history

[desert agate]

I think it is rather telling that government has no understanding of the necessity of a reserve force with Anzac being scrapped after being decomissioned in 2024

I do agree that Anzac was not suitable for further peacetime service, nor are the other 2 early members of the class
All of the Anzacs are very worn out after 3 decades of hard service thanks to being forced to do the job of a fleet that should have been twice its size
However immediately scrapping a ship that had just gone through major refits and had been fitted with one of the worlds most advanced radar systems was not a wise decision

Placing the older Anzacs into reserve provides the fleet with a wartime flexability that it cannot afford to lose
As it stands the fleet is gearing up for a major expansion, to become the largest it has been since the second world war, however with Arunta decomissioning this year, the fleet will also be at its smallest size since the fleets inception

With the possibility of major conflict before the end of the decade being far less a hypothetical and in many eyes more of an inevitability, and with the first Mogamis not being operational until 2030 (assuming no delays), we desperately need to retain hulls in any capacity, and a reserve force is the only option we have

[runic ermine]

Im sorry WHAT?!
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/southeast-asia/vietnam-us-war-invasion-military-b2912925.html

[autumn sorrel]

You only catch up to it NOW?

It not even a secret, why are you even surprised?

[autumn sorrel]

Not even a leak but an opinion piece from a foreign think tank and NGO that deliberated misinterpreted Vietnam MoD threat assessment document. It is one thing for Vietnam to have war plan in case of possible conflict, another to use that to grossly misinform the public about Vietnam foreign relation.

If something happens in Cuba, it will send shock waves through Vietnam’s political elites. Many of them have very strong, intimate ties with Cuba.

If anything, Vietnam political elites are more or less will be inclined toward more reform and softer foreign relationship with US from what happened with Cuba. For years, the Cuba model was use as a case study of what would happen if the economic reforms and warmer relationship with US weren't carry out. The "ties" in question are mostly from older and more hardline conservatives elements in the party of which either have little influence or already out of the leadership positions.

[runic ermine]

https://youtu.be/-pkjZtIW7Cg?si=J-V6-Wpop5fynS9N

[broken axle]

sinking of HMS Barham.

On November 24, 1941, it departed with Force A, along with the Queen Elizabeth and the Valiant, from Alexandria to cover the departure of cruisers attempting to intercept Italian convoys bound for Libya, patrolling the area between Cyrenaica and Crete. On November 25, at 4:30 PM, HMS Barham was hit on its port side by three torpedoes from a salvo of four, launched by U-331 under Kapitänleutnant (Lieutenant Commander) Hans-Dietrich von Tiesenhausen, north of Sidi Barrani, at position 32°34′N 26°24′E / 32.567, 26.400

Four minutes after the torpedoes hit, and as HMS Barham began to list dangerously to port, the magazine storing the 381 mm shells exploded. The explosion was so violent that the battleship burst open, sending up a massive plume of smoke that completely obscured its sinking. A total of 862 crew members died, including its commander, Captain G.C. Cooke. There were 395 survivors, rescued by the destroyers HMS Hotspur and HMAS Nizam. The sinking was captured on film by a Pathé News cameraman aboard the Valiant.

The video shows sailors attempting to jump onto the starboard side of the ship as it lists.

[spiral cedar]

Channel created Nov 2025
AI generated thumbnails
New video every 2 days

Yeeesh

One of the many AI generated "history channels" plaguing YouTube today

I suggest not putting any confidence in the script accuracy

https://youtu.be/CSm1bMT_R6g

[subtle prawn]

I've seen it popped up in related videos, good to know my skepticism wasn't unwarranted

[spiral cedar]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/230162395178205187/1468030191027884114/IMG_5905.png?ex=69848368&is=698331e8&hm=431b6bc7034275e55bd66509bf17bcda3af07c43ee75cb46337c509907efcc8d&

Rocket propelled torpedo faster than the aircraft

Bismarck with super-superfiring triple secondary

Triple gun ports but 2 barrels only on the main battery

[runic ermine]

Sadly Armchair Historian isnt publishing any documentaries this year

[subtle prawn]

If there isn't anything that's good to post, then don't

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/usni.org/post/3me2pncoxik2j

U.S. Naval Institute (@usni.org)

Carrier John F. Kennedy Returns From First Stint At Sea, Completes Builder’s Trials — USNI News
news.usni.org/2026/02/04/c...

-# Carrier John F. Kennedy Returns From First Stint At Sea, Completes Builder’s Trials - USNI News
Aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) is back at HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding division after wrapping up builder’s trials, the company said Wednesday. The future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) le...

Bluesky · Feb 4, 2026, 8:28 PM

[runic ermine]

Here's a high quality post
https://youtube.com/shorts/idhQ49Z0-RA?si=Thg-8BVUDXnHUuTl

[slow tulip]

@hot steeple feel free to substantiate your claims here

[fierce oracle]

While this is still relevant to soviet build quality:

[slow tulip]

^ that's from the actual CIA by the way

not a third party source

[desert agate]

Okay but this submarines reactor also solidified in its first 3 years of service thanks to a build quality issue

[spiral cedar]

Regardless of whether the other fellow is wrong or not (I think he is more wrong than not), citing Soviet naval construction is a poor way to provide evidence for tank quality

Go grab stuff from Tank Archives instead rather than submarines if you want to argue tanks

[remote monolith]

Mr. Samsonov is busy shitposting in the Canadian politics thread rn

[peak mango]

I love the phrase "assimilate to statelessness" so much it's not funny. 😄

[desert agate]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/not-delivering-any-aukus-nuclear-submarines-to-australia-explored-as-option-in-us-congressional-report

I do not understand why America seems so hesitant on AUKUS

Their submarine industry needs AUKUS so much more than we need the submarines

Without the billions that we are spending on the American manufacturing sector, a sector that is already struggling to build boats, a problem that was projected to only get worse before AUKUS, there would simply be no future for those yards

I understand America wanting a committment about Australia involving itself if China makes moves on Taiwan, but surely American polymakers understand why we are being intentionally cagey about this

Australia is America's most reliable ally, we will involve ourselves, but we don't want to say the quiet part out loud when the opponent is our largest trading partner

[peak mango]

Tbf, electric boat is doing fine.

[desert agate]

I have spoken at length in the past about how diesel electric is not a viable propulsion system for the RAN in a peer or near peer conflict outside of Australia's immediate territorial interests

[junior trench]

Must be a slow day for the Guardian if they're trying to make a line in a CRS report sound novel despite it being there for years at this point.

the article is about nothing

The Guardian just needed a headline

also, it's

you know

The Guardian

when it comes to certain topics it pays to be aware of what subjects are going to be covered with an agenda

[desert agate]

Well if it isn't new then I apologise, but I think that my concern remains valid

And yes The Guardian is far from a supporter of AUKUS, I should have considered that when I posted the article

[junior trench]

it's an old CRS report

[desert agate]

The article says 26 Jan

[junior trench]

that's the most recent inclusion of the line, yes

[peak mango]

Electric boat shipyard doing SSN construction in the US.

[peak mango]

Also .. yeah the guardian.

[desert agate]

Understood
Apologies

[junior trench]

also tbh

it's a CRS report

it's like when people cite GAO reports

"office for the sole purpose of complaining about expenses finds expenses to complain about"

in this case it's "group meant to research all alternatives on the table presents potential alternative"

"news at 11"

[peak mango]

And SSN expertise takes time. And articles are stupid. More importantly, the US hasn't exported actual construction to anyone, let alone a JV.

[desert agate]

Writing in the London Daily Telegraph in July 1923, Repington said:
It is of little importance where ships are distributed in peace. The only test is war. It is the tradition of Japan to seize the initiative, and begin when the flag falls or a little before. We must expect the loss of Singapore and Hong Kong before our Grand Fleet trails out there. We must also expect the appearance of Japanese submarines in the Sea of Malacca. It is useless to send a battalion to Singapore when Japan has shown herself capable of capturing a first class fortress like Port Arthur, defended by 45,000 men.

He thus emphasised Singapore's outstanding weakness—complete dependence upon a fleet capable of securing for the British in time of war the sea communications of the invading and defending forces respectively, without which "the fall of Singapore, sooner or later, was inevitable; as the fall of every isolated fortress on land or at sea has been inevitable throughout the whole history of war"

British Government and Admiralty assured and reassured Australia of their ability and intention to send an adequate fleet to Singapore when needed

Mr Green in the House of Representatives on 17th July 1923
a modern battleship costs no less than £7,000,000 . A modern battle-plane is estimated to cost £2,500, so that for the cost of one battleship Australia might have 2,800 modern battle-planes. Judging by what I have read, and from the opinions of the authorities I have quoted, it is clear that for the expenditure of a comparatively small amount of money Australia might be made immune from attack by even the most powerful naval force in the world. "

From every aspect the form of defence thus offered was attractive to the Labour party. Its functions could but be defensive and, moreover, local, confined to the defence of the coast against raids or invasion, and of shipping in adjacent waters

Its efficiency—although unproved by experience—was vouched for by eminent authorities. And it provided a further attraction on the score of its comparative cheapness and the fact that money spent on it could be spent in Australia

A policy of local naval and air defence against sea - borne raids and invasion was, then, adopted by the Labour party, with air power as the first line of defence

Volume I – Royal Australian Navy, 1939–1942 (1st edition, 1957)

Interesting just how early people were pointing out the rather glaring issues with what would later be called the Singapore Strategy

[autumn sorrel]

I mean, sort of. This is still like early post ww1 where the Royal Navy is still considered the best in the world and the only thing that might concern them were the running cost of the fleet and a possible new naval arms race. People might calling out the strategy that Royal Navy came up with against IJN but in context of the contemporary, those plan were sound.

[desert agate]

Clearly you did not read the first 2 paragraphs

This is 1923, it is not 1919
By this time it is clear that the Royal Navy must downsize, it is also clear that the Jellicoe report is fanciful at best and unreasonable at worst

The 1921 and 1923 Imperial conferences were both influential in the decision making surrounding the Singapore Strategy

It was at this juncture, early in 1921, that the British Government announced that Great Britain was no longer able to maintain the navy at the strength necessary for the complete protection of the Empire, and that the Dominions must do their share. The question of Australia's position vis-a-vis both the United States and Japan, and especially in regard to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, became one of urgency.

[autumn sorrel]

I was under the assumption that the Royal Navy draw up said confidence from Japan Naval strength projection at the time?

[desert agate]

Japan had ordered eight modern battleships, whereas Britain was building no battleships, and had none in existence quite equal in power, ship for ship, to the Japanese forces. If Japan were to declare war, it would be probable that she should do so by means of a sudden surprise assault, similar to her attack on Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah but then we come back to the problem that the subsequent naval treaty specifically limit other nations in the Commonwealth to operate Capital ships seeing that RN will de facto command them in case of war.

[desert agate]

I think its important to remember that Australia opposed its fleet being counted as part of the British fleet in the naval treaties

And also important to remember that after WW1, the Australian government had made an agreement that in any future conflict all Australian ships would retain Australian command, and when attached to Royal Navy service, would require the consent of the Australian Admiralty (and government) in any major deployment

The pre-WW1 arrangement of the RAN simply being subservient to the RN in wartime was immediately obsolete in 1918

[autumn sorrel]

Didn’t you told me about this before? Something about not enough fund or loan from the UK if Australia stick to their gun like that so no deal were come through?

[desert agate]

There were a number of factors that resulted in Australia backing down and allowing HMAS Australia be disposed of, not the least of which were British assurances of support in the event of war in the East

[autumn sorrel]

Even so, wouldn't HMAS Australia will be somewhat of a big floating target by the time of ww2 even if they manage to keep it? I would imagine that RAN going to upgrade it with more AA armament but the fate of ABDACOM don't really paint a bright scenario for HMAS Australia even if she was there.

[desert agate]

By 1924 she was obsolete regardless, but the treaties prevented her being replaced by another, more modern capital ship

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah but even then, whose going to pay for the new ship?

[desert agate]

I can imagine that had the RAN been allowed, it would have made inquiries into buying Tiger

[autumn sorrel]

You going to have other signatories of the treaty looking at Britain and its Commonwealth with side eyes in that case. The treaty was more or less specifically target at reducing everyone naval tonnage, and they make very sure that UK can't slip through with selling or gift ship to Canada to Australia.

