Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Military History not Visualized"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
@Nikarus2370 You're probably right.
When I looked at the video and there was talk about contact exploder, it conjured images of naval mines into my mind. You know, the kinds of mines that are basically spherical, equipped all over with spring loaded pins, that when depressed they trigger the explosive in the mind.
I assumed there was a similar mechanism involved in the nose cone of the torpedo with the direct contact exploder. And if that was the case, then I wouldn't have designed it with a single pin to be depressed through impact, because it would require a very specific angle of engagement to properly depress the pin. (If such a torpedo had impacted at an angle slightly off 90 degrees, then chances are it would've just bent the pin and prevented it from being depressed all the way to the bottom of the mechanism)
Granted, my idea would initially have problems with water pressure in the front of the torpedo since the more velocity it picks up, the greater water pressure would be exerted on the nosecone. But this would've been solved with spring tension in the pins to be set at a specific degree as to keep the pins extended until the torpedo actually impacts a hard surface.
As with bomb making in general though, there are a huge selection of methods to get a bomb to explode.
3
-
3
-
@ВячеславСкопюк It's a numbers game. Whatever costs you incur on yourself, has to end up giving your side a net gain. Otherwise the costs you've incurred are wasteful by definition, and many smaller wasteful costs will add up and end up losing you the war.
Patton described it quite consisely:
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."
The red army during the winter war had such effective propaganda and high morale that they ended up running headlong into the finnish guns, dying for the soviet union... While failing to cause enough finns to die for Finland. And that is a problem, for the red army and for the soviet union, no matter how you try to look at it.
Which teaches us that it's not very useful to teach or indoctrinate troops that dying for their country is some sort of "Noble goal" in itself, because it isn't. Getting results for your country is the noblest goal. Sometimes your own individual death might garner big results for your countrys war effort, and in such a situation, self-sacrifice might be noble. But just dying to the guns of the enemy to show "bravery" or "zeal" is useless.
So what all your troops should know is that if they are about to die in battle, then they should do their very best to make their deaths useful rather than wasteful.
In modern times, there's another group that has repeated this mistake: ISIS and their glorification of martyrdom. Dying in "Service of the prophet and Allah"... Might sit well with the prophet and Allah, but it's not winning ISIS any wars.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1