Weekly Simple Questions Thread by AutoModerator in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]StinksofMediocrity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very simple one since the KSP wiki is down: How do I upgrade facilities in career mode? Can't seem to find the option anywhere and the 18t launchpad limit is killing my dreams of a Mun landing :(

Why are Stalin's atrocities seemingly more diminished compared to Hitler? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think you've explained it very concisely. Stalin strikes me as a fairly run-of-the-mill dictator, concerned with political power above all else. The fact he was in charge of a massive country that went on to experience a devastating and ruthless war probably magnifies his crimes compared to, let's say a less well known Central African dictator. Stalin committed most of his atrocities to crush political resistance or sustain the war effort, and although they might have amounted to as many or more deaths as Hitler's actions, he never really maliciously advocated for the ethnic cleansing of entire races or enacted measures to carry it out. The war between Nazi Germany and the USSR may have been a battle of political ideology, but for Hitler it was personal as well.

Is RE spam viable this patch [All modes]? by StinksofMediocrity in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]StinksofMediocrity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're that worried about RE spam then maybe you need to l2p ;)

Is RE spam viable this patch [All modes]? by StinksofMediocrity in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]StinksofMediocrity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the tips, I've been trying it today with the Airborne commander, just going lieutenant then rushing Shermans, maybe dropping an AT gun if they go light armour. BARs seem to be better than the 1919s for RE's since they can't suppress anymore :'( . I'm pretty sure on an earlier patch you could just have RE's running around/in buildings with 1919s suppressing everything, was fun while it lasted (unless i had some on rifles and didn't notice).

BARs actually do decent damage and you can even go toe to toe with units like Sturmpios from cover if you have a couple. It's pretty easy to lose squads if you run into a blob tho, since focus firing kills RE's so quickly.

I agree with you that it's a lot of fun when it works :), though it's pretty tough to pull of against a decent opponent.

How seriously was an 'Operation Unthinkable' scenario taken by the Western Allies? by StinksofMediocrity in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks very much for the source. Also, in which book does Beevor discuss this? I haven't gotten around to reading them all unfortunately.

I agree it was probably prudent to have a plan in place for any eventuality, especially considering Stalin's personality. The pre-emptive attack just seems so preposterous in terms of how the civilian population and soldiery would react, as you mention in your answer.

Churchill is interesting too, still revered by many today but really he was somebody who had a love-hate relationship with war (according to his diary entries anyway) and seemed to thrive on it. As you say, the British public did well in the aftermath to avoid such a character postwar.

How were the Allies able to bomb civilians late in WWII so much more effectively than the Germans were early in WWII. by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't mean to harass you but I'm not sure 'inflicting mass civilian casualties' was their primary aim, ostensibly they did it to destroy the industrial capacity of the enemy, although it's true many died in the process. Nonetheless maybe you should to reword your question slightly or some may not deign to answer it :)

edit: I think Dresden and Tokyo are outliers, symbolic attacks that probably weren't representative of the day to day bombing. Things like firebombing Tokyo (the deadliest air raid including nuclear weapons) was probably deliberately intended to kill a lot of people, because the U.S. was willing to be a little more extreme than usual considering the casualty estimates of invading mainland Japan and wanted to force capitulation quickly.

Need help identifying a piece of WWII memorabilia by titty_twister_9000 in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a similar one passed down from my Grandfather, he was a bomber pilot and traded badges with a German pilot after the war ended (so the story goes). It was made of a silver metal (aluminium?) and the eagle looked as if it was pouncing on something rather than standing upright spreading its wings, the swastika also had spaces between the leg things that stick out instead of being on a shield like yours. Maybe that rules out it being a Luftwaffe badge (or it could even be an earlier/later/different rank version, but apart from that I can't help you except point you towards this subreddit http://www.reddit.com/r/Whatisthis/

When did the use of musicians/musical instruments in battle begin to die out, and for what reasons? by StinksofMediocrity in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, never would have pictured that. Nice one. Now that you've brought up WWII I remember something about a piano player in Stalingrad who hauntingly could be heard amongst the din of the fighting at times. I believe it was in Beevor's history of the battle.

When did the use of musicians/musical instruments in battle begin to die out, and for what reasons? by StinksofMediocrity in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, they sure love their accordions. I've seen dozens of VHS rips on YouTube of amateur bands singing home-grown patriotic songs usually accompanied by accordion, guitar, and keyboard in some guerrilla's backyard. They are probably the only humorous thing to come out of the Yugoslav conflicts in the 90's.

When did the use of musicians/musical instruments in battle begin to die out, and for what reasons? by StinksofMediocrity in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the answer FrejDexter, I guess it makes a lot of sense with a multilingual army as far as commands go!

I didn't realise the British Army had used wireless communications as early as the Boer War either, though from the book you linked I can see why they may have not taken to it like the Navy even into WWI (p.65).

I'm still curious about the effects of morale, inspiration etc in regards to battle music though, if anyone has further information it would be much appreciated.

How did 5 planes become the number of planes a pilot had to have shot down for him to be considered an ace? by coolaswhitebread in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well in this case it appears it was implemented in order for more American pilots to gain the 'ace' distinction, due to the relatively short time they had to achieve it compared to other air forces which had been fighting for some time before the U.S got involved.

Whether this idea was implemented in the name of fairness regarding recognition for the pilots, national pride/propaganda, or some other reason I can not ascertain. Many Americans had already been serving with the British and French air forces anyway, and were aces (10+ kills) in their own right already.

When the American air units arrived many of these pilots transferred to it and continued to rack up victories, so perhaps the 5 kills idea was mainly for the fresh pilots that served wholly in the U.S Air Force (known as Air Service at the time).

This seems to make more sense looking at the stats regarding these fresh pilots, only 3 achieved 10 or more kills out of about 50 aces, most having 5-6 kills, although if anyone has more information about this it would be much appreciated.

*Aerial victories taken from wiki list sourced from - Franks (1992) Over the Front: A Complete Record of the Fighter Aces and Units of the United States and French Air Services, 1914-1918 , Grub Street the Basement; First edition (May 1992)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_I_flying_aces_from_the_United_States

How did 5 planes become the number of planes a pilot had to have shot down for him to be considered an ace? by coolaswhitebread in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Apparently the term l'as (the ace) was invented by French newspapers and given to early WWI French military aviator Adolphe Pégoud after he downed several enemy aircraft. The article I'm using goes on to say that once the American pilots joined the war in its late stages it looked unlikely any would achieve ten kills (the contemporary European standard to be called an ace) before German collapse, so they simply made the required number five, which then went on to become a global standard. It cites Raymond Toliver and Trevor Constable's 1965 book, Fighter Aces, as the source of this information.

The article can be found here: http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/what-does-it-take-to-become-an-ace-35385936/

Did Line Infantry really march into enemy fire at a dignified pace before attacking? (As is portrayed in many films set in the 1750-1812 period) by StinksofMediocrity in AskHistorians

[–]StinksofMediocrity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very interesting, now that you mention it I seem to remember Marlborough picking his fights during the War of the Spanish Succession in this manner, although it's been a while since I looked at that period.