[desert agate]

Jellicoe wanted a combined Eastern fleet between the RN, RAN and (non existent) RNZN

It would have been 75% funded by the British, 20% by Australia and 5% by New Zealand
In 1919 that looked like 14 million pounds from Britain
4 million pounds from Australia
1 million pounds from New Zealand

The plan costed out a brand new battle cruiser in 1919 costing about 4 million pounds, obviously far too expensive for the 4 million total contribution expected of Australia, but a second hand battlecruiser may cost 1-2 million, which still leaves room for a new Destroyer squadron (160'000 pounds each) and a handful of light cruisers (500'000 pounds)

[desert agate]

The argument from the Australian side, shortlived as it was
Was that Australia's strategic calculus was different from that of the UK, and that while Australia's interests and Britains interests were entwined, Australia had a need to see to her own defence in time of war, and that it was obvious that Britain could not guarantee protection

This argument didn't last long, the costs, a change in government and complete British opposition meant it was dead on arrival

But it is without a doubt a fact that interwar planning directly hampered strategy in the Far East, and left Australia wholly unprepared for the onslaught that was to come

Singapore was a plan made mainly out of convenience and political necessity
Britain had to do something to reassure not just Australia, but its own constituents that it was making efforts to protect India and the antipodes
A base in Australia would do little to protect India
A base in India would do little to protect Australia or Hong Kong
Singapore itself was strategically important, but easily cut off, it was however, the most central location

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah, I don't think Brit is going to agree to it at the time. Without them at least foot the bill and provide the nucleus to build the fleet around, Australia doing everything on its own is basically too expensive to justify.

[desert agate]

Regardless when the naval base opened in Singapore in 1939, the fleet that it was supposed to support simply did not materialise, and never would materialise even when war in the Pacific was an inevitability

[autumn sorrel]

Well, you have the Italian Fleet and Darlan to thank about that.

[desert agate]

In the end, wartime necessity meant that the Australian base would be built, at great cost to the Australian government, firstly to support the American fleet, and secondly to support the British when they returned to the Far East in 1944

[autumn sorrel]

It will be an interesting "what if" had Darlan have De Gaulle balls and actually set sail with his entire fleet instead of playing politic.

[autumn sorrel]

Tbf, everything we were talking were depend on hindsight of 20/20. Not like people back then can imagine the Japanese Navy and Army capabilities to conduct such operation in that short of a time.

[desert agate]

He thus emphasised Singapore's outstanding weakness—complete dependence upon a fleet capable of securing for the British in time of war the sea communications of the invading and defending forces respectively, without which "the fall of Singapore, sooner or later, was inevitable; as the fall of every isolated fortress on land or at sea has been inevitable throughout the whole history of war"

1923

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah but what the counter argument that the Royal Navy use for that? We are analyze past decisions so using hindsight is cheating here.

[desert agate]

The counter argument was literally 'trust me bro'

[autumn sorrel]

Wait, no presentation, no war plan, no commitment other than verbal?

[desert agate]

Effectively yes

[autumn sorrel]

And you guys bought it?

I really need to look Australia election history now. It is almost comical seeing the new gov change its stance without even a serious review.

[desert agate]

In 1923 it was the Australian government that was pushing for a base in Singapore
This was before the treaties
The Royal Navy was a powerful force, by far the worlds most powerful, but it was clear that power was fast in decline
The Royal Navy tried repeatedly to cancel the Singapore base, but was pushed to change its position at multiple Imperial Conferences

By the 30s however, it was a different story
Changes in government combined with new technologies meant that it was now the Australian government, being dragged unwillingly into pouring its resources into defending a base that it had no interest in

Mr Curtin had some British authority for this view, and quoted Admiral Sir Richard Webb as having said : "We are not only an Asiatic power in the widest sense, but also a European country with all Europe's complicated troubles and responsibilities at her door. That being so, to imagine that we are going to uncover the heart of the Empire and send our fleet or the best part of it thousands of miles into the Pacific with only one base for our supplies and damaged ships is to write us down as something more than fools. The British people would not tolerate it. "

Labour's fears as to Britain's ability to base a fleet upon Singapore, and doubts as to Singapore's value in Australian defence were—as events showed—well founded.

[twilit geyser]

https://fixupx.com/heatloss1986/status/1842363288362881127?s=46

Heatloss (@heatloss1986)

Over the years, much has been discussed about the development of the F-15 Eagle. A recurring theme in this is the importance of the MiG-25 in the development of the Eagle.
︀︀
︀︀History, however, reflects a complete lack of influence over the F-15 program. 🧵

**💬 28 🔁 243 ❤️ 2.0K 👁️ 238.8K **

FixupX · Oct 5, 2024, 12:36 AM

F-15 fangirling is cringe at its core tbh, at least there’s some sane people like this guy

[chilly osprey]

I actually went back and counted last night.

It's been in there in the last FORTY NINE issues of that CRS Report.

Going back to July 2023.

What I would also really remind people - and this is immediately apparent if you read the actual language in the report - is that it is niot advocating for that course.

CRS's are not policy.

They exist to infrom congresspersons (or, really, their staffers) on major programs or issues, so that they are aware of the debate around them and concerns that have been raised. It is, by design, intended to raise the arguments of skeptics and highlight alternatives, so that congress knows what challenges might be levied against them.

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkDIW15mzQI

[cyan oriole]

that guy's channel is pretty good, it's great that he puts NO AI in every thumbnail

high quality channel Drachinifel

[runic ermine]

Speaking of
https://youtu.be/GHTUK-3GhBg?si=vUzFBiKjJPUJX43k

[cyan oriole]

drach is high quality (albeit biased at times), but I don't enjoy watching him
all his videos are 45 minutes long rambles over a powerpoint presentation, to say 20 minutes worth of content

[subtle prawn]

Then I don't think you'll like how Clarke rambles on potentially for hours sometimes

[fierce oracle]

*design oversight due to a rushed production, the reactor worked fine as intended when it wasn’t the first one build off the line. Its a miracle it didn’t happen sooner anyway considering the reactor was bleeding coolant

[fierce oracle]

We’re talking modern armored vehicles, as far as i can tell tank archives is the second world war exclusively

[fierce oracle]

Citing soviet naval construction is a great idea actually considering they made hermetically sealed argon chambers to build the project 705’s, the only vessel that had hull issues was the first one and the ensuing 5 after rectified it

[slow tulip]

due to a poorly welded coolant line. It's a wonder it didn't fail sooner.

[slow tulip]

he was suggesting the production quality was poor in general

which is absurd at best

[mental tapir]

Mustard lied to me 🥀

[spiral cedar]

Now you're conflating technical sophistication with quality control, which are different things. Being able to consistently hit the design specs in production is different from having high technical performance, and having cutting-edge engineering is different from being able to minimize workmanship issues. The IJN in the interwar period and WWII had excellent quality control for their armor plates, having some of the most consistent plate manufacture in the world (e.g. exceptionally consistent face thickness from plate to plate). Their plates were still ballistically inferior to all the other navies, though, because they kept the design spec low. In a reverse example, Nazi Germany had a high level of technical sophistication when it came to engineering in WWII, but had a comparatively indifferent approach to consistent production quality and the quality control continued to nosedive as slave labor took predominance in production, despite technical development continuing forward. Which brings me back to my original point: use specific evidence to the actual point of argument. Serial production tungsten hulled fast submarines are cool, but when the guy's argument is a) that Soviet paper technical stats are inflated for propaganda reasons and b) that Soviet factories couldn't consistently meet the target specs for tank production, you should be a) looking for evidence that Soviet paper specs were the real production specs and b) looking for reports of defects in production tank models. While I don't agree with the guy, technical innovation at the edges of materials science for submarines is not specific evidence against his actual assertions and simply reiterating your claim doesn't make it more relevant.

[fierce oracle]

1.) the second world war was not the subject of the original argument that was something you brought up for no discernable reason
2.) the alfas are titanium not tungsten, tungsten is WAY too dense to be used practically in a submarine
3.) the example was production quality. the soviets having sophisticated metalworking was a foreign idea to western analysts, the same idea is pretty easily applicable from the navy to the tanks where they just didn't assume the soviets had build standards
4.) can you demonstrate where soviet technical stats are inflated without context? as in there's no note on the documentation that says something like "ideal conditions"?
5.) the soviet tank factories did consistently meet target specs, the teething issues of WW2 tank factories being so far removed from each other and producing their own model of T-34's was ironed out post war and as such the "not meeting production standards" thing is irrelevant cause this isn't WW2 tank production this is cold war/modern tank production where tank plants communicate instead of prototyping tanks in the middle of making IS-2's and T-34's like kharkiv
6.) soviet paper examinations of the tanks were based on the real production specs tested from the tank on the production line, under non ideal and ideal conditions.
7.) ...okay? every tank in serial production WILL have a defect at some point, its too much of a shame that he never gave evidence when we pinged him and asked for it in the first messages. I never denied the soviets didn't have defective tanks i simply stated their build quality was more than adequate.

[spiral cedar]

Please stop pinging me, I don't care about this topic

[fierce oracle]

i dont know why you're talking about world war two when this is about late/middle cold war production

[fierce oracle]

so why argue with me in the first place??

[spiral cedar]

I care about argument quality

I don't care about this specific topic

A bad argument is bad regardless of whether I agree with you

[fierce oracle]

this was never about argument quality this was about submarine build quality and soviet production line standards

you brought up tanks archive for some reason and then the second world war when it wasnt relevant

[spiral cedar]

I genuinely believe you failed to parse what I wrote

And again, please stop pinging me

[junior trench]

https://tenor.com/view/reading-sign-cant-stop-me-no-one-can-stop-me-gif-13921932

[fierce oracle]

im fairly sure i addressed it when i said "the soviet tank factories did consistently meet target specs" since you were talking about the technical systems in the tank and how quality control affected it, and i plainly stated that the tanks did hit the target specifications

[spiral cedar]

I believe you failed to parse the parts where I said I think you're probably right but that to convince the original guy you need to provide evidence rather than assertions

[fierce oracle]

trust me i have the evidence im just getting someone to translate it/retrive more so i can convey it to them

[spiral cedar]

I look forward to it, sounds interesting

[desert agate]

Tweedle dum and tweedle Dee entering the chat to make everyone’s day worse by making bad arguments with bad evidence and intentionally misrepresenting everyone else’s opinions

[desert agate]

MARK FELTON

[fierce oracle]

he's been kind enough to provide one of the untranslated pages of a table for T-34 losses in WW2, this is the section commenting on armor quality and how it held to ammunition. The first line is "safe impacts" (non-penetrating hits) which is 54.1%, the rest of the line breaks it down by calibre, more importantly though the next lines are penetrating hits of which 42% are clean penetrating hits, while only 2.1% were ragged (indicates steel impurity), 0.6% had cracks, 0.6% were non-penetrating with spalling, and 0.6% had fragments fall off.

the paper does state "It can be seen from the table that the percentage of brittle impacts (ragged penetrations, cracks, spalling, fragmentation) is very small, 3.9%. Most of the brittle impacts are from artillery calibres greater than 50mm, and from unknown sources, which could be bombs, grenades, mines, etc. Overall, the quality of the armour is satisfactory."

and theres a remaining .2% that are 88mm shells that didnt penetrate

which for how powerful the german guns are is a bit funny

[junior trench]

Well for one, this is from a rather early war report based upon the preponderance of 50mm hits.

Secondly, the inclusion of 20mm and 37mm impacts greatly skews the results.

Thirdly, and most importantly, this is still subject to issues of standards, and, even more importantly, survivorship bias. Only vehicles recoverable for study would be included in this sort of report. As a result of this being a rather early report, based upon the majority of hits being 50mm rounds, this report will naturally exclude a vast number of T-34s which fell into the hands of the Germans, or were simply irrecoverable.

Considering the proclivity for the tanks from every party of the war to self-disassemble themselves following an ammunition cook-off, usually initiated by the simple fact that tanks were subject to fire until they were visibly aflame, or less frequently, the crew was visually seen to be bailing out, this also excludes a vast number of hulls which otherwise would have been recoverable based upon their final position in regards to who has possession of the location at the end of an engagement.

Conversely, the sheer number of ways in which a tank can be knocked out or otherwise rendered unusable for the duration of an engagement via non-penetrating hits, means non-penetrating and low consequence hits are going to vastly overreported among the vehicles available for this kind of review.

[slow tulip]

...remove the 20 and 37mm impacts then they're separated by type lol

[slow tulip]

we had a tool for this, its called unknown cause

the report is from late 1942.

[desert agate]

'The report is from the early war'
Notably that's what she said

[slow tulip]

calling late 1942 early war is a bit of a stretch but okay

literally over halfway through the war in fact

[desert agate]

18 months into the war that still had about 30 months left?

[slow tulip]

and already over a year into soviet involvement (against germany)

[slow tulip]

it is further from the start of the war than the end

[desert agate]

I'm counting the start of 'the war' in this instance as the start of Barbarossa in June 1941

[junior trench]

That is not what that category is referring to. Considering the category includes the results and rates of spalling, cracking, and other such, that category is referring to impacts against the armor from unknown sources, not tanks which are in a state contrary to physical existence for study.

@desert agatedon't get looped into the pedantry distraction

[slow tulip]

lol

[desert agate]

I think it's hard to argue that the first 18 months of the Eastern front wouldn't be considered the 'early' phase of the war and I'll leave it at that

[slow tulip]

...okay?

i know that?

that would skew the number of penetrations vs non penetrations (although they are specifically studying knocked out tanks, so not significantly as this also isn't counting non-penetrations on still operational vehicles)

but it wouldn't change the assessed percentage of manufacturing faults by any reasonable margin

[desert agate]

A flawed dataset would change that result however

[slow tulip]

okay but you can't just claim the dataset is flawed lmfao

that's just arguing entirely in bad faith

[junior trench]

Considering you cited that category as covering vehicles unavailable for study due to the nature of their destruction, I have reasons to doubt that.

