/hob/ - Hobbies

Anyone fancy a sub?

Goes in to a bit of detail on German Kampfgruppe, why they were used, and how they were used.

Video about the Americans to fought in the winter war.
Super cool bit of military history.

Battle for Berlin

>>57194
It's still is the most stable and relatively well-paying occupation here in my country, all things considered, including ending up in non-combatant role. Besides, it's pretty much the only way I can end up being in the occupations that I'm even remotely interested in, so if the worst I have to put up with is the daily gossip, the occasional guard duties on the border and the like, then I'm ok with it.

>>59614
How believable is any of the info in the 3rd pic?

I've been really interested in…forward observers (or whatever you call "people who call in artillery, airstrikes, and naval bombardment), for some reason? One aspect is just the idea of someone picking on you with small arms so you pick up a radio and say two sentences and they get an airstrike or bombardment seems like such an over-the-top escalation that I find it appealing. Like someone threatens you to a fight at the bike racks and so you bring a grenade. The other aspect is that…and I don't know quite how to explain this, but something feels weirdly…magical about it? Like, literal magic. If I were a magician, I would pick up a wand and way some magic words and the thing I hate would blow up.

It also fits well with how I play most FPS games. I like to methodically observe, advance, and pick things off. I really like playing like a sniper. FOs seem like that only on a different scale.

>>60069
They are called recon I think and yeah I think it's kinda cool too

Good, straightforward video on the history of Fort Drum, an impenetrable US coastal fortress of steel and concrete

A video about the Fliegerfaust and Luftfaust.

I remember watching a movie about the Battle of Midway when I was a kid with my grandfather. I actually felt really ashamed after watching that movie because I could tell it went over in chronological order exactly what happened. It explained and showed, exactly what happened. But I think after watching it I was more confused about what had happened. As a kid watching it, what I saw was the Americans have everything in their favor, lose almost every single engagement in the course of the battle, lose a carrier…and they still won. I watched it and couldn't understand that they won and how, even with everything explained to me. I left that film with a thought of, "Maybe I'll understand it if I come back to it again when I'm older."

Well, I'm older, and watched embed related. Now I feel like I finally understand what exactly happened at Midway. Also, I want to relate a theory.

It's commonly related that the reason the Americans won Midway was because of superior intelligence. They knew that the Japanese would attack, where they would attack, when they would attack, and had a complete estimated order of battle. However, I'd like to posit a different theory: the Americans won because they had superior damage control systems (e.g., better sprinklers, less flamable material, storing ammunition safely, etc.).

One way I like to estimate whether an argument is the reason for success or failure is to reverse who had it and who didn't. Just look at what happened in the battle. The Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu all took one hit–everything caught fire, blew up, and sunk. The USS Yorktown–after JUST getting back from repairs–took one bombing with a still operational flight deck, took ANOTHER bombing and was counted as a loss, but it was still standing hours later. Finally, after THREE MORE TORPEDOES did it finally go down. Imagine if the Japanese carriers had the same level of damage control systems. The Americans would have been lucky to take out one carrier. Imagine if the American damage control systems were as bad as the Japanese. Even if things played out the same, the Hiryu's first counterattack would have easily sunk the Yorktown before possibly going on to take on the Hornet and Enterprise.

I think the traditional list for the reasons the Americans won Midway was:

1 - Superior intelligence
2 - Dumb luck
3 - Better radar

I'd like to posit that maybe, as stupid and simplistic as it sounds, a big reason U.S. navy won was simply because of better damage control systems. At the very least, I think it deserves a spot in the top three reasons and should be remembered to this day for the important lesson it serves.

Pretty much everything not small arms was interesting, until you had to use (and service, maintain and clean) them again and again during military service.

You know the Trench Run scene in Star Wars?
It was inspired by a similar scene in 633 Squadron.
Which came from a similar scene in "The Dam Busters."
Which came from Operation Chastise.

Embed related of "Dam Busters." The graphics are so cheesy compared to the modern day, but it amazes me how I can clearly see how this inspired the Trench Run.

Where can I get a customized helmet? Like a black WWII helmet with a peace sign painted on it?

>>60640
Please don't paint over an antique or functional surplus item with hippie dogwhistles. Get a Chinese reproduction or NOS CCCP helmet from Ebay or Amazon and spraybomb it black with rust paint. You can then draw on whatever you want with paint, nail polish, or a whitewall pen. If you want the peace sign to be somewhat accurate, get a Vietnam War era USGI M-1 helmet and write on the canvas cover. Note that the by the 1960s, the Peace Sign when applied to USGI's gear implied "Peace through means of eliminating all communists", so you'll want to chose a different symbol or slogan if you wish the actually signal that you desire peace in the conventional sense.

>>60569
I thought the Americans won WWII because of overwhelming amounts of industrial capacity, like the zerg rush meme.

>>60649
I'm talking just about the Battle of Midway, not all of WWII.

I've always been horrified by this image. Not outright screaming. Just filled with this low, everpresent, hanging, existential dread.

>>60690
You don't like horsies?

>>60691
I hate this imageboard.

