Just looked that up.I am reminded of 'McNamara's Morons'.
My understanding is that it was the US army that was key in adopting IQ tests, and whatever they test, poor results in them translated to poor performance in war.
Just looked that up.I am reminded of 'McNamara's Morons'.
Ian at Forgotten Weapons has quite a few what weapon would the Elbonian military buy videos.Perum tries to justify a load of bad ideas
The first bad idea was from Ian of Forgotten Weapons
Germany was 100% to blame for the war.

I found that the Army wound up taking 10% of the applicants who failed to score high enough to meet the earlier minimum score.Just looked that up.
My understanding is that it was the US army that was key in adopting IQ tests, and whatever they test, poor results in them translated to poor performance in war.
Tell me you're a Stalinist without telling me you're a Stalinist.Important role because the Nazi party made it a scapegoat, along with the stab in the back myth.
Please read thru the following article:
![]()
No, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles Was Not Responsible for World War II
What "everyone knows" about the infamous treaty ending World War I is wrong. Stop blaming the Treaty of Versailles for the rise of Adolf Hitler.www.historynet.com
And I even kinda don't think that article goes far enough. With the "Germany was at fault" section. Germany was at fault for WW1. They goaded the Austrian Empire into declaring war despite Serbia agreeing to almost all their demands. And it was for their own expansionist goals. Germany was 100% to blame for the war.
and watch
and realize that Foch's quote "This is not a peace treaty, this is an armistice for 20 years". Is often misinterpreted. He didn't think it was too harsh, he wanted an occupation.
I suppose we need this again.Nothing to do with Russia?
![]()
Russian entry into World War I - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
View attachment 75916
"Historians studying the causes of World War I have often highlighted the roles of Germany and Austria-Hungary, while downplaying Russia's contribution to the outbreak of this global conflict. The prevailing scholarly view has focused on Russia's defense of Orthodox Serbia, its pan-Slavic aspirations, its treaty commitments with France, and its efforts to maintain its status as a major world power. However, historian Sean McMeekin emphasizes Russia's ambitions to expand its empire southward and to capture Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) as a gateway to the Mediterranean Sea."
"Russia's warnings to Germany led to military action by German forces, which carried out their mobilization and declared war on August 1, 1914. At the start of the conflict, Russian forces launched offensives against Germany and Austria-Hungary"
I hold Germany responsible for causing world war 1, and you accuse me of being a Stalinist? Maybe think that through a bit.Tell me you're a Stalinist without telling me you're a Stalinist.
I don't think Russia has ever been in a war that Russia didn't have a part in instigating.
Haha yes my bad. I'll check back in when we get to WW2.I hold Germany responsible for causing world war 1, and you accuse me of being a Stalinist? Maybe think that through a bit.
The Soviet Union was complicit for ww2. They were happy to carve up Europe with Germany.Haha yes my bad. I'll check back in when we get to WW2.
Way retroactively: no, that's flat out wrong. Yes, there are even more massive forces trying to rip the rails apart, but Newtonian mechanics still apply, in this case the third law. The same massive force pushing the projectile forwards is also pushing the gun assembly (and probably more so the capacitor battery) rearwards. You don't get away from Newton regardless of whether it's a gun, a crossbow, a trebuchet, coil gun or rail gun. So you have the same primary recoil. The only thing you don't get is the secondary recoil from the propellant gasses also exiting forwards.Recoil isn't the same as conventional artillery. The main forces are not opposite the direction of the projectile but at 90 degrees and try to push the rails apart.
At the present time a set of rails is only good for a few shots before heat, stress and friction degrade them to a point where they need to be replaced.
In the same way as there is more force pressing sideways on the barrel of a normal artillery gun than the recoil force, but that doesn't mean the recoil goes sideways. The sideways forces are in addition to that. And those obey Newton's third too, as there is as much force on the right rail as on the left rail.and yet the main problem with rail guns is the lateral force imparted on the rails.
A train going in a curve is still obeying Newton's 3rd and conservation of momentum. It's just that the centripetal force to turn it is having its equal and opposite force going into the planet. Hell, there are even more mundane cases like redirecting some momentum upwards in a Luger's articulated mechanism, or downwards in the case of a Kriss Vector SMG, but then it pushes on the gun in the opposite direction. Newton will get you no matter what.Were any of the rail guns (like Schwerer Gustav in WWII) mounted on curved rails? I imagine most would be on straight and pivot on the car but there's a limit to that.
The curve in my above was to allow the gun to be trained over an arc. It would have been locked-and-blocked when firing to avoid unintentional changes in bearing.A train going in a curve is still obeying Newton's 3rd and conservation of momentum. It's just that the centripetal force to turn it is having its equal and opposite force going into the planet. Hell, there are even more mundane cases like redirecting some momentum upwards in a Luger's articulated mechanism, or downwards in the case of a Kriss Vector SMG, but then it pushes on the gun in the opposite direction. Newton will get you no matter what.
I suppose you could do the same with a railgun on rails, but it's still subject to the laws of physics, same as everything else.
I don't know of any used like that, off the top of my head, but it would make sense if you wanted to be able to aim it in a short amount of time.The curve in my above was to allow the gun to be trained over an arc. It would have been locked-and-blocked when firing to avoid unintentional changes in bearing.
As I was saying, I don't know about that. I'm willing to learn, though, if you have knowledge to share.The rails would have been bent to a designated radius, so it wouldn't have been "off the shelf" in most cases as I understand it.
Look up the name I italicized above. That's your bread crumbs. I'm about to roll on a boojum hunt.As I was saying, I don't know about that. I'm willing to learn, though, if you have knowledge to share.