[desert agate]

[junior trench]

Or you were just throwing something at the wall and hoping it would shut me up.

[slow tulip]

pretty much this because i couldn't be fucking bothered to deal with such a meaningless point tbh

[slow tulip]

refer to this.

[slow tulip]

"i'll leave it at that" (brings it up again)

anyways this was 4 months after stalingrad began, for scale.

[desert agate]

I was bringing up the 2nd paragraph, not the first

[slow tulip]

it's still not an early report which that 2nd paragraph works on the assumption of

[slow tulip]

and again this

[junior trench]

If you consider there being an unknown quantity of tanks unavailable for study due to their condition being so poor they can't be recorded as "meaningless", then we're clearly in the "lies" portion of statistics. Tanks which undergo such a catastrophic loss are also more likely to be victims of more intense spalling events which assist in causing such a result.

[slow tulip]

you are aware that manufacturing faults causing perforation present almost entirely in partial penetrations, which would mean the exact opposite of what you claim here, right?

excessive spalling from non-penetrating hits, plugging, the sort.

the main cause of catastrophic ammunition detonations, to absolutely nobody's surprise hopefully, is complete penetrations.

[junior trench]

complete penetrations are not exclusive of spalling

including of rather dramatic types and quantity

[slow tulip]

you know precisely what i mean.

scabbing is the word i was looking for.

[junior trench]

of course this may also just be related to the peculiarities of the Soviet definition of penetration, whereby impacts which produce a hole in the armor and effects sufficient to cause a crew to abandon their vehicle, are nevertheless considered an incomplete penetration

[slow tulip]

lol?

[junior trench]

scabbing style effects aren't exclusive to non-penetrating hits

[slow tulip]

consider reading comprehension

and this part

[junior trench]

on a single round basis, yes, but as already mentioned, it was, and even remains, rather normal procedure to repeatedly fire upon a tank until it is visibly aflame

[slow tulip]

also if true would this not skew the numbers towards a higher number of non-penetrating but spalling hits?

this goes against your claim.

[junior trench]

It contributes to a higher total number of knocked out tanks, of which the majority from mid-1941 to late-1942 are unavailable for study by the soviet military. The vehicles available for study will be those in hands of the Soviets at the end of an engagement, and sufficiently intact for study. This naturally filters the available pool of vehicles to primarily be those which have seen the least amount of spalling and general behind armor effects.

[slow tulip]

...it also filters out a significant number of complete penetrations

what is the point

again this only changes the number of penetrations vs non penetrations

the majority of catastrophic destructions are the cause of complete penetrations by nature anyways. That's just the objective truth

to claim there may have been a larger percentage of non-penetrating damaging hits on catastrophically killed vehicles is baseless and pure speculation.

as for vehicles which were unrecoverable for other reasons (e.g captured), there is no reason to assume these would have any different statistics?

the location of destruction does not significantly (aside for potentially production standards in that particular region, e.g stalingrad) change any of this.

[twilit geyser]

https://youtu.be/KkDIW15mzQI

[remote monolith]

why is it always Mrbeast like

is there no one else to scam with

it's either him or fucken Elon

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp4l_evTgSA

[blazing egret]

<@&472236072743600148>

[exotic timber]

/kick 510607533313097728 Compromised account.

[nova ice]

member must be a mention or valid user id.

[cyan oriole]

the point was that your dataset is incomplete and possibly incorrect. The fact that you have to assume that captured tanks would have the same statistics is not a good sign

[slow tulip]

what reason is there for captured tanks to not have the same statistics?

[cyan oriole]

sampling bias

[slow tulip]

...i'm aware that's what you're implying

[cyan oriole]

germans are probably not going to be lugging totally wrecked vehicles home

among other considerations

[slow tulip]

this is late 1942

[cyan oriole]

and that's another reason the dataset is less than optimal

2/3s of the war hasn't even happened yet

[slow tulip]

unrecoverable vehicles are vehicles which will have had the territory taken over, of which some may have been captured

but there's no sampling bias because it's not a matter of what the germans took home

it's a matter of destroyed vehicle in [poland/ukraine/whatever] and destroyed vehicle in russia

which as i said, the location (apart for particular production standards in that region) has functionally no effect

[slow tulip]

...

you're the second person to claim this

late 1942 is still over halfway through the war

by a margin of about 3 months

it's also several (4) months into the battle of stalingrad

[cyan oriole]

nov 1942 is less than a year and a half into actual combat

remember, the red army wasn't really fighting until barbarossa

[slow tulip]

less than a year and a half is not a short period of time lmao

sure its before kursk but it's not like they've had a lack of engagements with the t34

[cyan oriole]

when the war is 4 years long, it's not long enough

the point is that the dataset is inadequate

[slow tulip]

again, on what basis

[cyan oriole]

it's not useless, but it's not good enough

[slow tulip]

there's no reason to assume the statistics on number of armour quality issues change

[cyan oriole]

1. the fact that it's a wartime report made with incomplete information
2. the fact that the war wasn't even half over yet

[slow tulip]

i have no doubt that if you had stats from 1944 you'd have more penetrations than non-penetrations by far

[cyan oriole]

any report before 1945 is suspect

[slow tulip]

but it wouldnt change the number of partial penetrations

[slow tulip]

wtf is complete information in this case

[cyan oriole]

access to german information

and enough time to do the job properly rather than in the middle of combat

[slow tulip]

okay, find me a single bit of german info on penetration statistics on T-34

good luck with that one

[slow tulip]

514 hits assessed how much more properly do you want

[cyan oriole]

the full picture?

[slow tulip]

as in?

[cyan oriole]

doesn't matter if it's 514 hits or 3000 hits, if there's heavy bias from fog of war then the entire dataset is in question

[slow tulip]

again you're assuming bias out of nowhere

you can't just assume bias, if that was logical anyone could discredit any source on the basis of "it's biased"

[cyan oriole]

no, the onus is upon you to prove that your dataset won't have flaws

[slow tulip]

why and how would it be biased

[cyan oriole]

yes you can assume bias

[slow tulip]

it is physically impossible to prove that lmfao

"erm erm prove a negative" ?????????

[cyan oriole]

the job of the researcher is to find good info

nobody said it was easy

that's why I don't bother

[slow tulip]

good info was provided, official documentation from the soviet military which includes an assessment of armour quality of T-34s

[cyan oriole]

yes, you need to meet standards

[slow tulip]

you have then assumed, on no basis, that it is biased

why would it be biased?

how could it even be biased?

[cyan oriole]

1 document from before the halfway mark of the war

probably rushed because the germans are in their house

[slow tulip]

again it is after halfway

[cyan oriole]

seems like great proof

[slow tulip]

"probably"

hte moment your argument is based on "probably" i'm done

[cyan oriole]

true, all the t-34 combat in 1939 is included in the dataset

brillaint

[slow tulip]

come back when you have a bais for your claims

[slow tulip]

"get a population sample please" ????????????????????????????????????

[cyan oriole]

and your argument isn't based on probably?

lul

[slow tulip]

no its based on a source

[cyan oriole]

"there is no reason to assume" = probably

[cyan oriole]

a poor source

[slow tulip]

you are trying to discredit the source on "its probably just biased" with no actual basis as to why or how it could be biased

[slow tulip]

how is it poor?

[cyan oriole]

I'm saying your source is definitely inadequate

[slow tulip]

how is it inadequate

you refuse to actually answer these lmfao

[cyan oriole]

because there's still a lot of possibilities for flaws and skewed information and etc

[slow tulip]

hi

what

the fuck

are the possibilities

i am asking you

stop being vague as shit jfc

[cyan oriole]

what if the team didn't have access to all the damaged tanks

[slow tulip]

they don't have access to all damaged tanks, that's what a sample is for

[cyan oriole]

for example, some vehicles were repaired quickly and pressed back into service

and none of those were included in the dataset

[slow tulip]

you throw out all these fancy words and don't know why a population sample isn't viable?

[cyan oriole]

yes, and what if the sample is nowhere representative of the population

and there's the inherent flaws in using only 1 source

[slow tulip]

then you would have to demonstrate that, because there is no actual reason to assume it isn't representative

[cyan oriole]

remember: when it's your argument you're backing up, your job is to find complete data. Not find "it's good enough if you squint" data

[cyan oriole]

no I don't

you have to prove that your source doesn't suck

it's your source, it's your job

[slow tulip]

there is no complete data

the complete data DOES NOT EXIST

do you fucking understand that

[cyan oriole]

yes, that's why your data is flawed

I think you understand it

[slow tulip]

"your data is flawed cause i want an impossible source which does not exist"

jesus fucking christ

[cyan oriole]

the workable dataset doesn't exist

yes you understand

nice

[slow tulip]

i'm out, have fun with your echo chamber lmfao

[cyan oriole]

bye

[slow tulip]

if no source in existence will convince you there's no value in arguing

[cyan oriole]

wdym convince me

I don't give a shit about this argument about t-34s

[slow tulip]

then why the fuck are you involved pray tell

[cyan oriole]

because you're posting half-baked, flawed sources and trying to pass them off as perfect

and then dying on the hill

it's kinda funny

it's not hard to acknowledge that this imperfect source is imperfect

but then you can say "well it's still a decent representation"

[slow tulip]

hi

that's

exactly what i fucking said

[cyan oriole]

but no, the source as no flaws

[slow tulip]

there's no reason to assume it's not representative

[cyan oriole]

oh yeah true bro

you were arguing with 20 people that the november 1942 source is just fine

it's halfway through the war bro

selection bias? it's fake

[slow tulip]

because it is just fine because it's

• the best available source
• any potential cause of the source not being representative cancels out or has negligible effect

[cyan oriole]

there is reason to assume it's not representative, and the responsible thing to do is to defer when you can't fully back up your point

[slow tulip]

i referred to every single one of those causes brought up independently

[cyan oriole]

just let other people think what they want to

[slow tulip]

what is the reason?

[cyan oriole]

I told you, and like 5 other people told you

[slow tulip]

no the fuck you didnt you threw assumptions in my general direction

assumptions with no backing

[cyan oriole]

if all these people are doubting your source, even after you've unloaded all your counter-arguments

then maybe there is an issue

[slow tulip]

i'm afraid you heavily overestimate people's ability to read a source

[cyan oriole]

no, you found "kinda-sorta" data and then tried to handwave away all issues

your job is to provide concrete proof

[slow tulip]

find better data

there is no "concrete proof" but there is proof beyond reasonable doubt

[cyan oriole]

or, if you can't find concrete proof

[slow tulip]

what you are throwing is unreasonable doubt

[cyan oriole]

no

[slow tulip]

what they were throwing is unreasonable doubt

it was assumptions again on no basis with no backing

[cyan oriole]

doubting a source from 1.5 years into a 4 year war is not unreasonable

there is backing

[slow tulip]

many of these assumptions were not only baseless but beyond unreasonable

such as the idea that catastrophically destroyed tanks would have a higher percentage of partial penetrations than non-catastrophic losses

[cyan oriole]

man I wonder why every other person without fail throws the same doubts

it must be because they're so unreasonable

[slow tulip]

because the same fucking misinfo gets spread of T-34s being these poorly produced shitboxes and the soviet army lying about everything ever which is what every single one of their doubts were based on lmfao

[cyan oriole]

yes each of these individual things isn't a killer on its own

not including captured tanks isn't so bad

if the source weren't also missing 2.5 years of combat

[slow tulip]

not just that, many would actually skew the data the other way

[cyan oriole]

and all postwar clarity

lmao

[slow tulip]

for example excluding catastrophically destroyed vehicles will actually increase the number of partial penetrations

[cyan oriole]

1 flaw out of 20 isn't the only reason

it's everything compounded

[slow tulip]

again working on the assumption that
1: it is a flaw
2: it actually has that effect on the data

many do not have that effect on the data
quite a few have the opposite effect

plus a sample of 514 hits is not small

[cyan oriole]

and the sample of the bombers that returned from over germany wasn't small either

[slow tulip]

if armour quality was so poor then the number of failures due to quality would not be 3.9%. You do not go from 3.9% to a significant number by magic

[cyan oriole]

surely that means survivorship bias is fake

[slow tulip]

not comparable.

these are not surviving vehicles

[cyan oriole]

remember this isn't our assumption

this is YOUR assumption

YOU are assuming that the hole in your data does NOT affect the results

[slow tulip]

why would it?

[cyan oriole]

our assumption that missing data might affect the results is perfectly reasonable

[cyan oriole]

why would missing data affect results? hmm I don't know

maybe I don't know because the data is missing

[slow tulip]

why would missing data which has absolutely no difference in situation* affect results

again, why the fuck would a tank in ukraine have different damages to a tank in russia?