>>61358
Get out of here propagandist

>>61400
Is there any information presented in particular that you take issue with?
Do you have a source of information that is more cretable that disagrees with any of the information presented.
Do you have evidence that what was presented is actually propaganda and not just some nerd's opinion based on publicly available information?

If you only came to shitpost and screech then I am going to have to ask you to leave.

>>61401
>a source of information that is more cretable
Probably completely unrelated, but I've noticed this epistemological issue crop up recently. If anyone has a fancy set of philosophical keywords that I can look up, I would appreciate it.

- Source A and C says that X happens at time 0.
- Source B says that not X happens at time 0.
- As of time 0, source A is considered 'credible.' Source B and C are new sources.
- At time 1, source A notes that source C says "X," and states that they are credible.
- At time 1, source C notes that source B says "not X," and that source A, which is "credible" says "X," and therefore concludes that B is "not credible.
- At time 2, source A can take C's findings since they are "credible" now, and claims that B is "not credible" as well.

After a period of time, the well of "credible sources" circle their wagons around each other and likewise claim every other conceivably new source as "not credible." Another way I've heard this problem summarized is "Can you show a credible source is no longer credible using only credible sources?"

Wikipedia is the epitome of this. When you start going down the rabbit hole of studying some of the edit wars that have gone on in the past five years, you realize they're always, always lawyering about "sources." And slowly over time the list of "credible sources" has diminished into an ever smaller and smaller pool of completely self-serving corporate media brands.

I remember getting into Chomsky's Manufactured Consent, but this seems way more blatant than whatever he was talking about.

>>61432
He's right. Who defines the term "credible" ?? It's ZOG all the way down

>>61432
It was a pretty legitimate reply to the previous post.

>>61440
It's a red haring that aims to get as far off topic as humanly possible.
No it's not valid.

>>61442
If the topic is "credibility", defining and understanding what is accepted as credible, or the criteria upon which a source may be found to be credible, is the first step into the discussion.

>>53531
>itp tanks r ded u guise
Active protection systems are rendering ATGMs ineffective.
A 500,000 dollar upgrade to a 1960s tank makes it virtually invulnerable to handheld AT weapons. And programmable airburst munitions make any fool taking potshots a Deadman.
>but Ukraine.
Russia doesn't have the money to put APS on any of its MBTs and even still, neither side is exactly doing away with tanks.

>>55946
Violence is not an answer. It is a question. And the answer is YES

>>54515
>>59457
>>62917
War… what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing…

Why did the Canadian army choose the Leopard2 tank?

>>66757
it's green it matches the rest of there army cars

>>68845
>If Taiwan falls to a Chinese invasion, the high-end microchip supply dies.
Is propoganda. If Taiwan falls to a Chinese invasion, the high-end microchip supply moves to Japan, the USA, or even Australia.

>>68845
Unlikely to fall, but a swarm attack could do a ton of damage.

Do any wizards currently own, or have previously owned a gas mask?

>>68895
Do you? Have you? Which one? Why the interested? Huh?!?

>>68896
>Do you? Have you? Which one? Why the interested? Huh?!?
No, I don't own one and have not owned one in the past, I'm mainly just interested in WWII era gas masks, I wish I had one even if it was of no practical use. I'd never use it and they all cost an upwards of 100 dollars, so I'd end up regretting the purchase. I just wanted to know if anyone here has one, as gas masks in general fascinate me.

>also a Hetzer my favorite German tank destroyer

>>68895
I do actually, a standard issue M50 from my time in the military I never gave back and that got lost in beurauceacy so I never had to pay for it, needs some filters though.

>>68963
Very cool anon! Do you think If another covid like virus outbreak occurs is a gas mask a valuable item for personal use, and a good investment? I also wonder if that anon who collects pre-war NSDAP items has a gas mask also.

>>68970
>If another covid like virus outbreak occurs is a gas mask a valuable item for personal use, and a good investment?
SARS-COV-2 is just the flu. Typical military gas masks use carbon filtration which doesn't kill all bacteria or viral bodies. They are for absorbing airborne poisons and heavy gasses such as ammonia, and particulate matter such as smoke and ash. A gas mask will buy you time in a firey smoke and in a cloud of mustard gas, but it won't save you from anthrax or the plague.

>>68970
>Do you think If another covid like virus outbreak occurs is a gas mask a valuable item
it wont protect you from the virus

>>68970
>>68972
Can be a partial barrier in a situation where catching a little does of "dat flu" is easily survivable, on contrary to getting a sudden supply of lots of pathogen

>>69771
Bump

I mean, that's how they used to explain wearing protective measures back in 2020 - catching a little dose of "the coof" was believed to be easier for one's immune system to process properly.

>>68970
Covid was dangerous to anyone under the age of 70?

>>53009
It's disgusting that they plastered little skimpy whores on panzers

>>53009
men are who fought in war not empty braindead succubi scum

How come full auto rifles are so good in games but suck IRL?

>>69944
Assault rifle - a nice balance between recoil, weight, size, and the cartridge power


Battle rifle - 7.62x51 has ridiculous recoil. Reducing it means destroying user's ears. Good luck upgrading my ears to the point I could full-auto a G3/M14/FN FAL with a massive muzzle compensator