be an emissary of the Emperor, like there were tens of thousands.
Actually Chinese had not really a "tradition or folklore of exploring". BTW Europeans first reached America about three centuries before Marco Polo reached China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sp1d3rm0nk3y33 Doria had the most difficult task. He was in numerical inferiority and, contrary to the other two Christian commanders, he had only open sea on his right side.
So, when Uluc Alì started to sail for the open, Doria had three possibilities. Or follow him, leaving a gap where Uluc could eventually thrust, or stretching his line very thin so that Uluc could break through it, or remain where he was, and being outflanked.
The first possibility gave at least him the chance to close on the Ottomans from the open and take them from two flanks.
Already before the battle infact he advised the other commanders than, in case, he would have sailed for the open, so it would have ben up for the reserve to close the gap to give him the needed time.
1
-
@sp1d3rm0nk3y33 Those galleys had been put under Doria's command, but weren't his own, so some of the captains, especially the Venetian ones, took his manuver for cowardice and decided to stay. The situation was worsened by the fact that those ships were at the end of Doria's formation, and couldn't see what Uluc Ali was really doing, because the smoke coming from the center of the battle covered his formation from their point of view.
Infact Uluc did chose the moment when he was covered by the smoke even from the point of view of Doria, to change route and go for the gap. That's why Doria was slow to react.
Given the situation he was in, however, Doria's tactic was the right one in any case, because in any case Uluc Ali shoul have stopped and fought sooner or later, so that would have given him the time to intervene.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 I made you the favor of answering your question and provided a source, but you are still dismissing it, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE ANYTHING BETTER OBVIOUSLY (are you a little closer to understand the terms of the question now?), because that's the favourite way for ignoramus like you to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something.
Also stating the others being "fanboys" is another way ignoramus like you use to pretend to be able to dismiss the others' statements without having to do any effort to really learn something. The matter is not Tacitus being good or bad, but you mocking who made you a favour while, at the same time, you wouldn't be able to provide a better source to save your life.
Since you then even pretended to indicate logical fallacies without being able to understand them (because, in your fantasy, to casually name a logical fallacy makes you seem intelligent), nor had contributed to the discussion with anything other than the smug that, in your fantasy, made you seem oh so much intelligent, any statement of you being aware of something is not believable, sorry.
Had you not been an ignoramus, maybe you would have recognised the surce of my nickname being a novel (I changed it a little).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 So, with how you treat who makes you the courtesy to answer you, you think you deserve even more than one, and whine if it doesn't arrive? For someone uncapable to find a source to save his life and unable to discern sources from religious books. You really have an high opinion of yourself and your needs.
The matter obviously is not Tacitus being good or bad, but you mocking who made you a favour while, at the same time, you wouldn't be able to provide a better source to save your life.
You asked for a source and, despite you not knowing the meaning of the term "source" (infact you mistake them for religious books), Tacitus, Annales, Book 2-18 is a source.
You could have thanked. It had been a courtesy to answer you. None was obliged. Or you could have simply kept your mouth shut. It would have been a good idea to at least not show to know nothing about anything.
Instead you chose to mock the source, despite you wouldn't be able to find a better one to save your life.
Because you think that mocking the things the others provide you out of courtesy is a way, for someone that knows nothing, to seem knowledgeable.
You can't expect an ignoramus like you to behave rationally, cleverly, or even politely I guess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Spartan laws on inheritage were bound to reduce the full citizens (Spartiates), and so the army since:
1) Spartans could only own land, not commerce.
2) inheritance had to be equally divided among sons.
3) Spartiates had to sit in a Syssitia, and each member was required to contribute monthly with 77 litres of barley, 39 litres of wine, three kilograms of cheese, 1.5 kilograms of figs, and ten Aegina obols, so you had to be pretty rich to sit in one.
This way, families with many sons (that could have contributed to the army) became too poor to be full citizens, while the wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer families with few sons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ghostriders_1 It's not a question of buying. To decide the gospels are post 70 because of the reference to the destruction of the temple don't solve more problems that it poses. Why Mattew, that writes for Jews, talks about Jerusalem as a vital city? If they had all the infos, why they talked about the destruction wrong, leaving the readers guessing if Christ had just being lucky, and not even that much? Then there is the Paternoster, not found in Mark, existing in Mattew, slightly different in Luke, and found on a wall of Pompeii (in form of the sator square), so written and known before 79CE...