[cyan oriole]

there you go making another assumption

how do you know there was no difference in situation

[cyan oriole]

another assumption

[slow tulip]

no no

tell me

[cyan oriole]

maybe the terrain? without the data you can't know

[slow tulip]

both flat lmfao

[cyan oriole]

prove it

oh wait, the data is missing

I'm not one to make assumptions based on missing data

[slow tulip]

tada~ it's fucking flat
the entire region is flat

[cyan oriole]

I meant prove this

[slow tulip]

prove that the location of a vehicle does not mysteriously change the armour quality?

[cyan oriole]

because elevation is the only part of terrain, true

[cyan oriole]

imagine if all battle ranges in ukraine were shorter or longer than in russia proper

perhaps the number of partial penetrations would change

now, are you able to disprove that null hypothesis? no

[slow tulip]

but the probability of scabbing wouldn't?

[cyan oriole]

because your data is missing

[cyan oriole]

anyway, if you want to make assumptions based off of incomplete data, it's your call

[slow tulip]

poorly produced armour will scab from a partial or complete penetration lmfao

[cyan oriole]

but you were wondering why nobody was convicned

[slow tulip]

range does not affect this

[cyan oriole]

I gave you your answer

[slow tulip]

yeah and your answer is based on unreasonable assumptions

so you are free to believe what you'd like.

[cyan oriole]

"missing data might lead to unreliable results" = unreasonable

brilliant

[slow tulip]

missing data might lead to unreliable results, but if you can identify the causes of missing data and then demonstrate that none of those would actually have anything but a marginal effect on the results, or could even skew the results in the opposite direction, it does not

[cyan oriole]

yeah but you've made so many assumptions that it's hard to believe all the demonstrations (captured tanks don't affect data, then location doesn't affect data, then 1943-1945 don't have different data, then postwar clarity doesn't affect the data, then german data won't change anything)

if I needed to make that many assumptions because of my dataset, I would just accept that not everyone will be convinced

and move on

[slow tulip]

a difference in range would not significantly affect the chance of scabbing, only the chance of non-penetration. An armour defect will be visible on both partial and complete penetrations. Negligible effect.

catastrophically destroyed vehicles are more likely to have been completely penetrated, which is statistically less likely to involve an armour quality defect (you can literally put two and two together with a venn diagram this isn't hard). This would therefore affect the data in the opposite direction.

captured vehicles do not affect data. This is because:
1 - there aren't many. The number is very low.
2 - captured vehicles are most likely to be non-penetrating hits, as partial penetrations are known to be incredibly likely to cause internal fires, which would make the vehicle unuseable for study. See IS-2 trials against tiger 2.

1943-45 if anything would have fewer armour defects. It is known that early war T-34s used 8S steel, later swapping to 71L. This means that again this would affect the data in the opposite direction.

German data could change anything but refer to captured vehicles (they didn't have much) and the fact that the data does not exist. German evaluations which do exist did not find armour faults and in fact found very reliable performance (see image)

Postwar clarity could have an effect, but if anything would produce even less useable data, as the cause of destruction of vehicles is inherently harder to assess the longer that vehicle has been there.

Just because you don't understand the basis on which something is concluded does not automatically make it an assumption. I would consider actually researching armour before arguing about it.

[cyan oriole]

I'm not the guy you need to convince, I'm just giving you a different perspective

[slow tulip]

and i'm pointing out that that perspective is baseless and can't actually be supported by... anything really

[fierce oracle]

If "giving you a different perspective" means simply ignoring a fair evaluation and study that is considerably well put together and then simply saying "no it isn't reliable because data might be missing" must mean my current English dictionary is horribly outdated and perspective gained an entirely new meaning when it comes to this context or alternatively you are not adding a perspective but putting your horse in a race that you now regretting putting it in

You saying you're "not the guy you need to convince" would suggest then that you have no need for input on the subject, and you are just stating this as a means to get out of an argument.

[subtle prawn]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-100-ajax-vehicles-withdrawn-and-awaiting-upgrades/

[slow tulip]

yeah they retracted the IOC lmfao it’s pretty funny

shortest service period of any vehicle record?

[cyan oriole]

I said that because it's not my job to teach random people on the internet

[cyan oriole]

do you have any clue what this was originally about, or are you just butting in for the luls

the other guy posted his data to back up his argument, and the 5 other people present laughed at him and dismissed him

I was foolishly explaining why that was the case

but of course, very bright individuals are chiming in to explain why everything is fine actually, and nothing needs to change

shoulda known better

[fierce oracle]

yes i do cause i was the guy that was in the conversation that led to this #history message

[fierce oracle]

they didnt laugh at him they simply couldnt comprehend a study

[fierce oracle]

you said that as a get out of jail free card cause you want to avoid any responsibility for being wrong

[cyan oriole]

no, the other guy couldn't understand why people rejected him

[slow tulip]

no i fully understand why

[cyan oriole]

"it's halfway through the war!!" and other justifications

[fierce oracle]

it was halfway through the war

[cyan oriole]

"everyone else is stupid" isn't a real reason

[fierce oracle]

the soviets were involved in the second world war since they invaded poland

[slow tulip]

#history message

[cyan oriole]

oh yeah, all the T-34 combat in 1939 is super relevant

so many data points

[fierce oracle]

there were NO t-34's in 1939

[cyan oriole]

hmmmmm

maybe that;s why it's NOT halfway through the war

[fierce oracle]

the soviets were already involved in the war since '39

[slow tulip]

the war is independent of the number of t34s

actually

their EXACT CLAIM was that it was early war

[cyan oriole]

the discussion was about soviet build quality, which was not tested until june 1941

[slow tulip]

which is objectively false

[cyan oriole]

so saying that nov 1942 is halfway through the war is wrong

for this purpose

[slow tulip]

it is halfway through the war.

[fierce oracle]

it is literally halfway through the war

[cyan oriole]

the discussion was about the build quality of t-34s

was the build quality of t-34s being tested in 1939 or 1940

[slow tulip]

okay

but their exact claim was that it was early war

which is false, and i pointed that out

[fierce oracle]

no it was soviet build quality in general

[slow tulip]

^ and that

[cyan oriole]

no, because the first time soviet build quality wa actuallys tested was june 1941

[fierce oracle]

#history message

please refer to when this started 3 days ago

[cyan oriole]

what the americans thought about the soviets is not relevant

the americans thought the japanese were building 45,000 ton battleships

[slow tulip]

????????

soviet sources don't count because they're potentially biased

non-soviet sources aren't relevant

[fierce oracle]

they quite literally are though

[cyan oriole]

that's not what I said, I said that mid-war soviet sources have large potential for error

because they are missing lots of information

[fierce oracle]

the discussion was about soviet build quality, which was not tested until june 1941

BT-5 and T-26:

the invasion of poland:

[slow tulip]

and i pointed out that all of those "potentials for error" are baseless and actually have no effect or even make the source agree with me even further

[cyan oriole]

that's not true, I said that because I have better things to do than argue with hardheaded "experts" on the internet

[cyan oriole]

oh man, the poles were hugely testing the armor quality of the soviet vehicles

we're missing the forest for the trees

[cyan oriole]

every single one of them? yeah I'm not sure about that one

[fierce oracle]

1.) when did any of us say we were experts
2.) then why are you putting your horse in this race

[slow tulip]

i listed every one you mentioned

you're free to bring up more

nobody's stopping you

[fierce oracle]

the polish (contrary to popular belief) actually resisted, had a professional army, and had anti-tank weaponry

[cyan oriole]

1. I never insinuated that, but you two definitely carry yourselves like you have all the answers
2. because this channel is nice to have, and I'd rather not let its quality sink further to the gutter

[slow tulip]

Just because you don't understand the basis on which something is concluded does not automatically make it an assumption. I would consider actually researching armour before arguing about it.
refer to this please

[cyan oriole]

ok, but the reality is that soviet armored vehicle manufacture was not meaingfully tested during the spetember campaign

[fierce oracle]

1.) no we just have sources instead of unfound claims
2.) so then engage in the conversation instead of trying to be an unrelated third party attempting to comment on it

[cyan oriole]

the vast majority of these examples happened during the war against germany

and many of these cases could only be properly studied after the war

[slow tulip]

none of these cases can be studied after the war

[cyan oriole]

which is why a november 1942 report has a lot of room for error

[slow tulip]

becaue the fucking destroyed vehicles are unuseable for study when you wait that long

[cyan oriole]

1. the source (singular) that I took issue with is not a good one, which is what all of this is about
2. I am engaging in the conversation

[fierce oracle]

they would be horrible to study post war cause rusting and additonal damage from the elements would degrade the quality of the armor and tamper with any study looking at armor quality

[fierce oracle]

1.) theres multiple
2.) "I'm not the guy you need to convince, I'm just giving you a different perspective"

[cyan oriole]

that's not what I meant obviously, for example german documents could be captured, or information that the 1942 team didn't know of could surface

the fog of war leads to (necessary) assumptions that might be unfounded

that's why a postwar study is the ideal

[slow tulip]

i gave you german documents

the german documents ALSO agree with me

curious!

[fierce oracle]

information that the 1942 team didn't know of could surface
like what? do you have any examples that they wouldnt be aware of?

[cyan oriole]

1. the source that I took issue with is singular
2. the other guy listed a bunch of arguments about tank armor manufacture that shouldn't be aimed at me, I'm talking about data collection here

[slow tulip]

you're free to provide this information that surfaced

[slow tulip]

and i provided other sources which demonstrate that all of my "assumptions" are definitively correct

[cyan oriole]

another example from another field is the capability of the japanese torpedoes, which was not known until far after the war

a very similar case could easily happen here, who knows what the soviets were estimating about german weapons

[fierce oracle]

that has absolutely nothing to do with armor that is subject to naval weaponry\

[slow tulip]

yes because the japanese torpedoes weren't ASSESSED BY ALLIED NATIONS until far after the war

shock
fucking
horror

[cyan oriole]

no you didn't, you provided 1 source and handwaved half the concerns away

[slow tulip]

#history message

READ

THE FUCKING MESSAGE

[cyan oriole]

the reason your source was questionable is the compounded concerns

[fierce oracle]

1.) its an extensive study that comprised very many hits and calibers, i dont know how to get more extensive than looking at 500+ individual hits
2.) you are participating in the conversation like you said so you are subject to the things being talked about thats how a discussion works

[slow tulip]

EINSTEIN

[cyan oriole]

I read the message and assessed it correctkly

[fierce oracle]

what concerns were handwaved exactly

[cyan oriole]

"postwar clarity might not matter"

super reassuring

[slow tulip]

also "handwaved"

Just because you don't understand the basis on which something is concluded does not automatically make it an assumption. I would consider actually researching armour before arguing about it.

[cyan oriole]

glad to see you have all the answers

[slow tulip]

i never said i had all the answers, but i clearly have way fucking more than you

[slow tulip]

but if anything would produce even less useable data, as the cause of destruction of vehicles is inherently harder to assess the longer that vehicle has been there.

reading comprehension challenge 2026

immediate assessments are more reliable because the cause of destruction is easier to assess the sooner it is made

[cyan oriole]

this isn't about armor, it's about bad sources, which I do understand

and the opposite is true as well, just because you're certain of yourself doesn't make you right

[slow tulip]

which refers back to this

[cyan oriole]

that is not what I was talking about as you already know

selective memory again

[fierce oracle]

you are directly engaged in an argument about tank armor

[slow tulip]

Just because you don't understand the basis on which something is concluded does not automatically make it an assumption. I would consider actually researching armour before arguing about it.

read what i fucking said

[cyan oriole]

respond to false, nonexistent arguments while ignoring everything else

[fierce oracle]

also can you clarify on this?

[cyan oriole]

I already did

[slow tulip]

you conveniently ignored 3/4 of the sentence!!!!

[slow tulip]

funny how you delete entire sections to make yourself sound better and then say this

[fierce oracle]

that was one thing he said, which was him saying that it might not matter, not that it didnt

[cyan oriole]

that's not what I meant obviously, for example german documents could be captured, or information that the 1942 team didn't know of could surface

[slow tulip]

i gave you german documents.

[fierce oracle]

theres a possibility it doesnt matter and a possibility it does

[cyan oriole]

but the 1942 soviets did not have those german documents, which is why the 1942 source is flawed

[slow tulip]

okay but the german documents FUCKING AGREE

WITH THE SOVIET SOURCE

[cyan oriole]

I don't care about your tank armor, I care that you provide shit sources and try to justify them

[fierce oracle]

"the soviets didnt have german documents in the middle of the war so obviously the soviet source is flawed"

[cyan oriole]

that doesn't mean the soviet source is a good one

[fierce oracle]

thank you for such AMAZING input

[cyan oriole]

it just means it happens to be correct by chance

[slow tulip]

and is the german source a bad one because they didnt have soviet data?

[dull moat]

??

[slow tulip]

is that how this works?

[slow tulip]

?????

[fierce oracle]

???????

[cyan oriole]

yes, using the source of a person with incomplete information is a bad idea

you udnerstand

thanks for your help

[slow tulip]

you've fucking lost it dude

[cyan oriole]

can we use the "reading comprehension" technology please? the fact you bank on an unreliable source and then double down when people doubt it is not a good sign

if your source happens to be wrong next time

[slow tulip]

okay but the source is correct?

[cyan oriole]

you'll do the same thing

[slow tulip]

glad you agree

[fierce oracle]

but the information wasnt incomplete, it's very complete for the situation they were in (the middle of a war) and documents post war that were assessed reach the same conclusion as a study done with "missing information"

[slow tulip]

and i have multiple sources (russian, german) which agree?

[cyan oriole]

yes, a broken clock can still be right
but why are you using a broken clock

[cyan oriole]

why did you not show them to the others when they doubted you

[slow tulip]

because i'm in a room full of broken clocks and all I have to do is find which ones agree with eachother the most.

[cyan oriole]

youwithheld them to make your argument weaker?

to give the others a chance?

[slow tulip]

there is no "complete info" on a military analysis

[cyan oriole]

nobody said it was easy

[fierce oracle]

clearly it is

[cyan oriole]

I said the opposite many times

[cyan oriole]

the fact that they were in the middle of the war is irrelevant when we're assessing how correct their information was

if we want good information, whya re we using wartime sources that might have errors

is my entire point, which you clearly understand

[slow tulip]

no there's just no value in doing several hours of research for an argument i only plan to engage in for a few minutes

especially when i have already had this argument tens of times with other people

[cyan oriole]

why turbo argue if you don't know the right answer

[slow tulip]

and have already gone through those exact same fucking sources

[slow tulip]

because i do know the right answer because i've done the research before.

[cyan oriole]

this might be relevant

[fierce oracle]

the fact that they were in the middle of the war is irrelevant

[cyan oriole]

if you don't have the time to find undoubtable evidence, then don't fight to the death

you were in the fray like doomguy fighting the demons

[fierce oracle]

doomguy wins

did you forget that

[cyan oriole]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1347766553516572719/1463781759782228028/cat_smells_true.gif

[slow tulip]

i've already found the undoubtable evidence many times before i just cant be bothred to find it again every single time someone brings up the same exact incredibly common myth

[fierce oracle]

argument has devolved into hearsay and nothingness im getting on wordle

[cyan oriole]

there is no contradiction if you use "reading comprehension" technology

1. this source from the middle of the war is flawed
2. it doesn't matter what excuse you have. "They were in the middle of the war, so it's fine that my source is flawed" is not acceptable
3. logical conclusion: the source should not be used because it is flawed

[cyan oriole]

then why argue if you can't be bothered?

[slow tulip]

that's not what he was saying

[fierce oracle]

the fact that they were in the middle of the war is irrelevant

[slow tulip]

because i don't like people spreading blatant misinfo?

[cyan oriole]

wdym that's not what he's saying? those are screenshots of what I'm saying, which had 0 contradictions

[cyan oriole]

show my entire sentence brother

the fact that they were in the middle of the war is irrelevant when we're assessing how correct their information was

[slow tulip]

you say "the fact that they were in the middle of the war is irrelevant" which contradicts the (correct) statements from earlier that the fact they were in the middle of the war is relevant because it could skew data

[cyan oriole]

I don't care that they're in the middle of the war, you should not be using a flawed source no matter what excuse there is

it's very very simple
do not use bad information to back up an argument

[slow tulip]

okay but its not flawed

i backed it up

[cyan oriole]

that first source is flawed, but then later you provided additional sources to back your argument up

[slow tulip]

cool

[cyan oriole]

so yes you are fine

[slow tulip]

okay then that's it lol

[cyan oriole]

my point was that the others were not unjustified to doubt you

you showed up with a flawed source and were surprised when people didn't take it seriously

[cyan oriole]

yeah it really was nothing important

that's why I fucked off

if people want to post bad sources and argue about it, let them, it's a free country

[fierce oracle]

so why are you arguing about it

[slow tulip]

I’m gonna be so real for you this is how this message sounds

[cyan oriole]

inertia

and because it's entertaining

[cyan oriole]

ok, next time I will use sign language and braille

[fierce oracle]

dude this is kind of textbook just "i have no more points to make so im just gonna devolve the argument"

[cyan oriole]

𓇋𓏏𓂕𓋴 𓋴𓅱 𓅓𓅂𓎼𓄿

[slow tulip]

thank you

[fierce oracle]

yeah why not

[cyan oriole]

wdym points? this isn't any sort of real debate, it's just one thing to understand

I said that it's not a bad call to distrust a suspicious source
and if people distrust it, then either find more sources to back yourself up, or just accept they're not gonna be convinced

[fierce oracle]

it was a debate though this is saying an apple being called a honeycrisp apple doesnt make it an apple

[cyan oriole]

very simple, no argument

[cyan oriole]

it's not an argument because there is nothing to argue

[cyan oriole]

this is non-negotiable fact checked true

and it can be verified with experimental data, aka: 5 different people (basically entire population that was sampled) found the source suspect and refused to trust it

nothing else to say

[slow tulip]

there was like 2 people

[cyan oriole]

but that's how a population sample works

a representative slice of random users in the channel all agreed

[slow tulip]

it's not a population sample though

[cyan oriole]

ok fine, let's say only 75% of people will agree instead of 100%, then it's still a majority

[fierce oracle]

2 people agreed and 2 people disagreed

[cyan oriole]

you're not allowed to count yourself in your own sample

[fierce oracle]

then a third person entered the conversation to an unrelated point

[cyan oriole]

[slow tulip]

if you look at any table of critical values for hypothesis tests you'll notice that the minimum n starts at 4

[cyan oriole]

I still count

[cyan oriole]

well the number of users in the channel is like 10 max

[fierce oracle]

you're not allowed to count yourself in your own sample

[cyan oriole]

it's not my sample

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/795542499900653601/828686579886194778/image0.gif

[slow tulip]

if i don't count, how does the opposing side count?

i'm not testing a hypothesis i'm in a debate lol

[cyan oriole]

you're not trying to convince yourself

youre' trying to convince others

[slow tulip]

either everyone involved counts or nobody counts

[cyan oriole]

that's why you don't count yourself

very simple and not arguable

[slow tulip]

even ignoring myself as i said previously i've had this exact argument over the same myth many times

[cyan oriole]

yeah but you're trying to convince others

[slow tulip]

you may have noticed that i am incredibly stubborn, which means the fact that i have had this argument means that those have ended with mutual agreement with my source

[cyan oriole]

and you need good data to do that

[cyan oriole]

wow I didn't notice that

[slow tulip]

this is not the first time i have used this source or set of sources, and other people agreed with it just fine

so it's not 100%, it's closer to sub-10%

[cyan oriole]

I believe that

but this channel is also filled with stubborn people who are extremely sure of themselves

so you would ideally act accordingly

and it doesn't hurt to have backups

especially if you have this argument often

[slow tulip]

i have the backups i just can't find everything instantly

there's a lot of stuff for each individual thing

it adds up and makes searching difficult

[cyan oriole]

yeah I know the feeling

thatt's why I prefer to not bother

[slow tulip]

if i can reason through an argument without having to dig up 3 billion obscure sources thats optimal

[cyan oriole]

most people who would be having this argument are probably gonna be hard to convince lul

selection bias

you only enter debate when you're sure you're correct, otherwise ur gonna look dumb

so only the most confident/stubborn will be present

[brittle cargo]

[remote monolith]

Nobody expected what followed. By the time Peter declared war on 9/20 August as the Saxons began the siege of Riga in earnest following the arrival of their artillery, Denmark was already out of the war. Sweden, having promised in Januaiy to back the Maritime Powers in upholding the treaty of Rijswick against Louis XIV, was able to call on their support as guarantors of the Altona agreement. On 13-14 July (OS), the Swedish fleet evaded a slightly larger Danish force with a daring manoeuvre along the Swedish coast, and joined up with an Anglo-Dutch fleet before landing a 10,000-strong army on Zealand and marching on Copenhagen. Faced by a blockade of his capital and under pressure from the Maritime Powers, Frederik caved in, signing the treaty of Travendal on 7/18 August. By the time the Russian army left Moscow, the last Swedish troops had left Danish soil.

In the battle of Narva (19/30 November), the Swedes hurled themselves at the Russian defences under cover of a fortuitous snowstorm. Outnumbered nearly three to one, they broke through at two pomts, smashing the Russian line into three parts before rolling it up. The Russians were routed; including those drowned in a desperate stampede across the over they lost 8,000 men and 145 guns. The Swedish empire was not as vulnerable as it looked. Far from it: for the next six years, Charles swept all before him. He first attacked Augustus. Deterred from invading Saxony by the Maritime Powers, who wished to prevent diversions in Germany which Louis XIV might exploit, Charles forced his way across the Dvina into Courland in July 1701 then invaded Lithuania in January 1702, before destroying a Saxon-Polish army at Kliszow (July 1702). Warsaw, Cracow, Poznan, Thorn and Elbing were occupied and m July 1704 Charles presided over the election of his own candidate, Stanislaw Leszczynski, as king of Poland-Lithuania. Two years later, following a crushing victory by Karl Gustaf Rehnskold over a Saxon Russian army at Fraustadt (February 1706), Charles invaded Saxony where in Augustus's absence, he forced the treaty of Altranstadt (September 1706) on the Saxon Estates, by which Augustus was to abdicate his Polish throne. Augustus- who had already secretly, ratified the treaty -led a Saxon-Russian army to victory at Kalisz a month later, but Charles's publication of Altranstadt exposed his duplicity and forced his compliance: in November he returned to Saxony.

Charles XII actually managing to hold his own against the combined power of Peter the Great, Augustus the Strong and Frederick the IV and systematically dismantling the alliance temporarily and then taking the initiative was honestly baller

problem was he then became far too aggressive and tried to conquer Russia, which depleted his men and allowed the alliance to recover and smashed his troops at Poltava, which started the long decline of the Swedish Empire

Despite the fact that it was largely fought in the Commonwealth until Poltava, the Poles and Lithuanians raised substantial numbers of troops: by 1708 its armies may well have surpassed the 48,000 komput agreed by the 1703 Lublin Sejm at the peak of the fighting perhaps 100,000 Poles and Lithuanians were mobilised on both sides, although their performance was often lamentable, with contemporaries observing that they displayed more enthusiasm for fighting each other than Swedes or Russians

Poltava was, I should add, also pretty disastrous given that the Swedish column were heading straight into fortified bases of the Russians

The Swedes stood for three-quarters of an hour under bombardment, before launching a hopeless attack. Outflanked on both sides, and with no cavalry support, the exhausted blue-clad attackers were swallowed up by the first Russian line, which outnumbered them over two to one on its own. Although Lewenhaupt , leading the Life Guards on the extreme right, managed to break a n d push back the first line, he lacked cavalry support and had drawn away from the units to his left. The impetus was not sustained and gradually all momentum was lost. The Russians buckled, but did not break; as they stood their ground, then pushed forward, the exhausted Swedish infantry broke and began to flee.

[subtle prawn]

https://fxtwitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/2020592119384265153

UK Defence Journal (@UKDefJournal)

This is highly illegal.

Quoting (abah) omdhil (@omdhilproject)
︀
A Navalized Typhoon, with CFT and Thrust Vectoring:

**💬 12 🔁 8 ❤️ 510 👁️ 65.0K **

FxTwitter · Feb 8, 2026, 8:14 PM

[desert agate]

Tbh who is this for?

Like I know it was being proposed for India but in what way does this navalised Typhoon really outplay the dedicated naval fighter they actually went with?

Rafale is simply a better platform for the role

[lapis eagle]

Navalized KF21

[slow tulip]

• more ordinance
• better engines
• better sensors
• (far) more modernisation potential
• don’t have to deal with the french being bitches about weapons integrations

only issue with navalised typhoon is they literally cannot fit a reinforced nosewheel without either putting a ventral bulge in or redesigning the intake

[junior trench]

depends

Rafale is uh

smol

[desert agate]

I think for India the small size of the airframe is probably quite the advantage

Obviously the Eurofighter platform is a better land based fighter but for India operating STOBAR carriers the heavier plane is probably not going to help them

Especially considering factors such as sortie rates and ease of maintenance

[desert agate]

Did the Euros ever come out with what the MTOW would be on a STOBAR deck in this configuration?