AND, on the other end, Jesus Christ was not the only guy predicting the destruction of the temple before 70CE, it was not even the only Jesus predicting it. Josephus records that, in 62 CE, a man named Jesus son of Ananus began to prophesy exactly the same thing. Jerusalem had been invaded an conquered multiple times, and its temple had already been destroyed once, the fear it could happen again was justified.
1
-
1
-
@ghostriders_1 Then why you are not stating you don't know, instead of stating the reality of a fictional world of your where Christians didn't even believe in the phisical body of Christ until, precisely around 80CE, a guy composed a tale about the life of a guy named Jesus and all the Christians "oh, yeah! It's our Christ!".
Religious people are not more idiot than the others. If you have to postulate the idiocy of people for your theory being right, then your theory is wrong. You can't adapt reality to theory. Religious people have strong believings that are not easily bent. The stronger themore sectarian is the group. Christians were not idiots that accepted anything with the word "Jesus" in it. To be accepted by them, like by ANY religious group, a writing should have been compatible with what they already believed. If they only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark, like many other gospels. is possible, and, surprise surprise, whe had Mark and many other gospels.
You seem to be under the delusion that very early Christianity was unified in one place & in one belief, that's why you concentrated on Paul. it was not. Wake up. If the Christians only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark, like many other gospels. is possible, and, surprise surprise, whe had Mark and many other gospels.
All of that happened before Catholicism, sorry and the same Pauline epistles show those early Christian "different believings" to be just nuances. The theological questions that divided Christianity in incompatible sects had yet to be posed.
Mattew considers Gerusalem a vital city the moment he's writing, not the moment the story is set.
Then where is a paternoster before Mattew?
1
-
So much of what you say doesn't make any sense and is not backed by any evidence. To decide the gospels are post 70 because of the reference to the destruction of the temple doesn't solve more problems that it poses. WE KNOW those kind of predictions were diffused before 70 CE in the Jewish community. Why Mattew, that writes for Jews, talks about Jerusalem as a vital city in the moment he writes? If they had all the infos, why they talked about the destruction wrong, leaving the readers guessing if Christ had just being lucky, and not even that much? Why the paternoster, that we find first in Mattew, was known and diffused before 79CE?
Your pretense people should be idiots for your theory to work disqualifies it. You can't adapt reality to theory. Your theory fails to take into considerations religious people have strong believings that are not easily bent. The stronger the more sectarian is the group. New people are welcomed into the sect when they accept the believing of the sect. Is not the sect that acquire the believing of the new people. Another time you have to adapt reality to theory. You have even to force early Christianity to be a mysteric religion, another time adapting reality to theory, when that was EXACTLY the problem Christians had with gnosticism, that sold "very special revelations" only for the initiates. Sorry, but early Christianity didn't work like that. Bishops were elected, not cooptated.
You have not debunked anything, sorry. You seem to be under the delusion that very early Christianity was unified in one place & in one belief, that's why you concentrated on Paul. it was not. If the Christians only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark, like many other gospels. is possible, and, surprise surprise, whe had Mark and many other gospels. Contrary to you, I've not to adapt reality to theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
DOUG HEINS Sorry, I meant in actual fights. Probably in training it hit something other than islands and continents.
As I said, quote: "the MK5 hit the deck of the old BB Yamashiro at 20.000m without causing significative damages". That's at least sure, and none of the shells of 5 battelships appear to have pierced the deck of a WWI battleship at 20 km, Actually, after 18 minutes of shelling, It was still able to steam at 15 knots, so it's improbable that the armoured belt had been pierced too (it was already listing 15°, and then counterflooded, before the start of the shelling, so it couldn't steam at its max speed of 24.5 knots anyway), and no more than a turret was inoperable due to the shelling. The ship had been sunk by torpedoes (at least 5 heavy torpedoes, one from the Killen at 3:20, one from the Mossen at 3:22, one from the Bennion or Grant at 4:07, two from the Newcomb at 4:11. The ship capsized exactly 8 minutes later. No ship in WWII survived after having been hit by 4 heavy trops), not by the shells of five battleships (and several heavy cruisers).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's an often repeated mith. The Littorios almost always fired few shots at extreme ranges. Had they hit something, it would have been by far the longest range hit in history.