[junior trench]

Rafale's small size imposes a pretty nasty limit on the size of the radar that can be shoved into the nose

[slow tulip]

I feel it’s unfair to work on the assumption that one airframe is STOBAR and the other CATOBAR

Naval typhoon practically never left the drawing board

[desert agate]

In the context of Indian acquisition both would be STOBAR

Rafale is flying off Vikrant keep in mind

[slow tulip]

but no they have no MTOW because as I said, never left the drawing board

[slow tulip]

Imposes a limit on modernisation potential in general

[desert agate]

I wonder what the considerations were for India buying Rafale over Super Hornet considering that the Rhino is the superior platform

[slow tulip]

The French (particularly Dassault) are easier for countries with a questionable reputation to buy from

It would be somewhat difficult to convince the US to sell super hornets to a country that’s actively aligned with russia lol

[desert agate]

Well the US was actively trying to sell them to India

[slow tulip]

same reason they dumped money into su57 (lol) instead of buying 35s

[desert agate]

I doubt this would have happened if the US wasn't seriously interested in making the sale

Particularly considering that India is a Quad member

[mental tapir]

I mean today there's footage of Algeria having Su-57s

Make of that what you will

[desert agate]

I wouldn't be trusting random unsourced footage online with no backing statements

There may well be an SU-57 in Algeria

Who it belongs to is another question

[slow tulip]

Eh it’s a Russian procurement classic

they can’t afford their own tech so they export it a ton to fund the program

[slow tulip]

I mean besides the fact that US support for the extent of the airframe’s life is nowhere near guaranteed I could hedge a couple other guesses such as:

• super hornet’s abysmal TWR would heavily limit its STOBAR ordinance load in comparison to the actually very kinematically strong rafale
• the hornet is larger, which limits the number of airframes you can have on a smaller deck
• India already operates french weapons, which are not integrated with american airframes
• the primary role of Indian carrier borne aviation would be strike, which it could easily be argued the rafale is superior in

[autumn sorrel]

Indian absolute neutrality policy. They buy everything from everyone as long as it doesn’t pull them into any alliance unless it is against Pakistan

[desert agate]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialogue

[autumn sorrel]

Doesn’t change the fact that India is currently cozy and actively support Russia to an extent.

[desert agate]

Until the F-35 block 4 rollout is complete and we get F/A-XX on decks we won't see the US ending Super Hornet airframe support

[autumn sorrel]

Just because India join a pact against their region rival doesn’t mean they are fully committed in supporting US.

[slow tulip]

Again that’s in the assumption the US is willing to continue support them for a country that is to an extent russia aligned

Plus alignment aside the US isn’t exactly famous for being the most reliable of allies

[desert agate]

I don't think the US is particularly fussed with selling an old airframe to a country of dubious foreign policy reliability considering that Pakistan flies F-16s

[slow tulip]

Pakistan got their F-16s in exchange for support in the Soviet Afghan war lol it’s not exactly comparable

[autumn sorrel]

Pakistan was at least an US “ally” for decades and despite their support of Taliban still provide US a base at first to conduct operations in the region before US moved in to overthrow the Taliban. India doesn’t forget that US was on Pakistan side during their past conflicts with Pakistan, they are very ultranationalist about that.

[slow tulip]

Sure with a poor record at best but being a US “ally” made sales a choice

[desert agate]

The PAF got Block 52s in 2009, a few decades after the Soviet-Afghan war

[slow tulip]

For “anti-terrorism efforts”

same thing

US gives them weapons only because they help the US lol

[desert agate]

I'd argue that India is probably more alligned with the US's overall strategic policy objectives in the Indo-Pacific than Pakistan was ever alligned with the US's war on terror

And it's not like the US didn't know what Pakistan was doing with their aid money

[slow tulip]

Hating China isn’t exactly a high bar for Pacific countries

[autumn sorrel]

Because China is a much of a threat to India than Taliban were for Pakistan at the time.

[autumn sorrel]

“Asian”

[slow tulip]

I’m tired give me a break smh

close enough

point stands, hating China isn’t as much supporting US policy as it is the norm in the region

[desert agate]

The Indo-Pacific is a mess as far as who is alligned with the US and who isn't
Realistically, the Quad, South Korea and Taiwan are the only countries who have expressed actual support for the US's strategic objectives in the region

[autumn sorrel]

Problem with that is Pakistan play both side. As much scummy as they were aiding the Taliban, CIA are not exactly as well versed as ISI in the matter of Islamic terrorism.

[desert agate]

Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, etc are all very much either on the fence or on the Chinese side

[desert agate]

Why is the ISI so well versed in Islamic terrorism

[autumn sorrel]

It is easy to ally with US when you have an Ocean between you and China. The war of 79s and the decades of Border skirmishes is still fresh in Vietnamese leadership. Half of them even fought in it.

[autumn sorrel]

Bc they trained them, duh.

[desert agate]

Which US partners in the region have an ocean between them and China?

[autumn sorrel]

You

[desert agate]

Another AUKUS W

[autumn sorrel]

All I am saying is, war sound good on paper but to people who experience it, it is hell.

[desert agate]

I don't think anybody here is pro-war

[slow tulip]

I hope not

[autumn sorrel]

As much as I despise the current corrupt gov, they at least care about this country

[slow tulip]

which country

[autumn sorrel]

Vietnam

And no, we did not win the war of 79s against China no matter dumbass on the internet like to claim.

More like China found itself unable to secure a quick victory and settle into a decade long war to mess with Vietnam.

Which is much worse.

[remote monolith]

reposting the average Austro-Hungarian Reichsrat session as told by Mark Twain during his stay in Vienna

"I demand the floor. I wish to offer a motion."
In the sudden lull which followed, the President answered, "Dr. Lecher has the floor."
Wolf. "I move the close of the sitting!"
P. "Representative Lecher has the floor." [Stormy outburst from the Left -- that is, the Opposition.]
Wolf. I demand the floor for the introduction of a formal motion. [Pause.] Mr. President, are you going to grant it, or not? [Crash of approval from the Left.] I will keep on demanding the floor till I get it.
P. "I call Representative Wolf to order. Dr. Lecher has the floor."
Wolf. "Mr. President, are you going to observe the Rules of this House?" [Tempest of applause and confused ejaculations from the Left -- a boom and roar which long endured, and stopped all business for the time being.]
Dr. von Pessler. "By the Rules motions are in order, and the Chair must put them to vote."
For answer the President (who is a Pole -- I make this remark in passing) began to jangle his bell with energy at the moment that that wild pandemonium of voices burst out again.
Wolf (hearable above the storm). "Mr. President, I demand the floor. We intend to find out, here and now, which is the hardest, a Pole's skull or a German's!

The persecuted President leaned back in his chair, closed his eyes, clasped his hands in his lap, and a look of pathetic resignation crept over his long face. It is the way a country schoolmaster used to look in days long past when he had refused his school a holiday and it had risen against him in ill-mannered riot and violence and insurrection

Wolf (banging on his desk with his desk-board). "I demand the floor for my motion! I won't stand this trampling of the Rules under foot -- no, not if I die for it! I will never yield! You have got to stop me by force. Have I the floor?
P. "Representative Wolf, what kind of behavior is this? I call you to order again. You should have some regard for your dignity."
Dr. Lecher speaks on. Wolf turns upon him with an offensive innuendo.
Dr. Lecher. "Mr. Wolf, I beg you to refrain from that sort of suggestions." [Storm of hand-clapping from the Right.]
This was applause from the enemy, for Lecher himself, like Wolf, was an Obstructionist.
Wolf growls to Lecher: "You can scribble that applause in your album!"
P. "Once more I call Representative Wolf to order! Do not forget that you are a Representative, sir!"
Wolf (slam-banging with his desk-board). "I will force this matter! Are you going to grant me the floor, or not?"

Dr. Mayreder (to the President). "You have lied! You conceded the floor to me; make it good, or you have lied!"
Mr. Glöckner (to the President). "Leave! Get out!"
Wolf (indicating the President). "There sits a man to whom a certain title belongs!"
Unto Wolf, who is continuously reading, in a powerful voice, from a newspaper, arrive these personal remarks from the Majority:
"Oh, shut your mouth!" "Put him out!" "Out with him!" Wolf stops reading a moment to shout at Dr. Lueger, who has the floor, but cannot get a hearing, "Please, Betrayer of the People, begin!"
Dr. Lueger. "Meine Herren" ["Oho!" and groans.]
Wolf. "That's the holy light of the Christian Socialists!"
Mr. Kletzenbauer (Christian Socialist). "Dam-nation! are you ever going to quiet down?"
Wolf discharges a galling remark at Mr. Wohlmeyer.
Wohlmeyer (responding). "You Jew, you!"

Wolf stops reading his paper a moment to say a drastic thing about Lueger and his Christian-Social pieties, which sets the C. S.'s in a sort of frenzy.
Mr. Vielohlawek. "You leave the Christian Socialists alone, you word-of honor-breaker!
Obstruct all you want to, but you leave them alone! You've no business in this House; you belong in a gin-mill!"
Mr. Prochazka. "In a lunatic asylum, you mean!"
Vielohlawek. "It's a pity that such a man should be leader of the Germans; he disgraces the German name!"
Dr. Scheicher. "It's a shame that the like of him should insult us."
Strohbach (to Wolf). "Contemptible cub! we will bounce thee out of this! [It is inferable
that the "thee" is not intended to indicate affection this time, but to reinforce and
emphasize Mr. Strohbach's scorn.]
Dr. Scheicher. "His insults are of no consequence. He wants his ears boxed."
Dr. Lueger (to Wolf). You'd better worry a trifle over your Iro's word of honor. You are behaving like a street arab.
Dr. Scheicher. It's infamous!
Dr. Lueger. And these shameless creatures are the leaders of the German People's Party!"
Meantime Wolf goes whooping along with his newspaper-readings in great contentment.
Dr. Pattai. "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! You haven't the floor!"
Strohbach. "The miserable cub!"
Dr. Lueger (to Wolf, raising his voice strenuously above the storm). "You are a wholly honorless street brat!" [A voice, "Fire the rapscallion out!" But Wolf's soul goes marching noisily on, just the same.]

I am really impressed at the amount of slurs and racism thrown around within the span of probably 30 seconds

[autumn sorrel]

It was a very fun time it seems

[remote monolith]

Reichsrat sessions tend to be semi-public entertainment because it very often devolved into actual fist fights

just another thing Viennese get to enjoy

[autumn sorrel]

I would pay a Thaler for that

[remote monolith]

One night, while the customary pandemonium was crashing and thundering along at its best, a fight broke out. It was a surging, struggling, shoulder-to-shoulder scramble. A great many blows were struck. Twice Schönerer lifted one of the heavy ministerial fauteuils some say with one handÐ-- and threatened members of the Majority with it, but it was wrenched away from him; a member hammered Wolf over the head with the President's bell, and another member choked him; a professor was flung down and belabored with fists and choked; he held up an open penknife as a defense against the blows; it was snatched from him and flung to a distance; it hit a peaceful Christian Socialist who wasn't doing anything, and brought blood from his hand. This was the only blood drawn. The men who got hammered and choked looked sound and well next day. The fists and the bell were not properly handled, or better results would have been apparent. I am quite sure that the fighters were not in earnest.

[autumn sorrel]

Should have brought back pistol dueling

[remote monolith]

it was actually pretty popular during this time in Germany and Austria

just they tend to be relatively non-lethal

[autumn sorrel]

I know, I mean bring it back in modern time

[remote monolith]

hmm, I dunno man

i would rather be in front of a judge than a gun

[autumn sorrel]

Let limit it to just politician

[mental tapir]

Also interesting and kind of funny to me that both the US and Chinese military can said to have cut their teeth in Vietnam, at least imo

[timber linden]

And france.....and the Mongols if you go back far enough

Maybe nam is the real graveyard of empires

[fierce oracle]

One good mention for like 90% of the F-16 exports is that there were like a million fucking bribes for airforces to select the falcon over anything else

And they were bribing and selling falcons at a loss for the unit production cost to drop

[frozen kestrel]

Quick question. Anyone got any idea what shade of orange Nevada was painted for Crossroads? I'm trying to recreate in Blender, but I feel like I'm fucking it up

[desert agate]

https://fxtwitter.com/UKForcesTracker/status/2020830582482366851?s=20

UK Forces Tracker (@UKForcesTracker)

HMS Spey arrived alongside at the refurbished British Defence Singapore Support Unit on Saturday 7th.
︀︀
︀︀HMAS Warramunga and USNS John Lewis astern.
︀︀
︀︀(Src: @BDSSU_UK)

**🔁 10 ❤️ 88 👁️ 3.8K **

FxTwitter · Feb 9, 2026, 12:02 PM

Interesting that Warramunga hasn't been fitted with NSM launchers

She would have to be one of the last RAN Anzacs not to be fitted with NSM, Toowoomba has been fitted with them for at least a couple of years

[spiral cedar]

The accidents in the magazine of the Revenge and the Fox, due to the decomposition of cordite are referred to in articles already quoted from Engineering. Commenting further upon these and other accidents, and comparing cordite with the nitroglycerine powders used in the German navy, Engineering says, editorially:

So far as keeping qualities are concerned, the German powder is even better than our cordite. This is also an important factor in view of the cordite explosions which have taken place in the magazines of British war vessels, fortunately, so far, without loss of life or of a ship; similar good fortune may not continue. The report on these explosions has been kept extremely quiet so that it is difficult to speak more fully of them; but on one occasion it was mere good luck that a battleship was not sunk with all hands. Owing to this immunity from disaster, the public have not had their faith in the safety of ships in our fleet shaken in the same way as France quite lately was rudely awakened from the confidence in the excellence of the propellent powder used in her Navy by the terrible disaster on the Jena.—Engineering, Sept. 27, 1907.

[cinder escarp]

More capital ships have been lost to cordite flashes than actual flooding or progressive damage from battleship shellfire

A bit shocking if you look at it that way

[spiral cedar]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/642452370462343179/989411575112806460/IMG_9443.png

[spiral cedar]

Honestly the most incredible part about this is that the Royal Navy saw how close they had come to disaster, and knew their propellant had inferior stability properties, yet dilly-dallied anyway until finally in 1917 (after the loss of HMS Vanguard) they started systematically clearing out the old cordite lots aboard warships and replacing them with fresh manufacture

[cinder escarp]

And even Fresh cordite wasn't that good until extensive study of foreign propellants resulted in the low-solvent SC cordite

[desert agate]

Did the USN not use a propellant similar to cordite?
Why were detonations so uncommon there?

[cinder escarp]

The USN had a big program in the 1900s on preventing propellant detonation and introduced SPD, with 0.5% diphenylamine as a stabilizer and very tight QC.

[spiral cedar]

It may be remarked in passing that the German powder which is referred to with so much approbation in the above editorial relies for its stability upon the same ingredient "diphenylamine" which is now used in all United States powders.

[desert agate]

Ah

[spiral cedar]

(This section following a long list of cordite-related incidents)

It is probable that the above partial list of accidents could be more or less completely duplicated from the history of French nitro-cellulose powders, which are now known to have been manufactured, stored and tested with so little care that they have practically nothing in common with our powder except the fact that they contain no nitroglycerine.

The chief significance of the above list lies in the evidence which it affords that cordite has no claim to the immaculate record which Engineering has been moved to assign to it at this late day, after many years of such condemnation as has been illustrated in various quotations already given.

The experience in this country with cordite and other nitroglycerine powders has not been such as to inspire confidence in their stability. A large quantity of cordite purchased with the "Albany" and "New Orleans" was destroyed as unsafe within a few years after its arrival. The exact dates are not at hand, but the life of the powder was much less than ten years.

Approximately 70,000 pounds of cordite purchased in England in 1898 by the U. S. Army, made up into charges for the 47-inch and 6inch Armstrong guns, was destroyed at Picatinny Arsenal in 1908, it having become so unstable as to be in a dangerous condition. Its condition was indicated by the fact that it gave a KI starch test of only four minutes at 82° C, and that it gave dangerously high and irregular pressures in firing.

A further important feature of our experience with cordite and other nitro-glycerine compounds is that when decomposition does set in it proceeds much more rapidly than in the case of nitro-cellulose powders. And, what is of still greater importance, that the decomposition is much more likely to terminate in an explosion.

The gradual progress of such decomposition as may occur in nitrocellulose powders is one of the most satisfactory guarantees which could be wished, that the change will be detected by the very complete' tests which are a matter of routine, long before it can become dangerous. Nitro-glycerine powder, on the other hand, after remaining apparently unchanged for a considerable length of time, is apt to develop instability quite suddenly and rapidly. We have just had a confirmation of this in the case of some nitro-glycerine powder at Frankford Arsenal. This powder showed no marked change in stability from the date of manufacture in 1900 until March of this year. Between March and November, however, it lost stability very rapidly and was destroyed. In March it withstood the 135° C. test for seven hours without exploding and gave a surveillance test at 80° C. of 16 days. In November, five samples exploded in less than two hours at 135° C. and the surveillance test at 80° C. had dropped to seven days.

[cinder escarp]

SPD was in fact good enough that despite being a solvent-containing single-base formula it was the only smokeless powder produced until NACO replaced it in the mid 50s.

(There were a whole smattering of various flashless powder formulae made during and right after WW2)

[spiral cedar]

The USN chose nitrocellulose over cordite primarily because cordite contains nitroglycerin, which means it can be detonated through shock (as demonstrated by Hiram Maxim when he performed demonstrations during his visit to the UK). But the USN was also very paranoid about propellant stability and improved nitrocellulose in two main ways: the first was by adding a stabilizing agent (diphenylamine) and the second was by adding indicator dye that would change color as the powder aged. Perhaps most importantly, the US upheld high manufacturing quality standards and was very systematic about routinely testing powder for stability and quickly disposing of it when found to be unsafe.

[cinder escarp]

Ammo guys go back and look at the propellants and explosives used up through WW1 (and to a degre WW2) and

[junior trench]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk2.php

Although the British were unimpressed with the overall design of these guns and mountings, they did perhaps perform better under fire than did contemporary British designs. In January 1918, HMS Raglan was holed through the barbette by a 28.3 cm (11.1 in) shell from the former SMS Goeben, now the Turkish Yavuz Sultan Selim. This hit ignited charges in the hand-up chambers between the handling rooms and gunhouse, but the flash was contained and did not spread below to the magazines. This may also have been due to the fact that the propellant was USN nitrocellulose and not British cordite.

The accuracy of the Bethlehem guns varied from ship to ship. Abercrombie was noted for her accurate shooting, but Raglan's shots seemed to sometimes fall short. It was found that Roberts shot better after the guns had warmed up after a few shots. Late in World War I, British cordite was substituted for the US nitrocellulose propellant originally supplied. This resulted in a substantial loss of muzzle velocity and a matching reduction in maximum range.

[spiral cedar]

Quality of manufacture and testing standards was likely the main reason for the loss of the two French battleships in 1907 and 1911; after the second loss the French tightened up their quality control and the magazine explosions ceased to occur

[cinder escarp]

It is a bit of a shame the USN didn't actually adopt EX-99 propellant in the EX-175 cartridges

OOPS ALL HE

[spiral cedar]

The Russian Navy had likewise a generally good track record using nitrocellulose, with the exception of Imperatritsa Maria; the Russians tested unburned powder grains from her other magazines immediately after and about a decade(!) after and found no signs of powder degredation, so the cause remains unknown, but sabotage is considered a real possibility

[cinder escarp]

76% RDX (cyclonite, cyclomethylene trinitramine), 12% cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB), 7.6% acetal/formal (A/F), 4% nitrocellulose and 0.4% ethyl centralite

What's that? Just straight-up HE prop charges?

[spiral cedar]

Meanwhile the Royal Navy going into WWI had no systematic way to remove old powder charges aboard ships because the ship crews constantly mixed charges from different lots together; it was not unusual for tested lots on ships to have cordite from five different manufacture lots, making any attempt at systematically clearing out overage cordite impossible unless all cordite aboard each ship was removed entirely and replenished by fresh manufacture (which was only done in 1917 after HMS Vanguard exploded)

Even then the British still lost HMS Glatton in 1918, but otherwise the interwar period was radically less explosive than the one-major-warship-a-year-lost-in-port record the RN was having prior to then

Even given the enormous size of the Royal Navy of the time, when compared to the number of capital ships built each year, the losses of capital ships to internal explosions in port represent a meaningful amount of attrition

[junior trench]

the RN should have switched back to old practice after the signing of the WNT, it would have let them update their fleet constantly under treaty terms :3

[spring briar]

In 1912 all old production poudre B was systematically purged from the fleet

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo6F2U4EquM

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juCnKJ2sfGE

[slow tulip]

warrior csp

Simple as

[subtle prawn]

I seem to recall the previous Warrior modernization program was axed

[ornate wind]

Is the Uraga/Harima design for a heavy cruiser for the RoC the basis of the new ship in the game? And was there a reality where the Chinese naval acquisition program in the interwar period had any credibility?

[cinder escarp]

WCSP died to fund Ajax

[slow tulip]

we could have had a good ifv.....

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/usni.org/post/3mek6plpbdc26

U.S. Naval Institute (@usni.org)

‘Hangar Queens’: Congressional Hearing Reveals Osprey Readiness Rates Declining as Mishaps Increase — USNI News
news.usni.org/2026/02/10/h...

-# ‘Hangar Queens’: Congressional Hearing Reveals Osprey Readiness Rates Declining as Mishaps Increase - USNI News
While Navy and Marine Corps touted progress in overcoming a fatal V-22 Osprey gearbox issue that has limited operations since 2023, lawmakers lamented falling readiness rates and increasing mishaps Tu...

Bluesky · Feb 11, 2026, 12:08 AM

[shrewd pecan]

Gonna end up being a boxer variant ain’t it

Every time I look at the warrior it gets worse

😭 shit entered service in 1987 without a stabilizer

[subtle prawn]

The video put out three potential options, CV90, Lynx, and the aforementioned Boxer

[runic ermine]

https://x.com/i/status/2021365024954966463

csAlfredo (@That_CS_Alfredo)

I was wondering why my feed was full of Blue Division memes today, didn't realize it was the anniversary of the Battle of Krasny Bor

X · Feb 10, 2026, 11:25 PM

[grave ravine]

ok so on like one hand that would basically fuck over the recon troops, but on the other hand that means finally doing away with the accursed medium armor shit they had going on

[shrewd pecan]

idfk what the point of using ajax for the mission unless their entire point was evolving into a UK version of US Cav Scouts

[grave ravine]

I mean its ostensibly supposed to be a cvrt replacement

[shrewd pecan]

yeah but its far heavier than the CVRT

[grave ravine]

since you know Britain is special and doesn't use their IFVs for cav scouts

[grave ravine]

yeah, though tbf thats in large part a result of how much sensor suites have grown

[shrewd pecan]

like if the point is armored recon then pairings of Ajax and like chally 2s make sense

[grave ravine]

but anyways the really cursed part is how bc they don't have a boxer based IFV, they were/are planning on using Ajax as a fire support vehicle for the mechinf

incredibly cursed stuff

[peak mango]

Just buy brads.

[subtle prawn]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/02/russias-costly-upgrade-of-admiral-nakhimov-battlecruiser/

[desert agate]

The V-22 is safer per flight hour than any other rotary winged platform in US service

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvBCcZkEsd0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhN22yaW4XY

[slow tulip]

Curious that NAVAIR assessments found that manufacturing errors in the transmission gears caused it to have an estimated catastrophic failure rate of 7 per million flight hours then

For scale, serious risk is 1 per million flight hours, and normally airworthiness is granted based on 1 per 10 million flight hours

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScEYcv3Ud-Y

[desert agate]

Publicly available information from FY23 states that the V-22 has 2.97 fatalities per 100'000 flight hours while the H-60 has 6.5 fatalities per 100'000 flight hours

The Osprey is a less reliable airframe with far more mishaps per 100'000 flight hours but has fewer fatalities, which would indicate that despite being less reliable, it is safer

[slow tulip]

Fatality numbers are inherently skewed

[desert agate]

Source documents

Obviously we have to account for the H-60 platform being far more numerous and therefore flying more hours than the V-22 but I don't think that massively detracts from the point

[slow tulip]

the osprey’s main role is cargo so you’re gonna have fewer people per airframe (average fatalities per crash is actually about 4)

16 hull losses for 62 fatalities

so just under 4

[desert agate]

Where did you get your numbers?

[slow tulip]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey the actual dedicated page for it which details each loss

[desert agate]

That includes prototype/development period crashes

[slow tulip]

of which are only four of the 16 crashes

[desert agate]

Since the V-22 became operational in 2007, it has been a very safe airframe

[slow tulip]

3/4 of those losses are after it became operational

[desert agate]

But a significant majority of fatalities

Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had 11 class A mishaps

[slow tulip]

It’s not like the USMC doesn’t know it’s a high risk airframe

From 2023*

They’ve had manufacturing quality issues in the transmission for basically the entire length of the V-22 program

[slow tulip]

In this particular case the aircraft couldn’t even make it the 60 miles to the nearest airbase (because the V-22 cannot glide) and couldn’t land in the water (because the V-22 cannot autorotate)

[desert agate]

I've just realised my numbers are for USAF V-22's, not USMC MV-22's, an obvious mistake on my part

USMC MV-22s have a 10 year average mishap rate of ~3.16 - ~3.43 with the class A mishap rate between 2015 and 2024 as being -2.56 per 100k FH

Fatality rate per 100k FH in the USMC MV-22s is ~3.91 or 2.38 if you remove the major outlier year of 2022

US Navy CMV-22B has not reported any class A mishaps or fatalities

[slow tulip]

Okay so

If we compare the UH-60 to the V-22 with the data you posted you’ll find…

one of these is significantly higher than the other.

the difference is not marginal

[desert agate]

Data I posted is USAF not USMC, and yes, the MV-22 has a lower class A mishap rate

[slow tulip]

Although it is funny while the UH-60’s mishap rate has (on average) decreased over time, the V-22’s has increased

[slow tulip]

The top one is the V-22

[desert agate]

V-22 (USAF)

H-60 (USAF)

[slow tulip]

this is called deliberately skewing data. Read the rate

not the numerical value

you are misinterpreting the data by using the annual mishaps alone

it is established that there are (far) more UH60 than V22

[desert agate]

My bad, I've misread
However going back to my original point, in USAF service the V-22 has a lower fatality rate than the H-60, in spite of a higher class A mishap rate

[slow tulip]

if you judge by the rate, the V-22 is higher by about double over the lifetime, and in the last five years the UH-60 has had zero class A mishaps to the V-22’s rate of 12.58/100kfh

[slow tulip]

Couple reasons for this

• V-22s do a lot more flying over water which inherently has a higher survival rate
• V-22s are primarily in a cargo role, which lowers the fatality rate compared to to the primarily transport H-60

In fact the V-22’s fatality rate is far too high I would argue as it’s being skewed by outliers

such as one with 19 fatalities (about 1/3 of the total)

[desert agate]

I don't disagree with the fatality rate being skewed

I think it's also important to ask the question of, if there's so few fatalities, but a higher incident rate, is it worth it?
Is there any other platform that can provide the capability of the V-22? (No)

Are a few mostly non-fatal crashes just an expense the DoD will have to take on?