Only in two occasions they fired more shots.
At Gaudo the Vittorio Veneto was steaming at 28 knots and trying to hit, from 23 to 26 kms distance, two light cruisers that were entering and exiting smokescreens and only manuvering to not be hit. At that time it had been already amply demonstrated that it was practically impossible to hit a ship that was only manuvering to not be hit, even at far closer distances and with far more rapidly firing guns (see the battle of the Espero convoy) if not firing thousands of shells.
The second battle of the Sirte had been fought in a storm, and the Littorio had been the most accurate ship of both parties in that occasion.
The pictures taken by the Brits at Gaudo show, for Vittorio Veneto's salvo, a consistent single turret spread of 1.7% of the distance. Any navy of the time would have considered 2% acceptable to good in action.
US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of peacetime tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal, will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and reduces the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, sorry.
At Nicaea the divinity of Christ had never been "put to vote". It had not even been discussed.
The vast majority of Christians were trinitarians before Nicaea. Already in the didachè baptism was in name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and John 1 (end of 1st century, early 2nd century at the latest) already clearly states the divinity of Christ. Constantine was only interested in ending the turmoils among Christians in his empire, and obviously, at Nicaea, the belief of the vast majority won.
The main theme, at Nicaea, was to compose the differences between the main group of christians, that believed the Son to be of the same substance of the Father, and the Arians, that believed the Son to be of similar substance of that of the Father, but divine indeed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Infact. The weapon was developed for the ground role. IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than four-hundred samples of more than 14.000 built saw limited use on aircrafts (at that time the Air Corp was a branch of the Army) waiting for the model to be in full scale production first than distributing it to the troops. It was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield.
The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better.
The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy.
Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII.
The bipod was added when it was seen that the shield was too heavy to be carried in attack, and, with the bipod, the weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them.
Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar, there were only bolt action rifles and showels. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had.
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was infact not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The father of Conrad, William, veteran of the 2nd Crusade, arrived in Jerusalem after the death of his eldest son, William Longsword, to protect his newborn grandson Baldwin V (unfortunately, he had not been able to prevent his death). He had been captured at Hattin and, during the siege of Tyre, Saladin presented him to Conrad, threatening to kill him, had not Conrad surrended the city.
Conrad famously replied "my father had lived long enough".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Frenology to determine race is a scam even now, figures at the turn of 20th century.
About the "shred of evidence that says the people were Semitic before the invasions", can we count, for example, THEIR LANGUAGE AND OWN NAMES? "Hannibal" means "Baal is Gracious" (Baal was a Phoenician god) his brother Hasdrubal means "Help of Baal". His father Hamilcar means "brother of Melqart” (Phoenician god of the city of Tyre, in nowadays Lebanon) "Barca" means "lightning", Hamilcar, father of Hannibal, earned this nickname for his swift victories in battle.
So, to you, those were black people cosplaying for Phoenicians for all of their lives?
They were so able in disguising them as Phoenicians, that the Romans called them "Phoenicians", and the wars with them the "Phoenician wars". Infact "Poenus" means "Phoenician" in Latin.
1
-
For 1934 It was VERY simple to make. The BAR, BREN, MG34 and Type99 (and both the BREN and MG1934 had been selected in 1938, the Type99 in 1939) had more complex machining. Among the most used LMGs of the time, Only the DP28 could be considered simpler to manufacture.
Generally, though I like it, it seems like a promising prototype put in production before all the elements had been figured out throughly.
Very good and simple operating mechanism, barrel change mechanism, general ergonomy, controls, gas settings…
But three sets of lugs? That bipod (I’ve seen better in WWI)… no handle to grab a scorching hot barrel… And that magazine…
It could have easily been so MUCH better.
1
-
1