[slow tulip]

I would be willing to argue that a turbofan-based VTOL (many of which were proposed) would be superior as it would eliminate the #1 issue the V-22 has which is the transmission obliterating itself

[slow tulip]

but the US isn’t gonna start a whole ass new program, which is basically what this meme is

it is unsafe, and they keep grounding it, but they’re not gonna spend a zillion dollars to make something safer and equivalent

so it just gets put back into service with no changes

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/usni.org/post/3mempwtt22k2m

U.S. Naval Institute (@usni.org)

Navy Says Columbia-class Sub Construction Schedule Improving — USNI News
news.usni.org/2026/02/11/n...

-# Navy Says Columbia-class Sub Construction Schedule Improving - USNI News
SAN DIEGO — The Navy and shipbuilders working on the first Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine are striving to accelerate delivery of the first boat after confirming a series of product...

Bluesky · Feb 12, 2026, 12:21 AM

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/tankarchives.bsky.social/post/3menaoen5o22e
https://bsky.app/profile/tankarchives.bsky.social/post/3menarcfzyc2e

Tank Archives (@tankarchives.bsky.social)

A decree ordering the Kirov Factory in Leningrad to produce two Object 260 (IS-7) tanks was signed #OTD in 1946. Unlike the tank pitched a year earlier, the new IS-7 needed to be powerful enough to defeat the Maus while remaining impervious to its gun. #tanks #history #ColdWar

Bluesky · Feb 12, 2026, 5:21 AM

Tank Archives (@tankarchives.bsky.social)

-# ↩ Tank Archives (@tankarchives.bsky.social)
The tank surpassed the German Maus in armour and firepower at less than half of the weight. Unfortunately, the IS-7 turned out to be too heavy and too complicated with few benefits to show for it. The age of superheavy tanks was over and the Maus killer had no one to fight.

Bluesky · Feb 12, 2026, 5:22 AM

[subtle prawn]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/02/chinese-type-09v-next-generation-ssn-appears-at-bohai/

[spring briar]

Huge fins

[fleet finch]

Maillé brézé

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/usni.org/post/3meoktvsg2s2f

U.S. Naval Institute (@usni.org)

Destroyer USS Truxtun, Oiler USNS Supply Collide in SOUTHCOM — USNI News
news.usni.org/2026/02/12/d...

-# Destroyer USS Truxtun, Oiler USNS Supply Collide in SOUTHCOM - USNI News
Guided-missile destroyer USS Truxtun (DDG-103) and fast oiler USNS Supply (AOE-6) collided during an underway replenishment on Wednesday, according to a U.S. Southern Command statement. “Two personnel...

Bluesky · Feb 12, 2026, 5:56 PM

https://bsky.app/profile/militaryhistory.bsky.social/post/3meobqjmvw22m

Military History Visualized (@militaryhistory.bsky.social)

Can I speak with the manager please...

Bluesky · Feb 12, 2026, 3:13 PM

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/usni.org/post/3meonhkejrk2f

U.S. Naval Institute (@usni.org)

Marine Dies After Going Overboard USS Iwo Jima — USNI News
news.usni.org/2026/02/12/m...

-# Marine Dies After Going Overboard USS Iwo Jima - USNI News
A Marine with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit died after falling overboard USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7), the Marine Corps announced late Wednesday. Lance Cpl. Chukwuemeka Oforah, 21, of Florida, fell overb...

Bluesky · Feb 12, 2026, 6:42 PM

[autumn sorrel]

Sadly, accident still happen no matter what

[runic ermine]

https://youtu.be/fhN22yaW4XY?si=YYM637JJmDt5yfmB

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0U87YSLIQ8

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBArdS4XVek

[subtle prawn]

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

[gaunt owl]

the germans never used the 150mm SK/C 28 gun as a dual purpose gun, right

?

[subtle prawn]

Navweaps mentions nothing about it being dual purpose, it's purely anti-surface

[shrewd pecan]

not exactly equivalent but there's already advancements in making tilt rotors safer with aircraft like the V-280/M-75 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_MV-75

[spice idol]

https://youtu.be/p4gccAyMpz4?si=ZyxkNcGPxoDq8eYX

The Polish Imprint. Documentary Film. Russian TV Series. English Subtitles

Type: film
Genre: historical documentary
Year of production: 2017
Number of episodes: 2
Directed by: Anastasia Popova
Written by: Olga Eliseeva
Production designer: Aleksandr Gilyarevskiy
Director of photography: Aleksandr Kiper
Producers: Valeriy Babich, Vlad Ryashin
Cast: Stanislav Kallas, Anna Yashina, Nikolay Orlovskiy

Russia and Poland - two neighbours, but not always on the best of terms! The history of the two countries has been full of conflict and political intrigue for centuries, long periods of war giving way to peaceful interludes. The Polish Imprint chronicles the many dramatic historical events and figures behind the centuries-old confrontation between these two Slavic nations. Why were the Poles the first to take up arms and invade Kievan Rus? What role did the struggle against the Mongol invaders play in the relations between the Slavic nations? What caused the Poles to kill Russians in the streets of Warsaw in the late eighteenth century? How did the partitions of Poland between other countries lead to its disappearance? How did the Poles begin to get close to the Russian imperial court, and how did they influence Russian policy in the early nineteenth century? How did Napoleon Bonaparte’s rise to power in France influence the relations between Russia and Poland? Why did the Poles, with French support, attack Russia? How and why did Napoleon disappoint the Poles, and the Poles disappoint Napoleon? How did Poland eventually rise up from oblivion, and what role did the Russian rulers play in this process?

This fascinating two-hour documentary addresses all these questions and presents an evolution of the often turbulent relations between Russia and Poland, covering an entire era, from the times of Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev to the reigns of Catherine the Great and Tsars Paul I and Alexander I.

[spiral cedar]

Happy February 14 all, launch day of one of the most famous ships of WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maury_(DD-401)

https://destroyerhistory.org/goldplater/ussmaury/

Holder of the all-time speed record for a US destroyer (making over 42 knots despite being designed for less than 37), title to 16 Battle Stars, and major player in the first total defeat of a Japanese surface force in a night action at Vella Gulf, USS Maury would survive the war and earn a Presidential Unit Citation.

[spring briar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cruiser_Jeanne_d'Arc_(1930)

Indeed

[runic ermine]

Wow same day

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/tankarchives.bsky.social/post/3meu4ivsg5c2q

Tank Archives (@tankarchives.bsky.social)

The Medium Tank M46 or Patton was an upgraded variant of the Pershing, chiefly aimed at improving mobility and reliability. Its performance in the Korean War was not encouraging and #OTD in 1957 the Patton tank was retired from service in the US Army. #tanks #history #ColdWar

Bluesky · Feb 14, 2026, 10:55 PM

[desert agate]

https://fxtwitter.com/WarshipCam/status/2023123054457655452?s=20

WarshipCam (@WarshipCam)

Royal Australian Navy Collins-class diesel electric guided missile submarine coming into Albany, Western Australia - February 14, 2026 SRC: FB- Bona Milk

**🔁 11 ❤️ 57 👁️ 2.4K **

FxTwitter · Feb 15, 2026, 7:51 PM

[brazen cove]

I think the U.S. DOD is on crack most of the time

[remote monolith]

Aerogavin

why have you brought blacktail's insane proposal here again

[cyan oriole]

there was an AA shell like with many other german guns

but that was only used for barrage fire, not as a real AA weapon

[brazen cove]

Because I am a lunatic

[gaunt owl]

Why didnt the Germans develop an actual dedicated DP gun yo

At that stage of the war

[subtle prawn]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_5-45_skc41.php

[remote monolith]

Kriegsmarine surface development took massive backseat by 1938

There were quite literally not enough steel to invest on both that and the sheer amount of land equipment they needed

[eternal veldt]

It's not just that; a large caliber gun is required to blow apart a ship before it gets into lethal range, and the answer lies in the 6" weapon - and this seems to be accepted at least in the MN, KM, and the RM.

How the US believed and could do the same with the 5"/51, I'm not exactly sure, but having a large amount of ships that can form a protective screen is an advantage that the KM doesn't.

And that being said, it was envisaged down the line that the O-class would receive a uniform 12.8cm DP battery, with a major problem of the surface fleet being shitcanned and Germany itself taking major Ls

[remote monolith]

It cannot be understated how unprepared Germany was to commit to an actual large navy despite their lofty plans

[eternal veldt]

Depends on how you look at it; the Germans had lofty ideas for a large ocean going destroyer programme including the Type 1937s and the Type 1938s, but it ultimately is based on a plan that is, well

Not fighting the first/second largest navy in the world

The Os and the ridiculous Flugzeugkreuzers seem like a waste of money and resources as well, but makes a bit more sense if you consider their operational status as convoy/commerce raiding, rather than battle line fighters

[remote monolith]

Having a surface navy large enough to actually do that kind of activity within 4 years was already highly lofty, to do so alongside general rearmament because the economy simply could not ve sustained after 1939 without plundering other nations makes it jump into the stratosphere

And the result was visible in how even after all that Germany had significantly less tanks, motor vehicles and mechanized units than the Allies by the time the war broke out

[eternal veldt]

The copium here is that Britain continues its appeasement strategy and peaces out after Fall of France

Britain...didn't.

[remote monolith]

Hitler keeps flipfloping in this one it's low-key funny

Sometime he said we'll invade, then he'll change to we're simply gonna starve em, then he turns into diplomatic channels to make vague peace plans

[eternal veldt]

Ultimately, I think there's a quite a bit of nuance to the KM's development overall

Rather than the (nowadays usual) type of "haha Germany shit at everything naval related)

[remote monolith]

I wouldn't say so considering the unterseeboot force was genuinely great even when it didn't get the desired outcome and the surface raiders did some damages, but ultimately their aims were unrealistic and highly difficult with the kind of industry they had

[eternal veldt]

And this one's going to be a relatively thermonuclear take here, but GZ is ideal for Germany, at least on paper

Excluding the catapult launch mechanism, which is still debated

[remote monolith]

Not when Goring is still around I feel

[eternal veldt]

Well Göring is actively sabotaging the project

[remote monolith]

He would have more or less hobbled the carrier heavily even if it's completed, exactly

[eternal veldt]

As I said before, the OKM asked Göring for plane sizes so they could figure out the hangar wells' dimensions

Göring's replies were either tardy or unenthusiastic, hindering the progress

[remote monolith]

He did fucked over the Heer by basically stealing some 250,000 potential manpower for the Heer by making his own ground divisions with really poor training

[eternal veldt]

So in that extent, Mr.Meyer fucked over GZ

[remote monolith]

With the result that the Heer is both 250k men short of manpower and they all got grinded into smithereens very fast

So so long as he's around neither Kriegsmarine or Heer would be fully effective imo

[eternal veldt]

I think the case here to be made here is that the cards they were dealt were already pretty bad, and they tried their best to make the most out of it

Rheinübung on paper is excellent, but it's blunder after blunder to an extent

And a Spee moment isn't very much tolerated by that time

[remote monolith]

Shouldn't have accepted a revanchist megalomaniac in the first place

[eternal veldt]

Pretty much, yea

[grave ravine]

And its obvious that the Kriegsmarine was never going to be the decisive arm in any war Germany got in

Germany was a land based power

[eternal veldt]

It is, but some measure of naval force must be in place to avoid a repeat of the first world war when the entire fleet is basically locked down and a hard blockade is in force.

A Fleet in Being isn't sufficient to secure the sea lanes of Germany, at least in the eyes of the puritan "Mahanian" view.

[grave ravine]

as far as Germany is concerned though, the main threat isn't their sea lanes being interdicted

its the massive armies on their doorstep

[remote monolith]

And this was when Germany was both richer and in a better spot to try this avenue, they simply couldn't infinitely raise their navy size while also committing to the two way slamtown they're preparing groundwise

[eternal veldt]

That, too, since convoys are resupplying the land armies.

So some offensive capability is needed to disrupt the enemy logistics, and "buy time" for the army to win.

[grave ravine]

yeah

what Germany was looking to do really was to achieve outsized effects on their more navally oriented opponents on a budget

[eternal veldt]

In slight defence, they have, erm

A "10,000 ton" limit

looks at Scheer and Spee

[grave ravine]

and in that respect they are somewhat successful, some projects more so than others

the U-boats obviously achieved outsize effects

the other thing is that the Navy did play an important prestige role

[eternal veldt]

This, I'm not too sure. I forgot if its jaba that posted it, but IIRC total shipping tonnage lost to U-boats is a meagre...1%?

[grave ravine]

oh they were never going to win the war or anything of that sort